CTLs' repertoire shaping in the thymus: A Monte Carlo simulation

References

• Murphy KP, Travers P, Janeway C, Walport M. 2008. Janeway's immunologyGarland science. New York: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsby RA, Kindt TJ, Osborne BA. 2000. Kuby immunology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Klein L, Hinterberger M, Wirnsberger G, Kyewski B. Antigen presentation in the thymus for positive selection and central tolerance induction. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009; 9:833–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehr R, Globerson A, Perelson AS. Modeling positive and negative selection and differentiation processes in the thymus. J Theor Biol. 1995; 175:103–126.
   Google Scholar
• von Boehmer H, Kisielow P. Lymphocyte lineage commitment: Instruction versus selection. Cell. 1993; 73:207–208.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Germain RN. T-cell development and the CD4–CD8 lineage decision. Nat Rev Immunol. 2002; 2:309–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehr R, Perelson AS, Fridkis-Hareli M, Globerson A. Regulatory feedback pathways in the thymus. Immunol Today. 1997; 18:581–585.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mehr R, Abel L, Ubezio P, Globerson A, Agur Z. A mathematical model of the effect of aging on bone marrow cells colonizing the thymus. Mech Ageing Dev. 1993; 67:159–172.
   Google Scholar
• Mehr R, Perelson AS, Sharp A, Segel L, Globerson A. MHC-linked syngeneic developmental preference in thymic lobes colonized with bone marrow cells: A mathematical model. Dev Immunol. 1998; 5:303–318.
   Google Scholar
• Hazenberg MD, Otto SA, Stuart JWTC, Verschuren MCM, Borleffs JCC, Boucher CAB, Coutinho RA, Lange JMA, de Wit TFR, Tsegaye A, van Dongen JJM, Hamann D, de Boer RJ, Miedema F. Increased cell division but not thymic dysfunction rapidly affects the T-cell receptor excision circle content of the naive T cell population in HIV-1 infection. Nat Med. 2000; 6:1036–1042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efroni S, Harel D, Cohen IR. Reactive animation: Realistic modeling of complex dynamic systems. Computer. 2005; 38:38–47.
   Google Scholar
• Efroni S, Harel D, Cohen IR. Toward rigorous comprehension of biological complexity: Modeling, execution, and visualization of thymic T-cell maturation. Genome Res. 2003; 13:2485–2497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efroni S, Harel D, Cohen IR. Emergent dynamics of thymocyte development and lineage determination. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007; 3:127–135.
   Google Scholar
• Souza-e-Silva H, Savino W, Feijóo RA, Vasconcelos ATR. A cellular automata-based mathematical model for thymocyte development. PLoS One. 2009; 4 12: e8233.
   Google Scholar
• Morpurgo D, Serenthà R, Seiden PE, Celada F. Modelling thymic functions in a cellular automaton. Int Immunol. 1995; 7 4: 505–516.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng Y, Pearson Y, Puzone R, Celada F. Systematic simulation of crossreactivity predicts ambiguity in Tk memory: it may save lives of the infected, but limits specificities vital for further responses. Autoimmunity. 2011; 44 4: 59–71.
   Google Scholar
• Darve E, Pohorille A. Calculating free energies using average force. J Chem Phys. 2001; 115:9169–9183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundegaard C, Lund O, Kesmir C, Brunak S, Nielsen M. Modeling the adaptive immune system: Predictions and simulations. Bioinformatics. 2007; 23 24: 3265–3275.
   Google Scholar
• Petrovsky N, Brusic V. Computational immunology: The coming of age. Immunol Cell Biol. 2002; 80:248–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korber B, LaBute M, Yusim K. Immunoinformatics comes of age. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006; 2 6: 484–492.
   Google Scholar
• Petrovsky N, Brusic V. Bioinformatics for study of autoimmunity. Autoimmunity. 2006; 39:635–643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund O, Nielsen M, Kesmir C, Petersen AG, Lundegaard C, Worning P, Sylvester-Hvid C, Lamberth K, Roder G, Justesen S, Buus S, Brunak S. Definition of supertypes for HLA molecules using clustering of specificity matrices. Immunogenetics. 2004; 55 12: 797–810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Worning P, Hvid CS, Lamberth K, Buus S, Brunak S, Lund O. Improved prediction of MHC class I and class II epitopes using a novel Gibbs sampling approach. Bioinformatics. 2004; 20 9: 1388–1397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Blicher T, Lamberth K, Harndahl M, Justesen S, Roder G, Peters B, Sette A, Lund O, Buus S. NetMHCpan, a method for quantitative predictions of peptide binding to any HLA-A and -B locus protein of known sequence. PLoS One. 2007; 2 8: e796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Lund IO. Prediction of MHC class II binding affinity using SMM-align, a novel stabilization matrix alignment method. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007; 8 1: 238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. An empirical energy potential with a reference state for protein fold and sequence recognition. Proteins. 1999; 36 3: 357–369.
   Google Scholar
• Lin HH, Ray S, Tongchusak S, Reinherz EL, Brusic V. Evaluation of MHC class I peptide binding prediction servers: Applications for vaccine research. BMC Immunol. 2008; 9:8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin HH, Zhang GL, Tongchusak S, Reinherz EL, Brusic V. Evaluation of MHC-II peptide binding prediction servers: Applications for vaccine research. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008; 9 12: S22.
   Google Scholar
• Yewdell JW, Reits E, Neefjes J. Making sense of mass destruction: Quantitating MHC class I antigen presentation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003; 3 12: 952–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yewdell JM, Bennink JR. Immunodominance in major histocompatibility complex class I-restricted T lymphocyte responses. Ann Rev Immunol. 1999; 17:51–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund O, Kesmir C, Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Brunak S. 2005. Immunological bioinformatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arstila TP, Casrouge A, Baron V, Even J, Kanellopoulos J, Kourilsky P. A direct estimate of the human T cell receptor diversity. Science. 1999; 286 5441: 958–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishio J, Suzuki M, Nanki T, Miyasaka N, Kohsaka H. Development of TCRB CDR3 length repertoire of human T lymphocytes. Int Immunol. 2004; 16 3: 423–431.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Worning P, Lauemoller SL, Lamberth K, Buus S, Brunak S, Lund O. Reliable prediction of T-cell epitopes using neural networks with novel sequence representations. Protein Sci. 2003; 12 5: 1007–1017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buus S, Lauemoller SL, Worning P, Kesmir C, Frimurer T, Corbet S, Fomsgaard A, Hilden J, Holm A, Brunak S. Sensitive quantitative predictions of peptide-MHC binding by a “query by committee” artificial neural network approach. Tissue Antigens. 2003; 62 5: 378–384.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. Gapped blast and psi-blast: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997; 25 17: 3389–3402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sette A, Fleri W, Peters B, Sathiamurthy M, Bui H-H, Wilson S. A roadmap for the immunomics of category a–c pathogens. Immunity. 2005; 22 2: 155–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rapin N, Hoof I, Lund O, Nielsen M. MHC motif viewer. Immunogenetics. 2008; 60 12: 759–765.
   Google Scholar
• Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Residue–residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. J Mol Biol. 1996; 256 3: 623–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. Identifying sequence-structure pairs undetected by sequence alignments. Protein Eng. 2000; 13 7: 459–475.
   Google Scholar
• Celada F, Seiden PE. A computer model of cellular interactions in the immune system. Immunol Today. 1992; 13 2: 56–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rapin N, Lund O, Bernaschi M, Castiglione F. Computational immunology meets bioinformatics. PLoS One. 2010; 5 4: e9862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar