Back

Machine learning application to predict binding affinity between peptide containing non-canonical amino acids and HLA0201

Jiang, S.; Su, Z.; Bloodworth, N.; Liu, Y.; Martina, C.; Harrison, D. G.; Meiler, J.

2024-11-21 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.11.19.624425 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Class 1 major histocompatibility complexes (MHC-I), 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 to 10 amino acids, loaded into MCH-1 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-1 binding groove. Thus, predicting antigen binding affinity for MHC-I is a valuable tool for identifying potentially immunogenic antigens. While quite a few predictors for MHC-I binding exist, there are no currently available tools that can predict antigen/MHC-I 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-I 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.

Matching journals

The top 9 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.