Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Predict TCR-epitope specificity using ERGO-II and deep learning models for T-cell receptor antigen recognition. Match TCRs to their cognate epitopes or predict TCR targets. Use when analyzing TCR repertoire specificity or identifying antigen-reactive T-cells.
.claude/skills/bio-immunoinformatics-tcr-epitope-binding/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Reference examples tested with: MiXCR 4.6+, numpy 1.26+, pandas 2.2+, scikit-learn 1.4+, scipy 1.12+
Before using code patterns, verify installed versions match. If versions differ:
pip show <package> then help(module.function) to check signaturesIf code throws ImportError, AttributeError, or TypeError, introspect the installed package and adapt the example to match the actual API rather than retrying.
"Predict which epitopes my TCRs recognize" → Match T-cell receptors to their cognate epitopes using deep learning models for TCR antigen specificity prediction.
python# ERGO-II uses deep learning to predict TCR-epitope binding # GitHub: https://github.com/IdoSpringer/ERGO-II def setup_ergo(): '''Setup ERGO-II for TCR-epitope prediction Requirements: - PyTorch - Pre-trained models from ERGO-II repository ERGO-II features: - Uses both CDR3 alpha and beta chains - Incorporates MHC context - Trained on VDJdb and IEDB data ''' print('ERGO-II setup:') print('1. Clone: git clone https://github.com/IdoSpringer/ERGO-II') print('2. Install: pip install torch pandas scikit-learn') print('3. Download models from repository')
pythondef parse_tcr_data(tcr_file): '''Parse TCR sequence data Required columns: - cdr3_beta: CDR3 beta chain sequence (most informative) - cdr3_alpha: CDR3 alpha chain (optional, improves accuracy) - v_beta: V gene usage (optional) - j_beta: J gene usage (optional) CDR3 is the primary determinant of antigen specificity. Alpha chain provides ~20% additional specificity. ''' import pandas as pd df = pd.read_csv(tcr_file, sep='\t') # Validate CDR3 sequences valid_aa = set('ACDEFGHIKLMNPQRSTVWY') def is_valid_cdr3(seq): if pd.isna(seq): return False return all(aa in valid_aa for aa in seq.upper()) df['valid_beta'] = df['cdr3_beta'].apply(is_valid_cdr3) return df[df['valid_beta']]
pythondef predict_binding_simple(cdr3_beta, epitope): '''Simple TCR-epitope compatibility score This is a simplified heuristic. For accurate predictions, use ERGO-II or other deep learning models. Features considered: - CDR3 length compatibility - Amino acid composition - Hydrophobicity matching ''' # Length compatibility # TCRs recognizing similar epitopes often have similar CDR3 lengths optimal_length = len(epitope) + 5 # Rough heuristic length_score = 1 - abs(len(cdr3_beta) - optimal_length) / 10 # Charge complementarity positive = set('RKH') negative = set('DE') tcr_charge = sum(1 if aa in positive else -1 if aa in negative else 0 for aa in cdr3_beta) epitope_charge = sum(1 if aa in positive else -1 if aa in negative else 0 for aa in epitope) # Opposite charges suggest complementarity charge_score = 0.5 + (tcr_charge * -epitope_charge) / 20 return { 'cdr3_beta': cdr3_beta, 'epitope': epitope, 'length_score': max(0, min(1, length_score)), 'charge_score': max(0, min(1, charge_score)), 'combined': (length_score + charge_score) / 2 }
pythondef match_to_vdjdb(tcr_sequences, vdjdb_path='vdjdb.tsv'): '''Match TCRs to known epitopes in VDJdb VDJdb is a curated database of TCR-epitope pairs. Download from: https://vdjdb.cdr3.net/ Matching approaches: - Exact CDR3 match - Similar CDR3 (edit distance ≤1) - Cluster-based (group similar TCRs) ''' import pandas as pd from difflib import SequenceMatcher vdjdb = pd.read_csv(vdjdb_path, sep='\t') matches = [] for tcr in tcr_sequences: # Exact match exact = vdjdb[vdjdb['cdr3'] == tcr] if len(exact) > 0: matches.append({ 'query_tcr': tcr, 'match_type': 'exact', 'epitopes': exact['antigen.epitope'].tolist(), 'species': exact['antigen.species'].tolist() }) continue # Fuzzy match (1 mismatch) for _, row in vdjdb.iterrows(): similarity = SequenceMatcher(None, tcr, row['cdr3']).ratio() if similarity > 0.9: # >90% similar matches.append({ 'query_tcr': tcr, 'match_type': 'similar', 'similarity': similarity, 'db_tcr': row['cdr3'], 'epitope': row['antigen.epitope'], 'species': row['antigen.species'] }) return pd.DataFrame(matches)
Goal: Group TCRs that likely recognize the same epitope based on CDR3 sequence similarity, enabling specificity group discovery from large repertoire datasets.
Approach: Compute pairwise Levenshtein distances between CDR3 sequences, apply hierarchical clustering with average linkage, and cut the dendrogram at a maximum edit distance threshold to define specificity groups.
pythondef cluster_tcrs_by_specificity(tcr_sequences, method='levenshtein'): '''Cluster TCRs likely to share specificity TCRs recognizing the same epitope often have: - Similar CDR3 length - Shared motifs - Similar V gene usage Methods: - levenshtein: Edit distance clustering - tcrdist: TCRdist3 distance metric - deep: Deep learning embeddings ''' from scipy.cluster.hierarchy import linkage, fcluster from scipy.spatial.distance import pdist, squareform import numpy as np def levenshtein_distance(s1, s2): if len(s1) < len(s2): return levenshtein_distance(s2, s1) if len(s2) == 0: return len(s1) previous_row = range(len(s2) + 1) for i, c1 in enumerate(s1): current_row = [i + 1] for j, c2 in enumerate(s2): insertions = previous_row[j + 1] + 1 deletions = current_row[j] + 1 substitutions = previous_row[j] + (c1 != c2) current_row.append(min(insertions, deletions, substitutions)) previous_row = current_row return previous_row[-1] # Calculate pairwise distances n = len(tcr_sequences) distances = np.zeros((n, n)) for i in range(n): for j in range(i + 1, n): d = levenshtein_distance(tcr_sequences[i], tcr_sequences[j]) distances[i, j] = distances[j, i] = d # Cluster condensed = squareform(distances) Z = linkage(condensed, method='average') clusters = fcluster(Z, t=3, criterion='distance') # Max 3 edits return dict(zip(tcr_sequences, clusters))
pythondef analyze_repertoire_specificity(tcr_df, epitope_db): '''Analyze antigen specificity of TCR repertoire Reports: - Fraction matching known epitopes - Epitope diversity - Potential public TCRs (shared across individuals) ''' results = { 'total_tcrs': len(tcr_df), 'unique_cdr3': tcr_df['cdr3_beta'].nunique(), 'matched_epitopes': 0, 'epitope_distribution': {} } # Match to database matched = match_to_vdjdb(tcr_df['cdr3_beta'].unique(), epitope_db) if len(matched) > 0: results['matched_epitopes'] = len(matched['query_tcr'].unique()) results['epitope_distribution'] = matched['epitope'].value_counts().to_dict() return results
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.