Anouk M F van der Gracht1, Mark A R de Geus1, Marcel G M Camps2, Tracy J Ruckwardt3, Alexi J C Sarris1, Jessica Bremmers1, Elmer Maurits1, Joanna B Pawlak1, Michelle M Posthoorn1, Kimberly M Bonger4, Dmitri V Filippov1, Herman S Overkleeft1, Marc S Robillard5, Ferry Ossendorp2, Sander I van Kasteren1. 1. Leiden Institute of Chemistry and The Institute for Chemical Immunology , Leiden University , Einsteinweg 55 , 2333 CC Leiden , The Netherlands. 2. Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion , Leiden University Medical Center , P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden , The Netherlands. 3. Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease , National Institute of Health , 40 Convent Drive, Building 40 , Bethesda , Maryland 20814 , United States. 4. Department of Biomolecular Chemistry, Institute for Molecules and Materials , Radboud University , Heyendaalseweg 135 , 6525 AJ Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 5. Tagworks Pharmaceuticals , Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10 , 6525 GA Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Abstract
Activation of a cytotoxic T-cell is a complex multistep process, and tools to study the molecular events and their dynamics that result in T-cell activation in situ and in vivo are scarce. Here, we report the design and use of conditional epitopes for time-controlled T-cell activation in vivo. We show that trans-cyclooctene-protected SIINFEKL (with the lysine amine masked) is unable to elicit the T-cell response characteristic for the free SIINFEKL epitope. Epitope uncaging by means of an inverse-electron demand Diels-Alder (IEDDA) event restored T-cell activation and provided temporal control of T-cell proliferation in vivo.
Activation of a cytotoxic T-cell is a complex multistep process, and tools to study the molecular events and their dynamics that result in T-cell activation in situ and in vivo are scarce. Here, we report the design and use of conditional epitopes for time-controlled T-cell activation in vivo. We show that trans-cyclooctene-protected SIINFEKL (with the lysine amine masked) is unable to elicit the T-cell response characteristic for the free SIINFEKL epitope. Epitope uncaging by means of an inverse-electron demand Diels-Alder (IEDDA) event restored T-cell activation and provided temporal control of T-cell proliferation in vivo.
Cell-to-cell
contact is one
of the essential means of information transfer in metazoans. Few examples
of such cell–cell contacts result in more drastic phenotypic
changes than those between cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTL) and antigen
presenting cells (APCs).[1] Naïve
T-cells leave the thymus as small, featureless cells with minimal
metabolism, but with a strong lymph node homing capacity, reliant
on L-selectin and various integrins.[2] Each
cell has a specific T-cell receptor (TCR) capable of recognizing a
peptide presented by an APC on a major histocompatibility type-1 complex
(MHC-I).[1] Upon recognition of its cognate
peptide-MHC-I (pMHC), in combination with costimulatory signals copresented
by the APC, massive and rapid phenotypic changes will transform the
naïve CTL into a cell capable of killing any non-APCs displaying
this cognate peptide on their MHC-I.[3] This
is one of the major mechanisms by which tumors and virus-infected
cells are routinely cleared from the body, and harnessing these traits
underpins many of the cancer immunotherapies targeted to tumor neo-epitopes.[4]The binding of the TCR is sensitive. As
few as one copy of a cognate
peptide can instigate the signaling cascade in vitro.[5,6] It is also selective, as this recognition takes place
in the context of 10 000’s of copies of noncognate peptides
on the same APC.[7,8] Even single amino acid substitutions
are capable of curtailing,[9] or even abolishing,
T-cell activation.[10−12] A factor that complicates T-cell activation studies
further is that there is no correlation between the binding strength in vitro and the strength of TCR-signaling that follows
activation.[13] Less is known about the in vivo activation of T-cells.[14] The contacts between T-cells and APCs are, for example, more transient
and dynamic in nature compared to those found in vitro.(15−18) The lack of a defined starting point to these contacts complicates
the study of T-cell activation kinetics, and methods allowing the
study of early T-cell activation events with real-time control over
activation in vivo are needed to study these processes.[14]Control over T-cell activation using protecting
group strategies
to achieve temporal control in vitro is an emerging
field. Two approaches have been reported in which the ε-amines
of lysine residues within either a helper T-cell epitope[19,20] or a cytotoxic T-cell epitope[12] are blocked
with a protecting group. The addition of a deprotection reagent, such
as UV-light to remove a nitroveratryl group,[19,20] or water-soluble phosphines to reduce azides to amines[21] provided this temporal control in the Petri
dish. Arguably, the use of (UV) light as a trigger to activate T-cell
epitopes has intrinsic limitations: poor tissue penetration even at
higher wavelengths essentially prohibits systemic application of photocaged
T-cell epitopes. On paper, bioorthogonal chemistry has no such tissue-penetrating
limits; however, the chemistry needs to be effective (more so than
the Staudinger reduction we applied previously) and all reagents able
to penetrate all tissues. In this respect, the most versatile bioorthogonal
chemistry developed to date for in vivo applications
in terms of yield, speed, and side reactions comprises the inverse
electron demand Diels–Alder reaction (IEDDA).[22] This [4 + 2] cycloaddition reaction occurs between an electron-poor
diene (normally an s-tetrazine) and an electron-rich
dienophile (most often a strained alkene). The tetrazine ligation
between a tetrazine and a trans-cyclooctene was initially
reported as an ultrafast bioorthogonal ligation reaction by the Fox
group.[23]Recently, Versteegen et
al.,[24] as well
as Li et al.[25] and Agustin et al.[26] have shown that the IEDDA can also be used as
a bioorthogonal deprotection reaction (Figure a). In this variant of the IEDDA, the 4,5-dihydropyridazine,
resulting from [4 + 2] cycloaddition of a tetrazine and a trans-cyclooctene (TCO) bearing a carbamate at the allylic
position, tautomerizes to 1,4-dihydropyridazines. One of these 1,4-dihydropyridazines
can then undergo elimination of a carbamate-linked biomolecule at
the allylic position, resulting in the liberated biomolecule, CO2, and a cyclooctene-tetrazine elimination adduct. These adducts
are different for each tetrazine used and can rearrange into the corresponding
aromatic products, making it difficult to accurately perform toxicity
studies. In vivo studies thus far have not shown
any toxic side effects.[27−29] Mechanistic investigations concerning
this reaction are currently a field of interest.[30,31]
Figure 1
Design
and synthesis of caged peptides. (a) Inverse electron-demand
Diels–Alder (IEDDA) pyridazine elimination between a silent trans-cyclooctene-modified epitope and a tetrazine liberates
antigenicity of the peptide. After initial cycloaddition, tautomerization
and elimination results in the free lysine ε-amine upon which
a T-cell can recognize the epitope again and become activated. (b)
Synthesis of SIINFEK[CCO]L (4), SIINFEK[TCO]L (5), and SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7). Reagents/conditions:
(a) Fmoc SPPS from Fmoc-Leu-Wang; (b) methylsulfonylethyl succinimido-carbonate,
DIPEA, NMP, rt; (c) TFA/H2O/TIPS (95:2.5:2.5), rt, 23%; (d) NHS-CCO
(2), NHS-TCO (3), or NHS-mbTCO (6), DIPEA, DMF, rt; (e) ethanolamine, DMF, rt; (f) dioxane/MeOH/4
M NaOH (7.5:2.25:0.25), rt, 16% (4), 20% (5), 14% (7).
Design
and synthesis of caged peptides. (a) Inverse electron-demand
Diels–Alder (IEDDA) pyridazine elimination between a silent trans-cyclooctene-modified epitope and a tetrazine liberates
antigenicity of the peptide. After initial cycloaddition, tautomerization
and elimination results in the free lysine ε-amine upon which
a T-cell can recognize the epitope again and become activated. (b)
Synthesis of SIINFEK[CCO]L (4), SIINFEK[TCO]L (5), and SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7). Reagents/conditions:
(a) Fmoc SPPS from Fmoc-Leu-Wang; (b) methylsulfonylethyl succinimido-carbonate,
DIPEA, NMP, rt; (c) TFA/H2O/TIPS (95:2.5:2.5), rt, 23%; (d) NHS-CCO
(2), NHS-TCO (3), or NHS-mbTCO (6), DIPEA, DMF, rt; (e) ethanolamine, DMF, rt; (f) dioxane/MeOH/4
M NaOH (7.5:2.25:0.25), rt, 16% (4), 20% (5), 14% (7).We here present a method based on this inverse electron demand
Diels–Alder pyridazine elimination reaction that provides chemical
control over the activation of T-cells in vitro and in vivo (Figure a). The TCO protecting group was optimized for solubility
and on-cell deprotection yield. The approach is generic based on the
effectiveness for two separate epitopes and works with different T-cells in vitro, as well as in vivo.
Results
and Discussion
To determine whether TCO chemistry was amenable
for in
vivo T-cell activation and to compare its efficacy with that
of our previously reported strategy based on Staudinger reduction,[12] we selected OVA257–264 (OT-I,
SIINFEKL) as our model epitope, with modification on the crucial lysine
ε-amino group having shown to block T-cell activation. The peptide
sequence was synthesized using standard Fmoc solid phase peptide synthesis
(SPPS) conditions followed by N-terminal protection
with the methylsulfonylethyloxycarbonyl (MSc) group[32] to improve the solubility of the liberated peptide after
acidic cleavage from the resin and to enable selective modification
of the lysine ε-amine in the subsequent step (Figure b). From the purified intermediate
(MSc-SIINFEKL, 1), we synthesized cis- and (axial) trans-cyclooct-2-en-1-yl carbamate
derivatives of SIINFEKL by reaction with the corresponding N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) esters (2, 3) followed by deprotection under basic conditions of the
MSc group to provide the cis- and trans-cyclooctene protected SIINFEKL-derivatives 4 and 5. We also synthesized the bifunctional TCO reported by Rossin
et al.[27] for modification of the lysine
ε-amine. Peptide 1 was reacted with the NHS-carbonate
of reagent 6 in the presence of its sterically hindered
NHS-ester. Next, the latter was reacted with ethanolamine to install
an extra polar moiety on the ring system. This resulted in a more
soluble protected SIINFEKL (SIINFEK[mbTCO]L, 7).To establish the suitability of our caged peptides for on-cell
uncaging, the binding affinity of the caged epitopes 4, 5, and 7 for Kb-MHC-I were
compared to the binding affinity of SIINFEKL using the temperature
sensitive RMA-S cell line[33] (Figure a). These experiments showed
no affinity penalty resulting from the modification of Lys-7, in agreement
with the observed solvent exposure of the ε-amine in the crystal
structure of the complex.[34] The antibody
25D1, which is specific for SIINFEKL within the Kb MHC-I
complex,[35] did not bind the caged epitopes
on RMA-S cells, due to its known reliance on Lys-7 for recognition
(Figure a).[35] The T-cell hybridoma B3Z,[36] specific for the OVA257–264 epitope SIINFEKL,
was also not activated by the caged variants 4, 5, and 7 when presented on dendritic cells either,
up to 1 μM of peptide (Figure S1).
Figure 2
Optimization
of in vitro deprotection of the trans-cyclooctene protected epitope SIINFEKL. (a) Binding
affinity (MFI) of the caged epitopes, compared to SIINFEKL, to cell
surface H2–Kb at low temperatures of the TAP deficient
cell-line RMA-S. Analysis was performed with anti H2–Kb and H2–Kb–SIINFEKL specific antibody
(25-D1-APC). SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7̧ purple), CCO (4, green), and TCO (5, blue), SIINFEKL (red).
(b,c) Deprotection of caged peptides (4, 5, 7) using DC2.4 cells as APCs and B3Z cells as T-cells.
T-cell activation was compared to wild-type response (SIINFEKL; red)
by measuring absorption (AU) of beta-galactosidase-directed CPRG hydrolysis.
All experiments have been done twice in triplicate; error bars represent
the standard error of the mean. (b) Deprotection of CCO (4, green), TCO (5, blue), and mbTCO (7,
purple) in the presence of 50 μM 3,6-dimethyltetrazine (8) for 30 min and indicated peptide concentrations. (c) Deprotection
of 100 nM mbTCO (7) after incubation with 50 μM 8 for the indicated times. After 1 min incubation, a significant
(p = 0.04) T-cell response could already be detected.
Optimization
of in vitro deprotection of the trans-cyclooctene protected epitope SIINFEKL. (a) Binding
affinity (MFI) of the caged epitopes, compared to SIINFEKL, to cell
surface H2–Kb at low temperatures of the TAP deficient
cell-line RMA-S. Analysis was performed with anti H2–Kb and H2–Kb–SIINFEKL specific antibody
(25-D1-APC). SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7̧ purple), CCO (4, green), and TCO (5, blue), SIINFEKL (red).
(b,c) Deprotection of caged peptides (4, 5, 7) using DC2.4 cells as APCs and B3Z cells as T-cells.
T-cell activation was compared to wild-type response (SIINFEKL; red)
by measuring absorption (AU) of beta-galactosidase-directed CPRG hydrolysis.
All experiments have been done twice in triplicate; error bars represent
the standard error of the mean. (b) Deprotection of CCO (4, green), TCO (5, blue), and mbTCO (7,
purple) in the presence of 50 μM 3,6-dimethyltetrazine (8) for 30 min and indicated peptide concentrations. (c) Deprotection
of 100 nM mbTCO (7) after incubation with 50 μM 8 for the indicated times. After 1 min incubation, a significant
(p = 0.04) T-cell response could already be detected.We next determined to what extent
and how fast our TCO-caged peptides
could be deprotected in vitro. Caged epitopes 4, 5, and 7 were loaded on dendritic
cells (DC2.4 cells[37]) and incubated with
50 μM of 3,6-dimethyl-tetrazine (8) for 30 min
(Figure b). The B3Z
T-cell response was measured as beta-galactosidase-directed CPRG (chlorophenol
red-β-galactopyranoside) hydrolysis, which is in direct correlation
with IL-2 promotor activity, due to its inclusion under the NFAT-promotor
in the B3Z T-cell line.[36] At the highest
concentration of peptide, no T-cell response was observed for the
tetrazine-unreactive peptide 4. However, tetrazine-reactive
peptide 5 gave 42% ± 4.2% of the response observed
for the wild type epitope. The mbTCO-modified peptide gave 82% ±
4.4% of the wildtype response at this time point. The response was
also rapid: cells loaded with 100 nM of 7 yielded significant
(p = 0.04) T-cell responses after 1 min of uncaging with 50 μM 8 (Figure c). We also compared the stability of the TCO moiety for peptides 5 and 7 in full medium and FCS (Figure S1), revealing poor solubility for 5 and
stability up to 4 h in FCS for 7. For all further assays,
we therefore continued with caged epitope 7 due to superior
uncaging yield, ease of purification, and enhanced solubility.The uncaging strategy was extrapolated to other antigen presenting
cells (the D1 cell line[38] and bone-marrow
derived dendritic cells, BM-DCs[39]). Both
these cell types showed significant and comparable levels of deprotection
of the caged epitope (7) compared to DC2.4 under the
same conditions (>85% and >48% T-cell activation compared to
SIINFEKL, respectively (Figure S2)). Tetrazine 8 has been reported to be nontoxic in vivo up to 140 mg/kg (1.25 mmol/kg)[28] in mice.
Negligible loss of cell viability was observed (up to 100 μM 8 (Figure S3a,b)), confirming this
tolerance for APCs. The addition of serum had no influence on uncaging
or T-cell response (Figure S3c).The speed of the uncaging of mbTCO-SIINFEKL (7) was
investigated using the recently reported asymmetric tetrazines,[30] which were shown to have improved kinetics due
to a combination of electron donating and withdrawing substituents
on the tetrazine ring. 3,6-Dipyrimidinyl-tetrazine (9; two EWGs) showed no detectable elimination, whereas 3-methyl-6-pyrimidinyl-tetrazine
(10) and 3-hydroxyethyl-6-pyrimidinyl-tetrazine (11)[30] indeed showed improved uncaging
rates and efficacy (Figure a–c; verified using LC/MS
analysis; Figures S4, S5) compared to 8, with maximal T-cell activation already observed at the
first (1 min) time point, while for 8 maximal T cell
activation is reached at 30 min incubation. Additionally, the previously
reported dextran-functionalized tetrazine (12), which
has a reduced yield and uncaging speed compared to 8in vitro, but performs better in vivo due
to reduced clearance,[27,40] was tested in our in
vitro system. Tetrazine 12 showed similar concentration
dependent behavior to that of 8 but slower uncaging speed,
although linear in time. For later experiments, we focus on tetrazine 8, 11, and 12, which also show negligible
toxicity on APCs (Figure S3a,b).
Figure 3
In
vitro kinetics of uncaging of SIINFEK[mbTCO]L
(7) using different tetrazines. (a) Structures of the
four different tetrazines. (b/c) Deprotection of 100 nM 7 using DC2.4 cells as APCs and B3Z cells as T-cells. T-cell activation
was compared to wild-type response (SIINFEKL; set at 1.0 normalized
T-cell response) by measuring absorption (AU) of beta-galactosidase-directed
CPRG hydrolysis. All experiments have been done twice in triplicate;
error bars represent the standard deviation. (b) Uncaging of 7 with tetrazines 8–12 for
30 min at the indicated concentrations. (c) Deprotection reaction
of 7 with tetrazines 8–12 at 10 μM of tetrazine at increasing incubation times. Tetrazine 9 blocks T-cell activation, and tetrazine 10 and 11 show improved uncaging speed compared to tetrazine 8. Tetrazine 12 shows reduced uncaging speed
and increases linearly. Relative T-cell response is normalized between
SIINFEKL 100 nM response as 1.0 and no peptide background signal 0.0.
In
vitro kinetics of uncaging of SIINFEK[mbTCO]L
(7) using different tetrazines. (a) Structures of the
four different tetrazines. (b/c) Deprotection of 100 nM 7 using DC2.4 cells as APCs and B3Z cells as T-cells. T-cell activation
was compared to wild-type response (SIINFEKL; set at 1.0 normalized
T-cell response) by measuring absorption (AU) of beta-galactosidase-directed
CPRG hydrolysis. All experiments have been done twice in triplicate;
error bars represent the standard deviation. (b) Uncaging of 7 with tetrazines 8–12 for
30 min at the indicated concentrations. (c) Deprotection reaction
of 7 with tetrazines 8–12 at 10 μM of tetrazine at increasing incubation times. Tetrazine 9 blocks T-cell activation, and tetrazine 10 and 11 show improved uncaging speed compared to tetrazine 8. Tetrazine 12 shows reduced uncaging speed
and increases linearly. Relative T-cell response is normalized between
SIINFEKL 100 nM response as 1.0 and no peptide background signal 0.0.To assess whether the approach
could be used for other key lysine
residues as well as other MHC-I haplotypes, we used a second epitope
in which T-cell recognition is dependent on a critical lysine, namely,
the DbM187–195 peptide (NAITNAKII) from
respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).[41] This
virus is the main causative agent of respiratory failure in infants
and responsible for significant mortality in the very young (<2
years) and the elderly.[42] In C57BL/6 mice,
M187–195 is a dominant epitope,[43] and a highly functional subdominant epitope in CB6F1 mice.[44] The peptide (sequence NAITNAKII) is a nonamer
that binds the MHC-I haplotype Db, and the recognition
by T-cells is critically dependent on Lys-193 recognition,[45] which we have previously shown is amenable to
caging.[12] Synthesis of a mbTCO-caged variant
of this peptide (NAITNAK[mbTCO]II, 13) followed by a
mixed splenocyte assay showed the same level of control over T-cell
activation as seen for SIINFEKL/OT-I (Figure S6), suggesting application to lysine-cognate TCRs in general.T-cell hybridomas (e.g., B3Z) lack some key hallmarks of native
T-cell activation, due to their immortalized nature. For instance,
hybridoma cells are in a continually dividing state, which makes them
unsuitable for studying the switch from quiescence to activation,
as this is marked by the switch from a nonproliferative to a highly
proliferative state. Alterations in surface marker expression of these
T-cells associated with this activation are also absent in these cell
lines.[36] Naïve primary T-cells do
allow the study of this activation switch, as they show these properties
upon activation.[46] We therefore determined
whether the approach was compatible with primary CTLs. Primary CTLs
were isolated from OT-I mice, which has a homogeneous T-cell population
selective for the SIINFEKL-epitope.[46] CD62L
and CD69 are the first markers that show changes in cell-surface expression
levels upon T-cell activation in vitro.[2,47,48] We therefore quantified changes
in surface expression levels of these early markers, and the induction
of proliferation, upon IEDDA-deprotection on primary naïve
CTLs.Analysis of early activation markers showed similar kinetics
of
CD62L downregulation and CD69 upregulation upon pulsing with SIINFEKL
or upon preloading with 7, followed by tetrazine-mediated
uncaging with 11 (Figure a). The uncaged 7 shows a slight delay
for both markers; however, after 180 min a similar level of early
markers is reached. The histograms (Figure S7a,b) of each time point are also similar, indicating no increase in
the heterogeneity of activation. These early markers demonstrate that
the activation of T-cells using a caged epitope shows a similar profile
of activation upon the addition of tetrazine 11 compared
to the natural epitope. The caged epitope (7, up to 100
pM) and tetrazine 11 (10 μM) induced no background
proliferation (Figure S8). The addition
of 11 to 7-pulsed OT-I cells induced T-cell
proliferation (Figure b). The addition of 11 to SIINFEKL changed the proliferation
pattern. These differences were assigned to earlier observed sensitivity
of these cells; even slight changes in environment have an effect
on activation/proliferation.
Figure 4
Primary T-cell (OT-I) proliferation and the
early T-cell activation
of SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7) can be controlled by tetrazine
elimination. (a) Detection (MFI) of early activation markers upon
deprotection of 7 (100 pM) with 11 (10 μM)
using primary T-cells (OT-I). Early activation markers CD62L and CD69
were compared to wild-type response (SIINFEKL, 100 pM) by using fluorescent
antibodies (CD62L-APC and CD69-PE, respectively). Data of three individual
experiments with SD, normalized between highest signal obtained and
zero fluorescence intensity. (b) OT-I proliferation at day 3 after
incubation with 100 pM of peptide (SIINFEKL or 7) and
10 μM of tetrazine 11; representative figure of
experiment performed twice.
Primary T-cell (OT-I) proliferation and the
early T-cell activation
of SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7) can be controlled by tetrazine
elimination. (a) Detection (MFI) of early activation markers upon
deprotection of 7 (100 pM) with 11 (10 μM)
using primary T-cells (OT-I). Early activation markers CD62L and CD69
were compared to wild-type response (SIINFEKL, 100 pM) by using fluorescent
antibodies (CD62L-APC and CD69-PE, respectively). Data of three individual
experiments with SD, normalized between highest signal obtained and
zero fluorescence intensity. (b) OT-I proliferation at day 3 after
incubation with 100 pM of peptide (SIINFEKL or 7) and
10 μM of tetrazine 11; representative figure of
experiment performed twice.Encouraged by these ex vivo results, we
set out
to translate the chemical control over early activation events, CD62L
shedding and CD69 upregulation, and T-cell proliferation from an in vitro to in vivo setting. For this,
OT-I cells were adoptively transferred on day −1 i.v. in the
lateral tail vein, allowing distribution of the cells throughout the
body,[49] followed by tail base s.c. injection
of 7 at day 0. Tetrazine 11 was injected
subcutaneously (s.c.) in the right flank above the right inguinal
lymph node (iLN) and incubated for 1, 2, or 3 h. Afterward, mice were
sacrificed, and iLNs were extracted. Cells were stained and analyzed
by FACS. At 3 h, 70% of CD8α+-CD45.1+ T-cells
were double positive (CD62L– and CD69+) in the right inguinal lymph node (iLN) compared to 17% in the left
(Figure S9).On the basis of these
initial results, the experiment was repeated
with three mice per group at 3 h of tetrazine incubation (Figure a,b). Interestingly,
even injecting only the caged peptide 7 already resulted
in significant down- and upregulation of CD62L and CD69, respectively
(p = 0.0004 and p < 0.0002),
indicating the presence of an in vivo mechanism for
T-cell activation by antigens for which a TCR has low affinity. However,
when tetrazine 11 was also injected, a significant difference
was detected for CD62L compared to protected peptide 7 alone (p < 0.05). Dextran tetrazine 12 induced significant shifts for both markers. Furthermore, significant
differences were observed between left and right iLN for both markers
(CD62L p < 0.05 and CD69 p <
0.01). When assessing both markers in combination as a more robust
method for selecting activated T-cells,[19] left over right differences became clearer. A similar percentage
of double activated T-cells were observed in the right iLN (84.7%
± 6.9% of CD8α+-CD45.1+ T-cells;
compared to 87.3% ± 1.3% for SIINFEKL in the right iLN), whereas
only 43.1% ± 12% cells showed activation of both markers in the
contralateral iLN. The dextran-functionalized tetrazine 12 has been reported to have slower clearing properties,[27] and therefore we hypothesize that this slower
diffusion time explains the increased control over localized activation.
These results show the regioselective potential of the approach.
Figure 5
In vivo activation and proliferation of OT-I cells
after local tail base injection of SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7) and subsequent injection of tetrazine 8, 11, or 12. (a,b) CD62L and CD69 cell surface appearances
were measured on OT-I T-cells using fluorescent antibodies: CD62L-APC
and CD69-PE. When CD62L was decreased and CD69 was increased, the
T-cells were qualified as activated. Mice were injected in the tail
base area on both sides of the tail with a total amount of 10 nmol
peptide (7 or SIINFEKL) and later injected with 100 nmol
tetrazine or PBS only s.c. in the right flank right above the right
iLN. (a) Activation of right and left iLN represented as MFI of CD62L
and CD69, respectively. Three mice per experimental group and two
for each control group. Dots represent individual lymph nodes. (b)
Bar chart representation of percentage of OT-I cells fully activated,
positive for CD69 and negative for CD62L, with error bars as SD. There
is a significant difference between 7 and 7 + 12 with p < 0.0002. There is
even a significant difference between the left and right iLN for tetrazine
dextran (12) of p < 0.01. P values were determined using an unpaired t test without assuming consistent SD. (c,d) After adoptive transfer
of CSFE labeled OT-I T-cells, mice were injected with 10 nmol of 7 or SIINFEKL in the tail base area followed by an injection
of 1 μmol 8 or PBS control after 30 min. (c) Histograms
of the OT-I T-cell proliferation after 3 days. (d) Percentage of divided
OT-I T-cells of total lymphocytes (data of two mice per group, represented
with standard error of the mean).
In vivo activation and proliferation of OT-I cells
after local tail base injection of SIINFEK[mbTCO]L (7) and subsequent injection of tetrazine 8, 11, or 12. (a,b) CD62L and CD69 cell surface appearances
were measured on OT-I T-cells using fluorescent antibodies: CD62L-APC
and CD69-PE. When CD62L was decreased and CD69 was increased, the
T-cells were qualified as activated. Mice were injected in the tail
base area on both sides of the tail with a total amount of 10 nmol
peptide (7 or SIINFEKL) and later injected with 100 nmol
tetrazine or PBS only s.c. in the right flank right above the right
iLN. (a) Activation of right and left iLN represented as MFI of CD62L
and CD69, respectively. Three mice per experimental group and two
for each control group. Dots represent individual lymph nodes. (b)
Bar chart representation of percentage of OT-I cells fully activated,
positive for CD69 and negative for CD62L, with error bars as SD. There
is a significant difference between 7 and 7 + 12 with p < 0.0002. There is
even a significant difference between the left and right iLN for tetrazinedextran (12) of p < 0.01. P values were determined using an unpaired t test without assuming consistent SD. (c,d) After adoptive transfer
of CSFE labeled OT-I T-cells, mice were injected with 10 nmol of 7 or SIINFEKL in the tail base area followed by an injection
of 1 μmol 8 or PBS control after 30 min. (c) Histograms
of the OT-I T-cell proliferation after 3 days. (d) Percentage of divided
OT-I T-cells of total lymphocytes (data of two mice per group, represented
with standard error of the mean).To correlate these early activation events observed in
vivo to full activation, the proliferation of OT-I T-cells
was studied after 3 days. CFSE-labeled OT-I T-cells[46] were adoptively transferred in recipient C57BL/6 mice on
day −1. On day 0, the mice were either injected with mbTCO
SIINFEKL (7) or SIINFEKL in the tail base. After 3 days,
the amount of T-cell proliferation was assessed by flow cytometry
through CFSE-dilution (Figure c).[50] Under these conditions, compound 7 induced very low levels of proliferation of OT-I CTLs, and
upon injection with tetrazine 8, CTL proliferation was
induced similar to SIINFEKL (3.1% ± 0.11% vs 4.4% ± 0.05%
divided OT-I of total lymphocytes; Figure d).
Conclusion
In our attempts to develop
a methodology that allowed chemical
control over T-cell activation, we have here demonstrated that the
IEDDA-pyridazine elimination reaction can be used to exert chemical
control over T-cell activation in vitro and in vivo. The technique complements other bio-orthogonal
deprotection strategies in vitro, such as palladium-mediated
reductions[51,52] or Staudinger-based chemistry.[21] Without the presence of a tetrazine, the lysine-caged
epitopes show no T-cell receptor activation while MHC-I binding was
not affected. Upon deprotection, T-cell receptor activation was restored.
The lysine cage was implemented in two different epitopes, suggesting
a generic application to lysine-sensitive TCRs.In vivo, chemical deprotection of a caged peptide epitope could be achieved
selectively 3 h post epitope injection. Using this decaging approach,
local early activation of T-cells could be detected by quantifying
cell surface expression of two early markers of T-cell activation,
CD69 and CD62L, showing significant T-cell activation with tetrazine 12. Furthermore, in vivo results showed very
similar T-cell proliferation potency upon decaging epitope 7 compared to the natural epitope, whereas the caged epitope showed
no proliferation by itself. Selective activation was achieved through
localized peptide and tetrazine injections in the tail base. Systemic
administration would be more beneficial for clinical translation;
however, systemic T-cell activation can cause the so-called cytokine
release syndrome (CRS). CRS occurs when a large number of immune cells
are activated and release inflammatory cytokines, potentially causing
death.[53] By combining this uncaging technique
with injectable tetrazine-hydrogels[29] or
antibody-epitope conjugates,[27] the activation
of T-cells could be controlled more precisely in future experiments.
This can provide new angles to the study of CTL activation in vivo, analogous to that which has been achieved in vitro using photo-[19,20,54] and chemo[12]-deprotection. We foresee
that this mild, fast deprotection chemistry will be a valuable addition
to the study of T-cell-APC interactions and will ultimately lead to
spatiotemporal control of T-cell activation in vivo.
Methods
A detailed description
of the methods is provided in the Supporting Information.
Authors: Morgan Huse; Lawrence O Klein; Andrew T Girvin; Joycelyn M Faraj; Qi-Jing Li; Michael S Kuhns; Mark M Davis Journal: Immunity Date: 2007-07-12 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Ron M Versteegen; Raffaella Rossin; Wolter ten Hoeve; Henk M Janssen; Marc S Robillard Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Jun Huang; Mario Brameshuber; Xun Zeng; Jianming Xie; Qi-jing Li; Yueh-hsiu Chien; Salvatore Valitutti; Mark M Davis Journal: Immunity Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Linda V Sinclair; David Finlay; Carmen Feijoo; Georgina H Cornish; Alex Gray; Ann Ager; Klaus Okkenhaug; Thijs J Hagenbeek; Hergen Spits; Doreen A Cantrell Journal: Nat Immunol Date: 2008-04-06 Impact factor: 25.606
Authors: Samuel L Scinto; Didier A Bilodeau; Robert Hincapie; Wankyu Lee; Sean S Nguyen; Minghao Xu; Christopher W Am Ende; M G Finn; Kathrin Lang; Qing Lin; John Paul Pezacki; Jennifer A Prescher; Marc S Robillard; Joseph M Fox Journal: Nat Rev Methods Primers Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Can Araman; Miriam E van Gent; Nico J Meeuwenoord; Nicole Heijmans; Mikkel H S Marqvorsen; Ward Doelman; Bart W Faber; Bert A 't Hart; Sander I Van Kasteren Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Rastislav Dzijak; Juraj Galeta; Arcadio Vázquez; Jaroslav Kozák; Marika Matoušová; Helena Fulka; Martin Dračínský; Milan Vrabel Journal: JACS Au Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Michel J van de Graaff; Timo Oosenbrug; Mikkel H S Marqvorsen; Clarissa R Nascimento; Mark A R de Geus; Bénédicte Manoury; Maaike E Ressing; Sander I van Kasteren Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Mark A R de Geus; Elmer Maurits; Alexi J C Sarris; Thomas Hansen; Max S Kloet; Kiki Kamphorst; Wolter Ten Hoeve; Marc S Robillard; Andrea Pannwitz; Sylvestre A Bonnet; Jeroen D C Codée; Dmitri V Filippov; Herman S Overkleeft; Sander I van Kasteren Journal: Chemistry Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 5.236