4.2 Article

Estimation and extraction of B-cell linear epitopes predicted by mathematical morphology approaches

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR RECOGNITION
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 431-441

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmr.910

关键词

linear epitope; antigenicity; mathematical morphology

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC 96-2221-E-019-043]
  2. China Medical University [CMU 96-255]
  3. Center for Marine Bioscience and Biotechnology in National Taiwan Ocean University in Taiwan, R.O.C

向作者/读者索取更多资源

B-cell epitope prediction facilitates the design and synthesis of short peptides for various immunological applications. Several algorithms have been developed to predict B-cell linear epitopes (LEs) from primary sequences of antigens, providing important information for immunobiological experiments and antibody design. This paper describes two robust methods, LIE prediction with/without local peak extraction (LEP-LP and LEP-NLP), based on antigenicity scale and mathematical morphology for the prediction of B-cell LEs. Previous studies revealed that LEs could occur in regions with low-to-moderate but not globally high antigenicity scales. Hence, we developed a method adopting mathematical morphology to extract local peaks from a linear combination of the propensity scales of physicochemical characteristics at each antigen residue. Comparison among LEP-LP/LEP-NLP, BepiPred and BEPITOPE revealed that our algorithms performed better in retrieving epitopes with low-to-moderate antigenicity and achieved comparable performance according to receiver operation characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. Of the identified LEs, over 30% were unable to be predicted by BepiPred and BEPITOPE employing an average threshold of antigenicity index or default settings. Our LEP-LP method provides a bioinformatics approach for predicting B-cell LEs with low-to-moderate antigenicity. The web-based server was established at http://biotools.cs.ntou.edu.tw/lepd_antigenicity. php for free use. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据