Back

HLApollo: A superior transformer model for pan-allelic peptide-MHC-I presentation prediction, with diverse negative coverage, deconvolution and protein language features.

Thrift, W. J.; Lounsbury, N. W.; Broadwell, Q.; Heidersbach, A.; Freund, E.; Phung, Q.; Abdolazimi, Y.; Chen, J.; Capietto, A.-H.; Tong, A.-J.; Rose, C. M.; Blanchette, C.; Lill, J.; Haley, B.; Delamarre, L.; Bourgon, R.; Liu, K.; Jhunjhunwala, S.

2022-12-12 immunology
10.1101/2022.12.08.519673 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Antigen presentation on MHC class I (MHC-I) is key to the adaptive immune response to cancerous cells. Computational prediction of peptide presentation by MHC-I has enabled individualized cancer immunotherapies. Here, we introduce HLApollo, a transformer-based approach with end-to-end modeling of MHC-I sequence, deconvolution, and flanking sequences. To achieve this, we develop a novel training strategy, negative set switching, which greatly reduces overfitting to falsely presumed negatives that are necessarily found in presentation datasets. HLApollo shows a meaningful improvement compared to recent MHC-I models on peptide presentation (20.19% average precision (AP)) and immunogenicity (4.1% AP). As expected, adding gene expression boosts the performance of HLApollo. More interestingly, we show that introduction of features from a protein language model, ESM 1b, remarkably recoups much of the benefits of gene expression in absence of true expression measurements. Finally, we demonstrate excellent pan-allelic generalization, and introduce a framework for estimating the expected accuracy of HLApollo for untrained alleles. This guides the use of HLApollo in a clinical setting, where rare alleles may be observed in some subjects, particularly for underrepresented minorities.

Matching journals

The top 8 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.