, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Prediction of Immunogenicity of Therapeutic Proteins

Validity of Computational Tools
  • Christine J. Bryson
  • Tim D. Jones
  • Matthew P. Baker
Review Article


Most protein therapeutics have the potential to induce undesirable immune responses in patients. Many patients develop anti-therapeutic antibodies, which can affect the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic protein, particularly if the response is neutralizing. There are a variety of factors that influence the immunogenicity of protein therapeutics and, in particular, the presence of B- and T-cell epitopes is considered to be of importance. In silico tools to identify the location of both B- and T-cell epitopes and to assess the potential for immunogenicity have been developed, and such tools provide an alternative to more complex in vitro or in vivo immunogenicity assays. This article reviews computational epitope prediction methods and also the use of manually curated databases containing experimentally derived epitope data. However, due to the complexities of the molecular interactions involved in epitope recognition by the immune system, the heterogeneity of key proteins in human populations and the adaptive nature of the immune response, in silico methods have not yet achieved a level of accuracy that enables them to be used as stand-alone tools for predicting clinical immunogenicity. Computational methods, particularly with regard to T-cell epitopes, only consider a limited number of events in the process of epitope formation and therefore routinely over-predict the number of epitopes within a molecule. Epitope databases such as the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) and the proprietary T Cell Epitope Database™ (TCED™) have reached a size and level of organization that increases their utility; however, they are not exhaustive. These methods have greatest utility as an adjunct to in vitro assays where they can be used either to reduce the amount and complexity of the in vitro screening, or they can be used as tools to analyze the sequence of the identified epitope in order to locate amino acids critical for its properties.



All the authors are employed by Antitope Ltd and the manuscript was reviewed and approved by this Company. The authors are grateful to Dr Frank Carr for his critical reading of the manuscript. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.


  1. 1.
    Baker MP, Jones TD. Identification and removal of immunogenicity in therapeutic proteins. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2007 Mar; 10(2): 219–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saha S, Raghava GP. Searching and mapping of B-cell epitopes in Bcipep database. Methods Mol Biol 2007; 409: 113–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dai YD, Carayanniotis G, Sercarz E. Antigen processing by autoreactive B cells promotes determinant spreading. Cell Mol Immunol 2005 Jun; 2(3): 169–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holgate RG, Baker MP. Circumventing immunogenicity in the development of therapeutic antibodies. IDrugs 2009 Apr; 12(4): 233–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones TD, Crompton LJ, Carr FJ, et al. Deimmunization of monoclonal antibodies. Methods Mol Biol 2009; 525: 405–23, xivPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sant’Angelo DB, Robinson E, Janeway Jr CA, et al. Recognition of core and flanking amino acids of MHC class II-bound peptides by the T cell receptor. Eur J Immunol 2002 Sep; 32(9): 2510–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conant SB, Swanborg RH. MHC class II peptide flanking residues of exogenous antigens influence recognition by autoreactive T cells. Autoimmun Rev 2003 Jan; 2(1): 8–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Brien C, Flower DR, Feighery C. Peptide length significantly influences in vitro affinity for MHC class II molecules. Immunome Res 2008; 4: 6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brenner D, Krammer PH, Arnold R. Concepts of activated T cell death. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008 Apr; 66(1): 52–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill JA, Wang D, Jevnikar AM, et al. The relationship between predicted peptide-MHC class II affinity and T-cell activation in a HLA-DRbeta1*0401 transgenic mouse model. Arthritis Res Ther 2003; 5(1): R40–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin HH, Zhang GL, Tongchusak S, et al. Evaluation of MHC-II peptide binding prediction servers: applications for vaccine research. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9 Suppl. 12: S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Groot AS, McMurry J, Moise L. Prediction of immunogenicity: in silico paradigms, ex vivo and in vivo correlates. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2008 Oct; 8(5): 620–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reche PA, Glutting JP, Reinherz EL. Prediction of MHC class I binding peptides using profile motifs. Hum Immunol 2002 Sep; 63(9): 701–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reche PA, Glutting JP, Zhang H, et al. Enhancement to the RANKPEP resource for the prediction of peptide binding to MHC molecules using profiles. Immunogenetics 2004 Sep; 56(6): 405–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh H, Raghava GP. ProPred: prediction of HLA-DR binding sites. Bioinformatics 2001 Dec; 17(12): 1236–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sturniolo T, Bono E, Ding J, et al. Generation of tissue-specific and promiscuous HLA ligand databases using DNA microarrays and virtual HLA class II matrices. Nat Biotechnol 1999 Jun; 17(6): 555–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Lund O. Prediction of MHC class II binding affinity using SMM-align, a novel stabilization matrix alignment method. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8: 238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Blicher T, et al. 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): e796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Blicher T, et al. Quantitative predictions of peptide binding to any HLA-DR molecule of known sequence: NetMHCIIpan. PLoS Comput Biol 2008; 4(7): e1000107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang P, Sidney J, Dow C, et al. A systematic assessment of MHC class II peptide binding predictions and evaluation of a consensus approach. PLoS Comput Biol 2008 Apr; 4(4): e1000048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang GL, Khan AM, Srinivasan KN, et al. MULTIPRED: a computational system for prediction of promiscuous HLA binding peptides. Nucleic Acids Res 2005 Jul 1; 33: W172–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rammensee H, Bachmann J, Emmerich NP, et al. SYFPEITHI: database for MHC ligands and peptide motifs. Immunogenetics 1999 Nov; 50(3-4): 213–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin HH, Ray S, Tongchusak S, et al. Evaluation of MHC class I peptide binding prediction servers: applications for vaccine research. BMC Immunol 2008; 9: 8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jojic N, Reyes-Gomez M, Heckerman D, et al. Learning MHC I: peptide binding. Bioinformatics 2006 Jul 15; 22(14): e227–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacob L, Vert JP. Efficient peptide-MHC-I binding prediction for alleles with few known binders. Bioinformatics 2008 Feb 1; 24(3): 358–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang H, Lundegaard C, Nielsen M. Pan-specific MHC class I predictors: a benchmark of HLA class I pan-specific prediction methods. Bioinformatics 2009 Jan 1; 25(1): 83–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maciel Jr M, Kellathur SN, Chikhlikar P, et al. Comprehensive analysis of T cell epitope discovery strategies using 17DD yellow fever virus structural proteins and BALB/c (H2d) mice model. Virology 2008 Aug 15; 378(1): 105–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Regenmortel MH. What is a B-cell epitope? Methods Mol Biol 2009; 524: 3–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blythe MJ, Flower DR. Benchmarking B cell epitope prediction: under-performance of existing methods. Protein Sci 2005 Jan; 14(1): 246–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen J, Liu H, Yang J, et al. Prediction of linear B-cell epitopes using amino acid pair antigenicity scale. Amino Acids 2007 Sep; 33(3): 423–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chang HT, Liu CH, Pai TW. Estimation and extraction of B-cell linear epitopes predicted by mathematical morphology approaches. J Mol Recognit 2008 Nov–Dec; 21(6): 431–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kulkarni-Kale U, Bhosle S, Kolaskar AS. CEP: a conformational epitope prediction server. Nucleic Acids Res 2005 Jul 1; 33: W168–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haste Andersen P, Nielsen M, Lund O. Prediction of residues in discontinuous B-cell epitopes using protein 3D structures. Protein Sci 2006 Nov; 15(11): 2558–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ponomarenko J, Bui HH, Li W, et al. ElliPro: a new structure-based tool for the prediction of antibody epitopes. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: 514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huang YX, Bao YL, Guo SY, et al. Pep-3D-Search: a method for B-cell epitope prediction based on mimotope analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: 538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thrasyvoulides A, Lymberi P. Evidence for intramolecular B-cell epitope spreading during experimental immunization with an immunogenic thyro-globulin peptide. Clin Exp Immunol 2003 Jun; 132(3): 401–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Routsias JG, Vlachoyiannopoulos PG, Tzioufas AG. Autoantibodies to intracellular autoantigens and their B-cell epitopes: molecular probes to study the autoimmune response. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2006; 43(3): 203–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peters B, Sette A. Integrating epitope data into the emerging web of biomedical knowledge resources. Nat Rev Immunol 2007 Jun; 7(6): 485–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peters B, Sidney J, Bourne P, et al. The immune epitope database and analysis resource: from vision to blueprint. PLoS Biol 2005 Mar; 3(3): e91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSIBLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997 Sep 1; 25(17): 3389–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones TD, Phillips WJ, Smith BJ, et al. Identification and removal of a promiscuous CD4+ T cell epitope from the C1 domain of factor VIII. J Thromb Haemost 2005 May; 3(5): 991–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Anderson DR, Grillo-Lopez A, Varns C, et al. Targeted anti-cancer therapy using rituximab, a chimaeric anti-CD20 antibody (IDEC-C2B8) in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s B-cell lymphoma. Biochem Soc Trans 1997 May; 25(2): 705–8PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine J. Bryson
    • 1
  • Tim D. Jones
    • 1
  • Matthew P. Baker
    • 1
  1. 1.Antitope LtdBabraham Research CampusBabraham, CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations