4.7 Article

HLA-B*1502-bound peptides: Implications for the pathogenesis of carbamazepine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 120, 期 4, 页码 870-877

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.06.017

关键词

adverse drug reactions; carbamazepine; drug antigen; epitope peptide; HLA-B; Stevens-Johnson syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) can involve MHC-restricted presentation of a drug or its metabolites for T-cell activation. HLA-B*1502 tightly associated with carbamazepine (CBZ) induced these conditions in a Han Chinese population. Objective: We sought to identify HLA-B*1502-bound peptides that might be involved in CBZ-induced SJS/TEN. Methods: Soluble HLA-B*1502 was used to identify bound peptides in the presence and absence of CBZ by using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Peptide-binding assays were performed to detect the specific interaction between the HLA molecule and the identified peptides. Mass spectra were compared to detect CBZ-modified peptides. Results: We identified more than 145 peptides bound to HLA. B*1502. In 13 of 15 peptides examined, we functionally confirmed their specificity with binding assays. Preferable uses of these peptides at the anchoring residues P2 and P9 were similar to those observed in other HLA-B alleles in the Han Chinese population. However, the preferable use of serine residues at the nonanchoring position (P) 5, P6, P7, and P8 appeared to be unique for the B*1502 peptides. No specific CBZ-modified peptides were detected when we compared the mass spectra of peptides detected in the presence or absence of the drug. Conclusion: Noncovalent interaction between a drug and an HLA complex might contribute to cytotoxic T cell-mediated cell death in patients with SJS/TEN. Clinical implications: An understanding of pharmacologic interaction of drugs with an HLA complex might lead to safer drugs that avoid SJS/TEN.

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