T cell receptors (TCR) define the specificity of T cells and are responsible for their interaction with peptide antigen targets presented in complex with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules. Understanding the rules underlying this interaction hence forms the foundation for our understanding of basic adaptive immunology. Over the last decade, efforts have been dedicated to developing assays for high throughput identification of peptide-specific TCRs. Based on such data, several computational methods have been proposed for predicting the TCR-pMHC interaction. The general conclusion from these studies is that the prediction of TCR interactions with MHC-peptide complexes remains highly challenging. Several reasons form the basis for this including scarcity and quality of data, and ill-defined modeling objectives imposed by the high redundancy of the available data. In this work, we propose a framework for dealing with this redundancy, allowing us to address essential questions related to the modeling of TCR specificity including the use of peptide- versus pan-specific models, how to best define negative data, and the performance impact of integrating of CDR1 and 2 loops. Further, we illustrate how and why it is strongly recommended to include simple similarity-based modeling approaches when validating an improved predictive power of machine learning models, and that such validation should include a performance evaluation as a function of "distance" to the training data, to quantify the potential for generalization of the proposed model. The conclusion of the work is that, given current data, TCR specificity is best modeled using peptide-specific approaches, integrating information from all 6 CDR loops, and with negative data constructed from a combination of true and mislabeled negatives. Comparing such machine learning models to similarity-based approaches demonstrated an increased performance gain of the former as the "distance" to the training data was increased; thus demonstrating an improved generalization ability of the machine learning-based approaches. We believe these results demonstrate that the outlined modeling framework and proposed evaluation strategy form a solid basis for investigating the modeling of TCR specificities and that adhering to such a framework will allow for faster progress within the field. The final devolved model, NetTCR-2.1, is available at https://services.healthtech.dtu.dk/service.php?NetTCR-2.1.
Keywords:T cell; TCR specificity; deep learning; epitope; neural network.
NetTCR-2.1: Lessons and guidance on how to develop models for TCR specificity predictions
乐备实(上海优宁维生物科技股份有限公司旗下全资子公司),是国内专注于提供高质量蛋白检测以及组学分析服务的实验服务专家,自2018年成立以来,乐备实不断寻求突破,公司的服务技术平台已扩展到单细胞测序、空间多组学、流式检测、超敏电化学发光、Luminex多因子检测、抗体芯片、PCR Array、ELISA、Elispot、PLA蛋白互作、多色免疫组化、DSP空间多组学等30多个,建立起了一套涵盖基因、蛋白、细胞以及组织水平实验的完整检测体系。
我们可提供从样本运输、储存管理、样本制备、样本检测到检测数据分析的全流程服务。凭借严格的实验室管理流程、标准化实验室操作、原始数据储存体系以及实验项目管理系统,已经为超过3000家客户单位提供服务,年检测样本超过100万,受到了广大客户的信任与支持。

声明:本篇文章在创作中部分采用了人工智能辅助。如有任何内容涉及版权或知识产权问题,敬请告知,我们承诺将在第一时间核实并撤下。
详见LabEx网站(
www.u-labex.com)或来电咨询!
基因水平:PCR Array、RT-PCR、PCR、单细胞测序
蛋白水平:MSD、Luminex、CBA、Elispot、Antibody Array、ELISA、Sengenics
细胞水平:细胞染色、细胞分选、细胞培养、细胞功能
组织水平:空间多组学、多重荧光免疫组化、免疫组化、免疫荧光
数据分析:流式数据分析、组化数据分析、多因子数据分析
基因水平:PCR Array、RT-PCR、PCR、单细胞测序
蛋白水平:MSD、Luminex、CBA、Elispot、Antibody Array、ELISA、Sengenics
细胞水平:细胞染色、细胞分选、细胞培养、细胞功能
组织水平:空间多组学、多重荧光免疫组化、免疫组化、免疫荧光
数据分析:流式数据分析、组化数据分析、多因子数据分析
联系电话:4001619919
联系邮箱:labex-mkt@u-labex.com
公众平台:蛋白检测服务专家
联系邮箱:labex-mkt@u-labex.com
公众平台:蛋白检测服务专家

本网站销售的所有产品及服务均不得用于人类或动物之临床诊断或治疗,仅可用于工业或者科研等非医疗目的。



沪公网安备31011502400759号
营业执照(三证合一)