In this report, we applied NNAlign to peptide–MHC class II binding data for five HLA-DP and six HLA-DQ molecules to characterize their specificities and binding motifs. The binding data were obtained from the publication by Wang et al.7 They comprise a total of 17 092 measured peptide–MHC affinities, with an average of over 1500 measurements per allelic variant. Each data set was split in five random subsets and, each time excluding PF-01367338 chemical structure one subset, a network was trained on the remaining four subsets. We set the motif length to nine amino acids, and for all the remaining parameters we used the default values of the NNAlign web server: sequences were presented to the networks using Blosum encoding,13

hidden layers were composed of three neurons, training lasted 500 iterations per training example, starting from five different initial configurations for each cross-validation

Proteasomal inhibitors fold, subsets for cross-validation were created using a homology clustering at 80% to reduce similarity between subsets, using the best four networks for each cross-validation step. The resulting 20 networks in each ensemble, trained on different subsets of the data and from alternative initial conditions, capture motifs that can be different from each other to some extent. They often place the alignment core in a different register, and might disagree on the exact boundaries of the motif. The offset correction algorithm described by Andreatta et al.12 proved extremely efficient in correcting for this disagreement, allowing re-alignment of different networks to a common core. This alignment procedure creates a position-specific scoring matrix (PSSM) representation of the motif of

each network, and then aligns the matrices to maximize the information content of the combined core. We used a slightly modified version of the algorithm described in detail in a previous publication,12 where PSSMs are extended at both ends with background frequencies before alignment, so allowing the PSSMs to be aligned on a window Selleckchem Nutlin3 of the same length as the matrices. This process assigns to each PSSM, and its relative network, an offset value that quantifies the shift distance from other networks. Note that the alignment procedure does not guarantee that the final combined register corresponds to the biologically correct register (in the case of peptide–MHC binding, the nine-amino-acid stretch bound in the MHC binding cleft), but rather to the window with the maximum information content. In most of the cases informative positions are also biologically important positions, so the core register would be in the correct place. However, if either terminal of the core has very weak information content (i.e. no particular amino acid preference at terminal positions), the sequences might possibly, although aligned correctly, all be shifted by one or more positions with respect to the biologically correct core register.