Peters Björn, Tong Weiwei, Sidney John, Sette Alessandro, Weng Zhiping
Institut für Biochemie, Charite, Humboldt Universität Berlin, Monbijoustr. 2, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Bioinformatics. 2003 Sep 22;19(14):1765-72. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg247.
Various methods have been proposed to predict the binding affinities of peptides to Major Histocompatibility Complex class I (MHC-I) molecules based on experimental binding data. They can be classified into two groups: (1) AIB methods that assume independent contributions of all peptide positions to the binding to MHC-I molecule (e.g. scoring matrices) and (2) general methods which can take into account interactions between different positions (e.g. artificial neural networks). We aim to compare the prediction accuracies of these methods, and quantify the impact of interactions between peptide positions.
We compared several previously published and widely used methods and discovered that the best AIB methods gave significantly better predictions than three previously published general methods, possibly due to the lack of a sufficient training data for the general methods. The best results, however, were achieved with our newly developed general method, which combined a matrix describing independent binding with pair coefficients describing pair-wise interactions between peptide positions. The pair coefficients consistently but only slightly improved prediction accuracy, and were much smaller than the matrix entries. This explains why neglecting them-as is done in AIB methods-can still lead to good predictions.
The new prediction model is implemented at http://zlab.bu.edu/SMM. The underlying matrix and pair coefficients are also available as supplementary materials.
基于实验结合数据,已提出多种方法来预测肽与主要组织相容性复合体I类(MHC-I)分子的结合亲和力。它们可分为两类:(1)假设肽的所有位置对与MHC-I分子结合有独立贡献的AIB方法(例如评分矩阵),以及(2)能够考虑不同位置之间相互作用的通用方法(例如人工神经网络)。我们旨在比较这些方法的预测准确性,并量化肽位置之间相互作用的影响。
我们比较了几种先前发表并广泛使用的方法,发现最佳的AIB方法比三种先前发表的通用方法给出了明显更好的预测,这可能是由于通用方法缺乏足够的训练数据。然而,我们新开发的通用方法取得了最佳结果,该方法结合了描述独立结合的矩阵和描述肽位置之间成对相互作用的成对系数。成对系数始终但仅略微提高了预测准确性,并且远小于矩阵项。这解释了为什么像AIB方法那样忽略它们仍然可以导致良好的预测。