↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of an epitope prediction tool for swine (PigMatrix) based on the pocket profile method

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 7,654)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Development and validation of an epitope prediction tool for swine (PigMatrix) based on the pocket profile method
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0724-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andres H. Gutiérrez, William D. Martin, Chris Bailey-Kellogg, Frances Terry, Leonard Moise, Anne S. De Groot

Abstract

T cell epitope prediction tools and associated vaccine design algorithms have accelerated the development of vaccines for humans. Predictive tools for swine and other food animals are not as well developed, primarily because the data required to develop the tools are lacking. Here, we overcome a lack of T cell epitope data to construct swine epitope predictors by systematically leveraging available human information. Applying the "pocket profile method", we use sequence and structural similarities in the binding pockets of human and swine major histocompatibility complex proteins to infer Swine Leukocyte Antigen (SLA) peptide binding preferences. We developed epitope-prediction matrices (PigMatrices), for three SLA class I alleles (SLA-1*0401, 2*0401 and 3*0401) and one class II allele (SLA-DRB1*0201), based on the binding preferences of the best-matched Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) pocket for each SLA pocket. The contact residues involved in the binding pockets were defined for class I based on crystal structures of either SLA (SLA-specific contacts, Ssc) or HLA supertype alleles (HLA contacts, Hc); for class II, only Hc was possible. Different substitution matrices were evaluated (PAM and BLOSUM) for scoring pocket similarity and identifying the best human match. The accuracy of the PigMatrices was compared to available online swine epitope prediction tools such as PickPocket and NetMHCpan. PigMatrices that used Ssc to define the pocket sequences and PAM30 to score pocket similarity demonstrated the best predictive performance and were able to accurately separate binders from random peptides. For SLA-1*0401 and 2*0401, PigMatrix achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of 0.78 and 0.73, respectively, which were equivalent or better than PickPocket (0.76 and 0.54) and NetMHCpan version 2.4 (0.41 and 0.51) and version 2.8 (0.72 and 0.71). In addition, we developed the first predictive SLA class II matrix, obtaining an AUC of 0.73 for existing SLA-DRB1*0201 epitopes. Notably, PigMatrix achieved this level of predictive power without training on SLA binding data. Overall, the pocket profile method combined with binding preferences from HLA binding data shows significant promise for developing T cell epitope prediction tools for pigs. When combined with existing vaccine design algorithms, PigMatrix will be useful for developing genome-derived vaccines for a range of pig pathogens for which no effective vaccines currently exist (e.g. porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, influenza and porcine epidemic diarrhea).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 24%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 12 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 10%
Computer Science 5 7%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 12 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 297. 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 10 January 2023.
All research outputs
#115,280
of 25,145,981 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2
of 7,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,311
of 275,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#1
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,145,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 275,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.