Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026

Semi-automated Biopanning of Bacterial Display Libraries for Peptide Affinity Reagent Discovery and Analysis of Resulting Isolates
Published on: December 6, 2017
Benchmarking sequence-based and AlphaFold-based methods for pMHC-II binding core prediction: distinct strengths and
Soobon Ko1, Honglan Li2, Hongeun Kim2,3
1Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Jeollanam-Do, 58128, Republic of Korea.
Predicting peptide-MHC class II (pMHC-II) binding cores is crucial for understanding immune responses. AlphaFold-based structure prediction excels at identifying binders, while sequence-based methods like NetMHCIIpan are better at identifying non-binders, offering complementary strengths.
Area of Science:
- Immunology
- Computational Biology
- Structural Biology
Background:
- Peptide-MHC class II (pMHC-II) interactions are vital for T-cell recognition and distinguishing self from non-self antigens.
- Accurate prediction of the pMHC-II binding core is essential for understanding T-cell receptor engagement and immune responses.
- High MHC-II polymorphism and peptide promiscuity necessitate computational methods for predicting pMHC-II interactions, with recent advances in AlphaFold-based structure prediction offering new avenues.
Purpose of the Study:
- To benchmark sequence-based and AlphaFold-based structure prediction methods for pMHC-II binding core prediction.
- To evaluate the performance of AlphaFold2 fine-tuned (AF-FT) and AlphaFold3 (AF3) against NetMHCIIpan-4.3 and DeepMHCII.
- To develop consensus strategies integrating sequence- and structure-based models for improved pMHC-II binding prediction.
Main Methods:
- A non-redundant dataset of 72 pMHC-II complexes was curated from the IMGT database, including negative controls.
- Performance evaluation of NetMHCIIpan-4.3, DeepMHCII, AF-FT, and AF3 using precision, recall, and F1 score.
- Development of consensus strategies combining AlphaFold-based and sequence-based models for predicting pMHC-II binding status.
Main Results:
- AlphaFold-based methods (AF3 and AF2-FT) demonstrated high recall for positive binders but frequently misclassified unbound peptides.
- NetMHCIIpan achieved the highest negative recall for non-binders but had lower positive recall.
- Consensus approaches combining AlphaFold-based binder prediction with NetMHCIIpan filtering significantly improved overall prediction precision.
Conclusions:
- AlphaFold-based and sequence-based methods possess complementary strengths for pMHC-II binding core prediction.
- AlphaFold-based methods excel at identifying positive binders, whereas NetMHCIIpan is superior for identifying non-binders.
- Future efforts should focus on enhancing AlphaFold-based models' prediction of unbound peptides and improving NetMHCIIpan's binding prediction accuracy.
Related Concept Videos
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally analyses the...
Maxam-Gilbert Sequencing
Challenges of the Maxam-Gilbert Method
The...
The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength

