4.5 Article

Proteasome isoforms exhibit only quantitative differences in cleavage and epitope generation

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 12, Pages 3508-3521

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eji.201444902

Keywords

Antigen presentation; Immunoproteasome; MHC class I restricted epitopes; Proteasome; Proteolysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB 740, SFBTR43, DFG VO 1602/2-1, SFBTR 19 B3]
  2. BIH [CRG1-TP1]
  3. National Center for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) through a David Sainsbury Fellowship
  4. BBSRC
  5. Leverhulme Trust
  6. Royal Society
  7. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) [NC/K001949/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunoproteasomes are considered to be optimised to process Ags and to alter the peptide repertoire by generating a qualitatively different set of MHC class I epitopes. Whether the immunoproteasome at the biochemical level, influence the quality rather than the quantity of the immuno-genic peptide pool is still unclear. Here, we quantified the cleavage-site usage by human standard-and immunoproteasomes, and proteasomes from immuno-subunit-deficient mice, as well as the peptides generated from model polypeptides. We show in this study that the different proteasome isoforms can exert significant quantitative differences in the cleavage-site usage and MHC class I restricted epitope production. However, independent of the proteasome isoform and substrates studied, no evidence was obtained for the abolishment of the specific cleavage-site usage, or for differences in the quality of the peptides generated. Thus, we conclude that the observed differences in MHC class I restricted Ag presentation between standard- and immunoproteasomes are due to quantitative differences in the proteasome-generated antigenic peptides.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available