4.6 Article

Problems in using statistical analysis of replacement and silent mutations in antibody genes for determining antigen-driven affinity selection

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 116, 期 2, 页码 172-183

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2005.02208.x

关键词

immunoglobulin variable regions; somatic mutation; sequence analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of molecular signatures of antigen-driven affinity selection of B cells is of immense use in studies on normal and abnormal B cell development. Most of the published literature compares the expected and observed frequencies of replacement (R) and silent (S) mutations in the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) and the framework regions (FRs) of antibody genes to identify the signature of antigenic selection. The basic assumption of this statistical method is that antigenic selection creates a bias for R mutations in the CDRs and for S mutations in the FRs. However, it has been argued that the differences in intrinsic mutability among different regions of an antibody gene can generate a statistically significant bias even in the absence of any antigenic selection. We have modified the existing statistical method to include the effects of intrinsic mutability of different regions of an antibody gene. We used this method to analyse sequences of several B cell-derived monoclonals against T-dependent antigens, T-independent antigens, clones derived from lymphoma and amyloidogenic clones. Our sequence analysis indicates that even after correcting for the intrinsic mutability of antibody genes, statistical parameters fail to reflect the role of antigen-driven affinity selection in maturation of many clones. We suggest that, contrary to the basic assumption of such statistical methods, selection can act both for and against R mutations in the CDR as well as in the FR regions. In addition we have identified different methodological difficulties in the current uses of such statistical analysis of antibody genes.

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