Antigenicity and immunogenicity of synthetic peptides.

The ability of a peptide to react specifically with the functional binding site of a complementary antibody is known as its antigenic reactivity or antigenicity. Our understanding of peptide antigenicity has improved considerably in recent years mainly through the X-ray crystallographic analysis of peptide-monoclonal antibody complexes. This knowledge is obtained along reductionist lines by turning the biological question of antigen recognition into the purely chemical phenomenon of protein-peptide interactions described in terms of atomic forces and non-covalent bonds. This makes it possible to improve the degree of steric complementarity between a peptide and a single monoclonal antibody and thus to improve the peptide's antigenicity following structure-based rational design principles. The situation is quite different with immunogenicity which is the ability of the peptide to induce an immune response in a competent host. Whereas antigenicity can be reduced to the level of chemistry, such a reduction is not achievable in the case of immunogenicity which depends on many complex interactions with various elements of the host immune system. These cellular and regulatory mechanisms cannot be controlled by adjusting the structure of the peptide in a predetermined manner. For this reason, it is not possible to develop a synthetic peptide vaccine using molecular design principles.

[1]  R. Meloen,et al.  Mimotopes: realization of an unlikely concept , 2000, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[2]  M. V. Regenmortel,et al.  From absolute to exquisite specificity. Reflections on the fuzzy nature of species, specificity and antigenic sites , 1998 .

[3]  E. Domingo,et al.  Native‐like cyclic peptide models of a viral antigenic site: finding a balance between rigidity and flexibility , 2000, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[4]  S. Muller,et al.  Synthetic peptides as antigens , 1999 .

[5]  M. V. Regenmortel,et al.  Molecular dissection of protein antigens and the prediction of epitopes , 1988 .

[6]  M.H.V. Van Regenmortel,et al.  Pitfalls of reductionism in the design of peptide-based vaccines , 2001 .

[7]  L Choulier,et al.  Recognition of peptides by antibodies and investigations of affinity using biosensor technology. , 2001, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[8]  E. Domingo,et al.  Synthetic peptides as functional mimics of a viral discontinuous antigenic site. , 2001, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[9]  S J Rodda,et al.  Cognitive features of continuous antigenic determinants , 1988, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[10]  E. Zisman,et al.  Different roles of D‐amino acids in immune phenomena , 1997, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[11]  S. Denery-Papini,et al.  Specificity of antisera raised against synthetic peptide fragments of highMrglutenin subunits. , 1996 .

[12]  S. Muller,et al.  D-peptides as immunogens and diagnostic reagents. , 1998, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[13]  M. Regenmortel.  Molecular design versus empirical discovery in peptide-based vaccines. Coming to terms with fuzzy recognition sites and ill-defined structure-function relationships in immunology. , 1999 .

[14]  S J Rodda,et al.  A priori delineation of a peptide which mimics a discontinuous antigenic determinant. , 1986, Molecular immunology.