↓ Skip to main content

In silico-guided sequence modifications of K-ras epitopes improve immunological outcome against G12V and G13D mutant KRAS antigens

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
9 patents

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In silico-guided sequence modifications of K-ras epitopes improve immunological outcome against G12V and G13D mutant KRAS antigens
Published in
PeerJ, July 2018
DOI 10.7717/peerj.5056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allan Wee Ren Ng, Pei Jun Tan, Winfrey Pui Yee Hoo, Dek Shen Liew, Michelle Yee Mun Teo, Pui Yan Siak, Sze Man Ng, Ee Wern Tan, Raha Abdul Rahim, Renee Lay Hong Lim, Adelene Ai Lian Song, Lionel Lian Aun In

Abstract

Somatic point substitution mutations in the KRAS proto-oncogene primarily affect codons 12/13 where glycine is converted into other amino acids, and are highly prevalent in pancreatic, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers. These cohorts are non-responsive to anti-EGFR treatments, and are left with non-specific chemotherapy regimens as their sole treatment options. In the past, the development of peptide vaccines for cancer treatment was reported to have poor AT properties when inducing immune responses. Utilization of bioinformatics tools have since become an interesting approach in improving the design of peptide vaccines based on T- and B-cell epitope predictions. In this study, the region spanning exon 2 from the 4th to 18th codon within the peptide sequence of wtKRAS was chosen for sequence manipulation. Mutated G12V and G13D K-ras controls were generated in silico, along with additional single amino acid substitutions flanking the original codon 12/13 mutations. IEDB was used for assessing human and mouse MHC class I/II epitope predictions, as well as linear B-cell epitopes predictions, while RNA secondary structure prediction was performed via CENTROIDFOLD. A scoring and ranking system was established in order to shortlist top mimotopes whereby normalized and reducing weighted scores were assigned to peptide sequences based on seven immunological parameters. Among the top 20 ranked peptide sequences, peptides of three mimotopes were synthesized and subjected to in vitro and in vivo immunoassays. Mice PBMCs were treated in vitro and subjected to cytokine assessment using CBA assay. Thereafter, mice were immunized and sera were subjected to IgG-based ELISA. In silico immunogenicity prediction using IEDB tools shortlisted one G12V mimotope (68-V) and two G13D mimotopes (164-D, 224-D) from a total of 1,680 candidates. Shortlisted mimotopes were predicted to promote high MHC-II and -I affinities with optimized B-cell epitopes. CBA assay indicated that: 224-D induced secretions of IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, IL-12p70, and IL-21; 164-D triggered IL-10 and TNF-α; while 68-V showed no immunological responses. Specific-IgG sera titers against mutated K-ras antigens from 164-D immunized Balb/c mice were also elevated post first and second boosters compared to wild-type and G12/G13 controls. In silico-guided predictions of mutated K-ras T- and B-cell epitopes were successful in identifying two immunogens with high predictive scores, Th-bias cytokine induction and IgG-specific stimulation. Developments of such immunogens are potentially useful for future immunotherapeutic and diagnostic applications against KRAS(+) malignancies, monoclonal antibody production, and various other research and development initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Chemistry 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,297,233
of 23,880,375 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#4,062
of 14,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,724
of 331,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#197
of 592 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,880,375 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 592 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.