Back

MHC-I binding affinity derived metrics fail to predict tumor specific neoantigen immunogenicity

Nibeyro, G.; Girotti, M. R.; Prato, L.; Moron, V. G.; Lujan, H. D.; Fernandez, E. A.

2022-03-17 bioinformatics
10.1101/2022.03.14.484285 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Tumor-specific antigens emerging through somatic genomic rearrangements, known as neoantigens, play a critical role in current anticancer immunotherapy. They may or may not elicit an immune response when presented on the tumor cell surface bound to the MHC-I molecule, whose strength has been assumed as an indicator of immunogenicity. Several in silico peptide-MHC-I binding affinity predictors are used to prioritize putative immunogenic neoantigens to be experimentally and clinically explored either as biomarkers or targets for anticancer vaccines. This claims for a fair evaluation of such predictors, making essential the development of appropriate databases with experimentally validated, immunogenic/non-immunogenic neoantigens. Thus far, such a database is lacking. We herein present ITSNdb, a new and curated immunogenic neoantigen database and use it to benchmark current neoantigen immunogenicity predictors. Benchmark results failed to support the application of the predicted peptide- MHC-I binding affinity or its derived metrics as a tool to estimate neoantigen immunogenicity and the tumor neoantigen burden as an immunotherapy response biomarker. Moreover, binding affinity based immunogenicity definition leads to identifying wild-type peptide counterparts as predictors of immunotherapy response. We demonstrate that MHC-I binding affinity is insufficient to define neoantigen immunogenicity, despite being necessary for neoantigen tumor cell presentation suggesting that a paradigm shift for the emergence of new rules to identify immunogenic neoantigens is required.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.