Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1986 Jan;83(2):226–230. doi: 10.1073/pnas.83.2.226

Antigenic determinants in proteins coincide with surface regions accessible to large probes (antibody domains).

J Novotný, M Handschumacher, E Haber, R E Bruccoleri, W B Carlson, D W Fanning, J A Smith, G D Rose
PMCID: PMC322830  PMID: 2417241

Abstract

We evaluated surface areas on proteins that would be accessible to contacts with large (1-nm radius) spherical probes. Such spheres are comparable in size to antibody domains that contain antigen-combining sites. We found that all the reported antigenic sites correspond to segments particularly accessible to a large sphere. The antigenic sites were also evident as the most prominently exposed regions (hills and ridges) in contour maps of the solvent-accessible (small-probe) surface. In myoglobin and cytochrome c, virtually all of the van der Waals surface is accessible to the large probe and therefore potentially antigenic; in myohemerythrin, distinct large-probe-inaccessible, and nonantigenic, surface regions are apparent. The correlation between large-sphere-accessibility and antigenicity in myoglobin, lysozyme, and cytochrome c appears to be better than that reported to exist between antigenicity and segmental flexibility; that is, surface regions that are rigid often constitute antigenic epitopes, whereas some of the flexible parts of the molecules do not appear antigenic. We propose that the primary reason why certain polypeptide-chain segments are antigenic is their exceptional surface exposure, making them readily available for contacts with antigen-combining sites. Exposure of these segments frequently results in high mobility and, in consequence, to the reported correlation between antigenicity and segmental flexibility.

Full text

PDF
226

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Amit A. G., Mariuzza R. A., Phillips S. E., Poljak R. J. Three-dimensional structure of an antigen-antibody complex at 6 A resolution. Nature. 1985 Jan 10;313(5998):156–158. doi: 10.1038/313156a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnon R., Sela M. Antibodies to a unique region in lysozyme provoked by a synthetic antigen conjugate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1969 Jan;62(1):163–170. doi: 10.1073/pnas.62.1.163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Artymiuk P. J., Blake C. C., Grace D. E., Oatley S. J., Phillips D. C., Sternberg M. J. Crystallographic studies of the dynamic properties of lysozyme. Nature. 1979 Aug 16;280(5723):563–568. doi: 10.1038/280563a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Artymiuk P. J., Blake C. C. Refinement of human lysozyme at 1.5 A resolution analysis of non-bonded and hydrogen-bond interactions. J Mol Biol. 1981 Nov 15;152(4):737–762. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(81)90125-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Atassi M. Z. Antigenic structure of myoglobin: the complete immunochemical anatomy of a protein and conclusions relating to antigenic structures of proteins. Immunochemistry. 1975 May;12(5):423–438. doi: 10.1016/0019-2791(75)90010-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Atassi M. Z. Precise determination of the entire antigenic structure of lysozyme: molecular features of protein antigenic structures and potential of "surface-simulation" synthesis--a powerful new concept for protein binding sites. Immunochemistry. 1978 Dec;15(12):909–936. doi: 10.1016/0161-5890(78)90126-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Benjamin D. C., Berzofsky J. A., East I. J., Gurd F. R., Hannum C., Leach S. J., Margoliash E., Michael J. G., Miller A., Prager E. M. The antigenic structure of proteins: a reappraisal. Annu Rev Immunol. 1984;2:67–101. doi: 10.1146/annurev.iy.02.040184.000435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernstein F. C., Koetzle T. F., Williams G. J., Meyer E. F., Jr, Brice M. D., Rodgers J. R., Kennard O., Shimanouchi T., Tasumi M. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol. 1977 May 25;112(3):535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(77)80200-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Berzofsky J. A., Buckenmeyer G. K., Hicks G., Gurd F. R., Feldmann R. J., Minna J. Topographic antigenic determinants recognized by monoclonal antibodies to sperm whale myoglobin. J Biol Chem. 1982 Mar 25;257(6):3189–3198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Connolly M. L. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science. 1983 Aug 19;221(4612):709–713. doi: 10.1126/science.6879170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Finzel B. C., Salemme F. R. Lattice mobility and anomalous temperature factor behaviour in cytochrome c'. Nature. 1985 Jun 20;315(6021):686–688. doi: 10.1038/315686a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Frauenfelder H., Petsko G. A., Tsernoglou D. Temperature-dependent X-ray diffraction as a probe of protein structural dynamics. Nature. 1979 Aug 16;280(5723):558–563. doi: 10.1038/280558a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hopp T. P., Woods K. R. Prediction of protein antigenic determinants from amino acid sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3824–3828. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jemmerson R., Morrow P. R., Klinman N. R., Paterson Y. Analysis of an evolutionarily conserved antigenic site on mammalian cytochrome c using synthetic peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Mar;82(5):1508–1512. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.5.1508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kabat E. A. The structural basis of antibody complementarity. Adv Protein Chem. 1978;32:1–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Karplus M., McCammon J. A. Dynamics of proteins: elements and function. Annu Rev Biochem. 1983;52:263–300. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.52.070183.001403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee B., Richards F. M. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol. 1971 Feb 14;55(3):379–400. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(71)90324-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Levitt M., Sander C., Stern P. S. Protein normal-mode dynamics: trypsin inhibitor, crambin, ribonuclease and lysozyme. J Mol Biol. 1985 Feb 5;181(3):423–447. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(85)90230-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Moore G. R., Williams R. J. Comparison of the structures of various eukaryotic ferricytochromes c and ferrocytochromes and their antigenic differences. Eur J Biochem. 1980 Feb;103(3):543–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1980.tb05978.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Moudallal Z. A., Briand J. P., Regenmortel M. H. A major part of the polypeptide chain of tobacco mosaic virus protein is antigenic. EMBO J. 1985 May;4(5):1231–1235. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1985.tb03765.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Northrup S. H., Pear M. R., McCammon J. A., Karplus M., Takano T. Internal mobility of ferrocytochrome c. Nature. 1980 Oct 16;287(5783):659–660. doi: 10.1038/287659a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Novotný J., Auffray C. A program for prediction of protein secondary structure from nucleotide sequence data: application to histocompatibility antigens. Nucleic Acids Res. 1984 Jan 11;12(1 Pt 1):243–255. doi: 10.1093/nar/12.1part1.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Padlan E. A., Segal D. M., Spande T. F., Davies D. R., Rudikoff S., Potter M. Structure at 4.5 A resolution of a phosphorylcholine-binding fab. Nat New Biol. 1973 Oct 10;245(145):165–167. doi: 10.1038/newbio245165a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Paterson Y. Delineation and conformational analysis of two synthetic peptide models of antigenic sites on rodent cytochrome c. Biochemistry. 1985 Feb 12;24(4):1048–1055. doi: 10.1021/bi00325a037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Phillips S. E. Structure and refinement of oxymyoglobin at 1.6 A resolution. J Mol Biol. 1980 Oct 5;142(4):531–554. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(80)90262-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Richards F. M. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1977;6:151–176. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.06.060177.001055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Richmond T. J., Richards F. M. Packing of alpha-helices: geometrical constraints and contact areas. J Mol Biol. 1978 Mar 15;119(4):537–555. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(78)90201-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rose G. D. Automatic recognition of domains in globular proteins. Methods Enzymol. 1985;115:430–440. doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(85)15031-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sheriff S., Hendrickson W. A., Stenkamp R. E., Sieker L. C., Jensen L. H. Influence of solvent accessibility and intermolecular contacts on atomic mobilities in hemerythrins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Feb;82(4):1104–1107. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.4.1104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Smith-Gill S. J., Lavoie T. B., Mainhart C. R. Antigenic regions defined by monoclonal antibodies correspond to structural domains of avian lysozyme. J Immunol. 1984 Jul;133(1):384–393. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Smith-Gill S. J., Wilson A. C., Potter M., Prager E. M., Feldmann R. J., Mainhart C. R. Mapping the antigenic epitope for a monoclonal antibody against lysozyme. J Immunol. 1982 Jan;128(1):314–322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Tainer J. A., Getzoff E. D., Alexander H., Houghten R. A., Olson A. J., Lerner R. A., Hendrickson W. A. The reactivity of anti-peptide antibodies is a function of the atomic mobility of sites in a protein. Nature. 1984 Nov 8;312(5990):127–134. doi: 10.1038/312127a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Tainer J. A., Getzoff E. D., Paterson Y., Olson A. J., Lerner R. A. The atomic mobility component of protein antigenicity. Annu Rev Immunol. 1985;3:501–535. doi: 10.1146/annurev.iy.03.040185.002441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Takano T., Dickerson R. E. Conformation change of cytochrome c. I. Ferrocytochrome c structure refined at 1.5 A resolution. J Mol Biol. 1981 Nov 25;153(1):79–94. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(81)90528-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tanaka T., Slamon D. J., Cline M. J. Efficient generation of antibodies to oncoproteins by using synthetic peptide antigens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 May;82(10):3400–3404. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.10.3400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Urbanski G. J., Margoliash E. Topographic determinants on cytochrome c. I. The complete antigenic structures of rabbit, mouse, and guanaco cytochromes c in rabbits and mice1. J Immunol. 1977 Apr;118(4):1170–1180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Westhof E., Altschuh D., Moras D., Bloomer A. C., Mondragon A., Klug A., Van Regenmortel M. H. Correlation between segmental mobility and the location of antigenic determinants in proteins. Nature. 1984 Sep 13;311(5982):123–126. doi: 10.1038/311123a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES