The authors would like to acknowledge that the figure listings in the following paragraph were incorrect. It should read as:
Each defined term of scoring functions was analysed with the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) (Fig. 4a). The scoring function integrates the interface of binding forces (Evdw + ESF), amino acid conservation (Econs) and template similarity (Esim). The Econs and Esim have similar trends in their receiver operating characteristics curve, which is better than the dissimilar one for Evdw + ESF. These results reveal that the conserved amino acid position and the similarity between template and candidate proteins are perhaps more constant than binding forces, in particular for the peptide–MHC interface (Fig. 4a). The scoring function has the more constant prediction rate on the binding of peptides to MHC class I molecules than that to the TCR interface alone as far as the difference of analysis curves is concerned (Fig. 4b). Thus, to consider the template of MHC–peptide–TCR complexes as the whole structure with more than one interface, template similarity and binding forces are able to restore the predictability of scoring function without limitation from the biased number of conserved amino acid positions for MHC–peptide–TCR complexes (Table 3; Fig. 5).