Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm for Discovering Peptide Binding Motifs

  • Menaka Rajapakse
  • Bertil Schmidt
  • Vladimir Brusic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3907)


Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEA) use Genetic Algorithms (GA) to find a set of potential solutions, which are reached by compromising trade-offs between the multiple objectives. This paper presents a novel approach using MOEA to search for a motif which can unravel rules governing peptide binding to medically important receptors with applications to drugs and vaccines target discovery. However, the degeneracy of motifs due to the varying physicochemical properties at the binding sites across large number of active peptides poses a challenge for the detection of motifs of specific molecules such as MHC Class II molecule I-Ag7 of the non-obese diabetic (NOD) mouse. Several motifs have been experimentally derived for I-Ag7 molecule, but they differ from each other significantly. We have formulated the problem of finding a consensus motif for I-Ag7by using MOEA as an outcome that satisfies two objectives: extract prior information by minimizing the distance between the experimentally derived motifs and the resulting matrix by MOEA; minimize the overall number of false positives and negatives resulting by using the putative MOEA-derived motif. The MOEA results in a Pareto optimal set of motifs from which the best motif is chosen by the Area under the Receiver Operator Characteristics (AROC) performance on an independent test dataset. We compared the MOEA-derived motif with the experimentally derived motifs and motifs derived by computational techniques such as MEME, RANKPEP, and Gibbs Motif Sampler. The overall predictive performance of the MOEA derived motif is comparable or better than the experimentally derived motifs and is better than the computationally derived motifs.


Peptide Binding Consensus Motif Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Experimental Motif Anchor Position 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Deb, K., et al.: A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zitzler, E., et al.: Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength of Pareto Approach. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 3, 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knowles, J.D., et al.: Approximating the Nondominant front using the Pareto Archived evolution stratergy. Evolutionary Computation 8, 49–172 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fonseca, C.M., et al.: Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization. In: Forrest, S. (ed.) Proc. of the fifth Intl. conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416–423. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, S., et al.: Comparison of Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms in Optimizing Q-Law- Thrust Orbit Transfers. In: Lee, S., et al. (eds.) GECCO (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amor, S., et al.: Encephalitogenic epitopes of myelin basic protein, proteolipid proteing, and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein for experimental allergic en-cephalomyelitis induction in Biozzi AB/H(H-2Ag 7) mice share an amino acid motif. J. Immunology 156, 3000–3008 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reich, E.P., et al.: Self peptides isolated from MHC glycoproteins of non-obese diabetic mice. J. Immunology 152, 2279–2288 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rammensee, H., et al.: SYFPEITHI:database for MHC ligands and peptide motifs. Immunogenetics 50, 213–219 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reizis, B., et al.: Molecular characterization of the diabetes mouse MHC class-II protein, IAg 7. Int. Immunology 9, 43–51 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrison, L.C., et al.: A peptide binding motif for I- Ag 7, the class II major jistocompatibility complex (MHC) molecule of NOD and Biozzi AB/H mice. J. Exp. Med. 185, 1013–1021 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Latek, R.R., et al.: Structural basis of peptide binding and presentation by the type I diabetes- associated MHC class II molecule of NOD mice. Immunity 12, 699–710 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gregori, S.: The motif for peptide binding to the insulin-dependent diabetes mellitusassociated class II MHC molecule I-Ag 7 validated by phage display library. Int. Immunology 12(4), 493–503 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Corper, A.L., et al.: A structural framework for deciphering the link between I-Ag 7 and autoimmune diabetes. Science 288, 505–511 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, B., et al.: Binding of conserved islet peptides by human and murine MHC class II molecules associated with susceptibility to type I diabetes. J. Immunology 30(9), 2497–2506Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suri, A., et al.: In APCs, the Autologous Peptides Selected by the Diabetogenic I-Ag 7 Molecule Are Unique and Determined by the Amino Acid Changes in the P9 Pocket. J. Immunol. 168(3), 1235–1243 (2002)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stratman, T., et al.: The I-Ag 7 MHC class II molecule linked to murine diabetes in a promiscuous peptide binder. J. Immunology 165, 3214–3225 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brusic, V.: An unpublished datasetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brusic, V., Rudy, G., Harrison, L.C.: MHCPEP, a database of MHC-binding peptides: update 1997. Nucleic Acids Res 26, 368–371 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bailey, T.L., Elkan, C.: The value of prior knowledge in discovering motifs with MEME. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol. Biol., vol. 3, pp. 21–29 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Péer, I., et al.: Proteomic Signatures:Amino Acid and Oligopeptide Compositions Differentiate Among Phyla. Proteins 54, 20–40 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Neuwald, A.F., et al.: Gibbs motif sampling: detection of bacterial outer membrane protein repeats. Protein Science 4, 1618–1632 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reche, P.A., et al.: Enhancement to the RANKPEP resource for the prediction of peptide binding to MHC molecules using profiles. Immunogenetics 56, 405–419 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coello, C.A.: An Updated Survey of Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Techniques: State of the Art and Future Trends. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 3–13. IEEE Service Center, Washington (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carraso-Marin, E., Kanagawa, O., Unanue, E.R.: The lack of consensus for I-Ag7-peptide binding motifs: Is there a requirement for anchor amino acid side chain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96, 8621–8626 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rajapakse, M., Wyse, L., Schmidt, B., Brusic, V.: Deriving Matrix of Peptide-MHC Interactions in Diabetic Mouse by Genetic Algorithm. In: Gallagher, M., Hogan, J.P., Maire, F. (eds.) IDEAL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3578, pp. 440–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Menaka Rajapakse
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bertil Schmidt
    • 2
  • Vladimir Brusic
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Infocomm ResearchSingapore
  2. 2.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore
  3. 3.Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, School of Land and Food Sciences and Institute for Molecular BioscienceUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations