4.5 Article

Characterization of monoclonal antibodies and epitope mapping of the NS4 protein of hepatitis C virus

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY LETTERS
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 187-196

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-2478(02)00081-0

关键词

hepatitis C virus; NS4 protein; monoclonal antibodies; epitope mapping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recombinant DNA containing sequences of HCV NS4 protein was expressed in Escherichia coli cells. Six hybridoma clones producing monoclonal antibodies (MAB) to recombinant NS4 protein (rNS4), aa 1677-1756, were developed. Mapping with a panel of 33 peptides and reciprocal competitive EIA have shown that MAB obtained revealed five antigen determinants, not described earlier: MAB 31711 and 3F12-one genotype-independent epitope of NS4A (aa 1700-1707) common for genotypes 1, 2 and 3; MAB I D I I-genotype-independent epitope (aa 1713-1728) and MAB I 133-genotype (subtype I b)-specific epitope of NS4B (aa 1711-1731); MAB 6B11 and Cl-two conformation-dependent determinants in 5-1-1 region. These data indicate that the 5-1-1 region of NS4 protein has a complex antigenic structure and contains at least eight epitopes, including five, revealed in the present work. MAB obtained recognized native viral protein in the cytoplasm of liver cells of patients with chronic hepatitis C. The positive rates of the immunostaining for NS4 antigen using MAB 6B11, 1D11 and 31712 were 64, 59 and 50%, respectively. It was found that 6B11 MAB to a conformation-dependent epitope much more actively interacts with native NS4 than with the recombinant protein to which MAB was developed. The epitope recognized by 6B I I MAB is highly immunogenic since it induces the B-cell response in all patients investigated with identified anti-NS4 antibodies in blood serum. The MAB panel obtained in this study may become a useful tool for the diagnostic purposes, for the investigation of NS4B function and for the host-viral interactions at the cell level. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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