* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Title goes here
Survey
Document related concepts
Immune system wikipedia , lookup
Complement system wikipedia , lookup
Adaptive immune system wikipedia , lookup
Monoclonal antibody wikipedia , lookup
Antimicrobial peptides wikipedia , lookup
Gluten immunochemistry wikipedia , lookup
DNA vaccination wikipedia , lookup
Duffy antigen system wikipedia , lookup
Human leukocyte antigen wikipedia , lookup
Major histocompatibility complex wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Class I pathway Prediction of proteasomal cleavage and TAP binidng Morten Nielsen, CBS, BioCentrum, DTU Outline • MHC class I epitopes – Antigen processing • Proteasome – Specificity and Polymorphism – Prediction methods • TAP – Binding motif • Evolution • Immune escape Peptide generation in the class I pathway Proteasomal cleavage • ~20% of all peptide bonds are cleaved • Average peptide length 8-9 amino acids • Not all peptide bonds are equally likely cleaved • Cleavage more likely after hydrophobic than after hydrophilic amino acids Proteasome specificity • Low polymorphism – Constitutive & Immunoproteasome • Evolutionary conserved • Stochastic and low specificity – Only 70-80% of the cleavage sites are reproduced in repeated experiments Proteasome evolution (b1 unit) Human (Hs) - Human Drosophila (Dm) - Fly Bos Taurus (Bota) - Cow Oncorhynchus mykiss (Om) - Fish … Constitutive Immuno- and Constitutive proteasome specificity Immuno Constitutive P1 P1’ ...LVGPTPVNIIGRNMLTQL.. Predicting proteasomal cleavage • NetChop – Neural network based method • PaProc – Weight matrix based method • FragPredict – Based on a statistical analysis of cleavagedetermining amino acid motifs present around the scissile bond • i.e. also weight matrix like NetChop 3.0 Cterm (MHC ligands) • NetChop-3.0 C-term – Trained on class I epitopes – Most epitopes are generated by the immuno proteasome – Predicts the immuno proteasome specificity LDFVRFMGVMSSCNNPA LVQEKYLEYRQVPDSDP RTQDENPVVHFFKNIVT TPLIPLTIFVGENTGVP LVPVEPDKVEEATEGEN YMLDLQPETTDLYCYEQ PVESMETTMRSPVFTDN ISEYRHYCYSLYGTTLE AAVDAGMAMAGQSPVLR QPKKVKRRLFETRELTD LGEFYNQMMVKAGLNDD GYGGRASDYKSAHKGLK KTKDIVNGLRSVQTFAD LVGFLLLKYRAREPVTK SVDPKNYPKKKMEKRFV SSSSTPLLYPSLALPAP FLYGALLLAEGFYTTGA NetChop20S-3.0 In vitro digest data from the constitutive proteasome Toes et al., J.exp.med. 2001 Prediction performance TP Sens AP TN Spec AN TP TN FN FP CC PP AN AP PN FP TP AP AN Sens Aroc=0.8 Aroc=0.5 1 - spec Predicting proteasomal cleavage NetChop20S-3.0 Sens Spec CC PCC Aroc NetChop-3.0 CC 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 Performance Performance 1 0.5 0 CC PCC Aroc PAProCI 0.12 0.1 Netchop20S 0.41 NetChop20S-3.0 0.48 0.13 0.56 0.48 0.82 0.55 0.85 tC Ne op 3.0 2.0 p ho tch Ne CI o Pr PA ct di re gP a Fr • Relative FragPredict poor predictive performance –For MHC prediction CC~0.92 and AUC~0.95 Proteasome specificity • NetChop is the best available cleavage method – www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetChop-3.0 What does TAP do? TAP affinity prediction • Transporter Associated with antigen Processing • Binds peptides 9-18 long • Binding determined mostly by N1-3 and C terminal amino acids TAP binding motif matrix A low matrix entry corresponds to an amino acid well suited for TAP binding Peters et el., 2003. JI, 171: 1741. TAP affinity prediction Predicting TAP affinity 9 meric peptides >9 meric ILRGTSFVYV -0.11 + 0.09 - 0.42 - 0.3 = -0.74 Peters et el., 2003. JI, 171: 1741. Proteasome, TAP and MHC co-evolution • Antigen processing and presentation is highly ineffective • Only 1 in 200 peptides will bind a given MHC complex • If proteasome and TAP do not effectively produce MHC restricted peptides, antigen processing would be a severe bottleneck for antigen recognition Co-evolution of Proteasome, TAP and MHC • CP-P1: Constitutive proteasome specificity at P1 position • TAP-9: TAP motif at P9 position • MHC-9: Average MHC motif at P9 Co-evolution of Proteasome, TAP and MHC • IP-P1: Immuno proteasome specificity at P1 position • CP-P1: Constitutive proteasome specificity at P1 position • TAP-9: TAP motif at P9 position • MHC-9: Average MHC motif at P9 Co-evolution (continued) Kesmir et al. Immunogenetics, 2003, 55:437 More evolution Constitutive proteasome!!! What is going on at the N terminal? Epitope identification TAP precursor A2 Epitope FLDGNEMTL FLDGNEMTL 2.0100 KFLDGNEMTL -2.5300 RKFLDGNEMTL -3.7400 TRKFLDGNEMTL -2.4400 Proteasomal cleavage STRKFLDGNEMTL... 0.0101 0.6483 0.9955 0.9984 0.4299 0.2261 0.0103 0.0265 0.0099 0.0099 0.9590 0.4670 0.9989 N terminal trimming >50% need 2-3 amino acids N terminal trimming TAP and proteasome independent presentation • CTL epitopes are presented • Other important players at the cell surface on TAP in the class I pathway deficient cell lines – Signal peptides •Some CTL epitopes have – Sec61 very poor TAP binding affinity – Diffusion • Dominate CTL epitopes can – Proteases have very poor C terminal • Mette will tell you more cleavage signal • Many CTL epitope have strong internal cleavage sites Immune escape • Pathogens evolve under strong selection pressure to avoid CTL recognition • Generate point mutations or insertions/deletions to disturb – Peptide binding to MHC – CTL recognition • Only involve the antigentic peptide region – Antigen processing • Can involve peptide flanking region Immune escape via antigen processing Moloney murine leukemia virus (MuLV) epitope SSWDFITV 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 S S W D F I T V N N S S N S S N S S 0.38 0.59 0.92 0.23 0.87 0.84 0.27 0.96 0.82 SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV Processed right and recognized by CTL 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 S S W D F I T V D N S S N S S N S S 0.38 0.59 0.92 0.23 0.87 0.83 0.13 0.92 0.97 SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV SSWDFITV Processed as SSWDFITVD and has wrong C terminal for MHC binding, not recognized by CTL Immune escape Proteasome-mediated digestion analysis of a synthetic 26mer peptide derived from the Friend sequence shows that cleavage takes place predominantly C-terminal of D, instead of V as is the case for the Moloney MuLV sequence. Therefore, the C terminus of the epitope is not properly generated. Epitope-containing peptide fragments extended with an additional C-terminal D are not efficiently translocated by TAP and do not show significant binding affinity to MHC class I-Kb molecules.. Beekmanet al., JI 2000 Summary • The most important players (MHC, TAP and proteasome) in the MHC class I pathway have co evolved to a share a common C terminal pathway specificity • Proteasomal cleavage prediction tools exist – NetChop3.0 and NetChop20S-3.0 are among the best • TAP binding motif characterized in a weight matrix – Binding mostly determined by the N1-3 and C terminal amino acids • Proteasome produces and TAP transports precursor T cell epitopes of length 9-13 amino acids • Epitope trimming in the ER by several amino peptidases (ERAP) • We still do not understand every thing – Many more important players are involved in the class I path way