Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M309034200 on October 15, 2003

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 52, 52425-52431, December 26, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/52/52425    most recent
M309034200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Musson, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Musson, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, J. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Differential Processing of CD4 T-cell Epitopes from the Protective Antigen of Bacillus anthracis*

Julie A. Musson{ddagger}, Nicola Walker§, Helen Flick-Smith§, E. Diane Williamson§, and John H. Robinson{ddagger}

From the {ddagger}Musculoskeletal Research Group, Clinical Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH and the §Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 0JQ, United Kingdom

Received for publication, August 14, 2003 , and in revised form, October 6, 2003.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We have mapped CD4+ T-cell epitopes located in three domains of the recombinant protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis. Mouse T-cell hybridomas specific for these epitopes were generated to study the mechanisms of proteolytic processing of recombinant protective antigen for antigen presentation by bone marrow-derived macrophages. Overall, epitopes differed considerably in their processing requirements. In particular, the kinetics of presentation, ranging from 15 (fast) to 120 min (slow), suggested sequential liberation of epitopes during proteolytic processing of the intact PA molecule. Pretreatment of macrophages with ammonium chloride or inhibitors of the major enzyme families showed that T-cell responses to an epitope presented with fast kinetics were unaffected by raising endosomal pH or inhibiting cysteine or aspartic proteinases, suggesting presentation independent of lysosomal processing. In contrast, responses to epitopes presented with slower kinetics were dependent on low pH and the activity of cysteine or aspartic proteinases indicating a requirement for lysosomal processing. In addition, responses to all epitopes, whether their presentation was dependent on low pH or not, were prevented by treatment of macrophages with broad spectrum serine proteinase inhibitors. Thus, our data are consistent with a model of sequential antigen processing within the endosomal system, beginning with a pre-processing step mediated by serine or metalloproteinases prior to further processing by lysosomal enzymes. Rapidly presented epitopes seemed to require only limited proteolysis at earlier stages of endocytosis, whereas the majority of epitopes required more extensive processing by neutral proteinases followed by lysosomal enzymes.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis (PA)1 binds to a host cell-surface receptor before cleavage and heptamerization to form a transmembrane pore that delivers two further toxin subunits, edema and lethal factors, into the host cell cytosol (1-6). The availability of a crystal structure for PA (7) has contributed to a clearer picture of the location of binding sites for the host cell PA receptor (8) and the other toxin subunits (9, 10) in relation to the four domains of the PA molecule. In addition to a role in virulence, PA is the main target of protective immunity to anthrax and is thought to induce T-cell-dependent antibodies that protect the host by preventing toxin assembly and internalization (11-15). Consequently, PA is the major antigenic component of the current anthrax vaccine, and subunit vaccines based on truncated recombinant PA molecules are under development (16). However, the relationship between the assembly and function of PA as a toxin-translocating pore and the mechanisms of antigen processing and presentation of PA to CD4+ T-cells has not been elucidated.

Peptide epitopes recognized by CD4+ T-cells are liberated from protein antigens following some form of antigen processing before they are accessible to bind MHC class II molecules usually in acidic endocytic compartments of antigen presenting cells (APC) such as macrophages, dendritic cells, and B cells (17-24). Following uptake by APC, processing is thought to be initiated during transport through the endosomal system by unfolding of antigens induced by low pH (25, 26), oxidation (27), disulphide reduction (28-30), or limited cleavage by lysosomal enzymes such as asparaginyl endopeptidase (31). Some or all of these steps may be essential to "unlock" or progressively expose protein antigens to further proteolytic degradation by lysosomal hydrolases, including cathepsins of the cysteine and aspartyl enzyme families (18, 22). Serine proteinases have been implicated in antigen processing in the extracellular space for presentation of peptide epitopes on the surface of dendritic cells (32, 33), but the role of serine proteinases in intracellular processing has not been studied in any detail (34-36). Peptide epitopes liberated during processing usually bind newly synthesized MHC class II molecules optimally at low pH under the control of chaperones DM and DO following degradation of the invariant chain. Alternatively, epitopes in structurally flexible regions of protein antigens may bind mature MHC class II recycled from the APC surface in neutral or mildly acidic endosomal compartments (24, 37). Further processing or "trimming" of exposed amino acids of the peptides already bound to MHC molecules can occur (38), mediated by enzymes such as the metalloproteinase aminopeptidase N (39). Peptide-MHC complexes are transported to the APC surface where they can bind T-cell antigen receptors in the formation or an immunological synapse leading to T-cell activation of anergy (40). We investigated how recombinant PA is processed by macrophages for presentation to CD4+ T-cell hybridomas and conclude that T-cell epitopes of PA may be sequentially released for presentation at different stages of endosomal processing.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Recombinant Protective Antigen and Synthetic Peptides—Recombinant PA protein (rPA) of B. anthracis was cloned and expressed in Escherichia coli and purified as previously described (16). Synthetic peptides representing 20 amino acid stretches of the PA sequence were synthesized by the Molecular Biology Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

The diagrams of PA structure shown in Fig. 1 were created by DS ViewerPro 5.0 software (Accelerys Inc., San Diego, CA) using the Protein Data Bank file AccI obtained from the NCBI website www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi.



View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Structure of PA and location of CD4+ T-cell epitopes. Ribbon diagrams of the structure of PA created by DS ViewerPro 5.0 software (Accelerys Inc., Cambridge, UK) using the Protein Data Bank file AccI to show the position of the four domains (a) and the location of the five epitopes shown in Table II (b). Note that PA amino acids 1-13 and 162-174 were not resolved in the crystal and hence are not shown in the structure. Thus only amino acids 154-161 of the epitope PA154-167 are displayed.

 
Cells and Chemicals—Culture media, chemicals, and metabolic inhibitors (Table I) were purchased from Sigma. All cells were grown in culture medium (RPMI 1640 medium containing 3 mM L-glutamine, 50 µM 2-mercaptoethanol, 10% fetal bovine serum, and 30 µg/ml gentamycin). T-cell hybridomas were generated by polyethylene-glycol fusion of BW5147 (TCR{alpha}-{beta}-) cells (provided by Dr. P. Marrack, Departments of Microbiology and Immunology, and Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver) with CD4+ T-cell lines from rPA-immunized BALB/c (H2d haplotype) and BALB.K (H2k) mice. The specificity of T-cell hybridomas was determined from their response to overlapping synthetic peptides representing the complete PA sequence. T-cell hybridomas, each specific for one of the 5 major epitopes distributed in domains 1, 3, and 4 of PA, recognized rPA as well as synthetic peptides including the sequence of the relevant epitope (Table II) when presented by histocompatible APC.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Inhibitors of antigen processing

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE II
Specificity of T-cell hybridomas The 14 core residues deduced from T-cell responses to overlapping 20 amino acid synthetic peptides are shown in bold. No allele-specific MHC-binding motifs were identified in the sequence of the deduced epitopes.

 
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were used as the source of APC. Macrophages were grown from femoral bone marrow cells of BALB/c and BALB.K mice by culture for 6 days in culture medium supplemented with 5% of a supernatant from the L929 cell line as a source of macrophage colony stimulating factor, as described previously (41). Macrophages were activated by treatment overnight with 1 ng/ml interferon-{gamma} (R&D Systems, Abingdon, UK) before use in antigen presentation assays.

Antigen Presentation Assay—Macrophages (4 x 104/well) were allowed to adhere to flat-bottom 96-well microtiter plates for 1 h at 37 °C in a humidified CO2 incubator. Macrophages were pretreated with metabolic inhibitors (Table I) for 30 min before adding antigen in the form of rPA or synthetic peptides for up to 5 h, and were then washed to remove inhibitors, fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde for 4 min, and fixation was stopped with 0.05% Gly-Gly followed by washing three times. The viability of macrophages was confirmed by light microscopy in all experiments showing the inhibitors were not toxic for cells in the dose ranges used.

T-cell hybridoma cells (4 x 104/well) were added to the fixed antigen-pulsed macrophages, and plates were incubated for 24 h before collecting culture supernatants. Fixed non-antigen-pulsed macrophages were used as controls. The response of T-cell hybridomas was measured as the amount of interleukin-2 released in a subsequent bioassay as proliferation of CTLL-2 cells (3 x 104/well) in the presence of T-cell hybridoma culture supernatants diluted 1:2 and cultured for 24 h at 37 °C in triplicate wells of flat-bottomed 96-well microtiter plates. The wells containing CTLL-2 cells were pulse-labeled with 38.4 KBq of 3H-thymidine (TRA310, specific activity 74 GBq/mmol; Amersham Biosciences) for 18 h and harvested onto glass fiber membranes. Radioactivity was quantitated using a direct beta counter (Matrix 9600, Packard Instrument Company, Meridan, CT), and results are plotted as mean cpm of triplicate wells ± S.D. All experiments were repeated at least twice, and the data for representative experiments are shown.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Kinetics of Presentation of PA Epitopes by Macrophages—We mapped 5 epitopes distributed in domains 1, 3, and 4 of PA and generated T-cell hybridomas specific for each epitope (Fig. 1 and Table II). T-cell hybridomas were assayed for their response to rPA presented by bone marrow macrophages to study the mechanisms of antigen processing of rPA. Macrophages fixed before addition of rPA failed to induce responses in any of the T-cell hybridomas (data not shown), showing that all epitopes required uptake and/or processing of the intact rPA molecule for presentation to occur. Macrophages were treated with rPA for different times before fixation, washing, and addition of T-cell hybridomas to determine the kinetics of presentation of each epitope (Fig. 2). The domain 3 epitope PA541-560 was already presented optimally after only 15 min of exposure to rPA before fixation of macrophages. The responses to epitopes PA64-77, PA154-167, PA659-672, and PA717-730 emerged more slowly and were maximal by 1 to 2 h (Fig. 2a). Presentation of synthetic peptides representing each epitope occurred early and was more uniform in kinetics compared with rPA (Fig. 2b), suggesting that the pattern of responses to rPA was not primarily a result of differences in the affinity of peptide epitopes for MHC class II or the T-cell receptor of the hybridomas. Thus, the data suggest that PA epitopes were processed and presented to T-cells at different rates.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
The kinetics of presentation of CD4+ T-cell epitopes from recombinant PA. Macrophages were pulsed with 0.6 µM rPA (a) or 4 µM synthetic peptides corresponding to each epitope (b), for the times indicated before fixation, washing, and addition of T-cell hybridomas Dp7, Dp16a, Kp55, Dp66, and Kp73, specific for 5 PA epitopes located in domain 1 within 64-77 and 154-167, domain 3 within 547-560, and domain 4 within 659-672 and 717-730, respectively. T-cell hybridoma responses were measured as described under "Experimental Procedures" and are shown in cpm ± S.D.

 
Role of Endosome Acidification in Antigen Presentation of rPA—Progress of endocytosed antigens from early endosomes to the low pH environment of late endosomes or lysosomes is required for presentation of many (17) but not all (24, 42, 43) CD4+ T-cell epitopes. Macrophages were treated with NH4Cl, a weak base that raises endosomal pH (44) to determine whether a low pH is required for presentation of each of the PA epitopes. Presentation of epitopes PA547-560 and PA659-672 was unaffected by treatment of APC with ammonium chloride (Fig. 3, c and d), tk'1whereas presentation of PA64-77, PA154-167, and PA717-730 was profoundly blocked, independent of antigen dose (Fig. 3, a, b, and e). Ammonium chloride did not affect the ability of macrophages to present synthetic peptides representing each epitope (Fig. 3). The data suggest that presentation of T-cell epitopes of rPA showed a differential dependence on low pH characteristic of late endosomes.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
Role of endosomal acidification in presentation of T-cell epitopes of PA. Presentation of the indicated doses of rPA (round symbols) or synthetic peptides (square symbols) to the T-cell hybridomas specific for PA64-77 (a), PA154-167 (b), PA547-560 (c), PA659-672 (d), or PA717-730 (e) by macrophages untreated (filled symbols) or treated with 100 mM ammonium chloride (open symbols). Responses are plotted as described in the legend to Fig. 1.

 
Effect of Cysteine and Aspartic Proteinase Inhibitors on Presentation of rPA—To determine which families of enzymes are involved in processing of T-cell epitopes from rPA, we investigated the effect of treatment of macrophages with broad spectrum proteinase inhibitors. The principal enzymes shown to be required for antigen presentation are lysosomal cathepsins of the cysteine and aspartic proteinase families that mediate proteolytic processing of either the protein antigen or the MHC class II chaperone invariant chain (21, 22). We used broad spectrum inhibitors of these families to determine whether enzymes largely localized to lysosomes were required for presentation of PA epitopes. E-64d ((2S,3S)-trans-epoxysuccinyl-L-leucylamido-3-methylbutane ethyl ester) is a membrane-permeable inhibitor that selectively inactivates most cysteine proteinases, including cathepsins L, S, and B (45, 46). E-64d profoundly inhibited presentation of PA64-77 and PA154-167 at all doses studied. However, presentation of PA659-672 was more resistant, whereas epitopes PA547-560 and PA717-730 were completely unaffected by E-64d treatment (Fig. 4).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Effect of cysteine proteinase inhibitor on presentation of rPA. Macrophages were treated with the indicated doses of E-64d (E64d) before pulsing with 0.4 µM rPA and assay of presentation to PA-specific T-cell hybridomas as described in the legend to Fig. 1. E-64d did not inhibit T-cell hybridoma responses to synthetic peptides representing any of the 5 epitopes (data not shown).

 
Pepstatin is an acylated pentapeptide used to irreversibly block aspartic proteinases including cathepsins D and E (35). Presentation of PA717-730 was particularly sensitive to treatment of macrophages with pepstatin (Fig. 5), whereas the remaining epitopes were relatively resistant to this inhibitor.



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Effect of aspartic proteinase inhibitor on presentation of rPA. Macrophages were treated with the indicated doses of pepstatin before pulsing with 0.6 µM rPA and assay of presentation to PA-specific T-cell hybridomas as described in the legend to Fig. 1. Pepstatin did not inhibit responses to synthetic peptides representing any of the 5 epitopes (data not shown).

 
Thus, the most rapidly presented epitope PA547-560 appeared to be relatively independent of processing by lysosomal cysteine and aspartic proteinases. Furthermore, among the more slowly presented epitopes the two from domain 1 of PA PA64-77 and PA154-167 showed a greater dependence on cysteine proteinase activity, whereas the carboxy-terminal epitope of domain 4 (PA717-730) was the most profoundly affected by inactivation of aspartic proteinases.

Effect of Serine and Metalloproteinase Inhibitors on Presentation of rPA—We first investigated the role of serine proteinases to determine whether they were required for processing and presentation of PA epitopes. Macrophages were treated with the broad spectrum serine proteinase inhibitor 3,4-dichloro-isocoumarin (DCI), before their use in antigen presentation assays. DCI profoundly inhibited presentation of all epitopes under study from rPA over a range of antigen doses without affecting the responses to synthetic peptides (Fig. 6, a-e). Essentially the same results were seen using macrophages treated with another broad spectrum serine proteinase inhibitor, phenyl-methyl sulfonyl fluoride (data not shown).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
Effect of a serine proteinase inhibitor on presentation of rPA. Presentation of the indicated doses of rPA (round symbols), or synthetic peptides (square symbols), to T-cell hybridomas specific for epitopes PA64-77 (a), PA154-167 (b), PA547-560 (c), PA659-672 (d), or 717-730 (e) by macrophages untreated (filled symbols) or treated with 40 µM DCI. Responses are plotted as described in the legend to Fig. 1.

 
The more selective serine proteinase inhibitors TPCK and TLCK were used to inactivate chymotrypsin- and trypsin-like serine proteinases, respectively. TPCK profoundly inhibited presentation of all 5 epitopes to approximately the same degree over a range of inhibitor doses (Fig. 7a). TLCK had a differential effect, with PA64-77 and PA154-167 showing a greater sensitivity, PA659-672 intermediate, and PA547-560 and PA717-730 showing at least a 10-fold decreased sensitivity (Fig. 7b). TPCK and TLCK had no effect on peptide presentation. The data suggest that presentation of rPA required serine proteinase activity but that epitopes showed distinct patterns of dependence on chymotrypsin-like and/or trypsin-like serine proteinase activity.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
Effect of trypsin-like and chymotrypsin-like serine proteinase inhibitors on presentation of rPA. Macrophages were treated with the indicated doses of TPCK (a) or TLCK (b) before pulsing with 0.6 µM rPA and assay of presentation to PA-specific T-cell hybridomas as described in the legend to Fig. 1. As controls, TPCK and TLCK did not inhibit T-cell hybridoma responses to synthetic peptides representing each epitope; representative examples of the effect of TPCK on presentation of the synthetic peptide 717-730 to T-cell hybridoma Kp73 (broken line in a) and the effect of TLCK on presentation of the synthetic peptide 154-167 to T-cell hybridoma Dp16a (broken line in are shown. b)

 
Treatment of macrophages with the broad spectrum metalloproteinase inhibitor 1,10-phenanthroline had a modest inhibitory effect on presentation of PA64-77, PA154-167, and PA659-672, whereas presentation of PA717-730 was unaffected and a degree of enhancement of presentation of PA547-560 was seen (Fig. 8), suggesting that metalloproteinases are active during processing of rPA, contributing to presentation of some epitopes, but destruction of others.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Effect of a metalloproteinase inhibitor on presentation of rPA. Macrophages were treated with the indicated doses of 1,10-phenanthroline before pulsing with 0.6 µM rPA and assay of presentation to PA-specific T-cell hybridomas as described in the legend to Fig. 1. Phenanthroline did not inhibit T-cell hybridoma responses to synthetic peptides representing any of the 5 epitopes (data not shown).

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
We mapped 5 epitopes distributed in 3 of the 4 domains of the anthrax protective antigen to study proteolytic processing for MHC class II-restricted antigen presentation by macrophages. We used macrophages as APC and treated them with metabolic inhibitors to probe the mechanisms of proteolytic processing for presentation to T-cell hybridomas specific for each of the 5 epitopes (Fig. 1). Two epitopes located in domain 1 (PA64-77 and PA154-167) showed a similar pattern of processing reflected in the greatest sensitivity to inhibitors of both cysteine and trypsin-like serine proteinases, as well as dependence on metalloproteinase activity and sensitivity to raising endosomal pH. PA64-77 is not accessible on the surface of rPA, whereas PA154-167 is located on a loop adjacent to the furin cleavage site (Fig. 1). However, both epitopes seem to require a similar degree of processing for presentation. Of the two epitopes in domain 4, presentation of PA659-672 also showed a dependence on serine, cysteine, and metalloproteinase activity, but was resistant to raising endosomal pH, the latter suggesting processing by members of these enzyme families active at near neutral or intermediate pH (47). In contrast, presentation of PA717-730, located in domain 4 close to the carboxyl terminus of PA, was pH-sensitive but unaffected by inhibitors of both cysteine and metalloproteinases, showing instead the most pronounced dependence on aspartic proteinase activity. Thus, these four epitopes of PA showed differential requirements for proteolytic processing. In particular, PA659-672 and PA717-730 showed significant differences despite the fact that these epitopes are located in close proximity in domain 4, suggesting the local structural context of an epitope is a major factor in the way it is liberated for MHC binding and presentation.

Epitope PA547-560 from domain 3 showed the most distinct pattern of processing based on the rapid kinetics, independence on low pH, and resistance to treatment of macrophages with inhibitors of cysteine, aspartic, and metalloproteinases, strongly suggesting that lysosomal processing was not involved. In fact, the enhanced presentation of PA547-560 by macrophages treated with phenanthroline (Fig. 6) suggests that metalloproteinases destroyed this epitope. PA547-560 was not presented from the intact rPA molecule by pre-fixed macrophages (data not shown), and presentation was dependent on the activity of serine proteinases, suggesting that following uptake, limited proteolytic cleavage of rPA occurred rapidly at an early stage before transport along the endosomal pathway.

Presentation of PA547-560 and PA659-672 share the common feature of resistance to raising endosomal pH. We have demonstrated that both epitopes were presented by mature MHC class II molecules,2 suggesting presentation of PA547-560 and PA659-672 in early endosomes by recycling MHC class II in the so-called recycling pathway. In contrast, presentation of PA64-77, PA154-167, and PA717-730 was dependent on low pH, and we have shown that these epitopes were largely presented by newly synthesized MHC class II molecules,2 presumably after targeting of rPA to acidic intracellular compartments for presentation by the so called classical pathway. Lysosomal enzymes such as the cysteine proteinase cathepsin S have a role in degradation of invariant chain which is required for optimal peptide loading of newly synthesized MHC class II molecules (48). Sensitivity of PA epitopes, particularly PA717-730, to cysteine proteinase inhibitors may not indicate a direct role for enzymes such as cathepsin S in cleavage of rPA, but is still compatible with processing for the classical pathway.

Macrophages (49) and dendritic cells (50) are the principal targets of anthrax lethal toxin. During toxin assembly, PA binds to a cell surface receptor (8) followed by cleavage into 20 and 63 kDa fragments by cell surface-associated serine proteinases, particularly furin (51). Furin cleavage of PA leads to heptamerization of the larger PA63 fragment to form a pore, although the smaller PA20 fragment remains associated by non-covalent interactions (52). The epitopes in domain 1 are both located within the PA20 fragment, and their presentation was dependent on serine proteinase activity consistent with a requirement for furin cleavage. Indeed, in a separate study of the mechanisms of uptake of rPA for presentation to CD4+ T-cells, a specific furin inhibitor blocked presentation of PA64-77 and PA154-167, but not those in other domains of PA.3 Thus, furin cleavage may be required to unlock domain 1 for presentation of epitopes PA64-77 and PA154-167, but not for efficient uptake of PA for presentation of the remaining PA epitopes.

The rapid kinetics of presentation of PA547-560 from domain 3 compared with the other 4 epitopes of PA studied here, provides strong evidence that epitopes are liberated from rPA at different rates. The requirement for serine proteinase activity independent of low pH for presentation of PA547-560 suggests processing of rPA by neutral proteinases present in early endosomes or at the cell surface during uptake of rPA. The majority of serine proteinases have near-neutral pH optima, and those active at low pH, such as members of the carboxypeptidase C family (53), largely lack the endopeptidase activity for initial cleavage within protein antigens required for antigen presentation. Presentation of the remaining 4 epitopes of PA also required serine proteinase activity, but in these cases this was in addition to the activity of cysteine, aspartic, or metalloproteinases. The cysteine and aspartic proteinase activity is very likely to be of lysosomal origin, but this is not necessarily the case for the metalloproteinase activity, as some members of this enzyme family have near-neutral pH optima, such as aminopeptidase N located at the plasma membrane (39). Thus, metalloproteinases could participate in events prior to lysosomal processing during antigen presentation.

Collectively, the data suggest that processing of rPA occurs sequentially in a series of steps beginning with cleavage by neutral proteinases before rPA-containing endosomes make contact with lysosomal enzymes. For epitopes such as PA547-560 this initial step is sufficient for presentation to occur which is consistent with the exposed location of PA547-560 on the surface of domain 3 of PA. However, for the majority of epitopes processing may be initiated by neutral proteinases followed by further cleavage during subsequent lysosomal processing and loading of MHC class II. Serine proteinases have been implicated in cell-free or extracellular antigen processing for loading MHC class II molecules at the cell surface (32, 33, 54), but their involvement in endosomal processing within APC has not been studied in detail. Treatment of APC with some inhibitors of serine proteinase activity was shown to have a limited effect on presentation of epitopes of sperm whale myoglobin (34) or hen egg lysozyme (35). However, we have demonstrated sensitivity of presentation of T-cell epitopes of the surface M protein of Streptococcus pyogenes to the chloromethyl ketones TLCK and TPCK (36), and here we have used the more effective and inclusive broad spectrum serine proteinase inhibitor DCI to implicate this enzyme family in antigen processing.

Pre-processing events to unlock proteins before further digestion to liberate epitopes for presentation have been proposed previously, but the examples are confined to lysosomal enzymes. For example, mice lacking the enzyme IFN{gamma}-inducible lysosomal thiol reductase show defective antigen presentation of MHC class II-restricted T-cell responses to a number of protein antigens (30). Cleavage of disulfide bonds during antigen processing was also shown to be a crucial step in determining the availability of several T-cell epitopes within the merozoite surface protein-1 of Plasmodium chabaudi chabaudi (29). However, the participation of this particular enzyme may not be an invariable feature of antigen presentation, given that the amino acid sequence of PA does not include any cysteine residues. A pre-processing role has also been proposed for the lysosomal cysteine proteinase asparaginyl endopeptidase. This enzyme was shown to cleave after an asparagine in the carboxyl terminal domain of tetanus toxin essential to liberate a number of CD4+ T-cell epitopes regardless of their proximity to the cleavage site (31), suggesting that a single cleavage of the intact protein led to extensive unfolding and exposure of cleavage sites for additional processing enzymes. We suggest that pre-processing begins at an earlier stage in the endocytic pathway mediated by serine proteinases, an enzyme family that hardly features in the extensive antigen presentation literature.

We are currently investigating the nature of the serine proteinase activity involved in antigen processing by digesting rPA with subcellular compartments of macrophages fractionated by Percoll density centrifugation (55, 56). We have shown that PA digested with Percoll gradient fractions corresponding to plasma membrane and early endosomes liberates PA547-560 that can be presented to a T-cell hybridoma by fixed macrophages. This activity is sensitive to inclusion of the serine proteinase inhibitor phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride during digestion, suggesting direct cleavage of rPA by serine proteinases is sufficient for presentation of this epitope.

A clearer understanding of the sequence of events that lead to optimal processing and presentation of protective microbial antigens such as PA may be an essential step toward targeting vaccine antigens to induce optimal immune responses upon vaccination against infectious diseases that still pose a threat to humans.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was funded in part by a Defense Science and Technology Laboratory extramural research contract. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 44-0191-222-6976; Fax: 44-0191-222-5455; E-mail: j.h.robinson{at}ncl.ac.uk.

1 The abbreviations used are: PA, protective antigen of B. anthracis; rPA, recombinant protective antigen; APC, antigen presenting cell; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; E-64d, (2S,3S)-trans-epoxysuccinyl-L-leucylamido-3-methylbutane ethyl ester; DCI, 3,4-dichloroisocoumarin; TPCK, N-p-Tosyl-L-phenylalanine chloromethyl ketone; TLCK, N{alpha}-p-Tosyl-L-lysine-chloromethyl ketone hydrochloride. Back

2 J. A. Musson and J. H. Robinson, unpublished observations. Back

3 J. A. Musson, N. Walker, H. Flicks-Smith, E. D. Williamson, and J. H. Robinson, manuscript submitted for publication. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Austin Diamond for critical reading of the manuscript.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Petosa, C., and Liddington, R. C. (1996) in Protein Toxin Structure (Parker, M. W., ed) pp. 97-119, Landes, Georgetown
  2. Beauregard, K. E., Collier, R. J., and Swanson, J. A. (2000) Cell. Microbiol. 2, 251-258[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Sellman, B. R., Mourez, M., and Collier, R. J. (2001) Science 292, 695-697[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Sellman, B. R., Nassi, S., and Collier, R. J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 8371-8376[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Mogridge, J., Cunningham, K., Lacy, D. B., Mourez, M., and Collier, R. J. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 7045-7048[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Abrami, L., Liu, S., Cosson, P., Leppla, S. H., and Gisou van der Goot, F. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 160, 321-328[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Petosa, C., Collier, R. J., Klimpel, K. R., Leppla, S. H., and Liddington, R. (1997) Nature 385, 833-838[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Bradley, K. A., Mogridge, J., Mourez, M., Collier, R. J., and Young, J. A. T. (2001) Nature 414, 225-229[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Cunningham, K., Lacy, D. B., Mogridge, J., and Collier, R. J. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 7049-7053[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Lacy, D. B., Mourez, M., Fouassier, A., and Collier, R. J. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 3006-3010[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Coulson, N. M., Fulop, M., and Titball, R. W. (1994) Vaccine 12, 1395-1401[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. McBride, B. W., Mogg, A., Telfer, J. L., Lever, M. S., Miller, J., Turnbull, P. C., and Baillie, L. (1998) Vaccine 16, 810-817[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Singh, Y., Ivins, B. E., and Leppla, S. H. (1998) Infect. Immun. 66, 3447-3448[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Barnard, J. P., and Friedlander, A. M. (1999) Infect. Immun. 67, 562-567[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Baillie, L. (2001) J. Appl. Microbiol. 91, 609-613[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Flick-Smith, H. C., Walker, N. J., Gibson, P., Bullifent, H., Hayward, S., Miller, J., Titball, R. W., and Williamson, E. D. (2002) Infect. Immun. 70, 1653-1656[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Nakagawa, T. Y., and Rudensky, A. Y. (1999) Immunol. Rev. 172, 121-129[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Riese, R. J., and Chapman, H. A. (1999) Curr. Opin. Immunol. 12, 107-113
  19. Pieters, J. (2000) Adv. Immunol. 75, 159-208[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Villadangos, J. A., and Ploegh, H. L. (2000) Immunity 12, 233-239[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Watts, C. (2001) Curr. Opin. Immunol. 13, 26-31[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Lennon-Duménil, A.-M., Bakker, A. H., Wolf-Bryant, P., Ploegh, H. L., and Lagaudrière-Gesbert, C. (2002) Curr. Opin. Immunol. 14, 15-21[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Unanue, E. R. (2002) Immunol. Rev. 185, 86-102[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Robinson, J. H., and Delvig, A. A. (2002) Immunology 105, 252-262[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Eisenlohr, L. C., Gerhard, W., and Hackett, C. J. (1988) J. Immunol. 141, 1870-1876[Abstract]
  26. Jensen, P. E. (1993) J. Immunol. 150, 3347-3356[Abstract]
  27. Carrasco-Marín, E., Paz-Miguel, J. E., López-Mato, P., Alvarez-Domínguez, C., and Leyva-Cobián, P. (1998) Immunology 95, 314-321[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Jensen, P. E. (1995) Semin. Immunol. 7, 347-353[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Quin, S. J., Seixas, E. M. G., Cross, C. A., Berg, M., Lindo, V., Stockinger, B., and Langhorne, J. (2001) Eur. J. Immunol. 31, 72-81[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Maric, M., Arunachalam, B., Phan, U. T., Dong, C., Garrett, W. S., Cannon, K. S., Alfonso, C., Karlsson, L., Flavell, R. A., and Cresswell, P. (2001) Science 294, 1361-1365[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Antoniou, A. N., Blackwood, S.-L., Mazzeo, D., and Watts, C. (2000) Immunity 12, 391-398[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Accapezzato, D., Nisini, R., Paroli, M., Bruno, G., Bonino, F., Houghton, M., and Barnaba, V. (1998) J. Immunol. 160, 5262-5266[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Santambrogio, N., Sato, A. K., Carven, G. J., Belyanskaya, S. L., Strominger, J. L., and Stern, L. J. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 15056-15061[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Takahashi, H., Cease, K. B., and Berzofsky, J. A. (1989) J. Immunol. 142, 2221-2229[Abstract]
  35. Puri, J., and Factorovich, Y. (1988) J. Immunol. 141, 3313-3317[Abstract]
  36. Delvig, A. A., and Robinson, J. H. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 3291-3295[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Sinnathamby, G., and Eisenlohr, L. C. (2003) J. Immunol. 170, 3504-3513[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Sercarz, E. E., and Maverakis, E. (2003) Nat. Rev. Immunol. 3, 621-629[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Amoscato, A. A., Prenovitz, D. A., and Lotze, M. T. (1998) J. Immunol. 161, 4023-4032[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. van der Merwe, P. A., and Davis, S. J. (2003) Ann. Rev. Immunol. 21, 659-684[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Fischer, H. G., Opel, B., Reske, K., and Reske-Kunz, A. B. (1988) Eur. J. Immunol. 18, 1151-1158[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Delvig, A. A., and Robinson, J. H. (1998) J. Immunol. 160, 5267-5272[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Musson, J. A., Hayward, R. D., Delvig, A. A., Hernan, R., Hormaeche, C. E., Koronakis, V., and Robinson, J. H. (2002) Eur. J. Immunol. 32, 2664-2671[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Mellman, I., Fuchs, R., and Helenius, A. (1986) Ann. Rev. Biochem. 55, 663-700[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Bond, J. S., and Butler, P. E. (1987) Ann. Rev. Biochem. 56, 333-364[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Tamai, M., Matsumoto, K., Omura, S., Koyama, I., Ozawa, Y., and Hanada, K. (1986) J. Pharmacobio-Dynamics 9, 672-677[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Ishidoh, K., and Kominami, E. (2002) Biol. Chem. 383, 1827-1831[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Villadangos, J. A., Riese, R. J., Peters, C., Chapman, H. A., and Ploegh, H. L. (1997) J. Exp. Med. 186, 549-560[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Friedlander, A. M. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 7123-7126[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Agrawal, A., Lingappa, J., Leppla, S. H., Agrawal, S., Jabbar, A., Quinn, C., and Pulendran, B. (2003) Nature 424, 329-334[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Molloy, S. S., Bresnahan, P. A., Leppla, S. H., Klimpel, K. R., and G., T. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 16396-16402[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Leppla, S. H. (1995) in Bacterial Toxins and Virulence Factors in Disease (Moss, J., Iglewski, B., Vaughan, M., and Tu, A. T., eds) pp. 543-572, Dekker, New York
  53. Tan, F., Morris, P. W., Skidgel, R. A., and Erdos, E. G. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 16631-16638[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Shimonkevitz, R., Colon, S., Kappler, J. W., Marrack, P., and Grey, H. M. (1984) J. Immunol. 133, 2067-2074[Abstract]
  55. Griffin, J. P., Chu, R., and Harding, C. V. (1997) J. Immunol. 158, 1523-1532[Abstract]
  56. von Delwig, A. A., Ramachandra, L., Robinson, J. H., and Harding, C. V. (2003) Eur. J. Immunol. 33, 2353-2360[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Conte, M. P., Petrone, G., Longhi, C., Valenti, P., Morelli, R., Superti, F., and Seganti, L. (1996) J. Med. Micriobiol. 44, 418-424
  58. Aplin, R. T., Robinson, C. V., Schofield, C. J., and Westwood, N. J. (1992) J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. 22, 1650-1652[CrossRef]
  59. Harper, J. W., Hemmi, K., and Powers, J. C. (1985) Biochemistry 24, 1831-1841[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Fernandez-Borja, M., Verwoerd, D., Sanderson, F., Aerts, H., Trowsdale, J., Tulp, A., and Neefjes, J. (1996) Int. Immunol. 8, 625-640[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
J. M. Weaver, C. A. Lazarski, K. A. Richards, F. A. Chaves, S. A. Jenks, P. R. Menges, and A. J. Sant
Immunodominance of CD4 T Cells to Foreign Antigens Is Peptide Intrinsic and Independent of Molecular Context: Implications for Vaccine Design
J. Immunol., September 1, 2008; 181(5): 3039 - 3048.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
J. Zou, L. Henderson, V. Thomas, P. Swan, A. N. Turner, and Richard. G. Phelps
Presentation of the Goodpasture Autoantigen Requires Proteolytic Unlocking Steps That Destroy Prominent T Cell Epitopes
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2007; 18(3): 771 - 779.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Infect. Immun.Home page
D. A. Chalton, J. A. Musson, H. Flick-Smith, N. Walker, A. McGregor, H. K. Lamb, E. D. Williamson, J. Miller, J. H. Robinson, and J. H. Lakey
Immunogenicity of a Yersinia pestis Vaccine Antigen Monomerized by Circular Permutation
Infect. Immun., December 1, 2006; 74(12): 6624 - 6631.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J. A. Musson, M. Morton, N. Walker, H. M. Harper, H. V. McNeill, E. D. Williamson, and J. H. Robinson
Sequential Proteolytic Processing of the Capsular Caf1 Antigen of Yersinia pestis for Major Histocompatibility Complex Class II-restricted Presentation to T Lymphocytes
J. Biol. Chem., September 8, 2006; 281(36): 26129 - 26135.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Virol.Home page
M. J. McConnell, X. Danthinne, and M. J. Imperiale
Characterization of a permissive epitope insertion site in adenovirus hexon.
J. Virol., June 1, 2006; 80(11): 5361 - 5370.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Infect. Immun.Home page
E. D. Williamson, I. Hodgson, N. J. Walker, A. W. Topping, M. G. Duchars, J. M. Mott, J. Estep, C. LeButt, H. C. Flick-Smith, H. E. Jones, et al.
Immunogenicity of Recombinant Protective Antigen and Efficacy against Aerosol Challenge with Anthrax
Infect. Immun., September 1, 2005; 73(9): 5978 - 5987.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/52/52425    most recent
M309034200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Musson, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Musson, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, J. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement