Sign in
ImmunologybioRxiv

CD4+ T-cell epitope prediction by combined analysis of antigen conformational flexibility and peptide-MHCII binding affinity

T. P. Charles, D. L. Moss, P. Bhat, P. W. Moore, K. A. Nicholas, A. Bhattacharya, R. R. Mettu, S. J. Landry

Abstract

Antigen processing in the class II MHC pathway depends on conventional proteolytic enzymes, potentially acting on antigens in native-like conformational states. CD4+ epitope dominance arises from a competition between antigen folding, proteolysis, and MHCII binding. Protease-sensitive sites, linear antibody epitopes, and CD4+ T-cell epitopes were mapped in the plague vaccine candidate F1-V to evaluate the various contributions to CD4+ epitope dominance. Using X-ray crystal structures, antigen processing likelihood (APL) predicts CD4+ epitopes with significant accuracy without considering peptide-MHCII binding affinity. The profiles of conformational flexibility derived from the X-ray crystal structures of the F1-V proteins, Caf1 and LcrV, were similar to the biochemical profiles of linear antibody epitope reactivity and protease-sensitivity, suggesting that the role of structure in proteolysis was captured by the analysis of the crystal structures. The patterns of CD4+ T-cell epitope dominance in C57BL/6, CBA, and BALB/c mice were compared to epitope predictions based on APL, peptide binding to MHCII proteins, or both. For a sample of 13 diverse antigens larger than 200 residues, accuracy of epitope prediction by the combination of APL and I-Ab-MHCII-peptide affinity approached 40%. When MHCII allele specificity is also diverse, such as in human immunity, prediction of dominant epitopes by APL alone approached 40%. Since dominant CD4+ epitopes tend to occur in conformationally stable antigen domains, crystal structures typically are available for analysis by APL; and thus, the requirement for a crystal structure is not a severe limitation.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.