Advertisement

Structural Immunoinformatics: Understanding MHC-Peptide-TR Binding

  • Javed Mohammed Khan
  • Joo Chuan Tong
  • Shoba Ranganathan
Chapter
Part of the Immunomics Reviews: book series (IMMUN, volume 3)

Abstract

Adaptive immune responses are governed by major histocompatibility complexes (MHC) binding to specific short antigenic peptides and then this peptide bound major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) being recognized by the T cell receptor (TR) which activates the T cells. The use of critical sequence-structure-function information to understand the principles underlying MHC specific peptide binding is well established and the focus is now on understanding TR recognition of pMHC complexes. Three-dimensional X-ray structures of pMHC complexes bound to the TR that are today characterized in good numbers facilitate structural analysis further. It is thus possible to predict potential T cell epitopes for vaccine design by utilizing information derived from available experimental structures which offer an alternative to sequence-based approaches that require large dataset for training. In this chapter, we introduce the use of structural data, a comparative modeling and docking protocol for epitope prediction for specific MHC alleles and also compare the results of our experiments on different disease-specific alleles. We also talk about the possibilities of predicting how well a pMHC complex can bind to the TR.

Keywords

Major Histocompatibility Complex Human Leukocyte Antigen Major Histocompatibility Complex Class Human Leukocyte Antigen Class Major Histocompatibility Complex Molecule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abagyan R, Maxim T (1999) Ab Initio Folding of Peptides by the Optimal-Bias Monte Carlo Minimization Procedure. J Comput Phys 151:402–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard JM, Downs GM (1992) Clustering of chemical structures on the basis of two-dimensional similarity measures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 32:644–649Google Scholar
  3. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z et al (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chothia C, Janin J (1975) Principles of protein–protein recognition. Nature 28:705–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doytchinova IA, Flower DR (2005) In silico identification of supertypes for class II MHCs. J Immunol 174:7085–7095PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Doytchinova IA, Guan P, Flower DR (2004) Identifying human MHC supertypes using bioinformatic methods. J Immunol 172:4314–4323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernández-Recio J, Totrov M, Abagyan R (2002) Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates. Protein Sci 11:280–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer KF, Marquesee S (2000) A rapid test for identification of autonomous folding units in proteins. J Mol Biol 302:701–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Govindarajan KR, Kangueane P, Tan TW et al (2003) MPID: MHC-Peptide Interaction Database for sequence-structure-function information on peptides binding to MHC molecules. Bioinformatics 19:309–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubbard SJ, Thornton JM (1993) “NACCESS” computer Program, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones S, Thornton JM (1996) Principles of protein–protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:13–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kangueane P, Sakharkar MK, Kolatkar PR et al (2001) Towards the MHC-peptide combinatorics. Hum Immunol 62:539–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kangueane P, Sakharkar MK, Rajaseger G et al (2005) A framework to sub-type HLA supertypes. Front Biosci 10:879–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Laskowski RA (1991) “SURFNET” computer program, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Lund O, Nielsen M, Kesmir C et al (2004) Definition of supertypes for HLA molecules using clustering of specificity matrices. Immunogenetics 55:797–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Morrison RT, Boyd RN (1992) Organic chemistry, vol 6. Prentice Hall, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Ranganathan S, Tong JC, Tan TW (2008) Structural immunoinformatics. In: Schonbach C, Ranganathan S, Brusic V (eds) Springer, Immunomics Reviews Series, chap. 3, pp 51–61Google Scholar
  18. Sali A, Blundell TL (1993) Comparative protein modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 234:774–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Samanta U, Bahadur RP, Chakrabarti P (2002) Quantifying the accessible surface area of protein residues in their local environment. Prot Eng 15:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Samudrala R, Moult J (1997) Handling context-sensitivity in protein structures using graph theory: Bona fide prediction. Proteins 1(Suppl):43–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sette A, Livingston B, McKinney D et al (2001) The development of multi-epitope vaccines: Epitope identification, vaccine design and clinical evaluation. Biologicals 29:271–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sette A, Newman M, Livingston B et al (2002) Optimizing vaccine design for cellular processing, MHC binding and TCR recognition. Tissue Antigens 59:443–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart-Jones GB, McMichael AJ, Bell JI et al (2003) A structural basis for immunodominant human T cell receptor recognition. Nat Immunol 4:657–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tong JC, Bramson J, Kanduc D et al (2006a) Modeling the bound conformation of pemphigus vulgaris associated peptides to MHC class II DR and DQ alleles. Immunome Res 2:1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tong JC, Kong L, Tan TW et al (2006b) MPID-T: Database for sequence-structure-function information on TCR-peptide-MHC interactions. Appl Bioinform 5:111–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tong JC, Tan TW, Ranganathan S (2004) Modeling the structure of bound peptide ligands to major histocompatibility complex. Protein Sci 13:2523–2532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tong JC, Tan TW, Sinha AA et al (2006c) Prediction of desmoglein-3 peptides reveals multiple shared T-cell epitopes in HLA DR4- and DR6-associated pemphigus vulgaris. BMC Bioinform 18:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tong JC, Tan TW, Ranganathan S (2007a) Methods and protocols for prediction of immunogenic epitopes. Brief Bioinform 8:96–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tong JC, Tan TW, Ranganathan S (2007b) In silico grouping of peptide/HLA class I complexes using structural interaction characteristics. Bioinformatics 23:177–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tong JC, Zhang GL, August JT et al (2006d) Prediction of HLA-DQ3.2β Ligands: Evidence of multiple registers in class II binding peptides. Bioinformatics 22:1232–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tong JC, Zhang GL, August JT et al (2007c) In silico characterization of immunogenic epitopes presented by HLA-Cw*0401. Immunome Res 3:7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wallace AC, Laskowski RA, Thornton JM (1995) LIGPLOT: A program to generate schematic diagrams of protein–ligand interactions. Prot Eng 8:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yewdell JW, Bennink JR (1999) Immunodominance in major histocompatibility complex class I-restricted T lymphocyte responses. Annu Rev Immunol 17:51–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javed Mohammed Khan
  • Joo Chuan Tong
  • Shoba Ranganathan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Sciences and ARC Centre of Excellence in BioinformaticsMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations