Experimental Strategies, Antigenicity and Interpretation of Intermolecular Interactions

  • Frederique Lisacek
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 66)


Prediction of antigenic sites in proteins is mainly based on two characteristics: homology between sequences and hydrophobicity indexes. Using these properties, the respective points of view of the antigen and of the antibody are only successively taken into account. Experimental procedure(s) are defined to identify properties of the interaction between the antigen and the antibody. Assuming interactions are expressed in terms of physicochemical properties of amino acids, is it possible to isolate each contributing factor to binding? What is the basis for an additivity principle? Can common features of epitopes be found to characterize their binding capacity? T-cell epitopes have also been studied. Some results are mentioned, unfortunately raising more questions than providing answers.


Cell Epitope Hydrogen Donor Antigenic Site Additivity Principle Artificial Approach 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H.M Geysen et al. (1987) “Strategies for epitope analysis using peptide synthesis”, J. Immun. Meth. 102: 259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I.A Wilson et al. (1985) “Identical short peptide sequences in unrelated proteins can have different conformations: a testing ground for theories of immune recognition”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82: 5255–5259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.J Rooman, S.J Wodack (1988) “Identification of predictive sequence motifs limited by protein structure data base size”, Nature 335: 45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.A Berzofsky (1985) “Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in protein antigenic structure”, Science 229: 932–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T.P Hopp, K.R Woods (1983) “A computer program for predicting protein antigenic determinants”, Molec. Immun. 20: 483–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.J Barlow et al. (1986) “Continuous and discontinuous protein antigenic determinants”, Nature 322: 747–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Chothia (1984) “Principles that determine the structure of proteins”, Ann. Rev. Biochem. 53: 537–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.G Amit et al. (1986) “The three-dimensional structure of an antigen-antibody complex at 2.8 Angstroms resolution”, Science 233: 747–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.M Colman et al. (1987) “Three-dimensional structure of a complex of antibody with influenza virus neuraminidase”, Nature 326: 358–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.A Padlan et al. (1989) “Structure of an antibody-antigen complex: crystal structure of the HyHEL-10 Fab-lysozyme complex”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 5938–5942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.M Geysen et al. (1988) “Cognitive features of continuous antigenic determinants”, J. Molec. Recognition 1, 32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Soldano, J-L. Moisy (1985) “Statistico-syntaxic learning techniques”, Biochimie 67: 493–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H.M Geysen et al. (1986) “A priori delineation of a peptide which mimics a discontinuous antigenic determinant”, Molec. Immun. 23: 709–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Lisacek (1991) “Explanation for the non-specificity of small peptide-antibody interaction”, in press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Tribbick et al. (1989) “Similar binding properties of peptide ligands for a human immunoglobulin and its light chain dimer”, Molec. Immun. 26, 625–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.K Scott, G.P Smith (1990) “Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library”, Science 249: 386–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.B Rothbard, W.R Taylor (1988) “A sequence pattern common to T cell epitopes”, EMBO 7: 93–100Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. DeLisi, J.A Berzofsky (1985) “T cell antigenic sites tend to be amphipathic structures”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82: 7048–7052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Sette et al. (1989) “Prediction of major histo- compatibility complex binding regions of protein antigens by sequence pattern analysis”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 3296–3300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Sercarz (1991) contribution to the advanced research workshop in Theoretical Immunology, this volumeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Falk et al. (1991) “Allele-specific motifs revealed by sequencing of self-peptides eluted from MHC molecules”, Nature 351: 290–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    W.A Lim, R.T Sauer (1989) “Alternative packing arrangements in the hydrophobic core of lambda repressor”, Nature 339: 31–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederique Lisacek
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de Genetique MoleculaireCNRSGif sur YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations