Combinations of affinity-enhancing mutations in a T cell receptor reveal highly nonadditive effects within and between complementarity determining regions and chains.

Understanding the energetic and structural response to multiple mutations in a protein-protein interface is a key aspect of rational protein design. Here we investigate the cooperativity of combinations of point mutations of a T cell receptor (TCR) that binds in vivo to HLA-A2 MHC and a viral peptide. The mutations were obtained from two sources: a structure-based design study on the TCR alpha chain (nine mutations) and an in vitro selection study on the TCR beta chain (four mutations). In addition to combining the highest-affinity variants from each chain, we tested other combinations of mutations within and among the chains, for a total of 23 TCR mutants that we measured for binding kinetics to the peptide and major histocompatibility complex. A wide range of binding affinities was observed, from 2- to 1000-fold binding improvement versus that of the wild type, with significant nonadditive effects observed within and between TCR chains. This included an amino acid-dependent cooperative interaction between CDR1 and CDR3 residues that are separated by more than 9 A in the wild-type complex. When analyzing the kinetics of the mutations, we found that the association rates were primarily responsible for the cooperativity, while the dissociation rates were responsible for the anticooperativity (less-than-additive energetics). On the basis of structural modeling of anticooperative mutants, we determined that side chain clash between proximal mutants likely led to nonadditive binding energies. These results highlight the complex nature of TCR association and binding and will be informative in future design efforts that combine multiple mutant residues.

[1]  G. Gao,et al.  Germ Line-governed Recognition of a Cancer Epitope by an Immunodominant Human T-cell Receptor* , 2009, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[2]  Zhiping Weng,et al.  Structure‐based design of a T‐cell receptor leads to nearly 100‐fold improvement in binding affinity for pepMHC , 2009, Proteins.

[3]  D. Kranz,et al.  T‐cell receptor binding affinities and kinetics: impact on T‐cell activity and specificity , 2009, Immunology.

[4]  V Potapov,et al.  Computational redesign of a protein-protein interface for high affinity and binding specificity using modular architecture and naturally occurring template fragments. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  Brian M. Baker,et al.  Conformational changes and flexibility in T-cell receptor recognition of peptide–MHC complexes , 2008, The Biochemical journal.

[6]  K. M. Armstrong,et al.  Thermodynamics of T‐cell receptor–peptide/MHC interactions: progress and opportunities , 2008, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[7]  Pablo Carbonell,et al.  The Modular Organization of Domain Structures: Insights into Protein–Protein Binding , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[8]  David M Kranz,et al.  Display, engineering, and applications of antigen-specific T cell receptors. , 2007, Biomolecular engineering.

[9]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Computational design of antibody-affinity improvement beyond in vivo maturation , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  On the dynamic nature of the transition state for protein-protein association as determined by double-mutant cycle analysis and simulation. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  J. Boulter,et al.  Crystal structures of high affinity human T-cell receptors bound to peptide major histocompatibility complex reveal native diagonal binding geometry. , 2007, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[12]  K. M. Armstrong,et al.  A comprehensive calorimetric investigation of an entropically driven T cell receptor-peptide/major histocompatibility complex interaction. , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[13]  Brian M Baker,et al.  T cell receptor binding transition states and recognition of peptide/MHC. , 2007, Biochemistry.

[14]  D Reichmann,et al.  Binding hot spots in the TEM1-BLIP interface in light of its modular architecture. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  J. McCluskey,et al.  Specificity on a knife-edge: the αβ T cell receptor , 2006 .

[16]  Brian M Baker,et al.  T cell receptor recognition via cooperative conformational plasticity. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  John J Miles,et al.  Engineered T cell receptors and their potential in molecular medicine. , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[18]  B. Jakobsen,et al.  Making high-affinity T-cell receptors: a new class of targeted therapeutics. , 2006, IDrugs : the investigational drugs journal.

[19]  David M Kranz,et al.  Long-range cooperative binding effects in a T cell receptor variable domain. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Affinity enhancement of an in vivo matured therapeutic antibody using structure‐based computational design , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  K. Wittrup,et al.  Context‐dependent mutations predominate in an engineered high‐affinity single chain antibody fragment , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[22]  W. Sebald,et al.  A modular interface of IL-4 allows for scalable affinity without affecting specificity for the IL-4 receptor , 2006, BMC Biology.

[23]  David M Kranz,et al.  Class II-restricted T cell receptor engineered in vitro for higher affinity retains peptide specificity and function. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  J. Boulter,et al.  Stable, soluble, high‐affinity, engineered T cell receptors: novel antibody‐like proteins for specific targeting of peptide antigens , 2005, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[25]  V. Apostolopoulos,et al.  Insights into peptide-based vaccine design for cancer immunotherapy. , 2005, Current medicinal chemistry.

[26]  Yi Li,et al.  Directed evolution of human T-cell receptors with picomolar affinities by phage display , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  Brian M Baker,et al.  Two different T cell receptors use different thermodynamic strategies to recognize the same peptide/MHC ligand. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  L. K. Ely,et al.  The CDR3 regions of an immunodominant T cell receptor dictate the 'energetic landscape' of peptide-MHC recognition , 2005, Nature Immunology.

[29]  Yi Li,et al.  Design of Soluble Recombinant T Cell Receptors for Antigen Targeting and T Cell Inhibition* , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[30]  O. Dym,et al.  The modular architecture of protein-protein binding interfaces. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Israel Pecht,et al.  T cell receptor-ligand interactions: A conformational preequilibrium or an induced fit , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  M. Dwyer,et al.  Dissecting the binding energy epitope of a high-affinity variant of human growth hormone: cooperative and additive effects from combining mutations from independently selected phage display mutagenesis libraries. , 2004, Biochemistry.

[33]  D. Baker,et al.  A simple physical model for binding energy hot spots in protein–protein complexes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  Two-step binding mechanism for T-cell receptor recognition of peptide–MHC , 2002, Nature.

[35]  J Alexander,et al.  Optimizing vaccine design for cellular processing, MHC binding and TCR recognition. , 2002, Tissue antigens.

[36]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  Kinetic studies of protein-protein interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[37]  A. Fersht,et al.  Experimental assignment of the structure of the transition state for the association of barnase and barstar. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  D G Myszka,et al.  Advances in surface plasmon resonance biosensor analysis. , 2000, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[39]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[40]  B M Baker,et al.  Four A6-TCR/peptide/HLA-A2 structures that generate very different T cell signals are nearly identical. , 1999, Immunity.

[41]  M. Karplus,et al.  Effective energy function for proteins in solution , 1999, Proteins.

[42]  G Schreiber,et al.  Biophysical characterization of the interaction of the beta-lactamase TEM-1 with its protein inhibitor BLIP. , 1999, Biochemistry.

[43]  C. DeLisi,et al.  Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[44]  D. Wiley,et al.  Assembly, specific binding, and crystallization of a human TCR-alphabeta with an antigenic Tax peptide from human T lymphotropic virus type 1 and the class I MHC molecule HLA-A2. , 1996, Journal of immunology.

[45]  Partho Ghosh,et al.  Structure of the complex between human T-cell receptor, viral peptide and HLA-A2 , 1996, Nature.

[46]  D. Wiley,et al.  HLA-A2-peptide complexes: refolding and crystallization of molecules expressed in Escherichia coli and complexed with single antigenic peptides. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  J. Wells,et al.  Additivity of mutational effects in proteins. , 1990, Biochemistry.