Computational immunology in venom research: a systematic review of epitope prediction and validation approaches.

IF 7.7 2区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Razana Zegrari, Abderrahim Ait Ouchaoui, Zainab Gaouzi, Hanane Abbou, Rihab Festali, Rachid Eljaoudi, Saber Boutayeb, Lahcen Belyamani, Ilhame Bourais
{"title":"Computational immunology in venom research: a systematic review of epitope prediction and validation approaches.","authors":"Razana Zegrari, Abderrahim Ait Ouchaoui, Zainab Gaouzi, Hanane Abbou, Rihab Festali, Rachid Eljaoudi, Saber Boutayeb, Lahcen Belyamani, Ilhame Bourais","doi":"10.1093/bib/bbaf519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Venom-based therapies are hindered by traditional discovery methods that are costly and inconsistent. Immunoinformatics offers a faster route to identify immunogenic epitopes, yet its application to venom proteins remains limited. We conducted a systematic review under PRISMA-2020 guidelines to identify studies predicting venom toxin epitopes computationally and validating them experimentally. Risk of bias was evaluated using a custom 20-question checklist. Following our systematic search, 11 articles met inclusion criteria. Multitool prediction strategies consistently outperformed single-tool approaches, particularly when structural and sequence-based models were combined. Experimental validations confirmed immunogenicity through diverse assays, but reporting inconsistencies, limited negative data, and variable study designs impaired direct comparison. Toxin family and structural data availability emerged as key factors influencing prediction success. In silico epitope prediction, combined with experimental validation, holds strong promise for advancing venom research. Our systematic bias assessment underscores the critical need for standardized frameworks to evaluate dataset selection, algorithm parameters, and validation rigor in computational epitope discovery. Moreover, the field must urgently address data scarcity, standardize validation protocols, and expand venom-specific training datasets to fully realize the promise of immunoinformatics-driven discovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":9209,"journal":{"name":"Briefings in bioinformatics","volume":"26 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12494218/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Briefings in bioinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaf519","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Venom-based therapies are hindered by traditional discovery methods that are costly and inconsistent. Immunoinformatics offers a faster route to identify immunogenic epitopes, yet its application to venom proteins remains limited. We conducted a systematic review under PRISMA-2020 guidelines to identify studies predicting venom toxin epitopes computationally and validating them experimentally. Risk of bias was evaluated using a custom 20-question checklist. Following our systematic search, 11 articles met inclusion criteria. Multitool prediction strategies consistently outperformed single-tool approaches, particularly when structural and sequence-based models were combined. Experimental validations confirmed immunogenicity through diverse assays, but reporting inconsistencies, limited negative data, and variable study designs impaired direct comparison. Toxin family and structural data availability emerged as key factors influencing prediction success. In silico epitope prediction, combined with experimental validation, holds strong promise for advancing venom research. Our systematic bias assessment underscores the critical need for standardized frameworks to evaluate dataset selection, algorithm parameters, and validation rigor in computational epitope discovery. Moreover, the field must urgently address data scarcity, standardize validation protocols, and expand venom-specific training datasets to fully realize the promise of immunoinformatics-driven discovery.

计算免疫学在毒液研究:表位预测和验证方法的系统回顾。
基于毒液的疗法受到传统发现方法的阻碍,这些方法既昂贵又不一致。免疫信息学为鉴定免疫原性表位提供了更快的途径,但其在毒液蛋白中的应用仍然有限。我们根据PRISMA-2020指南进行了系统回顾,以确定计算预测毒液毒素表位的研究并通过实验验证它们。使用自定义的20个问题清单评估偏倚风险。根据我们的系统检索,11篇文章符合纳入标准。多工具预测策略始终优于单工具方法,特别是当结构模型和基于序列的模型相结合时。实验验证通过不同的分析证实了免疫原性,但报告的不一致性、有限的阴性数据和可变的研究设计损害了直接比较。毒素家族和结构数据的可用性成为影响预测成功的关键因素。计算机表位预测与实验验证相结合,为推进毒液研究提供了强有力的希望。我们的系统性偏倚评估强调了对标准化框架的迫切需求,以评估计算表位发现中的数据集选择、算法参数和验证严谨性。此外,该领域必须紧急解决数据短缺问题,标准化验证协议,并扩展毒液特异性训练数据集,以充分实现免疫信息学驱动发现的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Briefings in bioinformatics
Briefings in bioinformatics 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
13.70%
发文量
549
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Briefings in Bioinformatics is an international journal serving as a platform for researchers and educators in the life sciences. It also appeals to mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientists applying their expertise to biological challenges. The journal focuses on reviews tailored for users of databases and analytical tools in contemporary genetics, molecular and systems biology. It stands out by offering practical assistance and guidance to non-specialists in computerized methodologies. Covering a wide range from introductory concepts to specific protocols and analyses, the papers address bacterial, plant, fungal, animal, and human data. The journal's detailed subject areas include genetic studies of phenotypes and genotypes, mapping, DNA sequencing, expression profiling, gene expression studies, microarrays, alignment methods, protein profiles and HMMs, lipids, metabolic and signaling pathways, structure determination and function prediction, phylogenetic studies, and education and training.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信