Class I pathway Prediction of proteasomal cleavage and TAP binidng
-
Upload
ashton-reeves -
Category
Documents
-
view
22 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Class I pathway Prediction of proteasomal cleavage and TAP binidng
Class I pathwayPrediction of proteasomal cleavage and
TAP binidng
Can Keşmir,TBB, Utrecht University, NL &
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 & Immuno-
proteasome
• Evolutionary conserved• Stochastic and low specificity
– Only 70-80% of the cleavage sites are reproduced in repeated experiments
Proteasome evolution (1 unit)
Constitutive
Immuno
Human (Hs) - HumanDrosophila (Dm) - Fly
Bos Taurus (Bota) - CowOncorhynchus mykiss (Om) - Fish
…
Immuno- and Constitutive proteasome specificity
...LVGPTPVNIIGRNMLTQL..
P1 P1’
Immuno Constitutive
• NetChop– Neural network based method
• PaProc– Partially non-linear method (a neural
network without hidden neurons????)• SMM (stabilized matrix method)• FragPredict
– Based on a statistical analysis of cleavage-determining amino acid motifs present around the scissile bond (i.e. also weight matrix like)
Predicting proteasomal cleavage
NetChop20S-3.0In vitro digest data from the constitutive proteasome
Toes et al., J.exp.med. 2001
NetChop 3.0 Cterm (MHC ligands)
LDFVRFMGVMSSCNNPA LVQEKYLEYRQVPDSDP RTQDENPVVHFFKNIVT TPLIPLTIFVGENTGVP LVPVEPDKVEEATEGEN YMLDLQPETTDLYCYEQ PVESMETTMRSPVFTDN ISEYRHYCYSLYGTTLE AAVDAGMAMAGQSPVLR QPKKVKRRLFETRELTD LGEFYNQMMVKAGLNDD GYGGRASDYKSAHKGLK KTKDIVNGLRSVQTFAD LVGFLLLKYRAREPVTK SVDPKNYPKKKMEKRFV SSSSTPLLYPSLALPAP FLYGALLLAEGFYTTGA
• NetChop-3.0 C-term– Trained on class I
epitopes– Most epitopes are
generated by the immunoproteasome
– Predicts the processing specificity
Prediction performance
SensTPAP
Spec TN
AN
CC TP TN FN FPPPAN APPN
TPFP
APAN
Aroc=0.5
Aroc=0.8
1 - spec
Sen
s
Predicting proteasomal cleavage
-0.4-0.2
00.20.40.60.8
1
Per
form
ance
Sens Spec CC
0
0.5
1
Perf
orm
an
ce
CC PCC Aroc
CC 0.12 0.1 0.41 0.48
PCC 0.13 0.48 0.55
Aroc 0.56 0.82 0.85
FragPredict PAProCI Netchop20S NetChop20S-3.0
NetChop-3.0
NetChop20S--3.0
• Relative poor predictive performance–For MHC prediction CC~0.92 and AUC~0.95
Proteasome specificity
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
Peters et el., 2003. JI, 171: 1741.
A low matrix entry corresponds to an amino acid well suited for TAP binding
Predicting TAP affinity
9 meric peptides >9 meric
Peters et el., 2003. JI, 171: 1741.
ILRGTSFVYV-0.11 + 0.09 - 0.42 - 0.3 = -0.74
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
What is going on at the N terminal?
S T R K F L D G N E M T L . . .
Epitope identification
TAP precursor A2 Epitope FLDGNEMTL
FLDGNEMTL 2.0100 KFLDGNEMTL -2.5300
RKFLDGNEMTL -3.7400 TRKFLDGNEMTL -2.4400
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
Proteasomal cleavage
N terminal trimming
>50% need 2-3 amino acids N terminal trimming
TAP and proteasome independent presentation
• CTL epitopes are presented at the cell surface on TAP deficient cell lines•Some CTL epitopes have very poor TAP binding affinity• Dominant CTL epitopes can have very poor C terminal cleavage signal • Many CTL epitope have strong internal cleavage sites
• Other important players in the class I pathway
– Signal peptides– Sec61– Diffusion– Proteases
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 processingHIV-1 Nef epitope VPLRPMTY (Milicic et al. JI, 2005, 4618)
IP
IP
CP
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
• We can predict (up to a degree) proteasomal cleavage • 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 8-13 amino acids
• Epitope trimming in the ER by several amino peptidases (ERAP)
• We still do not understand everything– Many more important players are involved in the class I path way