Expression levels of MHC class I molecules are inversely correlated with promiscuity of peptide binding

  1. Paul Chappell
  2. El Kahina Meziane
  3. Michael Harrison
  4. Łukasz Magiera
  5. Clemens Hermann
  6. Laura Mears
  7. Antony G Wrobel
  8. Charlotte Durant
  9. Lise Lotte Nielsen
  10. Soren Buus
  11. Nicola Ternette
  12. William Mwangi
  13. Colin Butter
  14. Venugopal Nair
  15. Trudy Ahyee
  16. Richard Duggleby
  17. Alejandro Madrigal
  18. Pietro Roversi
  19. Susan M Lea
  20. Jim Kaufman  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  3. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  4. Pirbright Institute, United Kingdom
  5. The Royal Free Hospital, United Kingdom

Abstract

Highly polymorphic MHC molecules are at the heart of adaptive immune responses, playing crucial roles in many kinds of disease and in vaccination. We report that breadth of peptide presentation and level of cell surface expression of class I molecules are inversely correlated in both chickens and humans. This relationship correlates with protective responses against infectious pathogens including Marek's disease virus leading to lethal tumours in chickens and HIV infection progressing to AIDS in humans. We propose that differences in peptide binding repertoire define two groups of MHC class I molecules strategically evolved as generalists and specialists for different modes of pathogen resistance. We suggest that differences in cell surface expression level ensure the development of optimal peripheral T cell responses. The inverse relationship of peptide repertoire and expression is evidently a fundamental property of MHC molecules, with ramifications extending beyond immunology and medicine to evolutionary biology and conservation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Paul Chappell

    Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. El Kahina Meziane

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michael Harrison

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Łukasz Magiera

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Clemens Hermann

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Laura Mears

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Antony G Wrobel

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Charlotte Durant

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lise Lotte Nielsen

    Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Soren Buus

    Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Nicola Ternette

    Target Discovery Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. William Mwangi

    Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Colin Butter

    Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Venugopal Nair

    Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Trudy Ahyee

    Anthony Nolan Research Institute, The Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Richard Duggleby

    Anthony Nolan Research Institute, The Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Alejandro Madrigal

    Anthony Nolan Research Institute, The Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Pietro Roversi

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Susan M Lea

    Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jim Kaufman

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jfk31@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Arup K Chakraborty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures involving chickens were carried out at the University of Cambridge under Home Office project license PPL 80/2420 and with ethical approval of the Local Ethical Review Committee.

Human subjects: Anthony Nolan registrants signed written consent forms, with all procedures carried out under Human Tissue Act licensing number 22513 and with approval of the local Research Ethics committee (REC).

Version history

  1. Received: October 26, 2014
  2. Accepted: April 10, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 10, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 6, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Chappell et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,410
    views
  • 928
    downloads
  • 102
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Paul Chappell
  2. El Kahina Meziane
  3. Michael Harrison
  4. Łukasz Magiera
  5. Clemens Hermann
  6. Laura Mears
  7. Antony G Wrobel
  8. Charlotte Durant
  9. Lise Lotte Nielsen
  10. Soren Buus
  11. Nicola Ternette
  12. William Mwangi
  13. Colin Butter
  14. Venugopal Nair
  15. Trudy Ahyee
  16. Richard Duggleby
  17. Alejandro Madrigal
  18. Pietro Roversi
  19. Susan M Lea
  20. Jim Kaufman
(2015)
Expression levels of MHC class I molecules are inversely correlated with promiscuity of peptide binding
eLife 4:e05345.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05345

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05345

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mark S Lee, Peter J Tuohy ... Michael S Kuhns
    Research Advance

    CD4+ T cell activation is driven by five-module receptor complexes. The T cell receptor (TCR) is the receptor module that binds composite surfaces of peptide antigens embedded within MHCII molecules (pMHCII). It associates with three signaling modules (CD3γε, CD3δε, and CD3ζζ) to form TCR-CD3 complexes. CD4 is the coreceptor module. It reciprocally associates with TCR-CD3-pMHCII assemblies on the outside of a CD4+ T cells and with the Src kinase, LCK, on the inside. Previously, we reported that the CD4 transmembrane GGXXG and cytoplasmic juxtamembrane (C/F)CV+C motifs found in eutherian (placental mammal) CD4 have constituent residues that evolved under purifying selection (Lee et al., 2022). Expressing mutants of these motifs together in T cell hybridomas increased CD4-LCK association but reduced CD3ζ, ZAP70, and PLCγ1 phosphorylation levels, as well as IL-2 production, in response to agonist pMHCII. Because these mutants preferentially localized CD4-LCK pairs to non-raft membrane fractions, one explanation for our results was that they impaired proximal signaling by sequestering LCK away from TCR-CD3. An alternative hypothesis is that the mutations directly impacted signaling because the motifs normally play an LCK-independent role in signaling. The goal of this study was to discriminate between these possibilities. Using T cell hybridomas, our results indicate that: intracellular CD4-LCK interactions are not necessary for pMHCII-specific signal initiation; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs are key determinants of CD4-mediated pMHCII-specific signal amplification; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs exert their functions independently of direct CD4-LCK association. These data provide a mechanistic explanation for why residues within these motifs are under purifying selection in jawed vertebrates. The results are also important to consider for biomimetic engineering of synthetic receptors.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Jean-David Larouche, Céline M Laumont ... Claude Perreault
    Research Article

    Transposable elements (TEs) are repetitive sequences representing ~45% of the human and mouse genomes and are highly expressed by medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs). In this study, we investigated the role of TEs on T-cell development in the thymus. We performed multiomic analyses of TEs in human and mouse thymic cells to elucidate their role in T-cell development. We report that TE expression in the human thymus is high and shows extensive age- and cell lineage-related variations. TE expression correlates with multiple transcription factors in all cell types of the human thymus. Two cell types express particularly broad TE repertoires: mTECs and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). In mTECs, transcriptomic data suggest that TEs interact with transcription factors essential for mTEC development and function (e.g., PAX1 and REL), and immunopeptidomic data showed that TEs generate MHC-I-associated peptides implicated in thymocyte education. Notably, AIRE, FEZF2, and CHD4 regulate small yet non-redundant sets of TEs in murine mTECs. Human thymic pDCs homogenously express large numbers of TEs that likely form dsRNA, which can activate innate immune receptors, potentially explaining why thymic pDCs constitutively secrete IFN ɑ/β. This study highlights the diversity of interactions between TEs and the adaptive immune system. TEs are genetic parasites, and the two thymic cell types most affected by TEs (mTEcs and pDCs) are essential to establishing central T-cell tolerance. Therefore, we propose that orchestrating TE expression in thymic cells is critical to prevent autoimmunity in vertebrates.