In vitro proteasome processing of neo-splicetopes does not predict their presentation in vivo

  1. Gerald Willimsky  Is a corresponding author
  2. Christin Beier
  3. Lena Immisch
  4. Georgios Papafotiou
  5. Vivian Scheuplein-Schlosser
  6. Andrean Goede
  7. Hermann-Georg Holzhütter
  8. Thomas Blankenstein
  9. Peter M Kloetzel  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute of Immunology (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ Heidelberg), Germany
  2. Institute of Biochemistry (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Germany
  3. Max-Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Germany
  4. Institut für Physiologie (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Germany
  5. Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Helmholtz Association, Germany
  6. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany

Abstract

Proteasome catalyzed peptide splicing (PCPS) of cancer-driving antigens could generate attractive neoepitopes to be targeted by TCR-based adoptive T cell therapy. Based on a spliced peptide prediction algorithm TCRs were generated against putative KRASG12V and RAC2P29L derived neo-splicetopes with high HLA-A*02:01 binding affinity. TCRs generated in mice with a diverse human TCR repertoire specifically recognized the respective target peptides with high efficacy. However, we failed to detect any neo-splicetope specific T cell response when testing the in vivo neo-splicetope generation and obtained no experimental evidence that the putative KRASG12V- and RAC2P29L-derived neo-splicetopes were naturally processed and presented. Furthermore, only the putative RAC2P29L-derived neo-splicetopes was generated by in vitro PCPS. The experiments pose severe questions on the notion that available algorithms or the in vitro PCPS reaction reliably simulate in vivo splicing and argue against the general applicability of an algorithm-driven 'reverse immunology' pipeline for the identification of cancer-specific neo-splicetopes.

Data availability

Additional source data comprising databases for ProteomDiscoverer, Kras/RAC2 kinetics, cleavage maps and PD2.1 result files have been submitted to Dryad under DOI:10.5061/dryad.jq2bvq88b

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gerald Willimsky

    Experimental and Translational Cancer Immunology, Institute of Immunology (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ Heidelberg), Berlin, Germany
    For correspondence
    gerald.willimsky@charite.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9693-948X
  2. Christin Beier

    Biochemistry, Institute of Biochemistry (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lena Immisch

    Experimental and Translational Cancer Immunology, Institute of Immunology (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ Heidelberg), Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Georgios Papafotiou

    Experimental and Translational Cancer Immunology, Institute of Immunology (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ Heidelberg), Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Vivian Scheuplein-Schlosser

    Molecular Immunology, Max-Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Andrean Goede

    Physiologie (, Institut für Physiologie (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9044-9869
  7. Hermann-Georg Holzhütter

    Biochemistry, Institute of Biochemistry (Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Thomas Blankenstein

    Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Peter M Kloetzel

    Institut für Biochemie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    For correspondence
    p-m.kloetzel@charite.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB-TR36)

  • Gerald Willimsky
  • Thomas Blankenstein

Deutsche Krebshilfe (111546)

  • Gerald Willimsky

Berlin Institute of Health (CRG-1)

  • Thomas Blankenstein
  • Peter M Kloetzel

DKTK joint funding (NEO-ATT)

  • Gerald Willimsky

Berliner Krebsgesellschaft

  • Peter M Kloetzel

Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, Zukunftsthema 'Immunology and Inflammation'

  • Gerald Willimsky
  • Thomas Blankenstein

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Vincenzo Cerullo, University of Helsinki, Finland

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments were performed according to institutional and national guidelines and regulations. The experiments were approved by the governmental authority (Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales, Berlin, H0086/16).

Version history

  1. Received: August 11, 2020
  2. Accepted: April 15, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 20, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: April 22, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: May 26, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Willimsky 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

  • 1,899
    views
  • 264
    downloads
  • 13
    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. Gerald Willimsky
  2. Christin Beier
  3. Lena Immisch
  4. Georgios Papafotiou
  5. Vivian Scheuplein-Schlosser
  6. Andrean Goede
  7. Hermann-Georg Holzhütter
  8. Thomas Blankenstein
  9. Peter M Kloetzel
(2021)
In vitro proteasome processing of neo-splicetopes does not predict their presentation in vivo
eLife 10:e62019.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62019

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62019

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Henning Mühlenbeck, Yuko Tsutsui ... Cyril Zipfel
    Research Article

    Transmembrane signaling by plant receptor kinases (RKs) has long been thought to involve reciprocal trans-phosphorylation of their intracellular kinase domains. The fact that many of these are pseudokinase domains, however, suggests that additional mechanisms must govern RK signaling activation. Non-catalytic signaling mechanisms of protein kinase domains have been described in metazoans, but information is scarce for plants. Recently, a non-catalytic function was reported for the leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RK subfamily XIIa member EFR (elongation factor Tu receptor) and phosphorylation-dependent conformational changes were proposed to regulate signaling of RKs with non-RD kinase domains. Here, using EFR as a model, we describe a non-catalytic activation mechanism for LRR-RKs with non-RD kinase domains. EFR is an active kinase, but a kinase-dead variant retains the ability to enhance catalytic activity of its co-receptor kinase BAK1/SERK3 (brassinosteroid insensitive 1-associated kinase 1/somatic embryogenesis receptor kinase 3). Applying hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) analysis and designing homology-based intragenic suppressor mutations, we provide evidence that the EFR kinase domain must adopt its active conformation in order to activate BAK1 allosterically, likely by supporting αC-helix positioning in BAK1. Our results suggest a conformational toggle model for signaling, in which BAK1 first phosphorylates EFR in the activation loop to stabilize its active conformation, allowing EFR in turn to allosterically activate BAK1.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska, Utpal Das ... Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez
    Research Article

    Amyloid β (Aβ) peptides accumulating in the brain are proposed to trigger Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, molecular cascades underlying their toxicity are poorly defined. Here, we explored a novel hypothesis for Aβ42 toxicity that arises from its proven affinity for γ-secretases. We hypothesized that the reported increases in Aβ42, particularly in the endolysosomal compartment, promote the establishment of a product feedback inhibitory mechanism on γ-secretases, and thereby impair downstream signaling events. We conducted kinetic analyses of γ-secretase activity in cell-free systems in the presence of Aβ, as well as cell-based and ex vivo assays in neuronal cell lines, neurons, and brain synaptosomes to assess the impact of Aβ on γ-secretases. We show that human Aβ42 peptides, but neither murine Aβ42 nor human Aβ17–42 (p3), inhibit γ-secretases and trigger accumulation of unprocessed substrates in neurons, including C-terminal fragments (CTFs) of APP, p75, and pan-cadherin. Moreover, Aβ42 treatment dysregulated cellular homeostasis, as shown by the induction of p75-dependent neuronal death in two distinct cellular systems. Our findings raise the possibility that pathological elevations in Aβ42 contribute to cellular toxicity via the γ-secretase inhibition, and provide a novel conceptual framework to address Aβ toxicity in the context of γ-secretase-dependent homeostatic signaling.