Table 1.
Viral antigen | |||
---|---|---|---|
In silico softwares | fi | fi/N × 100 | |
MHC-I epitope binding prediction (total articles = 28)a |
NetCTL IEDB ProPred-I SYFPEITHI NetMHCpan BIMAS CTLpred RANKPEP nHLAPred MHCpred |
10 10 9 9 5 5 3 2 2 1 |
35.71 35.71 32.14 32.14 17.85 17.85 10.71 7.14 7.14 3.57 |
MHC-II epitope binding prediction (total articles = 20)b |
IEDB Propred-II NetMHCII SYFPEITHI MHCpred PREDIVAC MetaMHCII MetaSVMP RANKPEP BIMAS |
8 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 |
40 30 20 15 10 5 5 5 5 5 |
Discontinuous B-cell epitope prediction (total articles = 6)c |
Discotope ElliPro |
4 4 |
66.6 66.6 |
Continuous B-cell epitope prediction (total articles = 21)d |
Bepipred BCpred IEDB ABCpred Ellipro LBtope |
16 5 1 1 1 1 |
76.19 23.8 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.76 |
References (total articles = 38) | Raoufi et al. (2015), Oany et al. (2014, 2015) Zheng et al. (2017), Alam et al. (2016), Mohammed et al. (2017), Dash et al. (2017), Negahdaripour et al. (2018), Saha et al. (2017), Osman et al. (2016), Badawi et al. (2016), Manijeh et al. (2013), Shi et al. (2015a, b), Farhadi et al. (2015), Yang et al. (2015), Sakib et al. (2014), Shehzadi et al. (2012), Verma et al. (2015), Kamthania and Sharma (2015), Huang et al. (2015), Ali and Islam (2015), Khan et al. (2015), Sundar et al. (2007), Wu et al. (2012), Dutta et al. (2015), Chakraborty (2014), Hemmati et al. (2017), Singh et al. (2013), Kumar et al. (2013), Shekhar et al. (2012), Saraswat et al. (2012), Sharmin and Islam (2014), Hasan et al. (2013), Ali et al. (2017) and Mirza et al. (2016) |
Their related web tools have been shown in the second column. In the third and fourth column, the frequency and percentage of the regularity of each web tool in articles are shown
aTwenty-eight cases of 50 articles was studied for prediction of MHC class I epitopes
bTwenty cases of 50 articles were studied for prediction of MHC class II epitopes
cSix articles were studied on discontinuous B-cell epitope prediction
dTwenty-one articles were studied continuous B-cell epitope prediction