4.7 Article

A peptide inhibitor of HIV-1 neutralizing antibody 2G12 is not a structural mimic of the natural carbohydrate epitope on gp120

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 1380-1392

出版社

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1096/fj.07-8983com

关键词

peptide mimics; HIV-1 envelope proteins; crystal structure; phage-displayed peptide libraries

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI049111-03, R21 AI049808-02, R01 AI049111, AI49808, R01 AI049111-01A1, R01 AI049111-02, R21 AI049808-01, AI33292, R37 AI033292, AI49111, R01 AI033292] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM46192, R01 GM046192] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MAb 2G12 neutralizes HIV-1 by binding with high affinity to a cluster of high-mannose oligosaccharides on the envelope glycoprotein, gp120. Screening of phage-displayed peptide libraries with 2G12 identified peptides that bind specifically, with Kds ranging from 0.4 to 200 mu M. The crystal structure of a 21-mer peptide ligand in complex with 2G12 Fab was determined at 2.8 angstrom resolution. Comparison of this structure with previous structures of 2G12-carbohydrate complexes revealed striking differences in the mechanism of 2G12 binding to peptide vs. carbohydrate. The peptide occupies a site different from, but adjacent to, the primary carbohydrate-binding site on 2G12, and makes only slightly fewer contacts to the Fab than Man(9)GlcNAC(2) (51 vs. 56, respectively). However, only two antibody contacts with the peptide are hydrogen bonds in contrast to six with Man(9)GlcNAC(2), and only three of the antibody residues that interact with Man(9)GlcNAC(2) also contact the peptide. Thus, this mechanism of peptide binding to 2G12 does not support structural mimicry of the native carbohydrate epitope on gp120, since it neither replicates the oligosaccharide footprint on the antibody nor most of the contact residues. Moreover, 2G12.1 peptide is not an immunogenic mimic of the 2G12 epitope, since antisera produced against it did not bind gp120.

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