Concurrent cross‐reactivity of microbiota‐derived epitopes to both self and pathogens may underlie the ‘Hygiene hypothesis’

David Usharauli & Tirumalai Kamala

• Scandinavian Journal of Immunology
• First published:  21 August 2018

Abstract

The current iteration of the ‘Hygiene hypothesis’ proposes precipitous decline in exposure to conserved microbial products and metabolites in individuals in developed countries undermines innate self‐nonself ‘training’ of immune system leading to allergy and autoimmunity. However, lack of innate ‘training’ alone fails to account for the antigen‐driven nature of these immunopathologies. Here, we advance an alternative, antigen‐specific interpretive framework, SPIRAL (Specific ImmunoRegulatory Algorithm), that predicts ‘loss’ of commensal microbiota‐derived epitopes cross‐reactive to both self and pathogens, rather than conserved microbial moieties or metabolites, underlies the ‘Hygiene hypothesis’. By mechanistically delineating how loss of selective microbiota in predisposed individuals could lead to corresponding ‘holes’ in the epitope‐specific Foxp3+regulatory T cell repertoire and subsequent selective immunopathologies, SPIRAL represents a novel interpretation of cross‐reactivity that could enable targeted discovery of microbiota species and their associated Treg epitopes ‘missing’ in the diseases ‘Hygiene hypothesis’ implicates, and provides a roadmap for a novel unified interpretation of self‐nonself discrimination and T helper phenotype selection.

Read Article

Cross-reactivity between microbial-derived antigens and tumor neoantigens correlates with long-term survival

This is a very interesting paper published in Nature few months back. In this study the authors wanted to uncover immune correlates of long-term (>10 yrs) survival from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that normally account for less than 2% of all patients. 

First they found that "patients with both the highest predicted neoantigen number and either the greatest CD3+CD8+, or polyclonal T-cell repertoire, but neither alone, exhibited the longest survival". It suggested that tumor neoantigen-derived epitope quality rather than simply quantity correlated with survival. 

More importantly, bioinformatics analysis of similarities (mimicry or cross-reactivity or poly-reactivity) and neoantigen fitness modelling between tumor neoatigens and microbial-derived antigens significantly stratified short- and long-term survivors independent of confounding factors and adjuvant chemotherapy. 

If these data will  hold true in other cancer settings, it will append how immunotherapy is applied to treat cancer patients. While this finding is potentially hugely important for immunotherapy, the authors tried not to make too big a statement about it (I would imagine it is a result of a typical reviewers conservatism), writing that "This hypothesis does not assume any associations between pre-existing antimicrobial immunity and survival, but rather aims to develop a strategy to identify candidate neoantigens based on defined immunogenic pathogen-derived epitopes" and in other place "Our results do not indicate causal associations of pre-existing microbial and anti-tumour immunity in LTSs [long-term survivors]. Instead, our data suggest that embedding microbial homology in the context of our neoantigen quality model can help to create an effective surrogate for immunogenic neoantigens." 

posted by David Usharauli

Outcome of TCR/pMHC interactions is presently unpredictable

This week journal Cell published a very important paper from KC Garcia's lab at Stanford. The focus of the study was to understand and determine, if possible, all the parameters that makes a given peptide/MHC and its similar looking variants stimulatory versus non-stimulatory to a given TCR molecule.

First, they compared two TCR molecules specific for class II HLA-DR4-HIV_{(Gag164–183)}. While both TCR expressing clones, TCR6 and TCR11, could bind pHLA tetramer, only TCR6 "proliferated, secreted cytokines, and downregulated TCR in response to stimulation with" HLA-DR4-HIV_{(Gag164–183)}. Both TCR clones could respond directly or after transducing them into TCR αβ-deficient cell line to non-specific stimulation such as anti-CD3 (OKT3).

Similar observation were made using TCRs specific for class I HLA-B35-HIV_{(Pol448–456)}. Here too, both TCR clones designated as TCR589 and TCR55 could bind specific pMHC tetramer but only TCR589 showed dose-dependent secretion of IL-2 in response to peptide-pulsed APCs.

Next, the authors determined TCR/pMHC affinity by surface plasmon resonance. For TCR55 (non-stimulatory) and TCR589 (stimulatory) clones it was 17_μM and 4_μM K_D, respectively. Surprisingly, for TCR6 (stimulatory) and TCR11 (non-stimulatory) clones affinity was 10_μM and 1_μM K_D, respectively.

Analysis of TCR55 (non-stimulatory) and TCR589 (stimulatory) TCR/pMHC interaction on lipid bilayers by total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy showed similar mean dwell times of 10.1 ± 2.0 s and 8.7 ± 2.1 s, respectively. Structural analysis of the crystal structures of TCR589 and TCR55 in complex with HLA-B35-HIV_{(Pol448–456)} also showed "no substantial differences in the conformations of the constant regions that would indicate differential allostery correlating with signaling."

Functional analysis of TCR proximal signaling molecules showed that stimulatory TCR589 but not TCR55 could up-regulate CD69, induce calcium release and recruit ZAP70 in response to HLA-B35-HIV_{(Pol448–456)}.

Next, they generated peptide library similar to HIV_{(Pol448–456)} with potencies "ranging from full agonism to partial agonism to no detectable signaling". Importantly, "the peptides that elicited these disparate signaling outcomes were remarkably similar in sequence."

One common feature of agonist peptides such as pep20 and SQL that could signal TCR55 was that such interaction excluded CD45 with varying degrees of efficiency compared to non-stimulatory peptide ligands in "a cell-free system using giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) to eliminate effects of signaling in live cells".

In addition, another common feature of stimulatory peptide ligands were so called catch bond formation between TCR and stimulatory pMHC "under conditions of force using a Biomembrane Force Probe (BFP) bond lifetime assay". In contrast, non-stimulatory ligands formed slip bond formations.

In summary, this study indicates that "catch bond formation and CD45 exclusion as principal emergent properties differentiating stimulatory from non-stimulatory TCR-pMHC interactions" but "the same pMHC can be an agonist or non-agonist for different TCRs, although it is difficult to assign causality to either the TCR or the peptide-MHC. The formation of a catch or slip bond is a collective property of the entire TCR-pMHC interface."

My opinion: one drawback of this study is that not many labs can verify its conclusions. I have not even heard of some of the techniques they used here. I could only trust that the authors tried to interpret their data as unbiased as it is rationally possible. Another weakness of the study is a failure to identify parameters that control CD45 exclusion or catch bond formation when TCR interacts with pMHC. Basically, with the exception of few very high affinity ligands (< 2_μM), we cannot predict in silico whether a given peptide will be stimulatory or non-stimulatory without actually doing an experiment on it.   

posted by David Usharauli