Jul 2026· Journal of Immunology· Vol 215· 0 citations
TL;DR
The data input process is detailed with a focus on the manual curation efforts of the expert curation team, including the recent addition of CAR-T cell epitopes, updates to non-peptidic curation, and new quality-control processes for cell lines.
Abstract
The Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB, iedb.org) and its sibling resource, the Cancer Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (CEDAR, cedar.iedb.org), are platforms created and maintained for the benefit of the scientific community, allowing open access to organized epitope data that is then utilized to power the associated epitope prediction tools.
The foundation of the curation process is in staying current with published research literature, our primary source of epitope data, and in structuring the data according to associated data ontologies. The process for inputting data includes identification, categorization, curation, peer review, and systemic quality control and validation steps.
The curation process results in databases that reflect the epitope literature in the areas of infectious disease, autoimmunity, allergy, transplantation, and cancer. Here, we detail the data input process with a focus on the manual curation efforts of the expert curation team, including the recent addition of CAR-T cell epitopes, updates to non-peptidic curation, and new quality-control processes for cell lines.
These improvements help ensure end-users are getting the greatest benefit possible from the IEDB and CEDAR.
NIH/NIAID (75N93019C00001), and NIH/NCI (U24CA248138)
Technological Innovations in Immunology (TECH)
Background: Modern proteomics faces a critical bottleneck: the vast discrepancy between the number of genes in the human genome and the exponentially greater variety of functional proteoforms that actually drive biological processes. Methods: Our paper addresses the urgent need for high-resolution systematic mapping of...
Stanislav Naryzhny, Nikolay V. Klopov, N. Ronzhina et al.· Proteomes· 0 citations
Biological knowledgebases traditionally rely on expert, professional curation of the research literature to maintain up-to-date collections of data organized in machine-readable form. However, despite the increasing amount of curatable biomedical knowledge, support for knowledgebases is declining, leaving these resourc...
Daniela Raciti, S. Coort, Christian A. Grove et al.· 0 citations
MaRDMO is a plugin for the Research Data Management Organiser (RDMO) that enables the structured, FAIR‐compliant documentation, and discovery of mathematical research data. By embedding mathematics‐specific questionnaires into a widely used data management plan (DMP) tool, MaRDMO lowers the technical barrier to contr...
M. Reidelbach, Marcus Weber· Proceedings in Applied Mathe...· 1 citation
KRAKEN (Knowledge Research & Analysis Kit for Evidence Networks) addresses this gap by integrating existing graphs with specialized sources such as RefMet, LIPID MAPS, NIH Common Data Elements, Polygenic Score Catalog, and derived wellness measures including biological age and biological BMI.
Amy K. Glen, D. Witherington, Trent Leslie et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
This work compares the respective capabilities of domain experts and of an Large Language Model (LLM) agent to generate useful domain-specific annotations for classifying, indexing, and searching scientific resources, and shows the complementarity between domain experts and LLMs.
Ulysse Le Clanche, Melvin Selim Atay, Elise Bannier et al.· 0 citations
The biomedical literature contains a vast collection of omics studies, yet most published data remain functionally inaccessible for computational reuse. When raw data are deposited in public repositories, essential information for reproducing reported results is dispersed across main text, supplementary files, and code...
Alexandre Hutton, Jesse G. Meyer· PLoS Computational Biology· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.