Immunoinformatics: an overview of computational tools and techniques for understanding immune function

References

• MacLean M, Miles C. Swift action needed to close the skills gap in bioinformatics. Nature401(6748), 10 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brenner SE, Koehl P, Levitt M. The ASTRAL compendium for protein structure and sequence analysis. Nucleic Acids Res.28(1), 254–256 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu P, Bader G, Wigle DA, Emili A. Computational prediction of cancer-gene function. Nat. Rev.7(1), 23–34 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Lin J, Qian J. Systems biology approach to integrative comparative genomics. Expert Rev. Proteomics4(1), 107–119 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korber B, LaBute M, Yusim K. Immunoinformatics comes of age. PLoS Comput. Biol.2(6), e71 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodfolk JA. Cytokines as a therapeutic target for allergic diseases: a complex picture. Curr. Pharm. Des.12(19), 2349–2363 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couto E, Hemminki K. Heritable and environmental components in cervical tumors. Int. J. Cancer119(11), 2699–2701 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo AK, Jefferson BK, Garcia MJ, Ginsburg GS, Topol EJ. Challenges in the phenotypic characterisation of patients in genetic studies of coronary artery disease. J. Med. Genet.44(3), 161–165 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piavaux B, Jeurink PV, Groot PC, Hofman GA, Demant P, Van Oosterhout AJ. Mouse genetic model for antigen-induced airway manifestations of asthma. Genes Immun.8(1), 28–34 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taramelli R, Acquati F. The human genome project and the discovery of genetic determinants of cancer susceptibility. Eur. J. Cancer40(17), 2537–2543 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Rao S, Wang Y, Gong B. Gene mining: a novel and powerful ensemble decision approach to hunting for disease genes using microarray expression profiling. Nucleic Acids Res.32(9), 2685–2694 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arstila TP, Casrouge A, Baron V, Even J, Kanellopoulos J, Kourilsky P. A direct estimate of the human αβ T cell receptor diversity. Science286(5441), 958–961 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerne NK. The Nobel lectures in immunology. The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, 1984. The generative grammar of the immune system. Scand. J. Immunol.38(1), 1–9 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borrebaeck CA, Ohlin M. Antibody evolution beyond nature. Nat. Biotechnol.20(12), 1189–1190 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson J, Waller MJ, Parham P et al. IMGT/HLA and IMGT/MHC: sequence databases for the study of the major histocompatibility complex. Nucleic Acids Res.31(1), 311–314 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blythe MJ, Flower DR. Benchmarking B cell epitope prediction: underperformance of existing methods. Protein Sci.14(1), 246–248 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehr R. Feedback loops, reversals and nonlinearities in lymphocyte development. Bull. Math. Biol.68(5), 1073–1094 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brandt ME, Krueger GR, Wang G, Buja LM. Feed-forward and feedback mechanisms in a dynamic model of human T cell development and regulation. In Vivo18(4), 465–470 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jansson A, Fagerlind M, Karlsson D, Nilsson P, Cooley M. In silico simulations suggest that Th-cell development is regulated by both selective and instructive mechanisms. Immunol. Cell. Biol.84(2), 218–226 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tian C, Bagley J, Forman D, Iacomini J. Induction of central tolerance by mature T cells. J. Immunol.173(12), 7217–7222 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mehr R, Shahaf G, Sah A, Cancro M. Asynchronous differentiation models explain bone marrow labeling kinetics and predict reflux between the pre- and immature B cell pools. Int. Immunol.15(3), 301–312 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Petrovsky N, Brusic V. Bioinformatics for study of autoimmunity. Autoimmunity39(8), 635–643 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsland BJ, Nembrini C, Schmitz N et al. Innate signals compensate for the absence of PKC-τ during in vivo CD8+ T cell effector and memory responses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA102(40), 14374–14379 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayashizaki Y, Carninci P. Genome Network and FANTOM3: assessing the complexity of the transcriptome. PLoS Genet.2(4), e63 (2006).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva DG, Schonbach C, Brusic V, Socha LA, Nagashima T, Petrovsky N. Identification of “pathologs” (disease-related genes) from the RIKEN mouse cDNA dataset using human curation plus FACTS, a new biological information extraction system. BMC Genomics5(1), 28 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aidinis V, Carninci P, Armaka M et al. Cytoskeletal rearrangements in synovial fibroblasts as a novel pathophysiological determinant of modeled rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS Genet.1(4), e48 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeda N, Kasukawa T, Oyama R et al. Transcript annotation in FANTOM3: mouse gene catalog based on physical cDNAs. PLoS Genet.2(4), e62 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carninci P, Sandelin A, Lenhard B et al. Genome-wide analysis of mammalian promoter architecture and evolution. Nature Genet.38(6), 626–635 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carninci P, Kasukawa T, Katayama S et al. The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome. Science309(5740), 1559–1563 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusic V, Zeleznikow J, Petrovsky N. Molecular immunology databases and data repositories. J. Immunol. Methods238(1–2), 17–28 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster CB, Chanock SJ. Mining variations in genes of innate and phagocytic immunity: current status and future prospects. Curr. Opin. Hematol.7(1), 9–15 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rognan D, Lauemoller SL, Holm A, Buus S, Tschinke V. Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins. J. Med. Chem.42(22), 4650–4658 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia KC, Degano M, Pease LR et al. Structural basis of plasticity in T cell receptor recognition of a self peptide-MHC antigen. Science279(5354), 1166–1172 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusic V, Bucci K, Schonbach C, Petrovsky N, Zeleznikow J, Kazura JW. Efficient discovery of immune response targets by cyclical refinement of QSAR models of peptide binding. J. Mol. Graph. Model.19(5), 405–411 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepler TB, Perelson AS. Cyclic re-entry of germinal center B cells and the efficiency of affinity maturation. Immunol. Today14(8), 412–415 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Merrill SJ. Computational models in immunological methods: an historical review. J. Immunol. Methods216(1–2), 69–92 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Louzoun Y. The evolution of mathematical immunology. Immunol. Rev.216, 9–20 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Minar N, Burkhart R, Langton C, Askenazi M. The Swarm simulation system: a toolkit for building multi-agent simulations. Working Paper 11 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Kohler B, Puzone R, Seiden PE, Celada F. A systematic approach to vaccine complexity using an automaton model of the cellular and humoral immune system. I. Viral characteristics and polarized responses. Vaccine19(7–8), 862–876 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Castiglione F, Duca KA, Jarrah A, Laubenbacher R, Hochberg D, Thorley-Lawson DA. Simulating Epstein–Barr virus infection with C-ImmSim. Bioinformatics 23, 1371–1377 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Doytchinova IA, Guan P, Flower DR. EpiJen: a server for multistep T cell epitope prediction. BMC Bioinformatics7, 131 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen MV, Lundegaard C, Lamberth K et al. An integrative approach to CTL epitope prediction: a combined algorithm integrating MHC class I binding, TAP transport efficiency, and proteasomal cleavage predictions. Eur. J. Immunol.35(8), 2295–2303 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnes P, Kohlbacher O. Integrated modeling of the major events in the MHC class I antigen processing pathway. Protein Sci.14(8), 2132–2140 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Lund O. Prediction of MHC class II binding affinity using SMM-align, a novel stabilization matrix alignment method. BMC Bioinformatics8, 238 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guan P, Hattotuwagama CK, Doytchinova IA, Flower DR. MHCPred 2.0: an updated quantitative T-cell epitope prediction server. Appl. Bioinformatics5(1), 55–61 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Attiyah R, Mustafa AS. Computer-assisted prediction of HLA-DR binding and experimental analysis for human promiscuous Th1-cell peptides in the 24 kDa secreted lipoprotein (LppX) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Scand. J. Immunol.59(1), 16–24 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mustafa AS, Shaban FA. ProPred analysis and experimental evaluation of promiscuous T-cell epitopes of three major secreted antigens of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Tuberculosis86(2), 115–124 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Nunez M, Pinilla-Ibarz J, Dao T et al. Peptide binding motif predictive algorithms correspond with experimental binding of leukemia vaccine candidate peptides to HLA-A*0201 molecules. Leuk. Res.30(10), 1293–1298 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reche PA, Glutting JP, Reinherz EL. Prediction of MHC class I binding peptides using profile motifs. Hum. Immunol.63(9), 701–709 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reche PA, Glutting JP, Zhang H, Reinherz EL. Enhancement to the RANKPEP resource for the prediction of peptide binding to MHC molecules using profiles. Immunogenetics56(6), 405–419 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaila MS, Nayak R, Prakash SS et al. Comparative in silico analysis of two vaccine candidates for group A streptococcus predicts that they both may have similar safety profiles. Vaccine25(18), 3567–3573 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doytchinova IA, Flower DR. Predicting class I major histocompatibility complex (MHC) binders using multivariate statistics: comparison of discriminant analysis and multiple linear regression. J. Chem. Inf. Model.47(1), 234–238 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doytchinova IA, Flower DR. VaxiJen: a server for prediction of protective antigens, tumour antigens and subunit vaccines. BMC Bioinformatics8, 4 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doytchinova IA, Flower DR. Identifying candidate subunit vaccines using an alignment-independent method based on principal amino acid properties. Vaccine25(5), 856–866 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport MP, Ho Shon IA, Hill AV. An empirical method for the prediction of T-cell epitopes. Immunogenetics42(5), 392–397 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meister GE, Roberts CG, Berzofsky JA, De Groot AS. Two novel T cell epitope prediction algorithms based on MHC-binding motifs; comparison of predicted and published epitopes from Mycobacterium tuberculosis and HIV protein sequences. Vaccine13(6), 581–591 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusic V, Rudy G, Honeyman G, Hammer J, Harrison L. Prediction of MHC class II-binding peptides using an evolutionary algorithm and artificial neural network. Bioinformatics14(2), 121–130 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies MN, Hattotuwagama CK, Moss DS, Drew MG, Flower DR. Statistical deconvolution of enthalpic energetic contributions to MHC-peptide binding affinity. BMC Struct. Biol.6, 5 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hattotuwagama CK, Davies MN, Flower DR. Receptor–ligand binding sites and virtual screening. Curr. Med. Chem.13(11), 1283–1304 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodarz D. Mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. Novartis Found. Symp.254, 193–207 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wodarz D, Hamer DH. Infection dynamics in HIV-specific CD4 T cells: Does a CD4 T cell boost benefit the host or the virus? Math. Biosci.209, 14–29 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wodarz D, Nowak MA. Mathematical models of HIV pathogenesis and treatment. Bioessays24(12), 1178–1187 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesmir C, De Boer RJ. A mathematical model on germinal center kinetics and termination. J. Immunol.163(5), 2463–2469 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meyer-Hermann M, Deutsch A, Or-Guil M. Recycling probability and dynamical properties of germinal center reactions. J. Theor. Biol.210(3), 265–285 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rissoan MC, Soumelis V, Kadowaki N et al. Reciprocal control of T helper cell and dendritic cell differentiation. Science283(5405), 1183–1186 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding B, Zaitseva M, Golding H. The potential for recruiting immune responses toward type 1 or type 2 T cell help. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.50(4 Suppl.), 33–40 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajananthanan P, Attard GS, Sheikh NA, Morrow WJ. Novel aggregate structure adjuvants modulate lymphocyte proliferation and Th1 and Th2 cytokine profiles in ovalbumin immunized mice. Vaccine18(1–2), 140–152 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barbour EK, Hamadeh SK, Ghanem DA, Haddad JJ, Safieh-Garabedian B. Humoral and cell-mediated immunopotentiation in vaccinated chicken layers by thymic hormones and zinc. Vaccine16(17), 1650–1655 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ahmed E, Hashish AH. On modeling the immune system as a complex system. Theory Biosci.124(3–4), 413–418 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernaschi M, Castiglione F. Selection of escape mutants from immune recognition during HIV infection. Immunol. Cell. Biol.80(3), 307–313 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morpurgo D, Serentha R, Seiden PE, Celada F. Modelling thymic functions in a cellular automaton. Int. Immunol.7(4), 505–516 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolfram S. A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Celada F, Seiden PE. A computer model of cellular interactions in the immune system. Immunol. Today13(2), 56–62 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar