4.6 Article

The study of high-affinity TCRs reveals duality in T cell recognition of antigen: Specificity and degeneracy

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 177, 期 10, 页码 6911-6919

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.10.6911

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI61173, AI24157] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM55767] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TCRs exhibit a high degree of Ag specificity, even though their affinity for the peptide/MHC ligand is in the micromolar range. To explore how Ag specificity is achieved, we studied murine T cells expressing high-affinity TCRs engineered by in vitro evolution for binding to hemoglobin peptide/class II complex (Hb/1-E-k). These TCRs were shown previously to maintain Ag specificity, despite having up to 800-fold higher affinity. We compared the response of the high-affinity TCRs and the low-affinity 3.L2 TCR toward a comprehensive set of peptides containing single substitutions at each TCR contact residue. This specificity analysis revealed that the increase in affinity resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of stimulatory peptides. The apparent discrepancy between observed degeneracy in the recognition of single amino acid-substituted Hb peptides and overall Ag specificity of the high-affinity TCRs was examined by generating chimeric peptides between the stimulatory Hb and nonstimulatory moth cytochrome c peptides. These experiments showed that MHC anchor residues significantly affected TCR recognition of peptide. The high-affinity TCRs allowed us to estimate the affinity, in the millimolar range, of immunologically relevant interactions of the TCR with peptide/MHC ligands that were previously unmeasurable because of their weak nature. Thus, through the study of high-affinity TCRs, we demonstrated that a TCR is more tolerant of single TCR contact residue substitutions than other peptide changes, revealing that recognition of Ag by T cells can exhibit both specificity and degeneracy.

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