Computational analysis and modeling of cleavage by the immunoproteasome and the constitutive proteasome

BackgroundProteasomes play a central role in the major histocompatibility class I (MHCI) antigen processing pathway. They conduct the proteolytic degradation of proteins in the cytosol, generating the C-terminus of CD8 T cell epitopes and MHCI-peptide ligands (P1 residue of cleavage site). There are two types of proteasomes, the constitutive form, expressed in most cell types, and the immunoproteasome, which is constitutively expressed in mature dendritic cells. Protective CD8 T cell epitopes are likely generated by the immunoproteasome and the constitutive proteasome, and here we have modeled and analyzed the cleavage by these two proteases.ResultsWe have modeled the immunoproteasome and proteasome cleavage sites upon two non-overlapping sets of peptides consisting of 553 CD8 T cell epitopes, naturally processed and restricted by human MHCI molecules, and 382 peptides eluted from human MHCI molecules, respectively, using N-grams. Cleavage models were generated considering different epitope and MHCI-eluted fragment lengths and the same number of C-terminal flanking residues. Models were evaluated in 5-fold cross-validation. Judging by the Mathew's Correlation Coefficient (MCC), optimal cleavage models for the proteasome (MCC = 0.43 ± 0.07) and the immunoproteasome (MCC = 0.36 ± 0.06) were obtained from 12-residue peptide fragments. Using an independent dataset consisting of 137 HIV1-specific CD8 T cell epitopes, the immunoproteasome and proteasome cleavage models achieved MCC values of 0.30 and 0.18, respectively, comparatively better than those achieved by related methods. Using ROC analyses, we have also shown that, combined with MHCI-peptide binding predictions, cleavage predictions by the immunoproteasome and proteasome models significantly increase the discovery rate of CD8 T cell epitopes restricted by different MHCI molecules, including A*0201, A*0301, A*2402, B*0702, B*2705.ConclusionsWe have developed models that are specific to predict cleavage by the proteasome and the immunoproteasome. These models ought to be instrumental to identify protective CD8 T cell epitopes and are readily available for free public use at http://imed.med.ucm.es/Tools/PCPS/.

[1]  Yoram Louzoun,et al.  Precise score for the prediction of peptides cleaved by the proteasome , 2008, Bioinform..

[2]  D. Margulies.  Interactions of TCRs with MHC-peptide complexes: a quantitative basis for mechanistic models. , 1997, Current opinion in immunology.

[3]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Inhibitors of the proteasome block the degradation of most cell proteins and the generation of peptides presented on MHC class I molecules , 1994, Cell.

[4]  S. Brunak,et al.  Predicting proteasomal cleavage sites: a comparison of available methods. , 2003, International immunology.

[5]  Hong Zhang,et al.  EPIMHC: a curated database of MHC-binding peptides for customized computational vaccinology , 2005, Bioinform..

[6]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Peptidase activities of proteasomes are differentially regulated by the major histocompatibility complex-encoded genes for LMP2 and LMP7. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  John Sidney,et al.  A Systematic Assessment of MHC Class II Peptide Binding Predictions and Evaluation of a Consensus Approach , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[8]  Ellis L. Reinherz,et al.  Enhancement to the RANKPEP resource for the prediction of peptide binding to MHC molecules using profiles , 2004, Immunogenetics.

[9]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Degradation of cell proteins and the generation of MHC class I-presented peptides. , 1999, Annual review of immunology.

[10]  Christina Kuttler.  An Algorithm for the Prediction of Proteasomal Cleavages , 2000, German Conference on Bioinformatics.

[11]  K. Hadeler,et al.  PAProC: a prediction algorithm for proteasomal cleavages available on the WWW , 2001, Immunogenetics.

[12]  M. Probst-Kepper,et al.  Processing of some antigens by the standard proteasome but not by the immunoproteasome results in poor presentation by dendritic cells. , 2000, Immunity.

[13]  E. Reinherz,et al.  Prediction of MHC class I binding peptides using profile motifs. , 2002, Human immunology.

[14]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[15]  W Keilholz,et al.  Cleavage motifs of the yeast 20S proteasome beta subunits deduced from digests of enolase 1. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  Motif identification neural design for rapid and sensitive protein family search , 1996, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[17]  G. Belz,et al.  Cross‐presentation, dendritic cell subsets, and the generation of immunity to cellular antigens , 2004, Immunological reviews.

[18]  B. Monsarrat,et al.  Destructive Cleavage of Antigenic Peptides Either by the Immunoproteasome or by the Standard Proteasome Results in Differential Antigen Presentation1 , 2006, The Journal of Immunology.

[19]  J. Yewdell,et al.  Proteasomes get by with lots of help from their friends. , 2004, Immunity.

[20]  O. Lund,et al.  An integrative approach to CTL epitope prediction: A combined algorithm integrating MHC class I binding, TAP transport efficiency, and proteasomal cleavage predictions , 2005, European journal of immunology.

[21]  P. Kloetzel.  Generation of major histocompatibility complex class I antigens: functional interplay between proteasomes and TPPII , 2004, Nature Immunology.

[22]  P. Kloetzel,et al.  A theoretical approach towards the identification of cleavage-determining amino acid motifs of the 20 S proteasome. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Gajendra P. S. Raghava,et al.  Pcleavage: an SVM based method for prediction of constitutive proteasome and immunoproteasome cleavage sites in antigenic sequences , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  Pedro A Reche,et al.  Prediction of MHC-peptide binding: a systematic and comprehensive overview. , 2009, Current pharmaceutical design.

[25]  E. Reinherz,et al.  Prediction of peptide-MHC binding using profiles. , 2007, Methods in molecular biology.

[26]  B. Matthews.  Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. , 1975, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[27]  H. Margalit,et al.  Sequence signals for generation of antigenic peptides by the proteasome: implications for proteasomal cleavage mechanism. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  P. Kloetzel,et al.  The subunits MECL-1 and LMP2 are mutually required for incorporation into the 20S proteasome. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  O. Lund,et al.  The role of the proteasome in generating cytotoxic T-cell epitopes: insights obtained from improved predictions of proteasomal cleavage , 2005, Immunogenetics.

[30]  H. Rammensee,et al.  Discrete Cleavage Motifs of Constitutive and Immunoproteasomes Revealed by Quantitative Analysis of Cleavage Products , 2001, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[31]  Jacques Neefjes,et al.  A major role for TPPII in trimming proteasomal degradation products for MHC class I antigen presentation. , 2004, Immunity.

[32]  P. Dönnes,et al.  Integrated modeling of the major events in the MHC class I antigen processing pathway , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[33]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Two decades of statistical language modeling: where do we go from here? , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[34]  C. Wu,et al.  Back-propagation and counter-propagation neural networks for phylogenetic classification of ribosomal RNA sequences. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[35]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Two distinct proteolytic processes in the generation of a major histocompatibility complex class I-presented peptide. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  C Caux,et al.  Immunobiology of dendritic cells. , 2000, Annual review of immunology.

[37]  Werner Ebeling,et al.  Entropy and complexity of finite sequences as fluctuating quantities. , 2002, Bio Systems.

[38]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  SRILM - an extensible language modeling toolkit , 2002, INTERSPEECH.

[39]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  Gibbs motif sampling: Detection of bacterial outer membrane protein repeats , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[40]  P. Kloetzel,et al.  A kinetic model of vertebrate 20S proteasome accounting for the generation of major proteolytic fragments from oligomeric peptide substrates. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[41]  P. Kloetzel,et al.  Modeling the MHC class I pathway by combining predictions of proteasomal cleavage,TAP transport and MHC class I binding , 2005, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences CMLS.

[42]  J. Berzofsky,et al.  Two novel T cell epitope prediction algorithms based on MHC-binding motifs; comparison of predicted and published epitopes from Mycobacterium tuberculosis and HIV protein sequences. , 1995, Vaccine.

[43]  N. Shastri,et al.  ERAAP customizes peptides for MHC class I molecules in the endoplasmic reticulum , 2002, Nature.

[44]  K. Garcia,et al.  Structural basis of T cell recognition. , 1999, Annual review of immunology.

[45]  S. Brunak,et al.  Prediction of proteasome cleavage motifs by neural networks. , 2002, Protein engineering.

[46]  Jia-huai Wang,et al.  Structural basis of T cell recognition of peptides bound to MHC molecules. , 2002, Molecular immunology.

[47]  Darren R Flower,et al.  Class I T-cell epitope prediction: improvements using a combination of proteasome cleavage, TAP affinity, and MHC binding. , 2006, Molecular immunology.

[48]  Steve Wilson,et al.  The Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource: From Vision to Blueprint , 2005, PLoS biology.

[49]  A. Goldberg,et al.  The Sizes of Peptides Generated from Protein by Mammalian 26 and 20 S Proteasomes , 1999, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[50]  P. Cresswell,et al.  Mechanisms of MHC class I--restricted antigen processing. , 1998, Annual review of immunology.