Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages (January 2016)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages (September 2012)
Advertisements

The Humoral Immune Response Is Initiated in Lymph Nodes by B Cells that Acquire Soluble Antigen Directly in the Follicles  Kathryn A. Pape, Drew M. Catron,
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages (March 2011)
Sustained Interactions between T Cell Receptors and Antigens Promote the Differentiation of CD4+ Memory T Cells  Chulwoo Kim, Theodore Wilson, Kael F.
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages (October 2007)
Structure of an LDLR-RAP Complex Reveals a General Mode for Ligand Recognition by Lipoprotein Receptors  Carl Fisher, Natalia Beglova, Stephen C. Blacklow 
Autoreactivity in Human IgG+ Memory B Cells
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages (March 2010)
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages (September 2017)
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages (July 2013)
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages e4 (November 2017)
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages (January 2008)
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages (October 2012)
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2002)
Focusing in on T Cell Cross-Reactivity
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages (November 2009)
Structure of the Endonuclease Domain of MutL: Unlicensed to Cut
Volume 48, Issue 2, Pages e5 (February 2018)
Volume 153, Issue 4, Pages (May 2013)
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages (January 2005)
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages (July 2011)
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages (November 2012)
Volume 40, Issue 6, Pages (December 2010)
The functional and structural basis of phospholipid recognition by the PG90 TCR. The functional and structural basis of phospholipid recognition by the.
Peter A. Savage, Mark M. Davis  Immunity 
Unconventional T Cell Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages (August 2008)
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages (September 2009)
Volume 24, Issue 10, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 128, Issue 3, Pages (February 2007)
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages (July 2016)
Volume 12, Issue 5, Pages (May 2000)
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages (July 2009)
Autoreactivity in Human IgG+ Memory B Cells
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages (July 2009)
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
A Molecular Basis for NKT Cell Recognition of CD1d-Self-Antigen
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages (April 2016)
Cécile Bouneaud, Philippe Kourilsky, Philippe Bousso  Immunity 
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages (October 2012)
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Volume 44, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages (January 2012)
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages (January 2006)
How a Single T Cell Receptor Recognizes Both Self and Foreign MHC
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages (March 2000)
The Structure of the β-Catenin/E-Cadherin Complex and the Molecular Basis of Diverse Ligand Recognition by β-Catenin  Andrew H. Huber, William I. Weis 
The Shaping of T Cell Receptor Recognition by Self-Tolerance
Effects of a Single Escape Mutation on T Cell and HIV-1 Co-adaptation
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages (December 2009)
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages (July 2011)
Docking footprint of PG90 TCR on CD1b-PG.
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages (June 2016)
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages (December 2009)
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages (July 2006)
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (October 2005)
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages R19-R23 (February 1999)
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages (October 2006)
Altered Peptide Ligands Induce Delayed CD8-T Cell Receptor Interaction—a Role for CD8 in Distinguishing Antigen Quality  Pia P. Yachi, Jeanette Ampudia,
Presentation transcript:

Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 32-45 (January 2016) Diversity of T Cells Restricted by the MHC Class I-Related Molecule MR1 Facilitates Differential Antigen Recognition  Nicholas A. Gherardin, Andrew N. Keller, Rachel E. Woolley, Jérôme Le Nours, David S. Ritchie, Paul J. Neeson, Richard W. Birkinshaw, Sidonia B.G. Eckle, John N. Waddington, Ligong Liu, David P. Fairlie, Adam P. Uldrich, Daniel G. Pellicci, James McCluskey, Dale I. Godfrey, Jamie Rossjohn  Immunity  Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 32-45 (January 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005 Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Identification and Characterization of Atypical MR1-Reactive T Cells (A) MR1 tetramer staining of αβ T cells in two example healthy donors. (B) Summary of 12 human samples examined across three separate experiments, showing (i) the percentage of MR1-Ag tetramer+ cells of total αβ T cells, (ii) the percentage of MR1-Ag tetramer+ cells of total TRAV1-2+ T cells, and (iii) the percentage of MR1-Ag tetramer+ cells of total TRAV1-2− T cells. (C) (i) Flow cytometry plots showing MR1-Ag tetramer staining on TRAV1-2− and TRAV1-2+ αβ T cells before and after magnetic bead enrichment from two representative healthy donors. (ii) Histogram overlays showing cell surface marker expression on T cell subsets as defined by gates in (i). (D) Histograms showing collective cell surface Ag expression data from five magnetically enriched healthy donor PBMC samples examined across three separate experiments and gated as per (C). (E) Representative transcription factor staining of MR1-reactive T cell subsets after magnetic bead enrichment. (i) shows flow cytometry plots and gates from a representative donor and (ii) shows transcription factor histogram overlays from gates derived in (i). Experiment is representative of six healthy donors analyzed across three individual experiments. (F) Flow cytometry plots showing MR1-Ac-6-FP and MR1-5-OP-RU dual tetramer staining on total αβ T cells pre-enrichment and TRAV1-2− or TRAV1-2+ αβ T post magnetic bead enrichment from two healthy donor PBMC samples, representative of six donors examined across two separate experiments. All box plots extend from 25th and 75th percentiles and whiskers extend to minimum and maximum values. See also Figures S1–S3. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 TCR Gene Usage and Sequences of Atypical MR1-Reactive T Cells (A) Gene usage and CDR3α and CDR3β sequences derived from single T cells sorted based on MR1 tetramer and TRAV1-2 antibody staining. N.D., not determined; Red text represents residues encoded by non-templated nucleotides; ∗TRBV8-2 or TRBV8-3; ∗∗ TRBV4-2 or TRBV4-3; ∗∗∗ TRBV5-4 or TRBV5-8; ∗∗∗∗Open reading frame (Matulis et al., 2010; Tilloy et al., 1999; Eckle et al., 2014; Reantragoon et al., 2013). (B) Pie-charts showing distribution of (i) TRAV, (ii) TRAJ, and (iii) TRBV genes by single-cell sorted TRAV1-2− MR1-reactive T cells. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Diverse Ag Reactivity by MR1-Reactive TCRs Histograms depicting staining intensity of MR1-Ag tetramer labeled 293T cells, transiently transfected to express surface TCRs as indicated (left column), stained with a panel of MR1 and CD1d tetramers (top row). White histograms represent TCRNEG cells and gray histograms represent TCR+ cells from the same file. Numbers in top right refer to MFI of gray profile. Samples were gated to equivalent expression of surface TCR. This experiment was performed twice with similar results. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Activation and Affinity of Autoreactive and Atypical MR1-Restricted TCRs (A) Bar graphs depicting activation of Jurkat.TCR cell lines co-cultured with C1R.MR1 cells in the presence of titrating quantities of (i) fixed E. coli bacteria or (ii) purified 5-OP-RU. Activation is expressed as fold-change from basal CD69 expression by Jurkat.TCR cells alone. Experiments were performed twice with similar results. Error bars refer to SEM of two replicate wells. (B) (i) Histogram overlay of MR1 surface expression on wild-type C1R (black; isotype = white) and C1R cell lines engineered to express low (mid gray) and high (light gray) amounts of MR1. (ii) Bar graph depicting CD69 expression on Jurkat.M33.64 cell line after overnight co-culture with graded MR1 expressing C1R cell lines as shown in (i). CD69 expression is expressed as fold-change from Jurkat.M33.64 cells cultured alone. Bars are average of duplicate wells from one of two independent experiments. (C) Bar graphs depicting MFI of MR1-5-OP-RU tetramer staining of HEK293T cells transiently transfected with wild-type MAIT TCRs and Tyr95α mutants. N.D., not done. Experiment was performed twice with similar results. Error bars depict SEM of duplicate wells. (D) Bar graphs depicting activation of Jurkat.TCR cell lines co-cultured with C1R.MR1 cells in the presence of titrating quantities of purified 6-FP (white bars), Ac-6-FP (gray bars), or 5-OP-RU (black bars). Activation is expressed as fold-change from basal CD69 expression by Jurkat.TCR cells alone. Experiment was performed three times with similar results. Error bars refer to SEM of two replicate wells. (E) The affinity of TCR-MR1-Ag binding was measured by surface plasmon resonance, testing M33.64, M33.64.Tyr95αPhe, A-F7, and MAV36 TCRs against MR1-5-OP-RU, MR1-6-FP, and MR1-Ac-6-FP. Relative binding affinities for each TCR is depicted. Error bars denote SE. Data are representative of two independent experiments. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Folate-Metabolite Responsiveness and MR1 Autoreactivity The CDR3α and CDR3β loops of M33.64 TCR (A) and TRAV1-2+ TCR (TRBV6-4, PDBID: 4PJ7) (B), interacting with MR1. (C) Superimposition of the CDR loops of M33.64 (darker colored loops) and TRAV1-2+ (lighter colored loops) sitting atop MR1. (D) Position of Tyr152 when bound to M33.64 TCR (white) compared to the Tyr95αPhe mutant (gray) when ligating 5-OP-RU. (E) Position of Tyr152 when M33 TCR ligates Ac-6-FP (white) compared to 5-OP-RU (gray). (F) The position of Tyr152 in relation to the CDR3β, in the MAIT TCR (TRBV6-1 – A-F7; PDBID 4NQC) ternary structure. Image color coding: CDR1α, teal; CDR2α, pink; CDR3α, yellow; CDR1β, cyan; CDR2β, red; CDR3β, orange; Ac-6FP/5-OP-RU, green; MR1, gray; and dotted lines signify H-bonds (black) or salt-bridges (red). See also Table S1. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 MAV36 TCR Docking Mode (A) The TRAV1-2+ ternary complex (TRBV6-1 – A-F7; PDBID: 4NQC) structure and associated footprint on the MR1 surface, and (B) the MAV36 ternary complex and associated footprint. Spheres represent the center of mass of the TCR Vα (slate) and Vβ (purple) domains. Color of CDR loop contacts, are consistent with the CDR loop colors in Figure 5, while TCR α chain and β-chains are shown in slate and purple, respectively. (C) Comparison of the MAV36 ternary complex relative to the TRAV1-2+ TCR docking position (yellow). Arrows detail TCR rotation around the center of mass of the MR1 α1α2-domains, as well as displacement along MR1 binding cleft. See also Tables S1 and S2. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Molecular Contacts of the MAV36 TCR-MR1-Ag Complex Interactions between MR1 and (A) the CDR1α, CDR2α and Vα framework, (B) CDR3α and CDR3β, and (C) CDR1β, CDR2β and Vβ framework. (D) Superimposition of the CDR loops of MAV36 (darker colored loops) and TRAV1-2+ (TRBV6-1 – A-F7, lighter colored loops) in relation to the internal surface of the MR1 binding cleft. (E) Interaction of the CDR1α and CDR3α with 5-OP-RU, in the MAV36 ternary complex. (F) Interaction of the CDR3a with 5-OP-RU, in a TRAV1-2+ TCR ternary complex. Image color-coding consistent with Figures 5 and 6. See also Table S2. Immunity 2016 44, 32-45DOI: (10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.005) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions