4.6 Article

The influences of hinge length and composition on the susceptibility of human IgA to cleavage by diverse bacterial IgAl proteases

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 174, 期 12, 页码 7792-7799

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.12.7792

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influences of IgA hinge length and composition on its susceptibility to cleavage by bacterial IgA1 proteases were examined using a panel of IgA hinge mutants. The IgA1 proteases of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus sanguis strains SK4 and SK49, Neisseria meningitidis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Haemophilus influenzae cleaved 1gA2-IgA1 half hinge, an Ab featuring half of the IgA1 hinge incorporated into the equivalent site in IgA1 protease-resistant IgA2, whereas those of Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus oralis, and S. sanguis strain SK1 did not. Hinge length reduction by removal of two of the four C-terminal proline residues rendered IgA2-IgA1 half hinge resistant to all streptococcal IgA1 metalloproteinases but it remained sensitive to cleavage by the serine-type IgA1 proteases of Neisseria and Haemophilus spp. The four C-terminal proline residues could be substituted by alanine residues or transferred to the N-terminal extremity of the hinge without affect on the susceptibility of the Ab to cleavage by serine-type IgA1 proteases. However, their removal rendered the Ab resistant to cleavage by all the IgA1 proteases. We conclude that the serine-type IgA1 proteases of Neisseria and Haemophilus require the Fab and Fc regions to be separated by at least ten (or in the case of N. gonorrhoeae type I protease, nine) amino acids between Val(222) and Cys(241) (IgA1 numbering) for efficient access and cleavage. By contrast, the streptococcal IgA1 metalloproteinases require 12 or more appropriate amino acids between the Fab and Fc to maintain a minimum critical distance between the scissile bond and the start of the Fc.

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