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.

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).

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

  • 4,450
    views
  • 939
    downloads
  • 104
    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. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Suman Kundu, Advait Shetty, Maria Gomes-Solecki
    Research Article

    Previous studies demonstrated that Leptospira biflexa, a saprophytic species, triggers innate immune responses in the host during early infection. This raised the question of whether these responses could suppress a subsequent challenge with pathogenic Leptospira. We inoculated C3H/HeJ mice with a single or a double dose of L. biflexa before challenge with a pathogenic serovar, Leptospira interrogans serovar Copenhageni FioCruz (LIC). Pre-challenge exposure to L. biflexa did not prevent LIC dissemination and colonization of the kidney. However, it rescued weight loss and mouse survival thereby mitigating disease severity. Unexpectedly, there was correlation between rescue of overall health (weight gain, higher survival, lower kidney fibrosis marker ColA1) and higher shedding of LIC in urine. This stood in contrast to the L. biflexa unexposed LIC challenged control. Immune responses were dominated by increased frequency of effector T helper (CD4+) cells in spleen, as well as significant increases in serologic IgG2a. Our findings suggest that exposure to live saprophytic Leptospira primes the host to develop Th1 biased immune responses that prevent severe disease induced by a subsequent challenge with a pathogenic species. Thus, mice exposed to live saprophytic Leptospira before facing a pathogenic serovar may withstand infection with far better outcomes. Furthermore, a status of homeostasis may have been reached after kidney colonization that helps LIC complete its enzootic cycle.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Florent Colomb, Abhishek Jamwal ... Henry J McSorley
    Research Article

    The parasitic nematode Heligmosomoides polygyrus bakeri secretes the HpARI family, which bind to IL-33, either suppressing (HpARI1 and HpARI2) or enhancing (HpARI3) responses to the cytokine. We previously showed that HpARI2 also bound to DNA via its first complement control protein (CCP1) domain. Here, we find that HpARI1 can also bind DNA, while HpARI3 cannot. Through the production of HpARI2/HpARI3 CCP1 domain-swapped chimeras, DNA-binding ability can be transferred, and correlates with in vivo half-life of administered proteins. We found that HpARI1 and HpARI2 (but not HpARI3) also binds to the extracellular matrix component heparan sulphate (HS), and structural modelling showed a basic charged patch in the CCP1 domain of HpARI1 and HpARI2 (but not HpARI3) which could facilitate these interactions. Finally, a mutant of HpARI2 was produced which lacked DNA and HS binding, and was also shown to have a short half-life in vivo. Therefore, we propose that during infection the suppressive HpARI1 and HpARI2 proteins have long-lasting effects at the site of deposition due to DNA and/or extracellular matrix interactions, while HpARI3 has a shorter half-life due to a lack of these interactions.