4.3 Article

β-PrP fom of human prion protein stimulates production of monoclonal antibodies to epitope 91-110 that recognise native PrPsc

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2007.08.028

关键词

antibody; BSE; CJD; prion; PrP; scrapie

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U123192748, MC_U123170362, MC_U123160656] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U123170362, MC_U123160656] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_U123160656, MC_U123170362] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prion diseases are associated with accumulation of strain-dependent biochemically distinct, disease-related isoforms (PrP(sc)) of host-encoded prion protein (PrP(C)). PrP(sc) is characterised by increased 1 -sheet content, detergent insolubility and protease resistance. Recombinant alpha-PrP adopts a PrP(C)-like conformation, while beta-PrP conformationally resembles PrP(sc), to these we raised 81 monoclonal antibodies in Prnp(0/0) mice. The N-terminal residues 91-110 are highly immunogenic in beta-PrP-immunised mice and of (17/41) anti-beta-PrP antibodies that could be epitope-mapped, similar to 70%, recognised this segment. In contrast, only 3/40 anti-alpha-PrP antibodies could be mapped and none interacted with this region, instead recognising residues 131-150, 141-160 and 171-190. Native PrP(C) was recognised by both antibody groups, but only ami-beta-PrP antibodies directed to 91 -110 residues recognised native PrP(sc) with high affinity, where in addition, species heterogeneity was also evident. Within the six anti-beta-PrP antibodies studied, they all recognised PK-treated native human and mouse PrP(sc), four failed to recognise PK-treated native bovine PrP(sc), one of which also did not recognise native PK-treated ovine PrP(sc), showing the epitope becomes exposed on unfolding and disaggregation. These results demonstrate strain-dependent variations in chain conformation and packing within the 91-110 region of PrP(sc). (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.3
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