MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914061306 · doi:10.1002/pmic.201800458

Improving MHC‐I Ligand Identifications from LC‐MS/MS Data by Incorporating Allelic Peptide Motifs

2019· letter· en· W2914061306 on OpenAlexaff
Prathyusha Konda, J. Patrick Murphy, Shashi Gujar

Bibliographic record

VenuePROTEOMICS · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse discovery rateMajor histocompatibility complexComputational biologyMHC class ICD8ProteomicsPeptideBiologyComputer scienceAntigenImmunologyGeneticsBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MHC class I (MHC-I)-bound ligands play a pivotal role in CD8 T cell immunity and are hence of major interest in understanding and designing immunotherapies. One of the most commonly utilized approaches for detecting MHC ligands is LC-MS/MS. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of current algorithms to identify MHC ligands from LC-MS/MS data is limited because the search algorithms used were originally developed for proteomics approaches detecting tryptic peptides. Consequently, the analysis often results in inflated false discovery rate (FDR) statistics and an overall decrease in the number of peptides that pass FDR filters. Andreatta et al. describe a new scoring tool (MS-rescue) for peptides from MHC-I immunopeptidome datasets. MS-rescue incorporates the existence of MHC-I peptide motifs to rescore peptides from ligandome data. The tool is demonstrated here using peptides assigned from LC-MS/MS data with PEAKs software but can be deployed on data from any search algorithm. This new approach increased the number of peptides identified by up to 20-30% and promises to aid the discovery of novel MHC-I ligands with immunotherapeutic potential.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePROTEOMICSSame topicvaccines and immunoinformatics approachesFrench-language works237,207