↓ Skip to main content

An assessment on epitope prediction methods for protozoa genomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An assessment on epitope prediction methods for protozoa genomes
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-309
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela M Resende, Antônio M Rezende, Nesley JD Oliveira, Izabella CA Batista, Rodrigo Corrêa-Oliveira, Alexandre B Reis, Jeronimo C Ruiz

Abstract

Epitope prediction using computational methods represents one of the most promising approaches to vaccine development. Reduction of time, cost, and the availability of completely sequenced genomes are key points and highly motivating regarding the use of reverse vaccinology. Parasites of genus Leishmania are widely spread and they are the etiologic agents of leishmaniasis. Currently, there is no efficient vaccine against this pathogen and the drug treatment is highly toxic. The lack of sufficiently large datasets of experimentally validated parasites epitopes represents a serious limitation, especially for trypanomatids genomes. In this work we highlight the predictive performances of several algorithms that were evaluated through the development of a MySQL database built with the purpose of: a) evaluating individual algorithms prediction performances and their combination for CD8+ T cell epitopes, B-cell epitopes and subcellular localization by means of AUC (Area Under Curve) performance and a threshold dependent method that employs a confusion matrix; b) integrating data from experimentally validated and in silico predicted epitopes; and c) integrating the subcellular localization predictions and experimental data. NetCTL, NetMHC, BepiPred, BCPred12, and AAP12 algorithms were used for in silico epitope prediction and WoLF PSORT, Sigcleave and TargetP for in silico subcellular localization prediction against trypanosomatid genomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Brazil 2 3%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Professor 5 7%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 12%
Computer Science 6 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2013.
All research outputs
#18,321,703
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,287
of 7,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,145
of 275,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#86
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.