Back

Immunodominant influenza epitope GILGFVFTL engage common and divergent TCRs when presented as a 9-mer or a 15-mer peptide

Chaudhuri, A.; Bhojak, K.; Kode, V.; Miriam, C. M.; Lee, K.; Chakraborty, P.

2022-07-11 immunology
10.1101/2022.07.11.499638 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Antigen-specific T-cells are a powerful modality for treating cancer and other life-threatening viral and bacterial diseases. Technologies to identify and expand antigen-specific T-cells rapidly can shorten the time, and lower the cost of treatment. In this regard, screening short overlapping peptides to identify antigen-specific T-cells in ex vivo T-cell activation assay is becoming routine. Screening assays typically use 15-mer peptides to stimulate patient-derived, or healthy peripheral blood mononuclear cells to activate T-cells and identify expanded TCRs by next generation sequencing. Previous studies comparing the kinetics of T-cell activation using a 9 and a 15-mer peptide versions of a CMV immunodominant epitope demonstrated that 15-mer peptides induced CD8 T-cell activation at a slower kinetics reaching a lower magnitude compared to 9-mer peptides. The fact that 9-mer peptides are an optimal fit for the MHC class-I binding groove could explain this difference, with the 15-mer peptide requiring additional proteolytic processing before binding to the deeper binding groove of class-I MHC. Alternatively, the delay in kinetics and magnitude can result from the activation of a wider diversity of TCRs engaging novel epitopes generated from the 15-mer peptide whose activation profile may be different from the profile of TCRs that normally respond to the 9-mer immunodominant epitope. We sought to address these two possibilities by comparing T-cell engagement to the HLA-2-restricted GILGFVFTL epitope presented as a 9-mer, or a 15-mer peptide and analyzing CDR3 expansion as a measure of T-cell engagement diversity. This approach also addressed an important question as to whether optimal TCRs could be missed using a 15-mer peptide used routinely in screening assays.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.