Display options
Cite
Boulanger DSM, Eccleston RC, Phillips A, et al. A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Cell Surface Presentation of Competing Peptides by MHC Class I Molecules. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1538doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01538.
Boulanger, D. S. M., Eccleston, R. C., Phillips, A., Coveney, P. V., Elliott, T., & Dalchau, N. (2018). A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Cell Surface Presentation of Competing Peptides by MHC Class I Molecules. Frontiers in immunology, 91538. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.01538
Boulanger, Denise S M, et al. "A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Cell Surface Presentation of Competing Peptides by MHC Class I Molecules." Frontiers in immunology vol. 9 (2018): 1538. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.01538
Boulanger DSM, Eccleston RC, Phillips A, Coveney PV, Elliott T, Dalchau N. A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Cell Surface Presentation of Competing Peptides by MHC Class I Molecules. Front Immunol. 2018 Jul 05;9:1538. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01538. eCollection 2018. PMID: 30026743; PMCID: PMC6041393.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Immunol. 2018 Jul 05;9:1538. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01538. eCollection 2018.

A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Cell Surface Presentation of Competing Peptides by MHC Class I Molecules.

Frontiers in immunology

Denise S M Boulanger, Ruth C Eccleston, Andrew Phillips, Peter V Coveney, Tim Elliott, Neil Dalchau

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Cancer Immunology and Institute for Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
  2. Centre for Computational Science, Department of Chemistry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
  3. CoMPLEX, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
  4. Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

PMID: 30026743 PMCID: PMC6041393 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01538

Abstract

Major histocompatibility complex-I (MHC-I) molecules play a central role in the immune response to viruses and cancers. They present peptides on the surface of affected cells, for recognition by cytotoxic T cells. Determining which peptides are presented, and in what proportion, has profound implications for developing effective, medical treatments. However, our ability to predict peptide presentation levels is currently limited. Existing prediction algorithms focus primarily on the binding affinity of peptides to MHC-I, and do not predict the relative abundance of individual peptides on the surface of antigen-presenting cells

Keywords: abundance; antigen presentation; interferon-γ; major histocompatibility class I; mechanistic model; peptide competition

References

  1. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2002 Apr;13(2):95-109 - PubMed
  2. Immunity. 2002 Apr;16(4):509-20 - PubMed
  3. Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Oct 1;17(19):6118-24 - PubMed
  4. J Immunol. 2008 Aug 1;181(3):2124-33 - PubMed
  5. J Transl Med. 2015 Aug 27;13:279 - PubMed
  6. Nature. 2005 Mar 3;434(7029):83-8 - PubMed
  7. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2013 Jul;12(7):1829-43 - PubMed
  8. Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Apr 15;22(8):1885-96 - PubMed
  9. J Exp Med. 2008 Mar 17;205(3):595-610 - PubMed
  10. J Immunol. 1996 Sep 1;157(5):1823-6 - PubMed
  11. J Immunol. 2010 Jan 1;184(1):73-83 - PubMed
  12. Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 20;5:14928 - PubMed
  13. Eur J Immunol. 2012 Jan;42(1):256-63 - PubMed
  14. Immunity. 2006 Oct;25(4):533-43 - PubMed
  15. Diabetes. 2012 Nov;61(11):3018-25 - PubMed
  16. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Jun;120:1-9 - PubMed
  17. Protein Sci. 2004 Mar;13(3):596-607 - PubMed
  18. PLoS Pathog. 2013 Jan;9(1):e1003129 - PubMed
  19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Apr 13;107(15):6964-9 - PubMed
  20. Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 30;7(1):14367 - PubMed
  21. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 10;101(32):11737-42 - PubMed
  22. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012 Mar;11(3):M111.011429 - PubMed
  23. BMC Genomics. 2014 Mar 13;15:190 - PubMed
  24. Tissue Antigens. 2010 Oct;76(4):259-75 - PubMed
  25. Cancer Res. 2005 Apr 15;65(8):3447-53 - PubMed
  26. J Immunol. 2001 Jan 15;166(2):1016-27 - PubMed
  27. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22;12(4):252-64 - PubMed
  28. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jun 23;95(13):7556-61 - PubMed
  29. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015 Jul 14;11(7):3346-56 - PubMed
  30. J Clin Immunol. 2004 Jul;24(4):462-70 - PubMed
  31. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2018 Mar;17(3):533-548 - PubMed
  32. Immunity. 1997 Jun;6(6):715-26 - PubMed
  33. J Immunol. 1994 Jan 1;152(1):163-75 - PubMed
  34. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2006 Feb;5(2):357-65 - PubMed
  35. Nat Immunol. 2002 Dec;3(12):1169-76 - PubMed
  36. Bioinformatics. 2016 Feb 15;32(4):511-7 - PubMed
  37. Vaccine. 2017 Feb 15;35(7):1094-1100 - PubMed
  38. Protein Eng. 2002 Apr;15(4):287-96 - PubMed
  39. J Immunol. 2010 Nov 1;185(9):5048-55 - PubMed
  40. Nat Immunol. 2000 Sep;1(3):234-8 - PubMed
  41. Immunity. 2008 Jun;28(6):787-98 - PubMed
  42. Nat Nanotechnol. 2017 Sep;12(9):920-927 - PubMed
  43. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015 Mar;14(3):658-73 - PubMed
  44. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jul;40(Web Server issue):W525-30 - PubMed
  45. Front Immunol. 2017 Jul 10;8:797 - PubMed
  46. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2013 Jul;12(7):1853-64 - PubMed
  47. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015 Dec;14(12):3105-17 - PubMed
  48. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Oct;7(10):e1002144 - PubMed
  49. Elife. 2017 Apr 20;6: - PubMed
  50. Trends Immunol. 2014 Apr;35(4):144-52 - PubMed
  51. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 16;10(9):e0136417 - PubMed
  52. Immunity. 2000 Aug;13(2):213-22 - PubMed
  53. Nat Immunol. 2008 Mar;9(3):282-91 - PubMed
  54. Eur J Immunol. 2008 Feb;38(2):364-9 - PubMed
  55. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):E1591-9 - PubMed
  56. J Leukoc Biol. 2014 Apr;95(4):551-62 - PubMed
  57. Curr Opin Immunol. 2016 Aug;41:9-17 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support