BACKGROUND: Affinity maturation within germinal centers should usually lead to an accumulation of replacement mutations in complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) of Ig genes as a result of antigen selection. A number of studies have suggested, but not statistically demonstrated, that antigen selection might not guide such an accumulation of replacement mutations in allergic IgE sequences. This has been suggested to reflect the nature of allergens themselves or of the allergic response. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the role of antigen selection in the evolution of the IgE response by mean of analysis of Ig sequences derived from both allergic and nonallergic individuals. METHODS: IgE sequences were amplified from peripheral blood of allergic and nonallergic individuals by using seminested RT-PCR. Additional IgE and IgG sequences were obtained from public databases. Analysis considered replacement mutations in the CDRs as a proportion of total mutations and compared IgE sequences with IgG sequences. RESULTS: The nonallergic IgE sequences were significantly less mutated than both the allergic IgE (P < .001) and IgG (P < .01) sequences. There was a low proportion of replacement mutations in the CDRs of both nonallergic and allergic IgE sequences and a significantly increased proportion of such mutations in IgG sequences (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: IgE antibodies in both nonallergic and allergic individuals appear to accumulate few somatic point mutations as a consequence of antigen selection. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Allergic and nonallergic IgE responses might often develop along a common pathway that is distinct from the conventional germinal center reaction through which the IgG response develops.
BACKGROUND: Affinity maturation within germinal centers should usually lead to an accumulation of replacement mutations in complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) of Ig genes as a result of antigen selection. A number of studies have suggested, but not statistically demonstrated, that antigen selection might not guide such an accumulation of replacement mutations in allergic IgE sequences. This has been suggested to reflect the nature of allergens themselves or of the allergic response. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the role of antigen selection in the evolution of the IgE response by mean of analysis of Ig sequences derived from both allergic and nonallergic individuals. METHODS: IgE sequences were amplified from peripheral blood of allergic and nonallergic individuals by using seminested RT-PCR. Additional IgE and IgG sequences were obtained from public databases. Analysis considered replacement mutations in the CDRs as a proportion of total mutations and compared IgE sequences with IgG sequences. RESULTS: The nonallergic IgE sequences were significantly less mutated than both the allergic IgE (P < .001) and IgG (P < .01) sequences. There was a low proportion of replacement mutations in the CDRs of both nonallergic and allergic IgE sequences and a significantly increased proportion of such mutations in IgG sequences (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: IgE antibodies in both nonallergic and allergic individuals appear to accumulate few somatic point mutations as a consequence of antigen selection. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Allergic and nonallergic IgE responses might often develop along a common pathway that is distinct from the conventional germinal center reaction through which the IgG response develops.
Authors: S Kerzel; J Wagner; T Rogosch; A-O Yildirim; L Sikula; H Fehrenbach; H Garn; R F Maier; H W Schroeder; M Zemlin Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Andrew M Collins; Yan Wang; Viveka Singh; Phillip Yu; Katherine J Jackson; William A Sewell Journal: Immunogenetics Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 2.846
Authors: Mattias Levin; Jasmine J King; Jacob Glanville; Katherine J L Jackson; Timothy J Looney; Ramona A Hoh; Adriano Mari; Morgan Andersson; Lennart Greiff; Andrew Z Fire; Scott D Boyd; Mats Ohlin Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Sandra C A Nielsen; Krishna M Roskin; Katherine J L Jackson; Shilpa A Joshi; Parastu Nejad; Ji-Yeun Lee; Lisa E Wagar; Tho D Pham; Ramona A Hoh; Khoa D Nguyen; Hannah Y Tsunemoto; Sonal B Patel; Robert Tibshirani; Catherine Ley; Mark M Davis; Julie Parsonnet; Scott D Boyd Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Tobias Rogosch; Sebastian Kerzel; Kam Hon Hoi; Zhixin Zhang; Rolf F Maier; Gregory C Ippolito; Michael Zemlin Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Danielle T Avery; Elissa K Deenick; Cindy S Ma; Santi Suryani; Nicholas Simpson; Gary Y Chew; Tyani D Chan; Umamainthan Palendira; Jacinta Bustamante; Stéphanie Boisson-Dupuis; Sharon Choo; Karl E Bleasel; Jane Peake; Cecile King; Martyn A French; Dan Engelhard; Sami Al-Hajjar; Saleh Al-Muhsen; Klaus Magdorf; Joachim Roesler; Peter D Arkwright; Pravin Hissaria; D Sean Riminton; Melanie Wong; Robert Brink; David A Fulcher; Jean-Laurent Casanova; Matthew C Cook; Stuart G Tangye Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Regine Stutz; Christopher Meyer; Elisabeth Kaiser; Sybelle Goedicke-Fritz; Harry W Schroeder; Robert Bals; Christoph Haertel; Tobias Rogosch; Sebastian Kerzel; Michael Zemlin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 4.379