MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411727996 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314833

Machine learning application to predict binding affinity between peptide containing non-canonical amino acids and HLA-A0201

2025· article· en· W4411727996 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaoqian Su, Nathaniel Bloodworth, Yunchao Liu, Cristina E. Martina, David G. Harrison, Jens Meiler

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute on AgingDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGerman Network for Bioinformatics InfrastructureDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsImmunogenicityMajor histocompatibility complexHuman leukocyte antigenEpitopeComputational biologyMHC class IBiologyPeptideAntigenAmino acidBiochemistryChemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Class Ι major histocompatibility complexes (MHC-Ι), encoded by the highly polymorphic HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C genes in humans, are expressed on all nucleated cells. Both self and foreign proteins are processed to peptides of 8-10 amino acids, loaded into MHC-Ι, within the endoplasmic reticulum and then presented on the cell surface. Foreign peptides presented in this fashion activate CD8 + T cells and their immunogenicity correlates with their affinity for the MHC-Ι binding groove. Thus, predicting antigen binding affinity for MHC-Ι is a valuable tool for identifying potentially immunogenic antigens. While quite a few predictors for MHC-Ι binding exist, there are no currently available tools that can predict antigen/MHC-Ι binding affinity for antigens with explicitly labeled post-translational modifications or unusual/non-canonical amino acids (NCAAs). However, such modifications are increasingly recognized as critical mediators of peptide immunogenicity. In this work, we propose a machine learning application that quantifies the binding affinity of epitopes containing NCAAs to MHC-Ι and compares its performance with other commonly used regressors. Our model demonstrates robust performance, with 5-fold cross-validation yielding an R2 value of 0.477 and a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.735, indicating strong predictive capability for peptides with NCAAs. This work provides a valuable tool for the computational design and optimization of peptides incorporating NCAAs, potentially accelerating the development of novel peptide-based therapeutics with enhanced properties and efficacy.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicvaccines and immunoinformatics approachesFrench-language works237,207