- Research article
- Open Access
Prediction of the binding affinities of peptides to class II MHC using a regularized thermodynamic model
- Andrew J Bordner^{1}Email author and
- Hans D Mittelmann^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-41
© Bordner and Mittelmann; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
- Received: 22 October 2009
- Accepted: 20 January 2010
- Published: 20 January 2010
Abstract
Background
The binding of peptide fragments of extracellular peptides to class II MHC is a crucial event in the adaptive immune response. Each MHC allotype generally binds a distinct subset of peptides and the enormous number of possible peptide epitopes prevents their complete experimental characterization. Computational methods can utilize the limited experimental data to predict the binding affinities of peptides to class II MHC.
Results
We have developed the Regularized Thermodynamic Average, or RTA, method for predicting the affinities of peptides binding to class II MHC. RTA accounts for all possible peptide binding conformations using a thermodynamic average and includes a parameter constraint for regularization to improve accuracy on novel data. RTA was shown to achieve higher accuracy, as measured by AUC, than SMM-align on the same data for all 17 MHC allotypes examined. RTA also gave the highest accuracy on all but three allotypes when compared with results from 9 different prediction methods applied to the same data. In addition, the method correctly predicted the peptide binding register of 17 out of 18 peptide-MHC complexes. Finally, we found that suboptimal peptide binding registers, which are often ignored in other prediction methods, made significant contributions of at least 50% of the total binding energy for approximately 20% of the peptides.
Conclusions
The RTA method accurately predicts peptide binding affinities to class II MHC and accounts for multiple peptide binding registers while reducing overfitting through regularization. The method has potential applications in vaccine design and in understanding autoimmune disorders. A web server implementing the RTA prediction method is available at http://bordnerlab.org/RTA/.
Keywords
- Prediction Method
- Peptide Binding
- Peptide Binding Register
- Experimental Binding Affinity
- Peptide Binding Affinity
Background
Class II MHC is an essential protein complex in the adaptive immune system that is involved in activating helper T cells. It is found on the surfaces of specialized immune system cells, such as dendritic cells and macrophages, where it binds fragments of extracellular peptides and presents them to CD4^{+} helper T cells. Class II MHC is highly polymorphic and each allotype generally has different peptide binding preferences. The computational prediction of such binding affinities can be applied to the important problem of finding promiscuous epitopes that bind to multiple allotypes for use in rational vaccine design. Also these predictions may aid in understanding autoimmune diseases, many of which have been linked to particular class II MHC alleles [1].
Characteristic properties of peptide binding to class II MHC molecules can be inferred from available high-resolution X-ray structures of peptide-MHC complexes. The binding cleft in class II MHC is open at both ends so that it generally binds longer peptides, 15-25 residues in length, with the peptide N- and C-terminii extending out of the cleft. This is in contrast to class I MHC, which has a peptide binding cleft that is closed at both ends so that it only accommodates shorter peptides of 8-11 residues. An examination of X-ray crystal structures of peptide bound class II MHC molecules reveals that the peptides bind in an extended polyproline II helix with the conserved backbone structure maintained by conserved hydrogen bonds with the MHC [2]. Peptide side chains within a contacting nine residue core segment of the peptide bind into pockets on the MHC surface [1]. Many of the polymorphic residues occur in these pockets and so determine the distinctive peptide binding preferences of each MHC allotype. Although the core residues of the bound peptide assume similar backbone conformations, each peptide can generally bind in multiple registers. This makes the prediction of peptide binding affinities for class II MHC particularly challenging since, unlike class I MHC, all possible binding registers must be considered.
Prediction methods for class II epitopes remains an active area of research, motivated both by their biomedical importance and the difficulty of achieving high accuracy. Early prediction methods fit the total peptide binding energy [3–6], binding motif [7], geometric average binding affinity [8], or sequence alignment profile [9] in a particular register to a linear combination of contributions from individual residues, and represented them as binding profile matrices. The scores for all possible peptide binding registers were calculated and either the maximum value or sum were used as a total peptide binding score. Later methods employed various machine learning and data fitting approaches to prediction including partial least squares (PLS) [10, 11], Gibbs sampling [12], linear programming [13], Support Vector Machines (SVMs) [14–16], and kernel methods [17]. One prediction method, called SMM-align, successfully combined two methods, binding profile matrices and Gibbs sampling [18].
We introduce a new model for predicting binding affinities of peptides to class II MHC called the Regularized Thermodynamic Average, or RTA, model. Three features are incorporated into the model: (1) independent binding of individual peptide residues so that the total binding energy is a sum of the binding energies of each core peptide residue, (2) a thermodynamic average over all possible peptide binding registers, and (3) regularization of the model to prevent overfitting. Feature #1, the approximate independence of peptide binding on peptide residue interactions, is supported experimentally [3] and is a basic assumption in most prediction models to date. Indeed, it is the primary basis for binding profile methods. The importance of contributions of suboptimal peptide binding registers to the total binding affinity motivates Feature #2. Experimental studies have found such cases in which a peptide binds with significant affinity to class II MHC in multiple registers [19–21]. In fact, such peptide binding in multiple registers may be involved in the origin of autoimmune diseases [22]. The thermodynamic average in the RTA model insures that contributions from suboptimal binding registers, which may be significant, also contribute to the total binding affinity. Regularization (feature #3) is especially important in prediction models that contain a relatively large number of parameters, such as ours. Regularization is implemented in RTA using an L^{1} penalty function, like in lasso regression [23]. This has the advantage over alternative penalty functions, such as the L^{2} penalty employed in SMM-align, that many coefficients vanish at lower cutoff values so that the number of model parameters is reduced. In addition, unlike in many previous prediction methods, the P1 residue for peptides binding to HLA-DR is not restricted to be hydrophobic in the RTA model. Finally, we use deterministic local optimization methods to fit the model parameters, which we found to converge to better solutions than commonly employed stochastic optimization methods.
The RTA prediction method was tested using cross-validation sets from an SMM-align study [18], for comparison with results from 9 different prediction methods examined in that study, and also using larger cross-validation sets created from binding data from the IEDB database [24]. The RTA method was also evaluated using additional peptide binding data sets from Lin et al. 2008 [25] and El-Manzalawy et al. 2008 [26]. A novel method to efficiently create data sets with minimal sequence overlap was developed to create the new cross-validation sets. The performance of RTA in predicting peptide binding affinities and in predicting the correct peptide core binding residues were tested. Finally, we examined the relative contribution of suboptimal peptide binding registers to the overall binding affinity.
Methods
Peptide-MHC binding data set
Cross-validation prediction results for the IEDB data sets
MHC allele | AUC | RMS error (kcal/mol) | Correlation coefficient | Number of data |
---|---|---|---|---|
DRB1*0101 | 0.749 | 1.43 | 0.530 | 5648 |
DRB1*0301 | 0.762 | 1.46 | 0.425 | 837 |
DRB1*0401 | 0.715 | 1.72 | 0.340 | 1014 |
DRB1*0404 | 0.792 | 1.38 | 0.487 | 617 |
DRB1*0405 | 0.757 | 1.35 | 0.442 | 642 |
DRB1*0701 | 0.790 | 1.62 | 0.484 | 833 |
DRB1*0802 | 0.747 | 1.34 | 0.412 | 557 |
DRB1*0901 | 0.711 | 1.68 | 0.369 | 551 |
DRB1*1101 | 0.753 | 1.45 | 0.450 | 812 |
DRB1*1302 | 0.765 | 1.64 | 0.464 | 636 |
DRB1*1501 | 0.736 | 1.53 | 0.438 | 879 |
DRB3*0101 | 0.825 | 1.13 | 0.425 | 483 |
DRB4*0101 | 0.799 | 1.33 | 0.522 | 664 |
DRB5*0101 | 0.732 | 1.57 | 0.434 | 835 |
H2-IA^{b} | 0.828 | 1.15 | 0.556 | 526 |
H2-IA^{d} | 0.814 | 1.53 | 0.563 | 306 |
Prediction Model
As mentioned above, the prediction of peptide - class II MHC binding affinity involves not only estimating the affinity of the bound core portion of the peptide but also accounting for multiple binding registers. The model begins with the approximation that the contributions to the total binding free energy of binding individual peptide residues to each MHC pocket are approximately independent. This assumption has been tested experimentally [3] and is the basis of matrix-based prediction methods in which the total peptide-MHC binding energy is a sum of pocket specific residue binding energies [5]. Furthermore, X-ray structures of peptide - class II MHC complexes show that the 9-residue core bound portions of the peptides adopt similar backbone conformations so that the total score over an ungapped 9-residue segment of the peptide sequence is appropriate.
[L] is the concentration of the free labeled peptide and K_{d} is its binding affinity to the MHC molecule [27]. It is assumed that the labeled peptide concentration is sufficiently low, i.e. [L] = K_{ d }, so that K_{ i }≈ IC_{50}. This is an implicit assumption in other prediction methods as well. According to this approximation, experimental binding affinities were calculated as ΔG_{exp} = - kT log(IC_{50}), in which kT is the Boltzmann constant times the absolute temperature, which is approximately 0.586 kcal/mol at room temperature.
in which the coefficients β_{ij} are to be fit using the experimental data.
Many prediction methods for peptide-MHC binding make the further approximation that the largest binding affinity dominates the sum in Eq. 5 so that only the largest binding affinity over all possible registers is included in the prediction model. Because suboptimal terms are comparable in magnitude to the optimal term in many cases, we will retain all terms in Eq. 5.
with the cutoff parameter t. This type of constraint is also used in lasso regression [23] and has the desirable property that as the cutoff t is lowered, an increasing number of coefficients become zero so that the number of nonzero parameters in the model is reduced.
subject to the constraint in Eq. 6.
Optimization method
To solve the optimization problem minimizing Eq. 8 under the constraint in Eq. 6 one first splits the variable β_{ij} into the difference of two nonnegative variables and , so that β_{ ij }= - . The constraint Eq. 6 then has as the left side the sum over both new variables. Overall one has a linearly constrained nonlinear and nonconvex optimization problem. In principle, global optimization methods would have to be applied to find the global minimizer. Due to the dimensions of the problems these would be non-deterministic methods such as some of the many metaheuristics, which include simulated annealing and genetic algorithms. These methods require a large number of evaluations and due to their stochastic character would have to be run several times in order to increase the likelihood of finding the global optimum, although a guarantee for that is impossible. After initial tests we decided to instead use local solvers. These are very efficient and through various measures the chances of getting very good local minima can be increased substantially.
Using local solvers with "multistart" or several often randomly generated starting guesses is another way of solving global optimization problems. It is also implemented in several software packages. We instead used simple constant starting guesses. All of our results were obtained using the constant starting values of 1 or 2 for all components of β^{+} and β^{-}. We did, however, use a sequence of different t values in the regularization constraint Eq. 6 and then chose the best (local) minimum found for the solvers used. It is significant that the best solutions were obtained with values of the regularization parameter t that were small enough to restrict the fit β_{ij} values. This shows that the additional L^{1} constraint in Eq. 6 helps alleviate overfitting. In order to be able to easily call a variety of solvers we phrased the problem in the modeling language AMPL [28]. In order not to have to list many separate citations we state that we used the applicable (NLP) solvers installed at NEOS (Network Enabled Optimization Server, http://neos.mcs.anl.gov/) but run locally, not through this free service in which we (HDM) are also heavily involved.
Comparison of prediction results for the RTA method, described in this article, and the SMM-align method
AUC | |||
---|---|---|---|
MHC allele | RTA | SMM-Align | Number of data |
DRB1*0101 | 0.748 | 0.702 | 1203 |
DRB1*0301 | 0.843 | 0.779 | 474 |
DRB1*0401 | 0.779 | 0.741 | 457 |
DRB1*0404 | 0.829 | 0.798 | 168 |
DRB1*0405 | 0.823 | 0.727 | 171 |
DRB1*0701 | 0.813 | 0.768 | 310 |
DRB1*0802 | 0.806 | 0.724 | 174 |
DRB1*0901 | 0.752 | 0.726 | 117 |
DRB1*1101 | 0.829 | 0.715 | 359 |
DRB1*1302 | 0.882 | 0.810 | 179 |
DRB1*1501 | 0.792 | 0.715 | 365 |
DRB3*0101 | 0.960 | 0.620 | 102 |
DRB4*0101 | 0.820 | 0.730 | 181 |
DRB5*0101 | 0.772 | 0.664 | 343 |
H2-IA^{b} | 0.926 | 0.913 | 76 |
H2-IA^{d} | 0.894 | 0.819 | 342 |
H2-IA^{s} | 0.891 | 0.877 | 126 |
A comparison of peptide binding register prediction results for the peptide-MHC complexes listed in Table 5 using RTA and seven other prediction methods
Prediction Method | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class II MHC allotype | PDB entry | RTA | ARB | MHC2Pred | NN-align | ProPred | RANKPEP | SMM-align | SVRMHC |
DRB1*0101 | 1AQD | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
1DLH | ✔ | NA | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | NA | ✔ | |
1KLG | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
1KLU | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
1SJE | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | |
1T5W | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
2FSE | ✔ | NA | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | NA | ✘ | |
DRB1*0301 | 1A6A | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | NA |
DRB1*0401 | 1J8H | ✔ | NA | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | NA | ✘ |
2SEB | ✔ | NA | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | NA | ✘ | |
DRB1*1501 | 1BX2 | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
DRB3*0101 | 2Q6W | ✔ | NA | NA | ✔ | ✔ | NA | NA | NA |
DRB5*0101 | 1FV1 | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ |
1H15 | ✔ | NA | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | NA | ✔ | |
H2-IA^{b} | 1LNU | ✔ | NA | ✘ | ✘ | NA | ✔ | NA | NA |
1MUJ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | NA | ✔ | ✘ | NA | |
H2-IA^{d} | 1IAO | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | NA | ✘ | ✘ | NA |
2IAD | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | NA | ✘ | ✘ | NA | |
Total correct | 17/18 | 8/11 | 4/17 | 14/18 | 14/14 | 10/17 | 7/11 | 6/12 |
Creating independent cross-validation sets
The most relevant measure of a prediction model's accuracy is how well it performs on novel peptide sequences that are dissimilar to those used to fit the model. A model with a large number of parameters, such as most peptide-MHC binding prediction models, can potentially overfit the data so that its accuracy is good on the training set but poor on unrelated peptide sequences. Cross-validation is one procedure that can be used to estimate the accuracy of the prediction model for novel data. We have used 5-fold cross-validation in which the data is divided into 5 approximately equal size subsets and predictions are made in turn on each subset using a model fit to the remaining data in the other 4 subsets. Because many of the peptide sequences in the experimental binding data are similar it is important to create the cross-validation sets with the fewest possible sequence similarities between subsets. The binding data from the IEDB database was divided into 5-fold cross-validation data sets using a method that minimizes the number of common 9-mer subsequences shared between different cross-validation sets while keeping the size of the 5 sets approximately the same size. The method was able to achieve perfect separation, i.e. no common 9-mers between sets, for all MHC allotypes except for HLA-DRB1*0101, which had only 7 common subsequences (0.12%).
We briefly outline the method here; details are given in Additional File 1. The peptide sequences are first divided into sets of similar sequences such that every sequence within a given set shares a common 9-mer with at least one other sequence in the same set but does not share any common 9-mers with sequences in other sets. If these sets are sufficiently small then perfectly separated 5-fold cross-validation sets can be created simply by partitioning these sequence sets into 5 parts, each part containing sets with approximately 1/5 of the total number of sequences. Because there are no common 9-mers between sequence sets and because each sequence set is entirely contained within a cross-validation set there are no common 9-mers between cross-validation sets. The only impediment to generating perfectly separated cross-validation sets, without any inter-set sequence similarities, is if some of the sets contain more than 1/5 of the sequences and so must be split.
in which the numerator is the number of edges between nodes in S and nodes outside of S and the denominator is the minimum number of nodes in either subset. This measure insures that not only does the cut cross few edges, it also divides the graph approximately in half. It would be easy, but not very productive, to find a cut that separates only one node, for example. Furthermore we chose to solve this NP-hard problem using an approximate algorithm based on spectral graph theory. Although there are alternative algorithms that achieve tighter worst-case approximation bounds, the spectral method has worked well in applications. Also it is much easier to implement, since it only requires calculating matrix eigenvalues and eigenvectors, for which we used SVD.
with d(i) the degree of node i.
for some cutoff c [30, 31]. The approximate solution to the sparsest cut problem is found by calculating the sparsity for all |V|-1 such cuts, defined by S_{c} with cutoff c equal to each vector component, and choosing the one with the minimimum sp(S_{ c }).
The overall algorithm to find optimal cross-validation sets begins by grouping the peptide sequences by similarity according to connected components or, in cases in which the groups are too large, connected components split using the spectral partitioning algorithm just described. The groups only needed to be split for HLA-DRB1*0101 and only a single iteration of splitting was necessary. Each group is then iteratively added to the cross-validation set with the fewest sequences starting with the largest groups. The total number of pairs of similar sequences between the training and test sets, which ideally should be small, is equal to the total number of edges removed in the sparsest cut portion of the algorithm. This means that perfect separation is achieved for all MHC allotypes except for HLA-DRB1*0101. The generated cross-validation sets are provided in Additional File 2.
Results and Discussion
Binding affinity prediction
The RTA prediction method was evaluated both with the 5-fold cross-validation sets in the SMM-align reference [18], so that its performance could be compared with the results for the 9 different prediction methods examined in that paper, and also with the generally larger 5-fold cross-validation sets created using the method described above, which minimizes the overlap between training and test set peptide sequences. The prediction performance was evaluated using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve [32], or AUC, the root mean squared error (RMSE), and the Pearson correlation coefficient. The latter two statistics were not calculated for the SMM-align data sets because the data for low affinity binders in those data sets were assigned a fixed cutoff value, which renders those statistics less meaningful. The prediction results for the new data sets are given in Table 1 and the results for the SMM-align data sets are in Table 2.
It may be seen from Table 2 that RTA had better performance than SMM-align on the same data sets for all MHC allotypes examined. The improvement is especially large for HLA-DRB3*0101, with an AUC for RTA of 0.960 compared with only 0.620 for SMM-align. However this SMM-align data set is exceptional since it contains only 3 strong binders, with IC_{50} < 500 nM, and has the highest percentage (85%) of thresholded low-affinity values (IC_{50} > 50 μM).
Ref. [18] also provides AUC values obtained by 8 other prediction methods applied to the same SMM-align data sets. The methods examined were a Gibbs sampler [12], TEPITOPE [5, 6], SVRMHC [33], MHCpred [10], ARB [8], NetMHCII [34], PRED^{BALB/c}[35], and a variant of SMM-align that includes information on the peptide length and flanking residues called SMM-PRF [18]. A total of 4 of the methods could make predictions for all 14 HLA-DR allotypes, while 3 other methods could only be used for a subset of these allotypes. Only NetMHCII could be used for all 3 murine allotypes while two other methods, ARB and PRED^{BALB/c}, could be applied to some of these allotypes. Overall, RTA was more accurate than the other 8 prediction methods. RTA yielded the same AUC value as TEPITOPE for HLA-DRB1*0404 and the same value as ARB for HLA-DRB1*1501. It gave a lower AUC value than one of other the other methods only for HLA-DRB1*0901, HLA-DRB1*1302, and H2-IA^{s}. Significantly, RTA yielded the highest AUC values for all 9 methods examined in that study for 14 out of the 17 allotypes, even though 6 of the methods were evaluated without cross-validation so that some of the training data may have been included in the test sets.
In general, the AUC values for the IEDB data sets are slightly lower than for the corresponding SMM-align data sets for the same MHC allotypes. One factor that likely contributes to this difference is that the composition of the IEDB and SMM-align data sets are quite different. Whereas the median percentage of low affinity peptides, with IC_{50} > 50 μM, in the IEDB data set is only 1.5%, it is 52% for the SMM-align sets. One common trend between the results for the IEDB and SMM-align data sets is that the AUC for the murine MHC allotypes is generally higher than for the human ones.
The RTA prediction results for the IEDB data sets were not compared with results using other prediction methods because these other methods were fit to peptide-MHC binding data that likely significantly overlap the IEDB data, especially considering that IEDB is one of the most comprehensive databases. The occurrence of similar test set data in the training data can significantly increase the apparent prediction accuracy, leading to overly optimistic accuracy estimates. In the extreme case in which the RTA model was trained on both the training and test set data, close to perfect AUC values of > 0.995 were obtained (data not shown). This also emphasizes the importance of using minimally similar training and test data sets in order to reliably estimate the prediction accuracy for novel peptide sequences. The IEDB cross-validation sets, created using the algorithm described above, had no overlap at all, defined by identical 9-residue segments, for all but one MHC allotype. Likewise, the SMM-align cross-validation data sets used for comparison with that method had low overlap of about 0.5-2%. Finally, we point out that using more cross-validation sets, will allow a larger fraction of the limited data to be used for training but it will also generally increase the overlap between corresponding training and test sets. In the extreme case of leave-one-out cross-validation this overlap will be large, leading to overly optimistic performance estimates, unless all similar peptide sequences are removed.
RTA prediction results for the test set of 103 overlapping antigen peptides from Lin et al. 2008(Ref. [25])
MHC allele | AUC |
---|---|
DRB1*0101 | 0.810 |
DRB1*0301 | 0.778 |
DRB1*0401 | 0.641 |
DRB1*0701 | 0.778 |
DRB1*1101 | 0.728 |
DRB1*1501 | 0.795 |
Finally, the RTA method was evaluated using the IEDB similarity reduced data sets from El-Manzalawy et al. 2008 [26]. These data sets were compiled from binding data downloaded from the IEDB database by removing similar peptides at different similarity thresholds: unique sequences (UPDS), no common 9-mer subsequences (SRDS1), and pairwise sequence identity < 80% (SRDS2). The prediction results for RTA as well as the three prediction methods evaluated in Ref. [26] are given in Tables S1-S3 in Additional File 3. These results show that the RTA method performed significantly better than the other three prediction methods. RTA had the highest AUC out of all four methods for 9/12 MHC allotypes for the UPDS data set and the highest AUC for all 12 MHC allotypes for both the SRDS1 and SRDS2 sets.
Peptide binding register prediction
Available X-ray structures of peptide - class II MHC complexes in the Protein Data Bank.
MHC Allele | PDB Entry | Peptide Sequence |
---|---|---|
DRB1*0101 | 1AQD | VGSDWRFLRGYHQ YA |
DRB1*0101 | 1DLH, 2G9H | PKYVKQNTLKL AT |
DRB1*0101 | 1KLG | GELIGILNAAKV PAD |
DRB1*0101 | 1KLU | GELIGTLNAAKV PAD |
DRB1*0101 | 1SJE | PEVIPMFSALS EGATP |
DRB1*0101 | 1T5W | AAYSDQATPLL LSPR |
DRB1*0101 | 2FSE | AGFKGEQGPKG EPG |
DRB1*0301 | 1A6A | LPKPPKPVSKMRMATPLLM QALPM |
DRB1*0401 | 1J8H | PKYVKQNTLKL AT |
DRB1*0401 | 2SEB | QYMRADQAAGG LR |
DRB1*1501 | 1BX2 | ENPVVHFFKNIVT PR |
DRB3*0101 | 2Q6W | AWRSDEALPL GS |
DRB5*0101 | 1FV1 | NPVVHFFKNIVTPRT PPPSQ |
DRB5*0101 | 1H15 | GGVYHFVKKHVH ES |
H2-IA^{b} | 1LNU | FEAQKAKANKA VD |
H2-IA^{b} | 1MUJ | LPKPPKPVSKMRMATPLLM QALPM |
H2-IA^{d} | 1IAO | RGISQAVHAAHA EINEAGR |
H2-IA^{d} | 2IAD | RGHNTNGVTAASS HE |
Peptide binding register predictions were made for all unique peptide-MHC complexes with available X-ray structures. These are shown in Table 5. The 9-mer segment in the structure begins with the residue binding in the P1 pocket and the predicted 9-mer segment extends from residue M_{max} +1 to M_{max} + 9 in which M_{max} is the M index of the largest term in the Boltzmann sum appearing in Eq. 7. All peptides similar to those for which the predictions were made were removed from the training set. The results showed that the RTA method predicted the peptide binding registers accurately. The predictions for all peptides in Table 5 were correct except for one, the peptide RGISQAVHAAHAEINEAGR binding to H2-IA^{d} from PDB entry 1IAO. Interestingly, the core segment for the CLIP peptide is the same for binding to both HLA-DRB1*0301 (PDB entry 1A6A) and H2-IA^{b} (PDB entry 1MUJ), as has been observed for most other human and murine MHC allotypes [36, 37]. CLIP binds to all class II MHC molecules as an intermediate step in MHC processing and peptide loading.
For comparison, peptide binding register predictions were made for the peptide-MHC complexes listed in Table 5 using seven other prediction methods implemented as web servers: ARB [8], MHC2Pred [38], NN-align [39], ProPred [6], RANKPEP [9], SMM-align [18], and SVRMHC [33]. Each of these methods uses different computational approaches to predicting peptide-MHC binding affinities. ARB, ProPred, and RANKPEP use position specific scoring matrices (PSSMs), SVRMHC and MHC2Pred use Support Vector Machines (SVMs), NN-align uses artificial neural networks (ANNs), and SMM-align uses a combination of scoring matrices and a novel Gibbs sampler method [12]. The overall prediction results for RTA and these other methods are given in Table 3. The performance of the different prediction methods could not be directly compared since most methods could not be applied to all peptide-MHC complexes. However, RTA is clearly among the most accurate methods for this data set, with 17 out of the 18 peptide binding cores correctly predicted. A recent study by Wang et al. [40] performed a similar analysis using an overlapping but slightly different set of peptide-MHC complexes and obtained qualitatively similar results for the same prediction methods examined in that study. That study concluded that the TEPITOPE method [5], as implemented by the ProPred web server [6], achieved the best overall performance. We found similar results, with only RTA and ProPred correctly predicting all 14 HLA-DR peptide binding registers. NN-align achieved similar performance with 13 correctly predicted HLA-DR peptide binding cores. Significantly, some prediction methods, which generally attain accuracies that are comparable to or better than the earlier TEPITOPE method in predicting peptide binding affinities, had significantly worse accuracy than TEPITOPE in predicting the peptide binding cores. This demonstrates that a prediction model that achieves high accuracy for peptide binding affinity does not necessarily achieve corresponding high accuracy for predicting the peptide binding core. The fact that our RTA method does perform well for both prediction tasks suggests that the underlying approximate physical model for the contribution of each binding register to the total binding affinity is correct and accurate.
Importance of suboptimal terms in the Boltzmann sum
Conclusions
The prediction results for the RTA method show (1) that suboptimal peptide binding registers make a significant contribution to the total peptide binding affinity for many peptides, (2) regularization with the L^{1} parameter constraint improves prediction accuracy for novel data, (3) the method achieves good accuracy in predicting peptide-MHC binding affinities with generally higher AUC values than other prediction methods evaluated on the same data sets, and (4) the method accurately predicts the 9-residue binding core for all but one out of 18 peptide-MHC complexes examined. While peptide-MHC binding affinities can be quickly calculated using Eq. 7, the efficient solution of the difficult global optimization problem for fitting parameters using local optimization methods contributed to the success of the method. The accuracy of the method is expected to continually improve as more experimental binding data become available, particularly for certain MHC allotypes with limited current data.
One direction for future work is to extend the RTA model to a multi-allotype model by including another parameter dimension reflecting the MHC peptide binding determinants, either through unique binding pockets, as in TEPITOPE, or through polymorphic pocket residues, as in NetMHCIIpan [41]. Another possible extension is to include interaction terms for nearby peptide residues. The approximation that contributions of individual peptide residues to the total binding free energy are largely independent is supported by side chain scanning experiments [3] and by the accuracy of prediction models, such as RTA, that are based on this approximation. However, recent experimental studies [42, 43] have found evidence for cooperative effects between peptide residues so that additional pairwise interaction terms may improve prediction accuracy. Both of these modifications will significantly increase the number of model parameters, making regularization even more crucial for prediction accuracy.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The work of AJB was supported by the Mayo Clinic.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Jones EY, Fugger L, Strominger JL, Siebold C: MHC class II proteins and disease: a structural perspective. Nat Rev Immunol 2006, 6(4):271–282. 10.1038/nri1805View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Madden DR: The three-dimensional structure of peptide-MHC complexes. Annu Rev Immunol 1995, 13: 587–622. 10.1146/annurev.iy.13.040195.003103View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hammer J, Bono E, Gallazzi F, Belunis C, Nagy Z, Sinigaglia F: Precise prediction of major histocompatibility complex class II-peptide interaction based on peptide side chain scanning. J Exp Med 1994, 180(6):2353–2358. 10.1084/jem.180.6.2353View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marshall KW, Wilson KJ, Liang J, Woods A, Zaller D, Rothbard JB: Prediction of peptide affinity to HLA DRB1*0401. J Immunol 1995, 154(11):5927–5933.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sturniolo T, Bono E, Ding J, Raddrizzani L, Tuereci O, Sahin U, Braxenthaler M, Gallazzi F, Protti MP, Sinigaglia F, et al.: Generation of tissue-specific and promiscuous HLA ligand databases using DNA microarrays and virtual HLA class II matrices. Nat Biotechnol 1999, 17(6):555–561. 10.1038/9858View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Singh H, Raghava GP: ProPred: prediction of HLA-DR binding sites. Bioinformatics 2001, 17(12):1236–1237. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1236View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rammensee H, Bachmann J, Emmerich NP, Bachor OA, Stevanovic S: SYFPEITHI: database for MHC ligands and peptide motifs. Immunogenetics 1999, 50(3–4):213–219. 10.1007/s002510050595View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bui HH, Sidney J, Peters B, Sathiamurthy M, Sinichi A, Purton KA, Mothe BR, Chisari FV, Watkins DI, Sette A: Automated generation and evaluation of specific MHC binding predictive tools: ARB matrix applications. Immunogenetics 2005, 57(5):304–314. 10.1007/s00251-005-0798-yView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reche PA, Glutting JP, Zhang H, Reinherz EL: Enhancement to the RANKPEP resource for the prediction of peptide binding to MHC molecules using profiles. Immunogenetics 2004, 56(6):405–419. 10.1007/s00251-004-0709-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guan P, Doytchinova IA, Zygouri C, Flower DR: MHCPred: A server for quantitative prediction of peptide-MHC binding. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31(13):3621–3624. 10.1093/nar/gkg510View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hattotuwagama CK, Toseland CP, Guan P, Taylor DJ, Hemsley SL, Doytchinova IA, Flower DR: Toward prediction of class II mouse major histocompatibility complex peptide binding affinity: in silico bioinformatic evaluation using partial least squares, a robust multivariate statistical technique. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46(3):1491–1502. 10.1021/ci050380dView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Worning P, Hvid CS, Lamberth K, Buus S, Brunak S, Lund O: Improved prediction of MHC class I and class II epitopes using a novel Gibbs sampling approach. Bioinformatics 2004, 20(9):1388–1397. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth100View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Murugan N, Dai Y: Prediction of MHC class II binding peptides based on an iterative learning model. Immunome Res 2005, 1: 6. 10.1186/1745-7580-1-6View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cui J, Han LY, Lin HH, Tang ZQ, Jiang L, Cao ZW, Chen YZ: MHC-BPS: MHC-binder prediction server for identifying peptides of flexible lengths from sequence-derived physicochemical properties. Immunogenetics 2006, 58(8):607–613. 10.1007/s00251-006-0117-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lata S, Bhasin M, Raghava GP: Application of machine learning techniques in predicting MHC binders. Methods Mol Biol 2007, 409: 201–215. full_textView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu W, Wan J, Meng X, Flower DR, Li T: In silico prediction of peptide-MHC binding affinity using SVRMHC. Methods Mol Biol 2007, 409: 283–291. full_textView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Salomon J, Flower DR: Predicting Class II MHC-Peptide binding: a kernel based approach using similarity scores. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7: 501. 10.1186/1471-2105-7-501View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Lund O: Prediction of MHC class II binding affinity using SMM-align, a novel stabilization matrix alignment method. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8: 238. 10.1186/1471-2105-8-238View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Fairchild PJ, Pope H, Wraith DC: The nature of cryptic epitopes within the self-antigen myelin basic protein. Int Immunol 1996, 8(7):1035–1043. 10.1093/intimm/8.7.1035View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McFarland BJ, Sant AJ, Lybrand TP, Beeson C: Ovalbumin(323–339) peptide binds to the major histocompatibility complex class II I-A(d) protein using two functionally distinct registers. Biochemistry 1999, 38(50):16663–16670. 10.1021/bi991393lView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Anderton SM, Viner NJ, Matharu P, Lowrey PA, Wraith DC: Influence of a dominant cryptic epitope on autoimmune T cell tolerance. Nat Immunol 2002, 3(2):175–181. 10.1038/ni756View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bankovich AJ, Girvin AT, Moesta AK, Garcia KC: Peptide register shifting within the MHC groove: theory becomes reality. Mol Immunol 2004, 40(14–15):1033–1039. 10.1016/j.molimm.2003.11.016View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tibshirani R: Regression shinkage and selection via the lasso. J Royal Statist Soc B 1996, 58(1):267–288.Google Scholar
- Peters B, Sidney J, Bourne P, Bui HH, Buus S, Doh G, Fleri W, Kronenberg M, Kubo R, Lund O, et al.: The immune epitope database and analysis resource: from vision to blueprint. PLoS Biol 2005, 3(3):e91. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030091View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lin HH, Zhang GL, Tongchusak S, Reinherz EL, Brusic V: Evaluation of MHC-II peptide binding prediction servers: applications for vaccine research. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, 9(Suppl 12):S22. 10.1186/1471-2105-9-S12-S22View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- El-Manzalawy Y, Dobbs D, Honavar V: On evaluating MHC-II binding peptide prediction methods. PLoS One 2008, 3(9):e3268. 10.1371/journal.pone.0003268View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cheng Y, Prusoff WH: Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 1973, 22(23):3099–3108. 10.1016/0006-2952(73)90196-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fourer R, Gay DM, Kernighan BW: AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. 2nd edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole; 2003.Google Scholar
- Baltz A, Kliemann L: Spectral Analysis. In Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations. Edited by: Brandes U, Erlebach T. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005:373–416.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fiedler M: Algebraic connectivity of graphs. Czech Math Journal 1973, 23: 298–305.Google Scholar
- Fiedler M: Laplacian of graphs and algebraic connectivity. Combinatorics and Graph Theory 1989, 25: 57–71.Google Scholar
- Swets JA: Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988, 240(4857):1285–1293. 10.1126/science.3287615View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wan J, Liu W, Xu Q, Ren Y, Flower DR, Li T: SVRMHC prediction server for MHC-binding peptides. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7: 463. 10.1186/1471-2105-7-463View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- NetMHCII 2.0 Server[http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetMHCII/]
- Zhang GL, Srinivasan KN, Veeramani A, August JT, Brusic V: PREDBALB/c: a system for the prediction of peptide binding to H2d molecules, a haplotype of the BALB/c mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 2005, (33 Web Server):W180–183. 10.1093/nar/gki479Google Scholar
- Naujokas MF, Southwood S, Mathies SJ, Appella E, Sette A, Miller J: T cell recognition of flanking residues of murine invariant chain-derived CLIP peptide bound to MHC class II. Cell Immunol 1998, 188(1):49–54. 10.1006/cimm.1998.1347View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eastman S, Deftos M, DeRoos PC, Hsu DH, Teyton L, Braunstein NS, Hackett CJ, Rudensky A: A study of complexes of class II invariant chain peptide: major histocompatibility complex class II molecules using a new complex-specific monoclonal antibody. Eur J Immunol 1996, 26(2):385–393. 10.1002/eji.1830260218View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- MHC2Pred prediction server[http://imtech.res.in/raghava/mhc2pred/]
- Nielsen M, Lund O: NN-align. An artificial neural network-based alignment algorithm for MHC class II peptide binding prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 2009., 10(296):Google Scholar
- Wang P, Sidney J, Dow C, Mothe B, Sette A, Peters B: A systematic assessment of MHC class II peptide binding predictions and evaluation of a consensus approach. PLoS Comput Biol 2008, 4(4):e1000048. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000048View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Blicher T, Peters B, Sette A, Justesen S, Buus S, Lund O: Quantitative predictions of peptide binding to any HLA-DR molecule of known sequence: NetMHCIIpan. PLoS Comput Biol 2008, 4(7):e1000107. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000107View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ferrante A, Gorski J: Cooperativity of hydrophobic anchor interactions: evidence for epitope selection by MHC class II as a folding process. J Immunol 2007, 178(11):7181–7189.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- James EA, Moustakas AK, Bui J, Nouv R, Papadopoulos GK, Kwok WW: The binding of antigenic peptides to HLA-DR is influenced by interactions between pocket 6 and pocket 9. J Immunol 2009, 183(5):3249–3258. 10.4049/jimmunol.0802228View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.