4.6 Article

Dynamics of Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Association with the Human Peptide-loading Complex

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 287, 期 37, 页码 31172-31184

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.387704

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI083025, GM065367, T32AI07019]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  3. Cancer Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the human peptide-loading complex (PLC) is required for optimal major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC I) antigen presentation, its composition is still incompletely understood. The ratio of the transporter associated with antigen processing (TAP) and MHC I to tapasin, which is responsible for MHCI recruitment and peptide binding optimization, is particularly critical for modeling of the PLC. Here, we characterized the stoichiometry of the human PLC using both biophysical and biochemical approaches. By means of single-molecule pulldown (SiMPull), we determined a TAP/tapasin ratio of 1: 2, consistent with previous studies of insect-cell microsomes, rat-human chimeric cells, and HeLa cells expressing truncated TAP subunits. We also report that the tapasin/MHC I ratio varies, with the PLC population comprising both 2: 1 and 2: 2 complexes, based on mutational and co-precipitation studies. The MHC I-saturated PLC may be particularly prevalent among peptide-selective alleles, such as HLA-C4. Additionally, MHC I association with the PLC increases when its peptide supply is reduced by inhibiting the proteasome or by blocking TAP-mediated peptide transport using viral inhibitors. Taken together, our results indicate that the composition of the human PLC varies under normal conditions and dynamically adapts to alterations in peptide supply that may arise during viral infection. These findings improve our understanding of the quality control of MHC I peptide loading and may aid the structural and functional modeling of the human PLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据