4.7 Review

Non-Genetically Encoded Epitopes Are Relevant Targets in Autoimmune Diabetes

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9020202

关键词

type 1 diabetes; neo-antigen; post-translational modification; T cell; selection

资金

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation [1-SRA-2020-978-S-B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Islet antigen reactive T cells are crucial in promoting beta cell destruction in type 1 diabetes. New classes of non-genetically encoded epitopes may play a significant role in the progression of islet autoimmunity.
Islet antigen reactive T cells play a key role in promoting beta cell destruction in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Self-reactive T cells are typically deleted through negative selection in the thymus or deviated to a regulatory phenotype. Nevertheless, those processes are imperfect such that even healthy individuals have a reservoir of potentially autoreactive T cells. What remains less clear is how tolerance is lost to insulin and other beta cell specific antigens. Islet autoantibodies, the best predictor of disease risk, are known to recognize classical antigens such as proinsulin, GAD65, IA-2, and ZnT8. These antibodies are thought to be supported by the expansion of autoreactive CDC+ T cells that recognize these same antigenic targets. However, recent studies have identified new classes of nongenetically encoded epitopes that may reflect crucial gaps in central and peripheral tolerance. Notably, some of these specificities, including epitopes from enzymatically post-translationally modified antigens and hybrid insulin peptides, are present at relatively high frequencies in the peripheral blood of patients with T1D. We conclude that CD4(+) T cells that recognize non-genetically encoded epitopes are likely to make an important contribution to the progression of islet autoimmunity in T1D. We further propose that these classes of neo-epitopes should be considered as possible targets for strategies to induce antigen specific tolerance.

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