4.7 Article

Engineering HIV envelope protein to activate germline B cell receptors of broadly neutralizing anti-CD4 binding site antibodies

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 210, 期 4, 页码 655-663

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20122824

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/HIV Vaccine Research and Design grant [P01AI081625, R56 AI047708]
  2. J.B Pendleton Charitable Trust
  3. University of Washington Center for AIDS Research, an NIH [P30 AI027757]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation [PBBSP3 144245]
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PBBSP3_144245] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) against HIV are believed to be a critical component of the protective responses elicited by an effective HIV vaccine. Neutralizing antibodies against the evolutionarily conserved CD4-binding site (CD4-BS) on the HIV envelope glycoprotein (Env) are capable of inhibiting infection of diverse HIV strains, and have been isolated from HIV-infected individuals. Despite the presence of anti-CD4-BS broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) epitopes on recombinant Env, Env immunization has so far failed to elicit such antibodies. Here, we show that Env immunogens fail to engage the germline-reverted forms of known bnAbs that target the CD4-BS. However, we found that the elimination of a conserved glycosylation site located in Loop D and two glycosylation sites located in variable region 5 of Env allows Env-binding to, and activation of, B cells expressing the germline-reverted BCRs of two potent broadly neutralizing antibodies, VRC01 and NIH45-46. Our results offer a possible explanation as to why Env immunogens have been ineffective in stimulating the production of such bNAbs. Importantly, they provide key information as to how such immunogens can be engineered to initiate the process of antibody-affinity maturation against one of the most conserved Env regions.

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

4.7
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