| Literature DB >> 24795717 |
Thomas B Kepler1, Supriya Munshaw2, Kevin Wiehe3, Ruijun Zhang3, Jae-Sung Yu4, Christopher W Woods5, Thomas N Denny4, Georgia D Tomaras6, S Munir Alam4, M Anthony Moody7, Garnett Kelsoe8, Hua-Xin Liao4, Barton F Haynes4.
Abstract
Affinity maturation of the antibody response is a fundamental process in adaptive immunity during which B-cells activated by infection or vaccination undergo rapid proliferation accompanied by the acquisition of point mutations in their rearranged immunoglobulin (Ig) genes and selection for increased affinity for the eliciting antigen. The rate of somatic hypermutation at any position within an Ig gene is known to depend strongly on the local DNA sequence, and Ig genes have region-specific codon biases that influence the local mutation rate within the gene resulting in increased differential mutability in the regions that encode the antigen-binding domains. We have isolated a set of clonally related natural Ig heavy chain-light chain pairs from an experimentally infected influenza patient, inferred the unmutated ancestral rearrangements and the maturation intermediates, and synthesized all the antibodies using recombinant methods. The lineage exhibits a remarkably uniform rate of improvement of the effective affinity to influenza hemagglutinin (HA) over evolutionary time, increasing 1000-fold overall from the unmutated ancestor to the best of the observed antibodies. Furthermore, analysis of selection reveals that selection and mutation bias were concordant even at the level of maturation to a single antigen. Substantial improvement in affinity to HA occurred along mutationally preferred paths in sequence space and was thus strongly facilitated by the underlying local codon biases.Entities:
Keywords: antibody affinity maturation; antibody selection; experimental influenza infection; phylogenetics; somatic hypermutation
Year: 2014 PMID: 24795717 PMCID: PMC4001017 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Classification of mutations in CL2569 heavy- and light-chain histories.
| Heavy chains | Light chains | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non | Synon | Non | Synon | |
| FR | 40 | 20 | 14 | 7 |
| CDR | 17 | 11 | 11 | 4 |
FR, framework region; CDR, complementarity-determining region; Non, non-synonymous; Synon, synonymous.
Figure 1The profile of the probable error in the modal heavy chain UA.
Figure 2(A) Maximum-likelihood clonal tree showing observed (o), intermediate (i), and ancestral (a) sequences. The tree was inferred using both heavy and light chains. (B) Regression analysis of log10 Kd vs. evolutionary distance.
Figure 3Lower: mutability by position for heavy (left) and light (right) chains. Mutability at CDR nucleotides is shown in red. Upper: histogram by position of accumulated non-synonymous mutations; evolutionary distance vs. position for each synonymous (open disks), and non-synonymous (closed disks) mutation.
Maximum-likelihood estimates for the coefficients in the optimal model.
| Model | Mutability | βSyn | βNon | AIC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Constant | (1) | (1) | (1) | (1) | (0) | (0) | 640.0 |
| 1 | Empirical | (1) | (1) | (1) | (1) | (0) | (0) | 589.2 |
| 2 | Empirical | 0.75 | 2.12 | 0.67 | (0.94) | (0) | (0) | 584.6 |
| 3 | Empirical | 1.18 | (1.18) | (0.85) | (0.85) | (0) | (0) | 589.2 |
| 4 | Empirical | 2.25 | (2.25) | (0.44) | (0.44) | −25.8 | 16.6 | 584.0 |
| 5 | Empirical | 1.58 | 3.23 | 0.34 | (0.58) | −21.4 | 13.8 | 579.0 |
| 6 | Empirical | 1.29 | (1.29) | (0.78) | (0.78) | 9.63 | (9.63) | 589.0 |
Parentheses indicate that the parameter is invariant at the indicated value in the model considered.
Figure 4Simplified illustration of genotype space with preferred directions. Each node is a DNA sequence, and neighbors differ by one nucleotide. The dark arrows show preferred directions, meaning the mutation along the direction of the arrow occurs at a higher rate than mutations along the regular paths. The nodes labeled 2, 3, and 4 are all six steps from node 1, but differ in the number of non-preferred steps that must be taken to arrive there from 1.
Figure 5Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of mutability among observed mutations (black), and corresponding to three models: order 0 (no effect of mutability at all, blue), order 1 (consistent with selection random with respect to mutability, magenta), second order (selection proportional to mutability, red). Note that the observed CDF for synonymous mutations is approximately consistent with the order one model, and falls between the order zero and order one curves in any case. The CDF for non-synonymous mutations falls between the order one and order two curves.