Literature DB >> 27812281

Immunoinformatics Approach in Designing Epitope-based Vaccine Against Meningitis-inducing Bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae Type b).

Hilyatuz Zahroh1, Ahmad Ma'rup2, Usman Sumo Friend Tambunan3, Arli Aditya Parikesit3.   

Abstract

Meningitis infection is one of the major threats during Hajj season in Mecca. Meningitis vaccines are available, but their uses are limited in some countries due to religious reasons. Furthermore, they only give protection to certain serogroups, not to all types of meningitis-inducing bacteria. Recently, research on epitope-based vaccines has been developed intensively. Such vaccines have potential advantages over conventional vaccines in that they are safer to use and well responded to the antibody. In this study, we developed epitope-based vaccine candidates against various meningitis-inducing bacteria, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b. The epitopes were selected from their protein of polysaccharide capsule. B-cell epitopes were predicted by using BCPred, while T-cell epitope for major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I was predicted using PAProC, TAPPred, and Immune Epitope Database. Immune Epitope Database was also used to predict T-cell epitope for MHC class II. Population coverage and molecular docking simulation were predicted against previously generated epitope vaccine candidates. The best candidates for MHC class I- and class II-restricted T-cell epitopes were MQYGDKTTF, MKEQNTLEI, ECTEGEPDY, DLSIVVPIY, YPMAMMWRNASNRAI, TLQMTLLGIVPNLNK, ETSLHHIPGISNYFI, and SLLYILEKNAEMEFD, which showed 80% population coverage. The complexes of class I T-cell epitopes-HLA-C*03:03 and class II T-cell epitopes-HLA-DRB1*11:01 showed better affinity than standards as evaluated from their ΔGbinding value and the binding interaction between epitopes and HLA molecules. These peptide constructs may further be undergone in vitro and in vivo testings for the development of targeted vaccine against meningitis infection.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epitope prediction; epitope-based vaccine; immunoinformatics; meningitis; molecular docking

Year:  2016        PMID: 27812281      PMCID: PMC5091093          DOI: 10.4137/DTI.S38458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Target Insights        ISSN: 1177-3928


Introduction

Meningitis infection is one of the serious threats during Hajj due to its tendency to cause outbreaks and epidemics.1 According to WHO, this disease affects more than 400 million people who live in the area of “African meningitis belt” (from Senegal to Ethiopia). More than 800,000 people in this area were infected, with a case fatality rate of 10%.2 In Saudi Arabia, the epidemics of meningitis usually occur during or after Hajj and Umrah seasons, due to massive gathering of people in certain areas. Pattern evolution confirmed that 48% of meningitis cases were reported at the two holy cities, namely, Mecca and Medina.2 In 2000, Indonesian pilgrims were infected by Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A and W135. Among 253 identified cases from Saudi Arabia, 93 cases were caused by N. meningitidis serogroup W135, while 60 cases were caused by N. meningitidis serogroup A. Statistically, there were nine cases caused by serogroup W135 and six cases caused by serogroup A per 100,000 population.3 Generally, meningitis can be induced by certain species of virus and bacteria. Three bacterial species, namely, Haemophilus influenzae (45%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (18%), and N. meningitidis (14%), are known to cause the majority of cases, where the case fatality rates vary according to the type of bacteria. The highest fatality rate is caused by S. pneumoniae (19%), while the case fatality rates caused by N. meningitidis and H. influenzae are 13% and 3%, respectively.4 The Indonesian government requests all Hajj pilgrims to be vaccinated against meningitis bacteria before departing to Mecca. Currently, the government allows the use of Meningitis vaccine only from Novartis, Menveo®. This vaccine contains polysaccharides from each of serogroups A, C, W, and Y conjugated to a mutant of diphtheria toxin, CRM197, that differs from the wild type by the substitution of one amino acid.5,6 There have been some efforts to develop alternative vaccine candidates that could incorporate broader types of meningitis-inducing bacteria.7–10 Recently, novel approaches have been directed toward the rational design of B- and T-cell epitope-based vaccine, on account of the advancement of recombinant DNA technology, cell culture technique, immunoinformatics, big data projects, and rational design of antigens.11,12 The epitope-based vaccine has several advantages over conventional vaccines, and some are moving forward to the clinical trial pipeline.12 This next-generation vaccine has high specificity in evoking immune response, high capacity of production, and effective cost of production. Moreover, peptides consisting of epitopes are easily synthesized, purified, stored, and handled. Generally, epitope-based vaccines are also considered safer than traditional vaccines.12 Immunoinformatics approach has been used to develop subunit vaccine candidates against meningitis-inducing bacteria. Some previous studies generated several vaccine candidates: epitope FMILPIFNV against human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II from ABC transporter protein of S. pneumoniae and epitope KGLVDDADI against HLA class I from outer membrane protein of N. meningitidis.13,14 The epitopes such as FMILPIFNV and KGLVDDADI were used as standards in this study. This study designed epitope-based meningitis vaccine in silico by using polysaccharide capsule protein of S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis serogroup A, N. meningitidis serogroup W, and H. influenzae type b and analyzed the complex stability between predicted epitopes and HLA molecules using molecular docking approach. The designed epitopes may serve as promising candidates for the development of epitope-based vaccine against the meningitis-inducing bacteria.

Research Methodology

Tools and materials

This study was conducted in silico. The pipeline used in this study was adjusted and extended from the existing ones.15–19 Polysaccharide proteins of S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, and H. influenzae type b were obtained from National Center Biotechnology information (NCBI). The 3D structure of HLA was obtained from Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics (RCSB). Online and offline software including the latest version of BCPred,20 VaxiJen v2.0,21 PAPRoc I,22 TAPPRed,23,24 Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) 3.0,25 PEP-FOLD,26 MOE 2009,27 and Chimera 1.928 were used in this study.

Procedure

Retrieving protein sequences from database

The sequences of polysaccharide protein of S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, and H. influenzae type b were searched in GenBank of NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). After that, antigenicity of these sequences was predicted using VaxiJen v2.0, which can be obtained at http://www.ddg-pharmfac.net/vaxijen/VaxiJen/VaxiJen.html.21

B-cell epitope prediction

The B-cell epitope was predicted using BCPred, which can be accessed at http://ailab.cs.iastate.edu/bcpreds/.20 Antigenicity was also predicted against B-cell epitope afterward using VaxiJen.

HLA class I and class II T-cell epitope prediction from the conserved sequences

Epitopes from S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, and H. influenzae type b against HLA class I were predicted using several online softwares including PAProC,22 TAPPred,23 and IEDB.25 Proteasome cleavage site of consensus protein sequence was predicted using PAProC (http://www.paproc2.de/paproc1/paproc1.html). PAProC then generated peptide sequences and score of estimated strength.29 The peptide binding to the transporter associated with antigen processing (TAP) binding was predicted using TAPPred, http://www.imtech.res.in/raghava/tappred/, which generated protein sequences, their position, and score of predicted binding affinity to each peptide sequence.23 The antigenicity of peptide sequence generated from TAPPred prediction was analyzed using VaxiJen,21 and the antigen-bearing sequences were used to predict epitopes that bind to HLA class I and HLA class II using IEDB analysis resource.25 The binding character of epitopes to HLA was taken into consideration for the selection of the best epitopes. Epitopes with more number of bonds with HLA were considered as better than those with fewer bonds.16

The 3D structure of epitopes for HLA class I and class II

The 3D structures of the best epitopes for each HLA class I and class II were predicted using PEP-FOLD (http://bioserv.rpbs.univ-paris-diderot.fr/services/PEP-FOLD/)26 and saved in.pdb format, while the 3D structures of HLA class I and class II were obtained from RCSB (www.rcsb.org).30

The prediction of coverage population of the selected epitopes

The human population coverage is one aspect that has to be taken into consideration in selecting the best epitopes, besides their ability to bind to HLA molecules.16 Human coverage population for previously selected epitopes was predicted using IEDB analysis resource for population coverage calculation (http://tools.immuneepitope.org/tools/population/iedb_input).31

Molecular docking study of HLA–epitope interaction

The interaction between the best predicted epitopes and HLA alleles was analyzed by means of molecular docking using MOE 2009. The 3D structure of HLA, as a target molecule, and the epitopes must be prepared before docking. Preparation and docking steps were performed according to the established pipeline from previous research.32,33

Results

Protein sequence searching

A total of 4 polysaccharide protein sequences of H. influenzae type b, 3069 sequences of S. pneumoniae, 19 sequences of N. meningitidis serogroup A, and 19 sequences of N. meningitidis serogroup W were retrieved from NCBI. These sequences were subjected to antigenicity prediction in order to estimate the presence of antigen in their sequences. The peptide sequences having the VaxiJen value above the threshold level ($0.4) were used for further analysis.

B-cell epitope prediction

B-cell epitopes from H. influenzae type b, S. pneumoniae, and N. meningitidis were predicted using BCPred where criteria were set to have 75% specificity, including only nonoverlapping epitopes. BCPred prediction generated peptide sequences along with their scores (Table 1). Peptides having higher scores mean that they are easily recognized by B-cell, thus having a higher probability as epitopes.34
Table 1

B-cell epitope prediction.

EPITOPEBCpredANTIGENICITY
Haemophilus influenzae type b
GDKTTFKQS0.863Antigen
NFSKGVEPQ0.715Antigen
LGLIICAIA0.704Non
GKIWGTLSF0.696Non
WRNASNRAI0.693Antigen
Streptococcus pneumoniae
DRVPEEASR0.99Antigen
QDVLEEVVS0.99Non
PATSPSSPN0.99Non
SDVTTLEEA0.94Antigen
TLQMTLLGI0.92Antigen
VVNRDQGEK0.88Antigen
LKLDLTPKD0.80Antigen
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W
PNTRYRTPN0.99Antigen
ATTFSYLDG0.97Non
PILSNENVE0.97Non
DGSKDGSED0.97Antigen
RNTGIKNSN0.96Antigen
EKEVYAEDI0.94Antigen
PGSACNKII0.92Antigen
YYRQGRKDS0.91Antigen
VPIYNVESY0.87Non
LEKNAEMEF0.86Antigen
KYDKGSVSH0.83Non
IDSDDFINC0.81Non
YIYQDNQGT0.75Antigen
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A
WQELYKKYK0.99Non
NANTLLEKE0.99Non
NSDATSTSR0.99Antigen
YFSAKKFAK0.98Non
EGEPDYLNG0.94Antigen
ILNNRKWRK0.93Antigen
EMEKKYPEE0.93Antigen
EISSLPYEE0.92Non
LNEEWNVQV0.91Antigen
LCILESHKE0.91Non
KLNNVVTLT0.89Non
TNISKAQSN0.88Antigen
QLFKEGIRN0.86Non
LEFCKEDKD0.86Non
FTWVNSEDK0.86Antigen
NCAPPAWLD0.85Non
ETSLHHIPG0.85Antigen
LSRDELKFA0.80Antigen
SLDDIAVTG0.79Antigen
HEEIMPQSA0.78Non
AWGNVNGEC0.77Antigen
YSNDDFLLT0.77Non
FFNFEYIVK0.73Antigen
FPLPSSFEK0.71Non
DPSAFFRDS0.69Non
NPKSVNEIW0.68Non
Besides being recognized by B-cells, the peptide sequences must also possess antigen as evaluated by VaxiJen. The peptides with antigenic properties are necessary to raise the immune responses.18 Not all peptides from each bacteria passed these criteria, as listed in Table 1. H. influenzae protein, S. pneumoniae protein, N. meningitidis serogroup A, and N. meningitidis serogroup W protein generated 3, 5, 12, and 8 probable epitopes, respectively, with antigen attribute. The predicted B-cell epitopes from each bacteria protein, which produced the best BCPred score, were GDKTTFKQS, DRVPEEASR, PNTRYRTPN, and WQELYKKYK.

Identification of T-cell epitopes

T-cell epitopes must be recognized by T-cell receptor (TCR) in order to induce immune response. The epitopes that TCRs recognized are presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules on the surface of cells. There are two major types of MHC protein molecules, namely, class I and class II. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte TCRs recognize endogenous antigen presented on MHC class I, while helper T-cell and inflammatory T-cell TCRs recognize exogenous antigen presented on MHC class II.35

Identification of MHC class I epitope

A peptide having a proteasomal recognition site is not favorable as an epitope vaccine candidate because it will be degraded during antigen processing. The determination of proteasomal cleavage site was conducted using PAProC.22 Fragments having ≥9 amino acid residues were used for further analysis of TAP binding preference (Table 2). TAP binding preference has significant influence in selecting T-cell epitopes because antigenic peptides must first be transported by TAP from cytosol to endoplasmic reticulum to be presented on MHC class I.24,36 The higher the score, the higher the affinity between them and the higher the possibility for the epitope to be transported by TAP. In our result, we found that despite having high affinity toward TAP, several peptide sequences failed to have antigenicity, as calculated using VaxiJen.
Table 2

The result of TAP prediction.

PEPTIDE RANKSTART POSITIONSEQUENCESCOREPREDICTED AFFINITYANTIGENICITY
Haemophilus influenzae type b
341MQYGDKTTF6.05HighAntigen
70244DLALLLLGL4.71IntermediateAntigen
91167IICAIAQQF4.18IntermediateNon
167245LALLLLGLV2.37Low or undetectableNon
193189LLPISGAFF1.73Low or undetectableNon
204166LIICAIAQQ1.39Low or undetectableNon
245243SDLALLLLG−0.32Low or undetectableNon
Streptococcus pneumoniae
821MKEQNTLEI3.13IntermediateAntigen
99202DTRVKRPKD2.42Low or undetectableNon
149222IVPNLNKLK1.42Low or undetectableNon
161201LDTRVKRPK1.07Low or undetectableAntigen
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A
2366RKQDMLIPI6.86HighNon
3965NRKQDMLIP6.31HighNon
76245SEDKNWQEL5.11IntermediateNon
137110LESHKEDFL4.13IntermediateNon
25268QDMLIPINF2.76Low or undetectableAntigen
31367KQDMLIPIN2.15Low or undetectableNon
432387ECTEGEPDY0.69Low or undetectableAntigen
486386GECTEGEPD−0.50Low or undetectableAntigen
520385NGECTEGEP−1.52Low or undetectableAntigen
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W
964SIVVPIYNV3.89IntermediateAntigen
12321SSIEPILSN3.22IntermediateNon
1602DLSIVVPIY2.58Low or undetectableAntigen
2263LSIVVPIYN1.45Low or undetectableNon
2421MDLSIVVPI0.88Low or undetectableAntigen
The peptides from H. influenzae type b, S. pneumoniae, and N. meningitidis serogroup A and W that passed proteasomal cleavage prediction, TAP binding efficiency, and antigenicity prediction were used for the prediction of HLA class I binding using IEDB resource. They are as follows: DLALLLLGL and MQYGDKTTF from H. influenzae type b; LDTRVKRPK and MKEQNTLEI from S. pneumoniae; ECTEGEPDY, GECTEGEPD, NGECTEGEP, and QDMLIPINF from N. meningitidis serogroup A; and SIVVPIYNV, DLSIVVPIY, and MDLSIVVPI from N. meningitidis serogroup W (Table 3).
Table 3

Candidates of T-cell epitope for MHC class I.

EPITOPE INTERACTION WITH HLA CLASS I (IC50)
Haemophilus influenzae type b
DLALLLLGL HLA-B*15:02(41.04), HLA-C*12:03(196.43), HLA-C*14:02(280.94), HLA-C*03:03(329.31), HLA-A*02:01(492.16)
MQYGDKTTF HLA-C*03:03(13.23), HLA-B*15:01(23.07), HLA-C*12:03(54.60), HLA-A*32:01(59.83), HLA-A*02:06(142.74), HLA-C*14:02(165.05), HLA-B*48:01(198.88), HLA-B*35:01(239.65), HLA-B*15:02(260.75), HLA-B*18:01(409.30), HLA-B*39:01(438.93), HLA-B*53:01(442.47)
Streptococcus pneumoniae
LDTRVKRPK HLA-C*03:03(19.84), HLA-C*12:03(49.91), HLA-C*14:02(109.05)
MKEQNTLEI HLA-C*12:03(29.19), HLA-C*05:01(221.14), HLA-C*14:02(243.01), HLA-C*03:03(294.18), HLA-B*15:02(387.46)
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A
ECTEGEPDY HLA-C*12:03(34.29), HLA-C*03:03(35.78), HLA-C*14:02(148.46), HLA-C*07:02(275.53), HLA-B*15:02(279.40), HLA-B*35:01(296.40)
GECTEGEPD HLA-C*12:03(34.06), HLA-C*03:03(53.90)
NGECTEGEP HLA-C*12:03(26.38), HLA-C*03:03(90.70), HLA-C*14:02(90.91), HLA-C*07:02(191.94), HLA-C*05:01(280.98) QDMLIPINF HLA-C*12:03(54.85), HLA-C*14:02(61.18), HLA-B*15:02(309.19), HLA-C*03:03(336.98)
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W
SIVVPIYNV HLA-C*12:03(15.46), HLA-A*68:02(66.46), HLA-C*15:02(141.72), HLA-A*02:06(172.01), HLA-C*03:03(264.61), HLA-A*02:01(264.92)
DLSIVVPIY HLA-C*12:03(48.00), HLA-C*07:02(196.87), HLA-C*03:03(197.97), HLA-C*14:02(205.88), HLA-B*15:02(298.01), HLA-A*30:02(319.49), HLA-B*18:01(431.56), HLA-A*29:02(433.27), HLA-C*05:01(434.18)
MDLSIVVPI HLA-C*03:03(17.40), HLA-C*12:03(48.00), HLA-A*32:01(61.26), HLA-A*32:01(90.56), HLA-C*14:02(95.20), HLA-B*53:01(387.15), HLA-B*40:02(389.82), HLA-A*68:02(406.06).
The analysis in stabilized matrix method-based IEDB MHC I prediction tool retrieved several possible MHC I alleles that could interact well with the epitopes from four bacteria (Table 3). Each predicted MHC I allele was given an IC50 value that indicates affinity between epitope and MHC I molecule. A lower IC50 value indicates higher affinity toward MHC molecules. A peptide showing an IC50 value lower than 50, 500, and 5000 nM is associated with high affinity, intermediate affinity, and low affinity toward MHC class I molecule, respectively. Moreover, a peptide is categorized as a binder if it has IC50 lower than 500 nM and is categorized as a nonbinder if IC50 is equal to or more than 500 nM.37 In this study, the peptides were selected if they possess antigenicity, IC50 value lower than 500 nM, and more than 5 bonds with HLA class I.16 Our study identified four antigenic peptides (MQYGDKTTF, MKEQNTLEI, ECTEGEPDY, and DLSIVVPIY) as candidates of T-cell epitope for MHC class I that could interact with HLA-B*15:02, HLA-C*03:03, and HLA-C*14:02 (Table 3). Of these three types mentioned, HLA-C*03:03 has the best interaction with the selected epitope candidates. Therefore, HLA-C*03:03 structure was chosen as a model for molecular docking study of HLA peptides.

Identification of MHC class II epitope

MHC class II molecules present antigenic peptides to stimulate cellular and humoral immunity through the actions of helper T-lymphocytes. Identification of MHC class II-restricted epitope is very important in designing epitope-based vaccine. There are four T-cell epitopes, namely, YPMAMM-WRNASNRAI, TLQMTLLGIVPNLNK, ETSLHHIP-GISNYFI, and SLLYILEKNAEMEFD, generated for MHC class II from IEDB prediction. Each of these epitopes similarly binds to three types of HLA class II, HLA-DRB1*01:01, HLA-DRB1*04:04, and HLA-DRB1*11:01. However, HLA-DRB1*11:01 has the strongest affinity with the predicted epitopes. Therefore, this type of HLA will be used as a model in molecular docking simulation to predict the strength of association between HLA and epitopes (Table 4).
Table 4

Candidates of T-cell epitope for MHC class II.

EPITOPE PREDICTIONINTERACTION WITH HLA CLASS II (IC50)ANTIGENICITY
Haemophilus influenzae type b
YGDKTTFKQSLAIQGHLA-DRB1*09:01(55.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(60.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(69.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01 (102.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(147.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(163.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(178.00)Antigen
GDKTTFKQSLAIQGRHLA-DRB1*09:01(55.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(55.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(65.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(102.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(147.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(158.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(176.00)Antigen
GLVMVKNFSKGVEPQHLA-DRB1*13:02(35.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(86.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(143.00), HLA-DRB1*15:01(262.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(266.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(305.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(470.00)Non
YPMAMMWRNASNRAIHLA-DRB1*01:01(83.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(116.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(117.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(127.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(235.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(317.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(349.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(373.00)Antigen
MAMMWRNASNRAIGSHLA-DRB1*01:01(87.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(124.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(129.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(188.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(239.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(320.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(392.00)Antigen
PMAMMWRNASNRAIGHLA-DRB1*01:01(88.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(124.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(130.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(189.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(244.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(326.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(395.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(473.00)Antigen
AMMWRNASNRAIGSIHLA-DRB1*01:01(88.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(124.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(130.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(189.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(244.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(326.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(395.00)Non
MMWRNASNRAIGSISHLA-DRB1*01:01(106.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(119.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(156.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(218.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(308.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(360.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(402.00)Non
Streptococcus pneumoniae
ISITRVSDVTTLEEAHLA-DRB1*07:01(243.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(302.00), HLA-DRB1*08:02(403.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(457.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(499.00)Non
DTLQMTLLGIVPNLNHLA-DRB1*04:04(10.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(60.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(79.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(182.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(269.00), HLA-DRB1*15:01(290.00), HLA-DRB4*01:01(333.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(364.00)Antigen
TLQMTLLGIVPNLNKHLA-DRB1*04:04(10.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(59.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(78.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(163.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(163.00), HLA-DRB1*15:01(252.00), HLA-DRB4*01:01(342.00), HLA-DRB1*08:02(378.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(465.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(473.00)Antigen
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A
HIHKTNISKAQSNISHLA-DRB1*01:01(171.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(200.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(312.00), HLA-DRB4*01:01(481.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(492.00)Antigen
ETSLHHIPGISNYFIHLA-DRB1*01:01(98.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(158.00), HLA-DRB1*15:01(205.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(258.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(306.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(308.00), HLA-DRB1*08:02(498.00)Antigen
IETSLHHIPGISNYFHLA-DRB1*01:01(134.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(242.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(277.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(319.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(491.00)Non
NKFRSLDDIAVTGYLHLA-DRB1*01:01(29.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(201.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(219.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(325.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04 (440.00)Antigen
LHNKFRSLDDIAVTGHLA-DRB1*01:01(30.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(203.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(230.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(303.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(438.00)Antigen
FFNFEYIVKKLNNQNHLA-DRB1*11:01(18.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(68.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(207.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(230.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(323.00), HLA-DRB1*08:02(500.00)Antigen
YKPDFNSDATSTSRFHLA-DRB1*04:01(19.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(218.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(236.00), HLA-DRB3*01:01(390.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(429.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(499.00)Antigen
KPDFNSDATSTSRFLHLA-DRB1*04:01(19.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(206.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(207.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(295.00), HLA-DRB3*01:01(461.00)Antigen
EGEPDYLNGARNANTHLA-DRB1*01:01(100.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(124.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(256.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(355.00)Antigen
MFILNNRKWRKLKRDHLA-DRB1*11:01(81.00), HLA-DRB1*03:01(142.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(206.00), HLA-DRB1*13:02(373.00).Non
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A
ARNTGIKNSNGKYIVHLA-DRB1*13:02(11.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(99.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(257.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(283.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(474.00)Antigen
RNTGIKNSNGKYIVFHLA-DRB1*13:02(11.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(95.00), HLA- DRB1*09:01(248.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(278.00), HLA-DRB1*01:01(483.00)Antigen
EARNTGIKNSNGKYIHLA-DRB1*13:02(12.00), HLA-DRB1*07:01(105.00), HLA-DRB1*09:01(266.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(295.00)Antigen
SLLYILEKNAEMEFDHLA-DRB1*01:01(64.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(123.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(133.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(161.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(264.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05 (310.00)Antigen
LLYILEKNAEMEFDRHLA-DRB1*01:01(70.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(128.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(136.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(172.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(404.00)Non
KSLLYILEKNAEMEFHLA-DRB1*01:01(53.00), HLA-DRB1*04:01(118.00), HLA-DRB5*01:01(130.00), HLA-DRB1*04:04(147.00), HLA-DRB1*11:01(220.00), HLA-DRB1*04:05(237.00), HLA-DRB1*15:01(293.00), HLA-DRB1*12:01(392.00)Non

Coverage population prediction of class I and class II epitopes

An epitope will evoke a response only in individuals that express an MHC molecule capable of binding that particular epitope. However, human MHC (HLA) alleles are highly polymorphic and different types of HLA are expressed differently in the different population. Therefore, ensuring broad population coverage by selecting epitopes with different HLA binding specificities is an important consideration in designing epitope-based vaccine.31 An epitope is said to show good coverage if its value is approaching 100% or close to 100%.16 In this study, the average population coverage is 80%. Maximum coverage (94%) was found in the population of East Asia and North America, followed by Europe (93%). On the opposite side, the lowest coverage was showed in the population of Central America. While for Indonesian population, the selected epitopes showed more than half population coverage (Table 5).
Table 5

Prediction of population coverage.

POPULATIONCOVERAGE (%)
East Asia94
Northeast Asia84
South Asia85
Southeast Asia83
Southwest Asia67
Europe93
East Africa78
West Africa83
Indonesia65
Central Africa78
North Africa84
South Africa63
West Indies81
North America94
Central America53
South America81
Oceania75
Average80

Molecular docking

A binding interaction between epitopes and HLA alleles was assessed using MOE. The 3D structures of epitopes were predicted using PEP-FOLD26 and prepared using MOE, which includes wash, partial charge, and energy minimization. MHC I-restricted epitope and HLA C*03:03 formed a stable HLA–peptide complex with lower ΔGbinding than standards (KGLVDDADI), as presented in Table 6. The more negative ΔGbinding value, the stronger the interaction between the epitope and HLA. Apart from the ΔGbinding value, the interaction between epitope and HLA C*03:03 can also be studied by analyzing the hydrogen bond between them. Table 6 showed that eight hydrogen bonds were present in MQYGDKTTF–HLA class I, DLSIVVPIY–HLA class I, and standard (KGLVDDADI)–HLA class I complexes, which involved six amino acid residues, while MKEQNTLEI–HLA and ECTEGEPDY–HLA complexes formed 13 and 14 hydrogen bonds, respectively. Despite the same number of hydrogen bonds in two epitope–HLA class I complexes and standard–HLA class I complex, the ΔGbinding value for each of the complexes is different. This is due to the inequality of hydrogen bonds, which depends on the atom distances and angles. Moreover, the estimation of ΔGbinding also takes into account the contribution from other noncovalent interactions such as electrostatic solvation, hydrophobic interaction, rotational entropy, and translational entropy.38,39
Table 6

Molecular docking simulation of MHC class I-restricted epitope with HLA-C*03:03.

FREE ENERGY AND 3D EPITOPEEPITOPE INTERACTION WITH HLA C*03:03
MQYGDKTTF−14.43 kcal/mol
MKEQNTLEI−17.46 kcal/mol
ECTEGEPDY−16.28 kcal/mol
DLSIVVPIY−16.88 kcal/mol
KGLVDDADI−13.14 kcal/mol

Notes:

The same result was observed for the molecular docking simulation between MHC class II-restricted epitope and HLA-DRB1*11:01 (Table 7). The complex between selected epitopes and HLA class II showed more negative free energy of binding than the standard–HLA class II complex. The ETSLHHIPGISNYFI–HLA-DRB1*11:01 complex has the lowest ΔGbinding value of all complexes (−60.16 kcal/mol). The most favored binding orientation between each epitope and HLA class II molecule is displayed in Table 7.
Table 7

Molecular docking simulation of MHC class II-restricted epitope with HLA-DRB1*11:01.

FREE ENERGY AND 3D EPITOPEEPITOPE INTERACTION WITH HLA DRB1*11:01
YPMAMMWRNASNRAI−30.54 kcal/mol
TLQMTLLGIVPNLNK−25.61 kcal/mol
ETSLHHIPGISNYFI−60.16 kcal/mol
SLLYILEKNAEMEFD−25.55 kcal/mol
FMILPIFNV−24.76 kcal/mol

Notes:

Discussion

The main objective of epitope prediction is to design a molecule that can replace an antigen in the process of eliciting a relevant immune response. Designed molecules are favorable to use in vaccine production because they are cost-effective and noninfectious in contrast to whole pathogen organisms, which might possess risks to researchers or experimental subjects (animals and humans). This study incorporates immunoinformatics approach to reducing time- and cost-consuming hit and trial sets of wet laboratory experiments. This approach is used for the prediction of antigenic determinants in the capsular protein sequence of H. influenzae type b, S. pneumoniae, and N. meningitidis serogroup A and W. According to the prediction result of IEDB and molecular docking study, the peptides that passed several criteria of probable epitope such as possessing antigenicity, binder attribute, and good affinity with HLA molecules are MQYGDKTTF, MKEQNTLEI, ECTEGEPDY, and DLSIVVPIY for MHC class I and YPMAMMWRNASNRAI, TLQMTLLGIVPNLNK, ETSLHHIPGISNYFI, and SLLYILEKNAEMEFD for MHC class II. These peptides also passed proteasomal cleavage and TAP binding efficiency prediction, which are of main concerns in designing good epitopes for vaccine candidates. Molecular docking study has been widely used in computer-aided drug design. However, it is now applied to investigate the epitope candidates that could bind MHC class I and class II molecules. Computational immunology is now considered to contribute to vaccine design in the way computational chemistry contributes to drug design.35 The algorithms for epitopes identification served by IEDB and molecular docking study have increased the overall efficiency in epitope discovery for vaccine research. These epitopes also showed good population coverage (80% in average) and reached above average values in East Asia, North America, and Europe population. The high value of population coverage is needed to minimize the complexity of putting different epitopes in the development of vaccine.31 The predicted epitopes can be synthesized for further in vitro and in vivo assays.

Conclusion

We have predicted numerous antigenic peptides from the capsular protein sequence of H. influenzae type b, S. pneumoniae, and N. meningitidis serogroup A and W, which would be beneficial for effective vaccine development against meningococcal diseases. Results indicated that MQYGDKTTF, MKEQNTLEI, ECTEGEPDY, and DLSIVVPIY are potential vaccine candidates that have considerable binding with MHC class I alleles, while YPMAMMWRNASNRAI, TLQMTLLGIVPNLNK, ETSLHHIPGISNYFI, and SLLYILEKNAEMEFD are the potential candidates for MHC class II-restricted T-cell epitopes. These epitopes also had low energy minimization values that favored the stability of the epitope–MHC allele complex. However, experiments using model animals should be performed to verify their suitability to be included in a vaccine formulation against meningococcal diseases.
  32 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  PAProC: a prediction algorithm for proteasomal cleavages available on the WWW.

Authors:  A K Nussbaum; C Kuttler; K P Hadeler; H G Rammensee; H Schild
Journal:  Immunogenetics       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.846

Review 3.  Treatment of bacterial meningitis.

Authors:  V J Quagliarello; W M Scheld
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-03-06       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Recombinant and epitope-based vaccines on the road to the market and implications for vaccine design and production.

Authors:  Patricio Oyarzún; Bostjan Kobe
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Vaccine prevention of meningococcal disease, coming soon?

Authors:  S L Morley; A J Pollard
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2001-12-12       Impact factor: 3.641

6.  Helper T cell epitope-mapping reveals MHC-peptide binding affinities that correlate with T helper cell responses to pneumococcal surface protein A.

Authors:  Rajesh Singh; Shailesh Singh; Praveen K Sharma; Udai P Singh; David E Briles; Susan K Hollingshead; James W Lillard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  PEP-FOLD: an updated de novo structure prediction server for both linear and disulfide bonded cyclic peptides.

Authors:  Pierre Thévenet; Yimin Shen; Julien Maupetit; Frédéric Guyon; Philippe Derreumaux; Pierre Tufféry
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 8.  New versus old meningococcal group B vaccines: how the new ones may benefit infants & toddlers.

Authors:  D Panatto; D Amicizia; P L Lai; M L Cristina; A Domnich; R Gasparini
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  The immune epitope database (IEDB) 3.0.

Authors:  Randi Vita; James A Overton; Jason A Greenbaum; Julia Ponomarenko; Jason D Clark; Jason R Cantrell; Daniel K Wheeler; Joseph L Gabbard; Deborah Hix; Alessandro Sette; Bjoern Peters
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Serogroup W-135 meningococcal disease during the Hajj, 2000.

Authors:  Jairam R Lingappa; Abdullah M Al-Rabeah; Rana Hajjeh; Tajammal Mustafa; Adel Fatani; Tami Al-Bassam; Amira Badukhan; Abdulhafiz Turkistani; Sahar Makki; Nassen Al-Hamdan; Mohamed Al-Jeffri; Yaqoub Al Mazrou; Bradley A Perkins; Tonja Popovic; Leonard W Mayer; Nancy E Rosenstein
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.883

View more
  6 in total

1.  The Immunogenicity of OMP31 Peptides and Its Protection Against Brucella melitensis Infection in Mice.

Authors:  Fengbo Zhang; Zhiwei Li; Bin Jia; Yuejie Zhu; Pan Pang; Chuntao Zhang; Jianbing Ding
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  A Multiepitope Peptide, rOmp22, Encapsulated in Chitosan-PLGA Nanoparticles as a Candidate Vaccine Against Acinetobacter baumannii Infection.

Authors:  Xingran Du; Jianpeng Xue; Mingzi Jiang; Shaoqing Lin; Yuzhen Huang; Kaili Deng; Lei Shu; Hanmei Xu; Zeqing Li; Jing Yao; Sixia Chen; Ziyan Shen; Ganzhu Feng
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2021-03-04

3.  Molecular docking and dynamic simulation of conserved B cell epitope of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Indonesian isolates: an immunoinformatic approach.

Authors:  Fedik Abdul Rantam; Viol Dhea Kharisma; Christrijogo Sumartono; Jusak Nugraha; Andi Yasmin Wijaya; Helen Susilowati; Suryo Kuncorojakti; Alexander Patera Nugraha
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2021-08-16

4.  Design of an Epitope-Based Peptide Vaccine Against the Major Allergen Amb a 11 Using Immunoinformatic Approaches.

Authors:  Dzhemal Moten; Desislava Kolchakova; Krasimir Todorov; Tsvetelina Mladenova; Balik Dzhambazov
Journal:  Protein J       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Computer-Aided Multi-Epitope Vaccine Design against Enterobacter xiangfangensis.

Authors:  Abdulrahman Alshammari; Metab Alharbi; Abdullah Alghamdi; Saif Ali Alharbi; Usman Ali Ashfaq; Muhammad Tahir Ul Qamar; Asad Ullah; Muhammad Irfan; Amjad Khan; Sajjad Ahmad
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  In silico vaccine design against Chlamydia trachomatis infection.

Authors:  Shilpa Shiragannavar; Shivakumar Madagi; Joy Hosakeri; Vandana Barot
Journal:  Netw Model Anal Health Inform Bioinform       Date:  2020-06-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.