Quantitative challenges in understanding ligand discrimination by αβ T cells

To fight viral or bacterial infections effectively without endangering their own viability, vertebrate organisms rely on the ability of their adaptive immune system to distinguish self- from non-self agents. Among the many components of the adaptive immune system, the major CD4+ and CD8+ subsets of αβ T cells recognize antigens from these infectious organisms primarily in the form of peptides bound Major Histocompatibility Complex-encoded molecules (pMHCs). The cellular processes that generate and load peptides onto MHC molecules, then export the resulting pMHC ligands to the cell surface for recognition by the receptors of T cells, do not generally discriminate between pathogen-derived and self-derived proteins or translation products. This leaves the critical task of ligand discrimination to the T lymphocyte itself - T cells must be able to be efficiently activated by infected or professional antigen presenting cells (APCs) bearing foreign ligands, while remaining for the most part in a naive state upon interaction with normal (uninfected) cells. This sharp discrimination has been documented experimentally both with functional assays (involving responses spanning hours to days – e.g. cytokine secretion, cytotoxicity, proliferation) or signaling assays (dealing with responses in the minute to hour range – e.g. calcium influx, kinase activity). These assays revealed that a T cell expressing a particular αβ receptor shows distinct responses to structurally related pMHC ligands, with a rather clear separation between agonists (which trigger T cell activation and are typically associated with receptor ligands derived from proteins of infectious agents) and non-agonists (which fail to trigger T cell activation and comprise the bulk of ligands with peptides derived from broadly expressed self proteins) [1, 2]. This distinction can be refined with subcategories of (1) strong agonists, which trigger all functions of T cells, even at low presentation levels, (2) weak/partial agonists which trigger T cells only when presented at very high dose and may stimulate only some of a cell’s potential outputs, (3) antagonists, which not only fail to trigger functional responses from T cells but also may diminish activation induced by agonist ligands when the two ligands are presented on the same APC, (4) synergistic endogenous peptides, which enhance the response of T cells to small quantities of agonist peptides, but fail to trigger these cells on their own [3], and (5) null ligands. A major challenge in the field of ligand discrimination by T cells is the construction of a detailed, quantitative, mechanistic model that accounts for the ability of small differences in TCR-ligand binding to give rise to the extremely wide divergence in the dose-responses characteristic of closely related pMHCs interacting with the same TCR. Such model building is made difficult by the need to ensure that mechanisms implemented to account for threshold setting in response to variant pMHCs are also compatible with other known properties of T cell activation (namely its sensitivity and speed [4]). In this review, we will discuss how ligand discrimination by T cells came to be viewed as the result of kinetic thresholding rather than allosteric regulation and present recent models showing how incorporating differential signaling feedback pathways into a kinetic proofreading scheme can explain the bulk of available results and predict new behaviors that have been verified by experiment. We will also discuss how these schemes potentially provide a quantitative explanation for adaptation of the ligand discrimination properties of T cells during their differentiation and maturation.

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

[2]  S. Jameson,et al.  Preselection Thymocytes Are More Sensitive to T Cell Receptor Stimulation Than Mature T Cells , 1998, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[3]  Graham M Lord,et al.  A kinetic differentiation model for the action of altered TCR ligands. , 1999, Immunology today.

[4]  R. Germain,et al.  Divergent changes in the sensitivity of maturing T cells to structurally related ligands underlies formation of a useful T cell repertoire. , 1999, Immunity.

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

[6]  J. Altman,et al.  Caveats in the design of MHC class I tetramer/antigen-specific T lymphocytes dissociation assays. , 2003, Journal of immunological methods.

[7]  P. Anton van der Merwe,et al.  CDR3 loop flexibility contributes to the degeneracy of TCR recognition , 2003, Nature Immunology.

[8]  R. Germain,et al.  Relationships among TCR ligand potency, thresholds for effector function elicitation, and the quality of early signaling events in human T cells. , 1998, Journal of immunology.

[9]  Mark M Davis,et al.  Evidence that structural rearrangements and/or flexibility during TCR binding can contribute to T cell activation. , 2003, Molecular cell.

[10]  Jay T. Groves,et al.  Synaptic pattern formation during cellular recognition , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  D. Plas,et al.  Direct Regulation of ZAP-70 by SHP-1 in T Cell Antigen Receptor Signaling , 1996, Science.

[12]  Arup K Chakraborty,et al.  Molecular flexibility can influence the stimulatory ability of receptor-ligand interactions at cell-cell junctions. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Christopher Garcia Faculty Opinions recommendation of Recruitment of Nck by CD3 epsilon reveals a ligand-induced conformational change essential for T cell receptor signaling and synapse formation. , 2002 .

[14]  Z Reich,et al.  Ligand recognition by alpha beta T cell receptors. , 1998, Annual review of immunology.

[15]  J. Goldman,et al.  B Cell Ligand Discrimination Through a Spreading and Contraction Response , 2006, Science.

[16]  J. Altman,et al.  CD8 binding to MHC class I molecules is influenced by T cell maturation and glycosylation. , 2001, Immunity.

[17]  Michael Loran Dustin Stop and go traffic to tune T cell responses. , 2004, Immunity.

[18]  R. Germain,et al.  Dynamic Imaging of T Cell-Dendritic Cell Interactions in Lymph Nodes , 2002, Science.

[19]  R. Sékaly,et al.  Cutting Edge: Detection of Antigen-Specific CD4+ T Cells by HLA-DR1 Oligomers Is Dependent on the T Cell Activation State1 , 2001, The Journal of Immunology.

[20]  Simon J Davis,et al.  The kinetic-segregation model: TCR triggering and beyond , 2006, Nature Immunology.

[21]  P. Marrack,et al.  Detection of antigen-specific T cells with multivalent soluble class II MHC covalent peptide complexes. , 1998, Immunity.

[22]  H. Eisen,et al.  Evidence that a single peptide-MHC complex on a target cell can elicit a cytolytic T cell response. , 1996, Immunity.

[23]  Arup K Chakraborty,et al.  The Immunological Synapse Balances T Cell Receptor Signaling and Degradation , 2003, Science.

[24]  Alexis M. Kalergis,et al.  Efficient T cell activation requires an optimal dwell-time of interaction between the TCR and the pMHC complex , 2001, Nature Immunology.

[25]  Ronald N Germain,et al.  Cooperation between CD4+ and CD8+ T cells: when, where, and how. , 2006, Annual review of immunology.

[26]  T. Zal,et al.  Nonstimulatory peptides contribute to antigen-induced CD8–T cell receptor interaction at the immunological synapse , 2005, Nature Immunology.

[27]  Z. Grossman,et al.  Autoreactivity, dynamic tuning and selectivity. , 2001, Current opinion in immunology.

[28]  R. Schwartz,et al.  The Strength of Persistent Antigenic Stimulation Modulates Adaptive Tolerance in Peripheral CD4+ T Cells , 2003, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[29]  Cliburn Chan,et al.  Cooperative enhancement of specificity in a lattice of T cell receptors , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  D. Fremont,et al.  High- and low-potency ligands with similar affinities for the TCR: the importance of kinetics in TCR signaling. , 1998, Immunity.

[31]  Z. Grossman,et al.  Tuning of activation thresholds explains flexibility in the selection and development of T cells in the thymus. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  Bernhard Hemmer,et al.  TCR ligand discrimination is enforced by competing ERK positive and SHP-1 negative feedback pathways , 2003, Nature Immunology.

[33]  R. Germain T-cell development and the CD4–CD8 lineage decision , 2002, Nature Reviews Immunology.

[34]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  Ligand-specific oligomerization of T-cell receptor molecules , 1997, Nature.

[35]  I. Weissman,et al.  T cell receptor-mediated negative selection of autoreactive T lymphocyte precursors occurs after commitment to the CD4 or CD8 lineages , 1990, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[36]  S. Jameson,et al.  The impact of duration versus extent of TCR occupancy on T cell activation: a revision of the kinetic proofreading model. , 2001, Immunity.

[37]  Ronald N Germain,et al.  Modeling T Cell Antigen Discrimination Based on Feedback Control of Digital ERK Responses , 2005, PLoS biology.

[38]  S. Jameson,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative differences in T cell receptor binding of agonist and antagonist ligands. , 1999, Immunity.

[39]  M. Davis,et al.  Altered T cell receptor ligands trigger a subset of early T cell signals. , 1996, Immunity.

[40]  S. Henrickson,et al.  T-cell priming by dendritic cells in lymph nodes occurs in three distinct phases , 2004, Nature.

[41]  Balbino Alarcón,et al.  Recruitment of Nck by CD3ϵ Reveals a Ligand-Induced Conformational Change Essential for T Cell Receptor Signaling and Synapse Formation , 2002, Cell.

[42]  S. Dzik,et al.  The immunological synapse: A molecular machine controlling T cell activation , 2000 .

[43]  R. Germain,et al.  Self-recognition promotes the foreign antigen sensitivity of naive T lymphocytes , 2002, Nature.

[44]  Barbara Hausmann,et al.  Thymic selection threshold defined by compartmentalization of Ras/MAPK signalling , 2006, Nature.

[45]  Arup K Chakraborty,et al.  CD4 enhances T cell sensitivity to antigen by coordinating Lck accumulation at the immunological synapse , 2004, Nature Immunology.

[46]  D. Aivazian,et al.  Phosphorylation of T cell receptor ζ is regulated by a lipid dependent folding transition , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[47]  R. Germain,et al.  The dynamics of T cell receptor signaling: complex orchestration and the key roles of tempo and cooperation. , 1999, Annual review of immunology.

[48]  E. Palmer,et al.  T cell receptor engagement by peptide–MHC ligands induces a conformational change in the CD3 complex of thymocytes , 2005, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[49]  Bernard Malissen,et al.  What do TCR-pMHC crystal structures teach us about MHC restriction and alloreactivity? , 2003, Trends in immunology.

[50]  J. Hoyland,et al.  Degeneration of intervertebral discs: current understanding of cellular and molecular events, and implications for novel therapies , 2001, Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine.

[51]  I. Arsov,et al.  Modulation of CD8+ T Cell Response to Antigen by the Levels of Self MHC Class I1 , 2001, The Journal of Immunology.

[52]  H. Boehmer Positive and Negative Selection of T Cells , 1992 .

[53]  Mark M. Davis,et al.  Direct observation of ligand recognition by T cells , 2002, Nature.

[54]  R. Schwartz,et al.  The Impact of T Cell Intrinsic Antigen Adaptation on Peripheral Immune Tolerance , 2006, PLoS biology.

[55]  S. Alam,et al.  T-cell receptor binding kinetics in T-cell development and activation , 2001, Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine.

[56]  Timothy K Starr,et al.  Positive and negative selection of T cells. , 2003, Annual review of immunology.

[57]  S. Jameson,et al.  Receptor Sensitivity: When T cells Lose Their Sense of Self , 2003, Current Biology.

[58]  Hugh Auchincloss,et al.  Peripheral expression of self-MHC-II influences the reactivity and self-tolerance of mature CD4(+) T cells: evidence from a lymphopenic T cell model. , 2002, Immunity.

[59]  Z. Grossman,et al.  Adaptive cellular interactions in the immune system: the tunable activation threshold and the significance of subthreshold responses. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[60]  P. Allen,et al.  Partially Phosphorylated T Cell Receptor ζ Molecules Can Inhibit T Cell Activation , 1999, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[61]  Nigel J Burroughs,et al.  Ligand detection and discrimination by spatial relocalization: A kinase-phosphatase segregation model of TCR activation. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[62]  Grégoire Altan-Bonnet,et al.  Chemokines enhance immunity by guiding naive CD8+ T cells to sites of CD4+ T cell–dendritic cell interaction , 2006, Nature.

[63]  Mark J. Miller,et al.  T cell repertoire scanning is promoted by dynamic dendritic cell behavior and random T cell motility in the lymph node. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[64]  C. Janeway,et al.  The biologic activity of anti-T cell receptor V region monoclonal antibodies is determined by the epitope recognized. , 1988, Journal of immunology.

[65]  Morgan Huse,et al.  Agonist/endogenous peptide–MHC heterodimers drive T cell activation and sensitivity , 2005, Nature.

[66]  T. McKeithan,et al.  Kinetic proofreading in T-cell receptor signal transduction. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[67]  Colin R. F. Monks,et al.  Three-dimensional segregation of supramolecular activation clusters in T cells , 1998, Nature.