U.S. patent application number 13/431282 was filed with the patent office on 2012-08-09 for method, computing routine, device for predicting properties of mhc/peptide complexes, and data and peptides produced therefrom.
This patent application is currently assigned to Algonomics N.V.. Invention is credited to Johan Desmet, Ignace Lasters.
Application Number | 20120202247 13/431282 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 29724618 |
Filed Date | 2012-08-09 |
United States Patent
Application |
20120202247 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Lasters; Ignace ; et
al. |
August 9, 2012 |
METHOD, COMPUTING ROUTINE, DEVICE FOR PREDICTING PROPERTIES OF
MHC/PEPTIDE COMPLEXES, AND DATA AND PEPTIDES PRODUCED THEREFROM
Abstract
The present invention relates to a method for structure-based
prediction of properties of peptides and peptide analogs in complex
with major histocompatibility (MHC) class I and class II molecules.
The said properties mainly relate to the three-dimensional
structure of an MHC/peptide complex and the binding affinity of a
peptide for an MHC receptor. The invention further relates to a
computer program and a device therefor. The invention further
relates to data produced by a method of the invention. The
invention further relates to peptides and peptide analogs predicted
to bind to target-MHC molecules. The present invention thus relates
to the field of immunology, with possible applications in
manufacture of vaccinates, de-immunization of proteins, and
manufacture of therapeutic agents, especially immuno-therapeutic
agents.
Inventors: |
Lasters; Ignace; (Antwerpen,
BE) ; Desmet; Johan; (Kortrijk, BE) |
Assignee: |
Algonomics N.V.
Zwijnaarde
BE
|
Family ID: |
29724618 |
Appl. No.: |
13/431282 |
Filed: |
March 27, 2012 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12660774 |
Mar 4, 2010 |
|
|
|
13431282 |
|
|
|
|
10516628 |
Sep 7, 2005 |
7702465 |
|
|
PCT/EP03/06049 |
Jun 10, 2003 |
|
|
|
12660774 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
435/69.1 ;
530/328; 530/387.9; 536/23.72; 703/11 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G16B 15/00 20190201;
G16B 20/00 20190201 |
Class at
Publication: |
435/69.1 ;
530/328; 536/23.72; 530/387.9; 703/11 |
International
Class: |
C07K 7/06 20060101
C07K007/06; G06G 7/58 20060101 G06G007/58; C12P 21/00 20060101
C12P021/00; C12N 15/33 20060101 C12N015/33; C07K 16/08 20060101
C07K016/08 |
Foreign Application Data
Date |
Code |
Application Number |
Jun 10, 2002 |
EP |
02447115.3 |
Claims
1-32. (canceled)
33. A representation of one or more peptide backbone structures of
one or more peptides that interact with a major histocompatibility
(MHC) class I or class II molecule, obtained by a method comprising
(a) providing an amino acid sequence of a polypeptide of interest;
(b) preparing one or more overlapping putative immunogenic peptide
fragments of said polypeptide of interest; (c) receiving a
representation of a complete or partial three-dimensional structure
of said MHC class I or class II molecule; (d) obtaining an ensemble
of conformational representations of peptide backbone structures of
said putative immunogenic peptide fragments, said conformational
representations located within the binding site of said MHC
molecule; (e) modeling the side chains of said peptide backbone
structures of said ensemble in relation to said MHC molecule,
thereby obtaining an ensemble of modeled MHC/peptide complexes; (f)
evaluating the binding properties of said putative immunogenic
peptides for said MHC molecule, by using a scoring function which
combines at least: f1) average binding energy component obtained by
evaluating one or more components of the potential energy of each
complex of the ensemble of step (e); f2) conformational entropy
component obtained by evaluating the conformational entropy for the
complete ensemble of each modeled MHC/peptide complex of step (e);
and (g) inferring from the results obtained in (f), one or more
putative immunogenic peptides that bind to said MHC molecule;
thereby obtaining a representation of one or more peptide backbone
structures of one or more peptides that interact with a major
histocompatibility (MHC) class I or class II molecule.
34. A computer program comprising computing routines, stored on a
computer readable medium for predicting the binding affinity of a
peptide for a major histocompatibility (MHC) class I or class II
molecule, said routines comprising: a) receiving a representation
of a complete or partial three-dimensional structure of a MHC class
I or class II molecule, b) obtaining an ensemble of conformational
representations of peptide backbone structures of said peptide,
said conformational representations located within the binding site
of said MHC molecule, c) modeling the side-chains of said peptide
for each peptide backbone structure of said ensemble in relation to
said MHC molecule, thereby obtaining an ensemble of modeled
MHC/peptide complexes, and d) evaluating the binding properties of
said peptide for said MHC molecule, by using scoring function which
combines at least: d1) average binding energy component obtained by
evaluating one or more components of the potential energy of each
complex of the ensemble of step c), and d2) conformational entropy
component obtained by evaluating the conformational entropy for the
complete ensemble of modeled MHC/peptide complexes of step c).
35. (canceled)
36. A computer program according to claim 34, wherein said peptide
backbone structures are obtained by computer modeling or by
retrieval from a database.
37. A device for predicting the binding affinity of a peptide for a
major histocompatibility (MHC) class I or class II molecule,
comprising means for: a) receiving a representation of a complete
or partial three-dimensional structure of a MHC class I or class II
molecule, b) obtaining an ensemble of conformational
representations of peptide backbone structures of said peptide,
said conformational representations located within the binding site
of said MHC molecule, c) modeling the side-chains of said peptide
for each peptide backbone structure of said ensemble in relation to
said MHC molecule, thereby obtaining an ensemble of modeled
MHC/peptide complexes, and d) evaluating the binding properties of
said peptide for said MHC molecule, by using scoring function which
combines at least: d1) average binding energy component obtained by
evaluating one or more components of the potential energy of each
complex of the ensemble of step c), and d2) conformational entropy
component obtained by evaluating the conformational entropy for the
complete ensemble of modeled MHC/peptide complexes of step c).
38. A peptide which binds major histocompatibility (MHC) class I or
class II molecules, said peptide being obtainable by a method
comprising (a) providing an amino acid sequence of a polypeptide of
interest; (b) preparing one or more overlapping putative
immunogenic peptide fragments of said polypeptide of interest; (c)
receiving a representation of a complete or partial
three-dimensional structure of said MHC class I or class II
molecule; (d) obtaining an ensemble of conformational
representations of peptide backbone structures of said putative
immunogenic peptide fragments, said conformational representations
located within the binding site of said MHC molecule. (e) modeling
the side chains of said peptide backbone structures of said
ensemble in relation to said MHC molecule, thereby obtaining an
ensemble of modeled MHC/peptide complexes; (f) evaluating the
binding properties of said putative immunogenic peptides for said
MHC molecule, by using a scoring function which combines at least:
f1) average binding energy component obtained by evaluating one or
more components of the potential energy of each complex of the
ensemble of step (e); f2) conformational entropy component obtained
by evaluating the conformational entropy for the complete ensemble
of each modeled MHC/peptide complex of step (e); (g) inferring from
the results obtained in (f), one or more putative immunogenic
peptides that bind to said MHC molecule; and (h) preparing one or
more of said putative immunogenic peptides of said polypeptide of
interest.
39. An peptide which binds major histocompatibility (MHC) class I
or class II molecules, said peptide being obtained by a method
comprising (a) providing an amino acid sequence of a polypeptide of
interest; (b) preparing one or more overlapping putative
immunogenic peptide fragments of said polypeptide of interest; (c)
receiving a representation of a complete or partial
three-dimensional structure of said MHC class I or class II
molecule; (d) obtaining an ensemble of conformational
representations of peptide backbone structures of said putative
immunogenic peptide fragments, said conformational representations
located within the binding site of said MHC molecule. (e) modeling
the side chains of said peptide backbone structures of said
ensemble in relation to said MHC molecule, thereby obtaining an
ensemble of modeled MHC/peptide complexes; (f) evaluating the
binding properties of said putative immunogenic peptides for said
MHC molecule, by using a scoring function which combines at least:
f1) average binding energy component obtained by evaluating one or
more components of the potential energy of each complex of the
ensemble of step (e); f2) conformational entropy component obtained
by evaluating the conformational entropy for the complete ensemble
of each modeled MHC/peptide complex of step (e); (g) inferring from
the results obtained in (f), one or more putative immunogenic
peptides that bind to said MHC molecule; and (h) preparing one or
more of said putative immunogenic peptides of said polypeptide of
interest.
40. A nucleic acid encoding a peptide as defined in claim 38 or
39.
41. A nucleic acid of at least 15 nucleotides in length
specifically hybridizing with the nucleic acid of claim 40.
42. An antibody specifically recognizing a peptide according to
claim 38 or 39.
43. An antibody specifically recognizing a nucleic acid according
to claim 40.
44. A method for producing a peptide according to claim 38 or 39
comprising: (a) culturing host cells comprising a nucleic acid
encoding the peptide under conditions allowing the expression of
the peptide, and, (b) recovering the produced peptide from the
culture.
45. The peptide according to claim 38 or 39 formulated as a
medicament.
46. The nucleic acid according to claim 40 formulated as a
medicament.
47. The representation of claim 33 comprising an indication of the
MHC molecule associated with said representation.
48. An antibody specifically recognizing a nucleic acid according
to claim 41.
49. The nucleic acid according to claim 41 formulated as a
medicament.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 12/660,774, filed Mar. 4, 2010, which is a continuation of
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/516,628, filed Sep. 7, 2005,
now U.S. Pat. No. 7,702,465, which is a U.S. National Phase of PCT
Application No. PCT/EP03/06049, filed Jun. 10, 2003 and claims
priority to European Application No. 02447115.3, filed Jun. 10,
2002.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The present invention relates to a method for
structure-based prediction of properties of peptides and peptide
analogs in complex with major histocompatibility (MHC) class I and
class II molecules. The said properties mainly relate to the
three-dimensional structure of an MHC/peptide complex and the
binding affinity of a peptide for an MHC receptor. The invention
further relates to a computer program and a device therefor. The
invention further relates to data produced by a method of the
invention. The invention further relates to peptides and peptide
analogs predicted to bind to target-MHC molecules. The present
invention thus relates to the field of immunology, with possible
applications in manufacture of vaccinates, de-immunization of
proteins, and manufacture of therapeutic agents, especially
immuno-therapeutic agents.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] Cytotoxic T-cells (T.sub.C or CD8-T lymphocytes) and helper
T-cells (T.sub.H or CD4-T lymphocytes) have the capability of
recognizing short, processed fragments of a protein antigen,
referred to as antigenic peptides or T-cell epitopes. However,
recognition does not occur by direct binding to free peptides.
Specific receptor molecules on T-cells (T-cell receptors or TCRs)
recognize a peptide antigen only when it is bound to another
receptor known as a major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
molecule. Such MHC-peptide complexes serve the role of cell
markers: when the MHC contains an endogenous (self) peptide, it
marks the cell as "healthy"; when it contains a foreign peptide,
the cell is marked as "infected". The MHC-mediated presentation of
antigenic peptides to the repertoire of T-cells can thus be seen as
the primary stimulus to elicit an immune response. Depending on the
type of MHC presenting an antigen, which is correlated with the
type of cell expressing it, the immune system is triggered to
either destroy the antigen presenting cell or to produce antibodies
directed against the infectious agent.
[0004] MHC molecules are subdivided into classes I and II. While
their general function is the same (presenting antigen), they
differ in a number of aspects. MHC class I is expressed on the cell
surface as a heterodimeric complex between a 46-kDa heavy chain
(the .alpha.-chain) and a 12 kDa light chain (the
.beta.2-microglobulin or .beta.2m chain). The .alpha.-chain
consists of three domains, .alpha..sub.1, .alpha..sub.2 and
.alpha..sub.3; the .alpha..sub.1 and .alpha..sub.2 domains are
responsible for binding of a peptide ligand, while the
.alpha..sub.3 domain is membrane-bound and involved in CD8
co-receptor binding. Class II MHC molecules have the same overall
shape, although they are constituted of two membrane-bound chains:
an .alpha. chain of .about.35 kDa and a .beta. chain of .about.28
kDa. Both the .alpha. and the .beta. chain form two domains
(.alpha..sub.1 and .alpha..sub.2 on the one hand and .beta..sub.1
and .beta..sub.2 on the other). The .alpha..sub.1 and .beta..sub.1
domain jointly form the peptide binding domain. The .beta..sub.2
domain is involved in CD4 co-receptor binding.
[0005] Both MHC class I and class II molecules show a high degree
of polymorphism. They have been further subdivided into different
subtypes. The existence of different MHC allotypes lies at the
basis of the capacity of MHCs to bind a broad range of peptides
while still preserving some specificity. Given this polymorphism,
being able to predict which peptides specifically bind to which MHC
subtypes, is thought to be of great value in vaccination strategies
and de-immunization programs. Thanks to the recent burst of
information derived from experimentally determined 3D-structures,
valuable insights about the determinants of peptide binding
specificity have been obtained. This, in turn, has led to the idea
that a structure-based prediction of potentially antigenic peptides
(or T-cell epitopes) is within reach.
[0006] Functional human leukocyte antigens (HLAs or human MHCs) are
characterized by a deep binding groove to which endogenous as well
as potentially antigenic peptides bind. The groove is further
characterized by a well-defined shape and physico-chemical
properties. HLA class I binding sites are closed, in that the
peptide termini are pinned down into the ends of the groove. They
are also involved in a network of hydrogen bonds with conserved HLA
residues (Madden, D. R. et al., (1992) Cell 70, 1035-1048). In view
of these restraints, the length of bound peptides is limited to
8-10 residues. Superposition of the structures of different HLA
complexes confirmed a general mode of binding wherein peptides
adopt a relatively linear, extended conformation. At the same time,
a significant variability in the conformation of different peptides
was observed also. This variability ranges from minor structural
differences to notably different binding modes. Such variation is
not unexpected in view of the fact that class I molecules can bind
thousands of different peptides, varying in length (8-10 residues)
and in amino acid sequence. The different class I allotypes bind
peptides sharing one or two conserved amino acid residues at
specific positions. These residues are referred to as anchor
residues and are accommodated in complementary pockets (Falk, K. et
al., (1991) Nature 351, 290-296). Besides primary anchors, there
are also secondary anchor residues occupied in more shallow pockets
(Matsumura, M. et al., (1992) Science 257, 927-934). In total, six
allele-specific pockets termed A-F have been characterized (Saper,
M. A. et al., (1991) J. Mol. Biol. 219, 277-312; Latron, F. et al.,
(1992) Science 257, 964-967). The constitution of these pockets
varies in accordance with the polymorphism of class I molecules,
giving rise to both a high degree of specificity (limited cross
reactivity) while preserving a broad binding capacity.
[0007] In contrast to HLA class I binding sites, class II sites are
open at both ends. This allows peptides to extend from the actual
region of binding, thereby "hanging out" at both ends (Brown. J. et
al., (1993) Nature 364, 33-39). Class II HLAs can therefore bind
peptide ligands of variable length, ranging from 9 to more than 25
amino acid residues. Similar to HLA class I, the affinity of a
class II ligand is determined by a "constant" and a "variable"
component. The constant part again results from a network of
hydrogen bonds formed between conserved residues in the HLA class
II groove and the main-chain of a bound peptide. However, this
hydrogen bond pattern is not confined to the N- and C-terminal
residues of the peptide but distributed over the whole of the
chain. The latter is important because it restricts the
conformation of complexed peptides to a strictly linear mode of
binding. This is common for all class II allotypes. The second
component determining the binding affinity of a peptide is variable
due to certain positions of polymorphism within class II binding
sites. Different allotypes form different complementary pockets
within the groove, thereby accounting for subtype-dependent
selection of peptides, or specificity. Importantly, the constraints
on the amino acid residues held within class II pockets are in
general "softer" than for class I. There is much more cross
reactivity of peptides among different HLA class II allotypes.
Unlike for class I, it has been impossible to identify highly
conserved residue patterns in peptide ligands (so-called motifs)
that correlate with the class II allotypes.
[0008] The different characteristics of class I and class II MHC
molecules are responsible for specific problems associated with the
prediction of potential T-cell epitopes. As discussed before, class
I molecules bind short peptides that exhibit well-defined residue
type patterns. This has led to various prediction methods that are
based on experimentally determined statistical preferences for
particular residue types at specific positions in the peptide.
Although these methods work relatively well, uncertainties
associated with non-conserved positions limit their accuracy.
Prediction methods for MHC class II-mediated T-cell epitopes
essentially follow the same strategy, but are hampered by the fact
that the binding groove is open. The latter makes it difficult to
locate, in a pool of peptides identified as binders, the 9-residue
segment that is actually responsible for the binding. This fact,
combined with the intrinsically weaker constraints of the
complementary pockets in class II binding grooves, makes the
establishment of (pseudo-) motifs very difficult (Mallios, R. R.
(2001) Bioinformatics 17, 942-948). On the other hand, class II
peptide binding motifs generally include more anchor residues than
class I motifs.
[0009] Methods for MHC/peptide binding prediction can grossly be
subdivided into two categories: "statistical methods" that are
driven by experimentally obtained affinity data and
"structure-related methods" that are based on available 3D
structural information of MHC molecules.
[0010] Statistical methods have been promoted under the impulse of
a growing amount of binding data. Sources of binding information
are, typically, elution and pool sequencing of peptides bound
naturally to MHC molecules inside cells (Falk, K. et al., (1994)
Immuno-genetics 39, 230-242), phage display of peptide libraries
(Hammer, J. et al., (1993) Cell 74, 197-203. Fleckenstein, B. et
al., (1999) Sem. Immunol. 11, 405-416), data sets compiled from
reports in the literature (Brusic, V. et al., (1998) Nucleic Acids
Res. 26, 368-371, Rammensee, H. G. et al., (1999) Immunogenetics
50, 213-219). A common approach is to decompose, in a statistical
way, the available experimental information into MHC type-specific
and peptide residue position-specific numerical values reflecting
the preference for individual amino acid types at that position
(Parker, K. C. et al., (1994) J. Immunol. 152, 163-175). The
matrices obtained in this way may then serve as profiles from which
the binding affinity of a peptide sequence of interest can be
estimated.
[0011] Structure-based methods generally include a first step
wherein the structure of a specific MHC/peptide complex is modeled
and a second step wherein the binding strength of the peptide is
estimated from the modeled complex in accordance with an empirical
scoring function. Examples include WO 98/59244, Altuvia, Y. et al.,
(1995) J. Mol. Biol. 249, 244-250; Doytchinova, I. A. and Flower,
D. R. (2001) J. Med. Chem. 44, 3572-3581). Alternatively, a
molecular dynamics simulation is sometimes performed to model a
peptide within an MHC binding groove (Lim, J. S. et al. (1996) Mol.
Immunol. 33, 221-230). Another approach is to combine loop modeling
with simulated annealing (Rognan, D. et al., (1999) J. Med. Chem.
42, 4650-4658). Most research groups emphasize the importance of
the scoring function used in the affinity prediction step.
Schueler-Furman et al. (Schueler-Furman, O. et al., (2000) Prot.
Sci. 9, 1838-1864) apply a statistical potential to evaluate the
contacts between the peptide and the MHC receptor. Rognan et al.
(1999) rely on a quantification of physicochemical effects (like
H-bond formation, lipophilic contacts, desolvation, etc.). Swain et
al. (Swain, M. T., et al., (2001) Proceedings of the second IEEE
International Symposium on Bioinformatics and Biomedical
Engineering. IEEE computer Society Press, Bethesda, Md., pp. 81-88)
also apply a heuristic scoring function based on inter-atomic
contacts, electrostatic interactions and H-bond formation.
Doytchinova and Flower (2001) consider essentially the same
contributions but follow a quantitative structure-affinity
relationship (QSAR) method to assess the binding affinity. Logean
et al. (Logean, A., et al., (2001) Bioinorg. & Med. Chem.
Letters 11, 675-679) have analyzed the performance of 7 universal
scoring functions. They found that many of these scoring functions
yield poor correlation with experiment, in contrast to their
"Fresno" scoring function. However, it was also recognized that the
Fresno function cannot be universally applied but requires
recalibration for different protein-ligand systems.
[0012] There is a need to substantially improve both the structure
prediction and the affinity assessment steps of methods which
predict the affinity of a peptide for a major histocompatibility
(MHC) class I or class II molecule. The main problem encountered in
this field is the poor performance of prediction algorithms with
respect to MHC alleles for which experimentally determined data
(both binding and structural information) are scarce. It is an aim
of the present invention to provide a novel method for predicting
the affinity of a peptide for a major histocompatibility (MHC)
class I or class II molecule, also in cases where experimental
information is rare.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0013] The present invention relates to a method for predicting the
binding affinity of a peptide for a major histocompatibility (MHC)
class I or class II molecule, comprising the following steps:
[0014] (a) receiving a representation of a complete or partial
three-dimensional structure of an MHC class I or class II
molecule,
[0015] (b) obtaining an ensemble of representations of peptide
backbone structures of said peptide, said representations located
within the binding site of said MHC molecule,
[0016] (c) modeling for each peptide backbone structure of said
ensemble in relation to said MHC molecule, at least the side-chains
of said peptide, thereby obtaining an ensemble of modeled
MHC/peptide complexes, and
[0017] (d) evaluating the binding properties of said peptide for
said MHC molecule, comprising at least: [0018] (d1) evaluating one
or more components of the potential energy of each complex of the
ensemble of step (c). [0019] (d2) evaluating the conformational
entropy for the complete ensemble of step.
[0020] An accurate and efficient method is provided which uses a
three-dimensional structure to predict the binding affinity of an
MHC molecule/peptide complex. It fulfills a need for obtaining
structural and physicochemical data on peptide MHC complexes,
without the requirement for laboratory equipment, space, expertise
and time. Furthermore, it provides the means to screen large
numbers of potentially antigenic peptides and further provides the
means for creating a database which may be examined for trends or
which may be used as the basis for other experiments.
[0021] A step which obtains an ensemble of backbone structures and
a separate step which models the side-chains offer the advantages
of sampling more efficiently the conformational space of the
backbone, reducing the computational time required to model the
side-chains, and provides a more accurate overall model of the
complex(es).
[0022] Combining potential energy and conformational entropy in the
evaluation step leads to an improved accuracy in the prediction of
the binding affinity. The present inventors have observed the
surprising improvement in the correlation between
experimentally-determined and predicted binding affinities when
both components are explicitly computed.
[0023] In one embodiment of the present invention the said
representation of step (a) is obtained from one of the following:
[0024] one or more experimentally determined structures obtained
by, for example, X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance
spectroscopy, scanning microscopy, or, [0025] one or more models
derived from one or more experimentally determined structures,
whereby said experimentally determined structures have a high
sequence identity to said MHC molecule.
[0026] The option to use experimentally-determined structures leads
to a more accurate prediction of the affinity of the complex since
the said structures have been experimentally validated and may have
a higher degree of accuracy. The option to use computer-modeled
structures may allow the prediction of affinities of peptide for
MHC molecules in complexes for which no or only partial MHC
molecule structures exist. Since more MHC molecules are known than
structures have been experimentally solved, the use of modeled
structures allows the prediction of otherwise unobtainable complex
affinity data, filling the growing need for such information.
[0027] In another embodiment of the present invention the ensemble
of step (b) is generated by a computer modeling method, said method
being able to generate multiple energetically favorable backbone
configurations in relation to the MHC molecule. The use of modeling
to generate said ensemble allows the available conformational space
to be sampled efficiently, for example in a fashion that is
specific for the sequence of said peptide. This provides validation
for allowable conformations, and may also provide a more accurate
assessment of properties of the complex.
[0028] In another embodiment of the present invention the
representation of step (b) is retrieved from a library of peptide
structures pre-oriented in relation to the MHC molecule. The use of
a library provides the opportunity of a drastic reduction of the
computational time per peptide since an alternative is to use
simulations which may be extremely demanding in computing time due
to the large search space. An indirect advantage is the fact that
the prediction accuracy can be improved because a large number of
pre-oriented peptide structures may be retrieved, and more
attention can be paid to the important side-chain placement and
affinity prediction steps.
[0029] In yet another embodiment of the present invention a complex
within said ensemble of step (c) is obtained from a side-chain
placement algorithm. The use of a side placement algorithm
decouples the side-chain from the main-chain sampling so providing
an opportunity to increase the speed and accuracy of the
calculation.
[0030] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
side-chain placement of step (c) not only involves placing the
side-chains of the peptide itself, but also involves placing one or
more side-chains of said MHC molecule that are in contact with said
peptide. The use of both a side-chain placement for peptide and MHC
molecules provides the opportunity to generate more accurate models
and hence to increase the accuracy of the predicted affinity of the
complex.
[0031] In yet another embodiment of the present invention a complex
within said ensemble of step (c) is obtained from a side-chain
placement algorithm suited for global side-chain optimization. The
globally optimal placement of side-chains generally yields more
accurate predictions compared to local optimization.
[0032] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
side-chain placement algorithm of a method above comprises a
dead-end elimination (DEE) algorithm, characterized in that said
DEE algorithm eliminates rotameric conformations on the basis of a
mathematical criterion that allows the detection of conformations
that are not compatible with the globally optimal conformation. The
DEE approach is helpful in solving the combinatorial search problem
by reducing the number of possible rotamers which need to be
tested, thereby greatly increasing the speed of global side-chain
optimization.
[0033] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
side-chain placement algorithm of a method above comprises a FASTER
algorithm (Desmet J. et al. (2002) Proteins 48, 31-43), said
algorithm being characterized essentially by a repeated
perturbation, relaxation and evaluation step. The FASTER algorithm
improves the side-chain prediction accuracy at a low computational
cost, and hence makes provision for more accurate predictions of
binding affinity.
[0034] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
binding affinity of step (d) of a method above is represented by a
single scoring value for the whole ensemble of MHC/peptide
complexes, said scoring value comprising the sum of the
conformational entropy for the complete ensemble of MHC/peptide
complexes, and the average of the said energetical components of
each of the complexes of said ensemble. Conformational entropy is a
fundamental property of a complex that is preferably computed from
an ensemble of structures. The explicit inclusion of conformational
entropy contributes in a favorable way to the correlation between
predicted and experimental affinities. Furthermore, the
incorporation of significant energetic components, in combination
with an entropical component, allows a more accurate assessment of
the affinity of the complex.
[0035] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
binding properties of step (d) of a method above are evaluated for
the global complex, thereby accounting for interactions between
pairs of residues from the peptide, the MHC molecule and both the
peptide and the MHC molecule. The use of global scoring which
accounts for interactions between said pairs of residues provides a
more accurate assessment of the global energy of the system and
hence provides a more exact measure of the affinity of the
complex.
[0036] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
entropical component of a method above reflects the overall
conformational flexibility of the peptide. Conformational
flexibility is a fundamental property of complexes that is
non-trivial to simulate or quantify. Furthermore, the simulation
and quantification of conformational flexibility may provide useful
insights.
[0037] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
representations of said peptide contained in said library of a
method above are derived from experimentally determined structures.
The presence of experimentally-determined structures in the library
provides the option to use structures which have been
experimentally validated. Said structures may have a higher degree
of accuracy and consequently lead to a more accurate prediction of
the affinity of the complex.
[0038] In yet another embodiment of the present invention the
representations of said peptide contained in said library of a
method above are derived from computer-generated structures, said
structures generated by said computer modeling method described
above. The presence of computer-modeled structures in the library
may allow the prediction of peptide affinities for MHC molecules in
complexes for which no or only partial structural information is
available. Since only few complex structures have been
experimentally solved, the use of modeled structures allows
structure-based affinity prediction for complexes of unknown
structure, filling the growing need for such information.
[0039] In yet another embodiment of the present invention said
peptide of a method above comprises one or more non-naturally
occurring amino acids. The use of non-naturally occurring amino
acids provides the possibility for obtaining affinity data for
compounds in which the feature provides additional properties, for
example a therapeutic property, increased in vivo stability,
increased intrinsic activity, reduced toxicity.
[0040] In yet another embodiment the invention relates to a method
for producing an immunogenic peptide comprising an MHC class I or
class II restricted T cell epitope that binds to an MHC class I or
class II molecule and induces an MHC class I or II-restricted
cytotoxic T cell response, said method comprising steps of: [0041]
(a) providing an amino acid sequence of a polypeptide of interest;
[0042] (b) preparing one or more overlapping putative immunogenic
peptide fragments of said polypeptide of interest, for instance
consisting of 8 to 20 amino acids; [0043] (c) receiving a
representation of a complete or partial three-dimensional structure
of said MHC class I or class II molecule, [0044] (d) obtaining an
ensemble of representations of peptide backbone structures of said
putative immunogenic peptides, said representations located within
the binding site of said MHC molecule, [0045] (e) modeling for said
peptide backbone structures of said ensemble in relation to said
MHC molecule, at least the side-chains of said putative immunogenic
peptide, thereby obtaining an ensemble of modeled MHC/peptide
complexes, [0046] (f) evaluating the binding properties of said
putative immunogenic peptides for said MHC molecule, comprising at
least: [0047] f1) evaluating one or more components of the
potential energy of each complex of the ensemble, [0048] f2)
evaluating the conformational entropy for the complete ensemble of
each MHC/peptide complex, [0049] (g) inferring from the results
obtained in (f), one or more putative immunogenic peptides that
bind to said MHC molecule, [0050] (h) optionally preparing one or
more of said putative immunogenic peptides of said polypeptide of
interest, [0051] (i) optionally testing complexes of said one or
more putative immunogenic peptides said MHC molecule for an ability
to be recognized by a MHC cytotoxic T cells, and to thereby induce
a cytotoxic T cell response to the epitope, and [0052] (e)
(optionally) selecting said one or more putative immunogenic
fragments comprising an MHC class I or class II binding site that
induce an MHC class I or class II cytotoxic T cell response to the
epitope.
[0053] In a preferred embodiment, the one or more overlapping
putative immunogenic peptide fragments of said polypeptide of
interest consist of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 or more amino acids.
[0054] In a further embodiment of the present invention said
representation of step (c) is obtained from one of the following:
[0055] one or more experimentally determined structures obtained by
for example X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance
spectroscopy, scanning microscopy, or [0056] one or more models
derived from an experimentally determined structure, whereby said
experimentally determined structure has a high sequence identity to
said MHC molecule.
[0057] In a further embodiment of the present invention said
representation of step (d) is generated by a computer modeling
method, said method being able to generate multiple energetically
favorable backbone configurations in relation to said MHC
molecule.
[0058] In a further embodiment of the present invention said
representation of step (d) is retrieved from a library of peptide
structures pre-oriented in relation to said MHC molecule.
[0059] In a still further embodiment of the present invention a
complex within said ensemble of step (e) is obtained from a
side-chain placement algorithm.
[0060] In a further embodiment of the present invention the
side-chain placement of step (e) not only involves placing the
side-chains of the peptide itself, but also involves placing at
least one side-chain of said MHC molecule that are in contact with
said peptide.
[0061] In another embodiment of the present invention a complex
within said ensemble of step (e) is obtained from a side-chain
placement algorithm suited for global side-chain optimization.
[0062] In a further embodiment of the present invention the
side-chain placement algorithm is a dead-end elimination (DEE)
algorithm, characterized in that said DEE algorithm eliminates
rotameric conformations on the basis of a mathematical criterion
that allows the detection of conformations that are not compatible
with the globally optimal conformation.
[0063] In a further embodiment of the present invention the
side-chain placement algorithm is a FASTER algorithm, said
algorithm being characterized by a repeated perturbation,
relaxation and evaluation step.
[0064] In a further embodiment of the present invention the binding
affinity of step (f) is represented by a single scoring value for
the whole ensemble of MHC/peptide complexes, said scoring value
comprising the sum of the conformational entropy for the complete
ensemble of MHC/peptide complexes, and the average of the said
energetical components of each of the complexes of said
ensemble.
[0065] In a further embodiment of the invention the binding
affinity of step (f) is evaluated for the global complex, thereby
accounting for interactions between pairs of residues from the
peptide, the MHC molecule and both the peptide and the MHC
molecule.
[0066] In a further embodiment of the invention the entropical
component reflects the overall conformational flexibility of the
peptide.
[0067] In a further embodiment of the invention wherein the
representations of said peptide contained in said library are
derived from experimentally determined structures.
[0068] In a further embodiment of the present invention the
representations of said peptide contained in said library are
derived from computer-generated structures, said structures
generated by said computer modeling method of claim 18.
[0069] In a still further embodiment of the present invention said
peptide comprises one or more non-naturally occurring amino
acids.
[0070] In yet another embodiment the present invention relates to
any method herein described wherein said MHC class I molecule
comprises an HLA antigen selected from any of the HLA-A, HLA-B,
HLA-C, HLA-E, HLA-F and HLA-G genes or gene products or a gene
product from any of the alleles of these genes.
[0071] In yet another embodiment the present invention relates to
any method herein described wherein said MHC class II molecule
comprises an HLA antigen selected from any of the HLA-DR, HLA-DQ
and HLA-DP genes gene products or a gene product from any of the
alleles of these genes. Some non-limiting examples HLA alleles can
be found for instance on the following web address:
http://www.anthonynolan.com/HIG/lists/class1list.html.
[0072] A further embodiment of the present invention is data
comprising: [0073] representations of one or more peptide backbone
structures, each peptide demonstrating an interaction with an MHC
class I or class II molecule, and [0074] an indication of the MHC
molecule associated with said representation.
[0075] Data comprising information about MHC molecules, peptides,
and complexes of both provide a source for data-mining, of, for
example, therapeutically useful peptides. Structural information,
represented as data, obviates the need to model said structures
using methods known in the art, so providing a significant time-
and hence cost-saving.
[0076] A further embodiment of the present invention is a computer
program comprising computing routines, stored on a computer
readable medium for evaluating the binding affinity of a peptide
for an MHC class I or class II molecule, said routines comprising:
[0077] receiving an ensemble of representations of structures of
the complex between said MHC molecule and said peptide, [0078]
evaluating the potential energy of each complex of the ensemble,
[0079] evaluating the conformational entropy for the complete
ensemble.
[0080] A computer routine for evaluating the binding affinity of a
peptide for an MHC molecule provides the advantage of speed and
allows for the integration with other routines. By integrating the
routine, the possibility exists, for example, for automation,
efficient transfer of data and the provision of tools for the
interpretation of data.
[0081] Another embodiment of the present invention is a computer
program as described above, further comprising modeling for each
peptide backbone structure of said ensemble in relation to said MHC
molecule, at least the side-chains of said peptide.
[0082] Another embodiment of the present invention is a computer
program as described above, wherein said peptide backbone
structures are obtained by computer modeling or by retrieval from a
database.
[0083] An embodiment of the present invention is a device for
evaluating the binding affinity of a peptide for an MHC class I or
class II molecule, comprising: [0084] receiving an ensemble of
representations of structures of the complex between said MHC
molecule and said peptide, [0085] evaluating the potential energy
of each complex of the ensemble, [0086] evaluating the
conformational entropy for the complete ensemble.
[0087] A device which performs a method of the present invention,
alleviates the user from the task of performing the said method, so
offering a time- and cost-saving.
[0088] A further embodiment of the present invention is an
(unknown) peptide which binds MHC class I or class II molecules,
said peptide being obtainable by using a method above.
[0089] A further embodiment of the present invention is an
(unknown) peptide which binds MHC class I or class II molecules,
said peptide being obtained by using a method above.
[0090] Another embodiment of the present invention is a nucleic
acid (capable of) encoding a peptide as defined above.
[0091] Another embodiment of the present invention is a nucleic
acid of at least 15 nucleotides in length (capable of) specifically
hybridizing with the nucleic acid as defined above.
[0092] Another embodiment of the present invention is an antibody
specifically recognizing a peptide as defined above.
[0093] Yet another embodiment of the present invention is an
antibody specifically recognizing a nucleic acid as defined
above.
[0094] Yet another embodiment of the present invention is a method
for producing a peptide as defined above comprising: [0095] (i)
culturing host cells comprising a nucleic acid according as defined
above, under conditions allowing the expression of the peptide,
and, [0096] (ii) recovering the produced peptide from the
culture.
[0097] Yet another embodiment of the present invention is a peptide
as defined above for use as a medicament.
[0098] Yet another embodiment of the present invention is a nucleic
acid as defined above for use as a medicament.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0099] The present invention relates to a method for
structure-based prediction of the affinity of potentially antigenic
peptides for major histocompatibility (MHC) receptors. More
specifically, a method to provide a quantitative assessment of the
affinity of a selected peptide sequence for a selected MHC allotype
through (i) analysis of the three-dimensional structure of an MHC
peptide binding domain, (ii) by generating multiple conformations
for the backbone of the selected peptide, (iii) by optimizing the
side-chain conformation for each MHC/peptide main-chain structure,
and (iv) by computing the expected binding affinity of the
MHC/peptide complex, thereby including a conformational entropy
component derived from the set of generated conformations. The
application of this method to multiple peptides and/or multiple MHC
receptor types may be helpful to identify the most antigenic
peptides originating from a common source, for example from a
specific viral or bacterial species or a therapeutic protein
molecule. This, in turn, may be useful in vaccination or
de-immunization applications.
[0100] In one embodiment of the present invention, a first step
comprises receiving an experimentally determined three-dimensional
(3D) structure for a selected MHC class I or class II allotype is
retrieved. If a suitable 3D structure is not available, it is
modeled by homology to a known structure which preferably has a
maximal amino acid sequence identity with the selected MHC
allotype. The retrieved or modeled structure consists, at least, of
those amino acid residues forming the peptide binding site.
[0101] In a second step, multiple conformations for the main-chain
of the selected peptide are generated, either by retrieval from an
MHC/peptide main-chain library or by a suitable computer modeling
algorithm, preferably a docking algorithm. The said library may be
a compilation of experimentally determined structures or structures
generated in advance by a suitable computer modeling algorithm,
preferably a docking algorithm.
[0102] In a third step, for each peptide main-chain conformation
generated in the second step, the conformation of side-chains of
the selected peptide are modeled by applying a suitable side-chain
placement algorithm, preferably a FASTER or a DEE method, in
conjunction with a first energy-based scoring function, preferably
a potential or free energy function. The co-modeling of the MHC
receptor structure with that of the peptide is a preferred option.
The result of this third step is a set of full complex structures
at atomic level of detail.
[0103] In a fourth step, the ensemble of modeled structures
obtained in the third step is evaluated in accordance with a second
scoring function hereinafter called the "affinity scoring
function". The latter is suited especially to evaluate the binding
affinity of a peptide ligand to a receptor. The affinity scoring
function preferably includes components related to the
conformational energy, the effect of solvent, and parametrized
amino acid type-based terms. An essential component of the affinity
function is the incorporation of an entropical contribution,
preferably derived in accordance with statistical mechanical laws
and applied to the complete ensemble of modeled structures, as
generated in the third step. The explicit generation of structural
ensembles is intended to account for, essentially, the
conformational freedom (or flexibility, micro-states, entropy etc.)
of the complex.
[0104] A method of the present invention concerns the quantitative
prediction of the binding affinity of a given peptide for a given
MHC allotype. A method might be applied to multiple peptides and/or
multiple receptors by repeated application of the basic method for
a single peptide/receptor system.
[0105] In one embodiment of the invention, the considered MHC
molecules are of any class, preferably of class I and class II.
[0106] In another embodiment of the present invention, there are no
limitations to the amino acid composition or the length of the
simulated peptide. In another embodiment, the length of simulated
class I-binding peptides is less than 30 residues, preferably less
than 20 and more preferably between 8 to 10 residues. In another
embodiment, the length of class II simulated peptides is less than
30 residues, preferably less than 20 and more preferably restricted
to nonapeptides (9-residue peptides) in view of the experimental
evidence that fragments of this length form the region of contact
with the receptor binding groove.
[0107] A method of the present invention relates to the
quantitative prediction of affinity values. Properties that are
directly related with binding affinity comprise binding free
energy, association/dissociation constants and IC.sub.50 values.
The prediction of these values also forms part of the invention.
Properties that are indirectly related with binding affinity
comprise, for example, association/dissociation rates (on/off
rates), immunogenicity and conformational flexibility. An aspect of
the present invention may be a method for prediction of kinetic and
immunogenic properties. Another aspect of the present invention may
be a method for simulation and quantification of conformational
flexibility.
[0108] A method of the present invention provides a novel approach
to structure-based prediction of MHC/peptide affinities, comprising
a quantitative assessment of the affinity of a selected peptide
sequence for a selected MHC allotype through four computational
steps.
[0109] The first three steps relate to the prediction of multiple
3D structures for the selected MHC/peptide complex by gradually
adding levels of detail in the consecutive modeling steps. The
fourth step analyzes structural information and applies a specific
scoring function in order to translate the structural information
into a predicted peptide binding affinity. A method of the present
invention comprises steps 1 to 4, summarized as follows (see also
FIG. 1).
[0110] 1. MHC template construction. A suitable 3D model for the
selected MHC allotype is generated, either by retrieval from the
Protein Databank (PDB) or by a standard homology modeling method.
This model serves as an input template structure for the next
steps. The model is devoid of any peptide structure, i.e. the
binding groove is "emptied". For the purpose of this section only,
the model is referred to as "MHC".
[0111] 2. MHC/peptide main-chain construction. The MHC template
structure from step 1 is complemented with an ensemble of peptide
backbone (i.e. main-chain) conformations. This leads to an ensemble
of 3D structures consisting of a structurally constant part, MHC,
and a variety of peptide main-chain structures. For the purpose of
this section only, the said ensemble is named "{p.sub.mc}". The
union of MHC and the multiple representations of peptide backbones
is denoted as "{MHC/p.sub.mc}" in this description. The latter set
of structures may be generated, for example, by a suitable computer
modeling algorithm that yields multiple energetically feasible
peptide backbone configurations in relation to MHC, called, for the
purpose of this description, a "docking approach". In another
example, the set of structures may be generated by a method which
retrieves pre-oriented peptide structures from a library, said
method called the "database approach" for the purpose of this
description. Both approaches are discussed in detail below.
[0112] 3. MHC/full peptide construction. A third step concerns the
addition and modeling of side-chains. In accordance with the amino
acid sequence of the selected peptide, each residue position of
p.sub.mc in each structure of the set {MHC/p.sub.mc} is provided
with the correct side-chain. In the event that the correct
side-chains are already present (for example, if step 2 was
performed by docking of the same peptide), the mutation step may be
skipped. More important is the modeling of each MHC/p.sub.mc. In
one embodiment of the present invention, this is accomplished by a
suitable side-chain placement algorithm such as a FASTER or a DEE
method. The modeling of side-chains may not necessarily be limited
to those of the peptide; one aspect of the invention is to include
in this step a number MHC side-chains as well. Even if step 2 was
performed by a docking method, the invention allows for the
re-modeling of at least all receptor side-chains in contact with
the peptide, in addition to the side-chains of the peptide itself.
Thus, step 3 of a method of the present invention delivers an
ensemble of full complex structures at atomic detail, denoted as
{MHC/p.sub.full} for the purposes of this description, wherein the
side-chain conformations are optimally adapted to each p.sub.mc
structure in relation to MHC.
[0113] 4. MHC/peptide affinity assessment. One aim of step 4 is to
compute a single scoring value reflecting the binding affinity of
the selected peptide for the selected MHC allotype. A source of
input data is the structural information obtained in step 3. The
final score of the considered system is obtained by applying a
function called the affinity scoring function, F, for the purpose
of the present description, which has been optimized so as to
correlate with the true thermodynamic free energy of binding. As
explained further below, this function comprises preferably
components related to the conformational energy, the effect of the
solvent, and specific amino acid type-based terms that have been
parametrized. These types of contributions are not ensemble
properties, i.e. they are computed for each individual structure of
the set {MHC/p.sub.full}. Yet, working with multiple structures, or
ensembles, enables certain structure-derived contributions to be
averaged, thereby reducing the noise level. Processing these
contributions leads to a first component of the predicted affinity
under the form of an average energy component for the whole
ensemble, termed <E> for the purpose of the present
description. Another essential component of F is the entropical
contribution (termed S for the purpose of the present invention),
derived in accordance with statistical mechanical rules and
accounted for by an equation:
F=<E>-cS [1]
[0114] In equation [1], c is a parametrized constant which
theoretically corresponds with the absolute temperature (in degrees
Kelvin) at which the MHC/peptide system is simulated. The entropy
contribution S is preferably taken to be the logarithm of the
number of energetically acceptable structures within the set
{MHC/p.sub.full}. Clearly, S is an ensemble property reflecting the
overall conformational flexibility of the selected peptide in the
complex. It is also noteworthy that the more negative <E> and
the more positive S, the lower will be F, thus the higher will be
the predicted affinity, in agreement with thermodynamic
principles.
[0115] In step 2 of the invention--obtaining an ensemble of
multiple conformations for the main-chain of the peptide located in
the target-MHC binding site--two means for generating said
ensembles are suggested as examples:
[0116] (A) A basic method, also referred to as the "docking
approach", wherein peptide main-chain conformations or "binding
modes" are generated via molecular modeling, preferably peptide
docking.
[0117] (B) An advanced method, also referred to as the "database
method", wherein peptide main-chain conformations are retrieved
from a database of structures.
[0118] An underlying hypothesis of the database method might be
explained by the following: peptides can assume only a limited
number of binding modes, irrespective of their amino acid sequence.
Assuming the validity of this hypothesis, this means that different
independently performed docking experiments of peptides varying in
sequence (but not in length) are likely to show some partial
overlap between the generated ensembles. In a more formal notation
this corresponds to the situation wherein--
{MHC/p.sub.mc}.andgate.{MHC/p'.sub.mc}.noteq.O [2]
[0119] The merging of a sufficient number of ensembles resulting
from independent docking experiments with different peptide
sequences may therefore lead to the establishing of a generalized
ensemble of possible MHC/p.sub.mc structures, hereby denoted as
{MHC/P.sub.mc}. The exact amino acid sequence of each peptide in
this ensemble then becomes irrelevant (in view of the structural
overlap between the constituting populations). In other words, the
set {MHC/P.sub.mc} might be seen as the structure MHC provided with
a variety of pure peptide backbone conformations, or "poly-alanine"
peptide conformations.
[0120] An aspect of the present invention in which peptide
main-chain conformations are retrieved from a library has
advantages over other methods. One advantage is of course a drastic
reduction of the computational time per peptide. Docking
simulations are often extremely demanding in computing time because
of the huge search space. (The latter consists of three
translational, three rotational and a large number of
conformational degrees of freedom, making up a total space with
very high dimension.) An indirect advantage is the fact that the
prediction accuracy can be improved because more attention can be
paid to the important side-chain placement and affinity prediction
steps. Finally, for various technical reasons some peptide binding
modes may be missed in a docking experiment, whereas they are de
facto represented in the generalized ensemble, on condition that
the latter covers the full accessible space.
[0121] An ensemble {MHC/P.sub.mc} only depends on two variables:
MHC allotype and peptide length. Any sequence information may be
suppressed in view of the scope of any such ensemble: representing
peptide main-chain binding modes. In one embodiment of the present
invention, MHC/P.sub.mc structures are preferably stored in a
format wherein the peptides are converted into poly-alanine
fragments. In another embodiment, a generic database may be
compiled from different MHC allotype-specific and peptide
length-specific structural libraries.
[0122] Such a database may be used, for example, to predict
affinities for peptides of different length or to predict the
affinity of a given peptide for different MHC types.
[0123] Detailed steps of a method of the present invention comprise
the following:
[0124] 1. Construction of an MHC template. A method of the present
invention requires two basic elements of input data, besides a
number of execution parameters (see FIG. 2 for a schematic overview
of the complete method). The first element is the selection of an
MHC allotype of interest, the second one is the sequence of a
peptide as present in a protein source of interest, for example a
viral protein. Selecting an MHC allotype is equivalent to selecting
the amino acid sequence representing the MHC allele. With this
sequence (or a reference to it) it is possible to search the
protein data bank (PDB) for the presence of 3D structures sharing
the same amino acid sequence. If such structure exists, it can be
retrieved from the PDB (Berman, H. M. et al., (2000) Nucleic Acids
Res. 28, 235-242) and used as a three-dimensional MHC template
structure in the further prediction steps. In the event that more
than one candidate structure is available, the user has to decide
which one is the most preferred starting structure. Useful criteria
for this purpose are the crystallographic resolution and
refinement, the absence of missing atoms, and/or the criteria
applied by structure validation tools such as the Biotech
Validation Suite (www.embl-heidelberg.de, and follow links therein
for the Biotech Validation Suite).
[0125] In the case that neither the PDB database nor available
publications describe the structural co-ordinates of a sequence
identical to that of the selected MHC allotype, a template
structure may be constructed by homology modeling. Various methods
for homology modeling include, for example Swiss-Model (Guex, N.
and Peitsch, M. C. (1997) Electrophoresis 18, 2714-2723, 1997) or
SCWRL (Bower, M. et al., (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 267, 1268-1282).
Because the modeling of MHC binding grooves involves no insertions
or deletions, a pure side-chain placement algorithm can be applied.
A preferred method to accomplish this is a DEE method (De Maeyer et
al., 2000) or the FASTER method as described by Desmet et al.
(Desmet, J. et al., (2002) Proteins 48, 31-43). Once a template
structure has been retrieved or modeled, it is within the scope of
the present invention to refine it by performing 100-200 steps of
steepest descent energy minimization, or by any equivalent energy
minimization procedure. Such energy minimization action is a
standard procedure in protein modeling and serves to solve
potential atomic conflicts or suboptimal positioning.
[0126] In one embodiment of the invention, a method which is
followed by a user in advanced execution mode i.e. the database
approach, merely involves the selection of the appropriate
{MHC/P.sub.mc} ensemble from the database, said ensemble
corresponding with the MHC allotype of interest. In this case the
MHC template construction step may not be explicitly executed but
is implicitly present in the structure retrieved from the
database.
[0127] 2. MHC/peptide main-chain construction. One step of the
present method is the construction of an ensemble of peptide
main-chain configurations {p.sub.mc} in relation to the MHC
template, or {MHC/p.sub.mc}. The selected peptide p is
characterized by a well-defined amino acid sequence. It is logical
to assume that the sequence of p has at least some influence on the
ensemble of binding modes or, in other words, that {MHC/p.sub.mc}
is sequence-specific. On the other hand, the very nature of MHC
class I and class II binding grooves also suggests that the number
of distinct binding modes is limited. Therefore, the construction
of peptide backbones might be performed in more than one way. For
example a sequence-specific {MHC/p.sub.mc} ensemble is created for
each new peptide. Or in another example a generalized ensemble
{MHC/P.sub.mc} might be made available, representing at least the
conformational space of the selected peptide p. An
over-representation of the space is not so much of a problem
because the generalized ensemble {MHC/P.sub.mc} may be reduced to
the peptide-specific ensemble {MHC/p.sub.mc} in step 3 of a method
wherein MHC-incompatible binding modes are identified after
side-chain placement. Furthermore, the establishing of a
generalized ensemble can be accomplished in a straightforward
manner by unifying different peptide-specific ensembles until a
sufficient overlap between the populations is observed.
Consequently, step 2 of a method of the present invention reduces
to the problem of generating peptide-specific {MHC/p.sub.mc}
ensembles.
[0128] An example of a method of constructing the peptide backbone
is found in Desmet et al. (1997, 2000). This docking method is a
combinatorial algorithm for flexible docking of peptides to the
binding site on a protein receptor molecule in which the peptide is
constructed from scratch in relation to the chosen receptor
structure, thereby avoiding any potential bias from a starting
structure of the receptor/peptide complex. It yields a collection
of different, energetically favorable complex structures wherein
the peptide assumes, typically, between 0 and 500 distinct binding
states. This de novo peptide building method is therefore the most
preferred approach to generate the contemplated {MHC/p.sub.mc}
ensembles. The method of Desmet et al. (1997, 2000) is herein
explicitly incorporated by reference. Its essential execution steps
and characteristics are outlined in the following.
[0129] The docking method referred to above consists of a
combinatorial buildup algorithm that "grows" the peptide by gradual
addition of a single residue adopting a specific main-chain
conformation. For each residue type there are 47 low energy
main-chain rotamers and for each main-chain rotamer there are a
variable number of backbone-compatible side-chain rotamers.
Glycine, proline and N- or C-terminal residues form an exception
and have 125, 35 and 12 main-chain rotamers, respectively. The
rotamer library thus represents the entire conformational space for
each residue type.
[0130] The docking algorithm starts from a peptide fragment of
length one, i.e. a user-selected root residue. (This can be any
residue of the peptide.) The accessible space for the root residue
is searched by a combined translational, rotational and
conformational exploration. Translations and rotations are
performed in a discretized fashion in accordance with a grid
approach. The conformational sampling is done separately for the
main-chain and side-chain parts of the system. The main-chain
conformation is only varied for the peptide, whereas that of the
receptor is strictly kept fixed. Possible main-chain conformations
for the peptide, in this case the root residue, are selected from
the main-chain rotamer library (containing mostly 47 rotamers per
residue type). Possible side-chain conformations are retrieved from
a backbone-dependent side-chain rotamer library. Besides the
side-chain of the peptide's root residue, up to about 40
side-chains from the receptor can be modeled simultaneously. The
side-chain placement step is fully repeated for every
translational-rotational-(backbone)-rotameric combination of the
root residue, one such step called a single docking step. The
side-chain placement itself is performed by a standard DEE method
(Desmet et al., 1992). The net result of each docking step is an
energetical value, E.sub.bind, reflecting the "quality of fit" of
the peptide's root residue in the considered binding mode.
E.sub.bind is computed by a rich function, including the
interaction energy between the peptide (root) fragment and the
receptor, the total fragment self-energy and the augmentation of
the receptor self-energy due to conformational changes induced by
the presence of the fragment. This value serves as a discriminator
between energetically acceptable and prohibited binding modes
(applying a user-defined threshold value). All energetically
acceptable single-residue fragments are added to a peptide fragment
repository.
[0131] The buildup of the peptide continues by combining each
previously accepted fragment in the repository with the available
main-chain rotamers of an adjacent residue. Each new combination is
again processed individually by the DEE-based side-chain placement
algorithm. All energetically favorable fragments are added to the
peptide fragment repository. This buildup process continues until
all residues of the peptide have been extended to their full
length. Thus, in the end the peptide fragment repository contains
only energetically acceptable full-length peptides.
[0132] One aspect of a fragment repository is that it may hold only
information related to the binding mode of the peptide's
main-chain; reference to a specific conformation for the
side-chains may not be stored.
[0133] One embodiment of the present invention is the storage of
modes identified by the docking method into a general database of
{MHC/P.sub.mc} ensembles. In view of the usage of such database in
providing a generic source of binding modes (i.e. when applying the
advanced database-related operation mode of a method of the present
invention), the peptide conformations are preferably stored as
poly-alanine or poly-glycine constructs. The only form of
specificity in the database concerns the MHC allotype and length of
the generic peptide fragments.
[0134] 3. MHC/full peptide construction Step 3 of a method of the
present invention involves the reconstruction of peptide and
optionally the receptor side-chain conformations in order to build
full complex structures. This structural information forms the main
source of input information for the next step 4 of the present
method.
[0135] In view of the fact that the present invention is almost
exclusively based on properties derived from predicted structures,
the accuracy of this step is directly related to the prediction
accuracy of the peptide binding affinity, i.e. an important aim of
the present invention.
[0136] The accuracy of any side-chain placement method may be
determined by three aspects: (i) the search method that is used to
determine the optimal global side-chain arrangement, (ii) the
rotamer library from where potential side-chain conformations are
retrieved, and (iii) the quality of the scoring function used
during conformational search. A fourth determinant of accuracy,
i.e. the coupling between main-chain and side-chain conformational
changes, is also considered. It may be implicitly calculated from
the above because side-chain conformations are generated for a
broad ensemble of peptide main-chain structures. The first three
determinants of prediction accuracy are discussed in more
detail.
[0137] 1. Preferred side-chain conformational search method. The
present inventors have recently developed a novel method for fast
and accurate side-chain modeling called the "fast and accurate
side-chain topology and energy refinement method" or FASTER method
(Desmet et al., 2002). In view of its characteristics, the FASTER
method is highly preferred to perform step 3 of the present method.
The main reason for this is that FASTER allows a rapid yet accurate
search for the globally optimal side-chain arrangement, which is
one of the key-aspects of the present invention. More specifically,
for each MHC/P.sub.mc structure of the ensemble generated in step
2, all side-chains of the peptide and a significant number of
side-chains from the MHC receptor (typically 10-30) are modeled
simultaneously in order to find the globally best packing
arrangement. In doing so, all possible pair-wise interactions
between two flexibly treated side-chains are taken into account
during the modeling. This is in contrast to other methods (e.g.
Swain et al., 2001) which only score the side-chain conformations
of the peptide and which independently do this for each
side-chain.
[0138] Apart from the FASTER method, other side-chain placement
methods are suitable for performing step 3 of the present
invention, such as DEE (De Maeyer et al., 2000), self-consistent
mean field optimization (Koehl, P. and Delarue, M. (1994), J. Mol.
Biol. 239, 249-275), simulated annealing (Shenkin, P. S. et al.,
(1996) Proteins 26, 323-352), a genetic algorithm (Tuffery, P. et
al., (1997) Protein Eng. 10, 361-372) or Monte Carlo simulation
(Holm, L. and Sander, C. (1992) Proteins 14, 213-223). In general,
methods which explicitly account for pair-wise
side-chain/side-chain interactions are preferred. Such methods may
follow either a rotameric or a non-rotameric strategy.
[0139] 2. Rotamer library. When performing step 3 on basis of the
FASTER or a DEE method, the algorithm requires access to a library
of discrete, preferential side-chain conformations or rotamers.
Such library may be called a rotamer library. Non-limiting examples
include Ponder and Richards (Ponder, J. W. and Richards, F. M.
(1987) J. Mol. Biol. 193, 775-791), Tuffery et al. (Tuffery, P. et
al., (1991). J. Biomol. Struct. Dynam. 8, 1267-1289), Holm and
Sander, (1992); Schrauber et al., (Schrauber, H. et al., (1993) J.
Mol. Biol. 230, 592-612), Dunbrack and Karplus, (Dunbrack, R. L.
Jr. and Karplus, M. (1993) J. Mol. Biol. 230, 543-574), De Maeyer
et al., 1997, Mendes et al. (Mendes, J. et al. (1999) Proteins 37,
530-543), Xiang and Honig, (Xiang, Z. and Honig, B. (2001) J. Mol.
Biol. 311, 421-430). One way to define rotamers is to store them as
a list of torsional angle values for all rotatable bonds within a
particular side-chain type and for the chemical bond that connects
it to the backbone. Alternatively, rotamers in the library may be
stored as sets of atomic co-ordinates in a given reference frame.
Whatever rotameric representation is chosen, it is preferred that
the rotamer library provide the necessary and sufficient
information to reconstruct side-chain conformations in an
unambiguous way onto a polypeptide backbone. One example of a
preferred rotamer library is the one devised by Mendes et al.
(1999), comprising so-called "flexible rotamers". Herein, a
flexible rotamer is essentially defined as an ensemble of
sub-rotamers deviating slightly in structure from a classic rigid
rotamer. The latter type of rotamers is especially suited for the
present method since it enables quantification of side-chain
entropical effects, both for peptide and receptor side-chains, in a
similar fashion as for the peptide main-chain. Also preferred are
highly detailed libraries of classic rigid rotamers, whether
backbone-dependent (Dunbrack & Karplus, 1993; Bower et al.,
1997, Desmet et al., 1997) or backbone-independent (De Maeyer et
al., 1997; Xiang & Honig, 2001). A less preferred method for
assigning side-chain conformations is by applying a non-rotameric
approach such as a molecular mechanics or dynamics method, or a
combination protocol (Rognan et al., 1999). Non-rotameric methods
are preferred less because they are slower and less efficient in
conformational sampling (Mendes et al., 1999), though they fall
within the scope of the present invention.
[0140] 3. Scoring function for side-chain placement. A method of
the present invention distinguishes between two separate scoring
functions, the first being applied to structure prediction of
side-chains (and also peptide main-chains, if step 2 of the present
method is performed by way of docking), and the second scoring
function being applied in the affinity prediction step (see step 4.
MHC/Peptide Affinity Assessment). As it is intended for usage in
conjunction with a method for searching (sampling) huge
conformational hyperspaces, the first scoring function is
preferably intrinsically rapid to evaluate and, also, it does not
have to include as many energetical components as an affinity
scoring function. One purpose of the said scoring function is to
allow the determination of the correct conformation of a specific
MHC/peptide complex. For this reason, a standard potential or free
energy function might be applied that accounts for the
intramolecular interactions. Such a function is usually called a
force field function. Non-limiting examples of widely used force
fields include the CHARMM force field (Brooks, B. R. et al., (1983)
J. Comput. Chem. 4, 187-217), the AMBER force field of Kollman and
co-workers at UCSF (Weiner, S. J. et al., (1984) J. Am. Chem. Soc.
106, 765-784) and the DREIDING field (Mayo, S. L. et al., (1990) J.
Phys. Chem. 94, 8897-8909). The applied energy function may include
as many relevant energetic contributions as possible, non-limiting
examples of which include van der Waals interactions, H-bond
formation, electrostatic interactions and contributions related to
chemical bonds (bond stretching, angle bending, torsions, planarity
deviations). The present inventors have shown that these energy
terms suffice to reach the currently highest possible accuracy in
side-chain prediction while allowing very rapid modeling (Desmet et
al., 2002). The scope of the present invention allows for force
fields which satisfy any of the above. In one embodiment of the
present invention, the preferred force field is CHARMM (Brooks et
al., 1983).
[0141] 4. MHC/peptide affinity assessment. The ligand binding
affinity (K.sub.b) is related to the binding free energy (.DELTA.G)
by the following equation.
.DELTA.G=-RT ln(K.sub.b) [3]
where R is the ideal gas constant (8.31 J mol.sup.-1 K.sup.-1) and
T the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin. Further, K.sub.b is
the inverse of the dissociation constant (K.sub.d) which is
approximately equal to the often mentioned IC.sub.50 value.
.DELTA.G=RT ln(K.sub.d).apprxeq.RT ln(IC.sub.50) [4]
[0142] The binding free energy, .DELTA.G, is the difference in
Gibbs free energy between the free receptor molecule plus the free
peptide ligand on the one hand and the receptor/ligand complex on
the other hand. Strongly negative .DELTA.G values indicate strong
binding. Differences in .DELTA.G for different peptides and/or
different MHC subtypes may be due to a variety of reasons,
including enthalpic and entropic effects related to any of the free
or bound states. Since many of these effects can by no means be
deduced from theoretical simulations, affinity scoring functions
might include more than one parametrized components. A basic
approach of the present invention is then to incorporate into the
predicted binding free energy, .DELTA.G.sub.pred, as much relevant
structural information as possible, and to cover all other effects
by empirical components. Assuming that the different contributions
are independent and additive, the following is an example of a
general expression which reflects the predicted binding free
energy:
.DELTA. G pred = i = 1 N S s i S i + i = 1 N P p i P i [ 5 ]
##EQU00001##
[0143] In equation [5], S.sub.i and P.sub.i are structure-derived
and non-structure derived contributions, respectively. N.sub.S and
N.sub.P are the number of considered contributions of both types
while s.sub.i and p.sub.i are their respective weight coefficients.
It should be noted, however, that most methods consider either
structure-based or non-structure based terms but seldomly both. The
coefficients s.sub.i and the number of structural components
N.sub.S are in fact parameters as well since they need to be
calibrated. The coefficients p.sub.i are in many methods set equal
to unity.
[0144] With respect to the structure-related terms in Eq. [5], one
approach is to sum over all contributions provided by a force field
function (e.g. electrostatic, van der Waals, H-bonding terms,
etc.). However, pure standard force field terms generally do not
yield an optimal correlation with experimental data. Including
additional effects, non-limiting examples of which include
desolvation, freezing of rotatable bonds, special hydrophobicity
terms, may significantly enhance correlation. The "Fresno" method
(Rognan et al., 1999) considers five individual contributions:
H-bonding, lipophilic contacts, rotatable bond freezing, burial of
polar atoms and desolvation. This scoring function requires
re-calibration of the weight coefficients for different MHC
subtypes. The method of Schueler-Furman et al. (2000) only
considers MHC side-chain/peptide side-chain contacts (with a
special treatment of MHC side-chains in contact with the peptide
backbone) in conjunction with a statistical pairwise potential.
[0145] Scoring functions based on experimental data often rely on
the frequency of amino acid types observed at each position in a
population of peptides (e.g. self peptides) that are known to bind
to a specific MHC allele (Rammensee et al., 1999). Alternatively,
the contribution of individual amino acid types at each position in
a peptide sequence to the peptide's total binding affinity may be
estimated by a number of statistical analyses. This can be done for
a set of known binding peptides (Parker et al., 1994) or
experimentally constructed peptides (Hammer et al., 1993;
Fleckenstein et al., 1999).
[0146] A method of the present invention is predominantly based on
3D structural contributions. Structural contributions preferably
comprise: (i) all terms that can be computed, using a force field
e.g. CHARMM (Brooks et al., 1983), for a MHC/P.sub.full complex
resulting from step 3 of a method; (ii) contributions computed in
the same way for separately modeled reference states of the free
peptide and receptor; (iii) contributions accounting for
desolvation of both the receptor and the peptide upon complex
formation, and (iv) importantly, entropical contributions derived
in accordance with a statistical mechanical analysis of the
ensemble of structures obtained in step 3, i.e.
{MHC/P.sub.full}.
[0147] When following the standard docking approach to generate the
latter ensemble, one generally obtains a limited set of complex
structures that are all energetically relaxed. In one embodiment of
a method of the present invention, the contributions (i) to (iii)
are added up for each structure of the ensemble and each sum is
given the weight coefficient s.sub.i=1/(N.sub.sol), where N.sub.sol
is the number of solutions in the ensemble. This yields the
energetical term <E> in Eq. [1]. The structure-related
component (iv), corresponding to the entropical contribution S in
Eq. [1], may be set equal to ln(N.sub.sol), or k.sub.B
ln(N.sub.sol) where k.sub.B is Boltzmann's constant. The latter
constant may be included in the weight coefficient (c in Eq. [1],
corresponding to s.sub.entropy in Eq. [5]). This coefficient is
subject of global parameter optimization, which is to be executed
by a suitable parameter optimization method. A non-limiting example
illustrating the importance of including an entropical component is
provided in EXAMPLE 4.
[0148] When a method of the present invention is performed in
accordance with the advanced database-related execution mode, a
more sophisticated method may be needed to determine the
appropriate weight coefficients of aforementioned contributions (i)
to (iv), preferably on the basis of statistical mechanical
relationships.
[0149] Besides structure-related contributions (S.sub.i in Eq.
[5]), it is within the scope of the present method to consider a
number of non-structural terms (P.sub.i in Eq. [5]). A first
possibility is a combination method formed by fusing a
structure-based and an experimental method. This is accomplished by
determining the globally optimal set of weight coefficients
{s.sub.i,p.sub.i}, applying a suitable parameter optimization
method.
[0150] A preferred possibility is to include topology
contributions, for example the "Type and Topology Specific" (TTS)
contributions of Desmet et al. (International Patent Application
No. WO 02/05146) which has been invented in the context of protein
design. This method considers a limited number of topology classes
(typically 2 or 3), depending on a residue's degree of burial in a
complex. The notion topology may also be extended so as to reflect,
besides shielding from solvent, the chemical nature of a residue's
environment, for example a measure of polarity. Furthermore, it is
within the scope of the present invention to consider an
alternative to the residue type dimension in the concept of TTS
parameters, namely distinguishing chemical groups instead of
residue types. A preferred classification of chemical groups is the
following: 1, CH.sub.x aliphatic; 2, CH.sub.x aromatic; 3, NH.sub.x
aromatic; 4, OH; 5, S+SH; 6, NH.sub.3.sup.+; 7, COO.sup.-; 8,
CONH.sub.2; 9, NHC(NH.sub.2).sub.2.sup.+. This way, the
type-dimension in the set of TTS parameters can be restricted to 9
groups (instead of 20 residue types). The option to work with
chemical groups is fully compatible with the broader definition of
topology. This creates a landscape of possibilities that can be
explored by applying a suitable data mining and parameter
optimization strategy, which is within the scope of the present
invention. It is further within the scope of the invention to
identify and quantify the most relevant contributions in the
attempt to enhance the correlation between predicted and
experimental AG values. The incorporation of type and
topology-specific contributions again leads to a fully
structure-based method.
[0151] As used herein, a "peptide" refers to at least two
covalently attached amino acids which includes polypeptides and
oligopeptides. The peptide may be made up of naturally occurring
amino acids and peptide bonds, or non-naturally-occurring amino
acids or synthetic peptidomimetic structures, i.e., "analogs" such
as peptoids [see Simon, R. J. et al., (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 89(20), 9367-9371], generally depending on the method of
synthesis.
[0152] The peptides of the invention can be prepared by classical
chemical synthesis. The synthesis can be carried out in homogeneous
solution or in solid phase. For instance, the synthesis technique
in homogeneous solution which can be used is the one described by
Houbenweyl in the book entitled "Methode der organischen chemie"
(Method of organic chemistry) edited by E. Wunsh, vol. 15-I et II.
THIEME, Stuttgart 1974. The peptides of the invention can also be
prepared in solid phase according to the methods described by
Atherton and Shepard in their book entitled "Solid phase peptide
synthesis" (IRL Press, Oxford, 1989). The peptides according to
this invention can be prepared by means of recombinant DNA
techniques as described by Sambrook et al., Molecular Cloning: A
Laboratory Manual 2nd edition, New York, Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory, 1989).
[0153] "Amino acid", or "residue", as used herein means both
naturally occurring and synthetic amino acids. For example,
homo-phenylalanine, citrulline, and noreleucine are considered
amino acids for the purposes of the invention. "Amino acid" also
includes imino acid residues such as proline and hydroxyproline. In
addition, any amino acid representing a component of the variant
proteins of the present invention can be replaced by the same amino
acid but of the opposite chirality. Thus, any amino acid naturally
occurring in the L-configuration (which may also be referred to as
the R or S, depending upon the structure of the chemical entity)
may be replaced with an amino acid of the same chemical structural
type, but of the opposite chirality, generally referred to as the
D-amino acid but which can additionally be referred to as the R--
or the S--, depending upon its composition and chemical
configuration. Such derivatives have the property of greatly
increased stability, and therefore are advantageous in the
formulation of compounds which may have longer in vivo half lives,
when administered by oral, intravenous, intramuscular,
intraperitoneal, topical, rectal, intraocular, or other routes.
[0154] In the preferred embodiment, the amino acids are in the (S)
or L-configuration. If non-naturally occurring side chains are
used, non-amino acid substituents may be used, for example to
prevent or retard in vivo degradations. Proteins including
non-naturally occurring amino acids may be synthesized or in some
cases, made recombinantly; see van Hest et al., FEBS Lett 428:(1-2)
68-70 May 221998 and Tang et al., Abstr. Pap Am. Chem.
5218:U138-U138 Part 2 Aug. 22, 1999, both of which are expressly
incorporated by reference herein.
[0155] Aromatic amino acids may be replaced with D- or
L-naphylalanine, DM or L-Phenylglycine, D- or L-2-thieneylalanine,
D- or L-1-, 2-, 3- or 4-pyreneylalanine, D- or L-3-thieneylalanine,
D- or L-(2-pyridinyl)-alanine, D- or L-(3-pyridinyl)-alanine, D- or
L-(2-pyrazinyl)-alanine, D- or L-(4-isopropyl)-phenylglycine,
D-(trifluoromethyl)-phenylglycine,
D-(trifluoromethyl)-phenylalanine, D-p-fluorophenylalanine, D- or
L-p-biphenylphenylalanine, D- or L-p-methoxybiphenylphenylalanine,
D- or L-2-indole(alkyl)alanines, and D- or L-alkylainines where
alkyl may be substituted or unsubstituted methyl, ethyl, propyl,
hexyl, butyl, pentyl, isopropyl, iso-butyl, sec-isotyl, iso-pentyl,
non-acidic amino acids, of C1-C20.
[0156] Acidic amino acids can be substituted with non-carboxylate
amino acids while maintaining a negative charge, and derivatives or
analogs thereof, such as the non-limiting examples of
(phosphono)alanine, glycine, leucine, isoleucine, threonine, or
serine; or sulfated (e.g., --SO.sub.3H) threonine, serine, or
tyrosine.
[0157] Other substitutions may include unnatural hyroxylated amino
acids may made by combining "alkyl" with any natural amino acid.
The term "alkyl" as used herein refers to a branched or unbranched
saturated hydrocarbon group of 1 to 24 carbon atoms, such as
methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isoptopyl, n-butyl, isobutyl, t-butyl,
octyl, decyl, tetradecyl, hexadecyl, eicosyl, tetracisyl and the
like. Alkyl includes heteroalkyl, with atoms of nitrogen, oxygen
and sulfur. Preferred alkyl groups herein contain 1 to 12 carbon
atoms. Basic amino acids may be substituted with alkyl groups at
any position of the naturally occurring amino acids lysine,
arginine, ornithine, citrulline, or (guanidino)-acetic acid, or
other (guanidino)alkyl-acetic acids, where "alkyl" is define as
above. Nitrile derivatives (e.g., containing the CN-moiety in place
of COOH) may also be substituted for asparagine or glutamine, and
methionine sulfoxide may be substituted for methionine. Methods of
preparation of such peptide derivatives are well known to one
skilled in the art.
[0158] In addition, any amide linkage in any of the variant
polypeptides can be replaced by a ketomethylene moiety. Such
derivatives are expected to have the property of increased
stability to degradation by enzymes, and therefore possess
advantages for the formulation of compounds which may have
increased in vivo half lives, as administered by oral, intravenous,
intramuscular, intraperitoneal, topical, rectal, intraocular, or
other routes.
[0159] Additional amino acid modifications of amino acids of
variant polypeptides of to the present invention may include the
following: Cysteinyl residues may be reacted with
alpha-haloacetates (and corresponding amine), such as
2-chloroacetic acid or chloroacetamide, to give carboxymethyl or
carboxyamidomethyl derivatives. Cysteinyl residues may also be
derivatized by reaction with compounds such as
bromotrifluoroacetone, alpha-bromo-beta-(5-imidozoyl)propionic
acid, chloroacetyl phosphate, N-alkylmaleimides, 3-nitro-2-pyridyl
disulfide, methyl 2-pyridyl disulfide, P-chloromercuribenzoate,
2-chloromercuri-4-nitrophenol, or
chloro-7-nitrobenzo-2-oxa-1,3-diazole.
[0160] Histidyl residues may be derivatized by reaction with
compounds such as diethylprocarbonate e.g., at pH 5.5 to 7.0
because this agent is relatively specific for the histidyl side
chain, and para-bromophenacyl bromide may also be used, e.g., where
the reaction is preferably performed in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate at
pH 6.0.
[0161] Lysinyl and amino terminal residues may be reacted with
compounds such as succinic or other carboxylic acid anhydrides.
Derivatization with these agents is expected to have the effect of
reversing the charge of the lysinyl residues.
[0162] Other suitable reagents for derivatizing
alpha-amino-containing residues include compounds such as
imidoesters e.g., as methyl picolinimidate; pyridoxal phosphate;
pyridoxal; chloroborohydride; trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid;
O-methylisourea; 2,4 pentanedione; and transaminase-catalyzed
reaction with glyoxylate. Arginyl residues may be modified by
reaction with one or several conventional reagents, among them
phenylglyoxal, 2,3-butanedione, 1,2-cyclohexanedione, and ninhydrin
according to known method steps. Derivatization of arginine
residues requires that the reaction be performed in alkaline
conditions because of the high pKa of the guanidine functional
group. Furthermore, these reagents may react with the groups of
lysine as well as the arginine epsilon-amino group. The specific
modification of tyrosyl residues per se is well-known, such as for
introducing spectral labels into tyrosyl residues by reaction with
aromatic diazonium compounds or tetranitromethane.
[0163] N-acetylimidizol and tetranitromethane may be used to form
O-acetyl tyrosyl species and 3-nitro derivatives, respectively.
Carboxyl side groups (aspartyl or glutamyl) may be selectively
modified by reaction with carbodiimides (R'--N--C--N--R') such as
1-cyclohexyl-3-(2-morpholinyl-(4-ethyl) carbodiimide or
1-ethyl-3-(4-azonia-4,4-dimethylpentyl) carbodiimide. Furthermore
aspartyl and glutamyl residues may be converted to asparaginyl and
glutaminyl residues by reaction with ammonium ions.
[0164] Glutaminyl and asparaginyl residues may be frequently
deamidated to the corresponding glutamyl and aspartyl residues.
Alternatively, these residues may be deamidated under mildly acidic
conditions. Either form of these residues falls within the scope of
the present invention.
[0165] As used herein "side-chain placement algorithm" refers to
methods for optimizing the side-chain conformations of residues.
Non-limiting examples of such methods include International Patent
Application No. WO 01/33438, De Maeyer et al (De Maeyer et al.,
(2000) Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 143: Protein Structure
Prediction: Methods and Protocols. Webster, D. (Ed.) Humana Press
Inc., Totowa, N.J., pp. 265-304), Koehl, P. and Delarue, M. (J.
Mol. Biol. (1994) 239, 249-275), Shenkin, P. S. et al., (Shenkin,
P. S. et al., (1996) Proteins 26, 323-352), Tuffery et al.
(Tuffery, P. et al., (1997) Protein Eng. 10, 361-372), Holm and
Sander (Proteins (1992) 14, 213-223 1992). Further included are
methods which explicitly account for pair-wise
side-chain/side-chain interactions.
[0166] As used herein, "dead-end-elimination" or "DEE" refers to
methods for testing which side-chain conformations are
energetically incompatible with the globally optimal side-chain
arrangement onto a protein backbone (or template) structure (e.g.
Desmet, J. et al., (1992) Nature 356, 539-542). In a protein system
to be tested, each amino acid residue is first represented by a
limited set of discrete side-chain conformations obtained from a
library of theoretically possible conformations, also known as a
rotamer library. To arrive at a globally optimal conformation for
the protein system, rotamers are screened in accordance to one or
more mathematical expressions, called DEE criteria. Different valid
elimination criteria have been identified in the past (De Maeyer,
M., Desmet, J. and Lasters, I. (2000) The dead-end elimination
theorem: mathematical aspects, implementation, optimizations,
evaluation and performance. in: Methods in Molecular Biology, vol.
143: De Maeyer, M., Desmet, J. and Lasters, I. (2000) and
references therein). Upon convergence, all but one rotamers have
been eliminated for each modeled side-chain so that the final,
unique assignment of rotamers corresponds to the global optimum. If
convergence cannot be reached by merely applying DEE criteria, some
additional end-stage routines are required (Desmet et al.,
1997).
[0167] As used herein "fast and accurate side-chain topology and
energy refinement" or "FASTER" refers to methods of International
Patent Application No. WO 01/33438 which is incorporated herein by
reference.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0168] FIG. 1. Schematic overview of the information generated by
steps 1-4 of a method of the present invention.
[0169] FIG. 2. Flow chart of a method of the present invention.
[0170] FIG. 3. Drawing of the 43 lowest energy peptides resulting
from the VSV-8 docking. The crystallographically determined
structure is presented by the sticks model. Black color is used for
the main-chain atoms and gray for the side-chain atoms. Only
"heavy" (non-H) atoms are shown. The viewpoint is from the "side"
of the peptide with the N-terminus at the left. In the complex, the
peptide is buried within the MHC .alpha..sub.1.alpha..sub.2 domain,
with the .alpha..sub.2-helix in front, the .alpha..sub.1-helix at
the back and the .beta.-sheet at the bottom; the upper part of the
peptide is solvent accessible. The MHC receptor itself, while
present during docking, is not shown in the figure.
[0171] FIG. 4. Comparison between crystallographic temperature
factors and theoretical structure variation. The average B-factors
for the main-chain atoms of each residue of the peptide LLFGYPVYV,
obtained from the PDB entry 1DUZ (c-chain) are compared with the
standard deviation on the main-chain RMSD, observed in the ensemble
of docked structures. The docking experiment itself is described in
EXAMPLE 2 of the present invention.
[0172] FIG. 5. Distribution of the number of docking solutions. All
nonapeptides derived from the HPV E6 and E7 proteins were docked to
the A*0201 receptor according to the protocol described in EXAMPLE
2 of the present invention. Each experiment yielded a set of
receptor-compatible structures, ranging from 0 to 500. This diagram
shows the distribution of docking solutions. 27 peptides were found
to be incompatible with the receptor (inset). The main reason was
the presence of either a bulky (R, Y, F) or a main-chain
restricting (P) side-chain at position P2.
[0173] FIG. 6. Probability distribution of the root-mean-square
deviation (RMSD) between the backbone atoms of any two peptide
main-chain structures of the {MHC/P.sub.mc} ensemble described in
EXAMPLE 3 of the present invention.
[0174] FIG. 7. Distribution of predicted average binding energies
of HPV E6 and E7 peptides to HLA A*0201. Results are obtained as
described in EXAMPLE 4 of the present invention. The energies do
not include an entropical component.
[0175] FIG. 8. Correlation between experimental and predicted
affinities for 15 peptides from HPV E6 and E7 that are known to
bind to HLA A*0201. Results are obtained as described in EXAMPLE 4
of the present invention. Panel (a), scores obtained from average
binding energies only. Panel (b), scores obtained by including the
entropical component. Two peptides (sequences indicated) were
considered as outliers and their scores were not included in the
regression analysis.
EXAMPLES
Example 1
Peptide Docking
[0176] In the present example, we describe the flexible docking of
the octapeptide VSV-8 (peptide p=RGYVYQGL) to murine MHC class I
H-2K.sup.b (Fremont, D. H. et al., (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 92, 2479-2483). The following experimental conditions were
used.
[0177] 1. Peptide build-up: Tyr-P5 was chosen as the root residue
because of its potential to form multiple contacts with the binding
groove on the MHC. Elongation proceeded first towards the C- and
then towards the N-terminal end, in the following manner:
----Y--->----YQ-->----YQG->----YQGL>---VYQGL>---YVYQGL>-
-GYVYQGL>RGYVYQGL.
[0178] 2. Peptide translations: the peptide was systematically
displaced to each of 79 translational offsets at relative distances
of 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 .ANG. from the initial position.
[0179] 3. Rotations: at each translational offset, discrete yet
full-space rotation was performed over 84 rotational
configurations.
[0180] 4. Conformations: for the peptide residues Tyr-P3, Val-P4,
Tyr-P5 and Gln-P6 the rotamer library contained 47 main-chain
conformations; for Gly-P2 and Gly-P7 there were 125 rotamers and
for the N- and C-terminal residues Arg-P1 and Leu-P8 there were
12.
[0181] 5. Peptide and receptor side-chain conformations: side-chain
conformations were retrieved from the backbone-dependent rotamer
library described in Desmet et al. (1997). On average, there were
16 side-chain rotamers per residue. In addition to the 8 peptide
residues, 28 receptor residues were assigned as flexible during the
docking.
[0182] 6. Force field: all-atom CHARMM force field comprising terms
for bond stretching, bond angle bending, a periodic function for
the torsion angles, a Lennard-Jones potential for the non-bonded
atom pairs, a 10-12 potential for hydrogen bonds and a coulombic
function for charged atoms. A distance-dependent dielectric
constant was used (.di-elect cons.=r.sub.ij, where r.sub.ij is the
distance between two atoms i and j; Warshel, A. and Levitt, M.
(1976) J. Mol. Biol. 103, 227-249.
[0183] 7. Water molecules: this experiment was performed in the
presence of 9 crystallographically determined buried water
molecules that were considered as part of the protein.
[0184] 8. Partial-peptide conformations (fragments) were accepted
for further elongation while using a relative energy threshold of
10 kcal mol.sup.-1. In this experiment, final full-length peptides
were accepted using the same threshold.
[0185] 9. The docking algorithm terminated spontaneously and
successfully after having elongated in a combinatorial fashion,
i.e. residue by residue, all partial peptides to their full
length.
[0186] The docking of the VSV-8 peptide to MHC class I H-2K.sup.b
finally yielded a {MHC/p.sub.full} ensemble of 323 full-peptide
configurations within an energy interval of 10 kcal mol.sup.-1 (see
TABLE 1). For this purpose, 1,117,957 partial peptide fragments had
been processed during buildup.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 length peptide #conf #accep % accep E_best
.DELTA.E_best 1 ----Y--- 311,892 920 0.29 -24.4 -24.4 2 ----YQ--
43,240 2,074 4.80 -43.8 -19.4 3 ----YQG- 259,250 13,081 5.05 -51.2
-7.4 4 ----YQGL 156,972 289 0.18 -73.9 -22.7 5 ---VYQGL 13,583
1,064 7.83 -82.0 -8.1 6 --YVYQGL 50,008 1,148 2.30 -109.5 -27.5 7
-GYVYQGL 143,500 11,626 8.10 -120.1 -10.6 8 RGYVYQGL 139,512 323
0.23 -147.1 -27.0 sum or average: 1,117,957 30,525 2.73 -18.4 VSV-8
docking: Column 1: fragment length (number of residues); column 2:
fragment sequence in one-letter code; column 3: total number of
generated configurations for fragments of the corresponding length;
column 4: number of accepted configurations; column 5: acceptance
ratio in %; column 6: binding energy of the lowest-energy fragment
(kcal mol.sup.-1); column 6: incremental binding energy (kcal
mol.sup.-1).
[0187] Importantly, the docking algorithm rebuilds all side-chain
conformations completely from scratch each time a partial or full
peptide configuration is generated. In the present example this was
accomplished by a dead-end elimination (DEE) method. In total,
1,117,957 separate DEE side-chain placement operations were
performed, i.e. one for each peptide fragment. This approach might
be described as an elegant way to decouple the side-chain modeling
from the main-chain construction. It enormously reduces the space
to be searched and yet avoids any potential bias from incorrectly
positioned or frozen side-chains. As a possible alternative to the
DEE method, the present inventors refer to the recently published
FASTER method (Desmet et al., 2002). In general, any method for
side-chain placement may be applicable. Prediction accuracy may
actually form a lesser problem in view of the fact that the
modeling of side-chains is repeated completely in step 3 of a
method of the present invention. (But then only for the final
full-length peptides, i.e. in the present example only 323 full
structures instead of more than one million partial
structures).
[0188] In summary, Table 1 shows that the acceptance ratio of
partial peptide fragments was as low as 30,525 out of a total of
1,117,957 examined fragments or 2.73%. Higher acceptance ratios
were observed when extending a fragment by a weakly restrained
residue type, such as Gly at position P2. Yet, the combinatorial
buildup did not lead to an explosion of fragments.
[0189] Of the 323 final structures within an energy interval of 10
kcal mol.sup.-1, 43 had a binding energy within 5 kcal mol.sup.-1
above the lowest (-147.1 kcal mol.sup.-1) and are displayed in FIG.
3. Compared with the experimental structure of the complex, the
lowest-energy peptide had a main-chain RMSD of only 0.56 .ANG.. For
the 43 displayed structures the average RMSD was 0.89.+-.0.27 .ANG.
and for all 323 results it was 1.01.+-.0.39 .ANG.. The anchor
residues Tyr-P3, Tyr-P5 and Leu-P8 were correctly packed into their
complementary pockets (Fremont, D. H. et al., (1992) Science 257,
919-927). The side-chain of Leu-P8 adopted two different
conformational states. Other apparently bi-stable conformations
were observed for Gln-P6 and Arg-P1 (FIG. 3). The side-chain
conformation of Gln-P6 was clearly coupled to the conformation of
the MHC residues Glu-152 and Arg-155. Interestingly, the
alternative conformation for these two residues has also been
crystallographically observed, namely in the structure of the same
H-2K.sup.b receptor complexed with the nonapeptide SEV-9 (Fremont
et al., 1992). This illustrates the importance of taking into
account at least some limited flexibility for the side-chains of
the receptor.
Example 2
Systematic Docking of Viral Peptides
[0190] This example illustrates the performance of the docking
algorithm described in EXAMPLE 1 in an application to large-scale
docking. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate that the
algorithm remains useful not only for studying selected cases that
are known to form high-affinity complexes, but also for handling a
large number of diverse peptides derived from a common protein
source. Some features of such a collection are (i) that the set of
peptides is not biased with respect to the presence of anchor
residues and (ii) that the majority of peptides are most likely
non-binders. Attention is paid to the computational requirements of
the method, to statistics of the simulated structures and to
potential difficulties in large-scale docking. This example also
illustrates the preferred embodiment of steps 1 and 2 of a method
of the present invention, i.e. MHC model preparation and flexible
docking, respectively. In addition, we have performed a clustering
analysis on the different observed peptide binding modes in order
to study the (theoretical) variability of the main-chain of a
peptide in a complex.
[0191] The test case was constructed as follows.
[0192] 1. MHC receptor type/subtype: class I, A*0201
[0193] 2. PDB structure for model preparation: 1 DUZ a-chain
[0194] 3. List of peptides to be docked: all nonameric (9-residue)
peptides that can be derived from the human papillomavirus type 18
(HPV-18) E6 and E7 proteins, i.e. 150 and 97 peptides,
respectively. Experimental binding affinities for the same set are
available from the literature (Rudolf, M. P. et al., (2001) Clin.
Cancer Res. 7, 788s-795s)
[0195] 4. Docking conditions: force field and rotamer library are
identical to Example 1. Translations were limited to 26 relative
displacements over 0.5 .ANG. from the original position. No
rotational moves were allowed. All crystallographic water molecules
were removed. The peptide residue P1 was selected as the root
residue, thus elongation of fragments occurred from the N- to the
C-terminus. The relative energy threshold for accepting partial
peptide fragments was made dependent on the fragment length: 7, 7,
10, 13, 15, 15, 15, 13 and 10 for lengths 1-9, respectively. This
was necessary because partial peptides of intermediate length
tended to form many tight but false interactions with the receptor
(class I nonapeptides typically bulge out in the middle; Fremont et
al., 1992).
[0196] The selection of the PDB structure 1DUZ to construct the MHC
template model was decided on basis of its high crystallographic
resolution (1.8 .ANG.). The whole PDB entry (chains a-e) were
refined by 200 steps steepest descent energy minimization. Next,
chains a (MHC) and c (peptide sequence LLFGYPVYV) were extracted.
The only PDB information regarding the peptide that was retained
upon docking were the coordinates of the backbone N, C.sub..alpha.
and C atoms of residue P1. Prior to docking, each peptide was
initialized by rebuilding it in an extended conformation with
standard bond lengths and angles. The N, C.sub..alpha. and C atoms
at residue P1 of the initialized peptide were fitted onto those
observed in the PDB structure. Next, the peptide of the PDB file
was removed. The MHC receptor together with the initialized peptide
formed the starting situation for docking. A number of trial
dockings were then performed using the "self" peptide LLFGYPVYV in
order to determine the optimal settings for the relative energy
thresholds of partial peptides of different length (values given
supra, see: 4. Docking conditions). These trial experiments also
served to reduce, in a safe way, the number of flexibly treated
receptor side-chains: of the initial 29 side-chains in contact with
the peptide, only 14 were finally kept flexible for they had a
significant influence on the final ensemble of predicted structures
(a7, a63, a66, a70, a73, a80, a84, a97, a99, a114, a116, a143, a146
and a159). With these settings, an ensemble of 210 structures was
obtained for the A*0201/LLFGYPVYV complex. All peptide
conformations compared well with the known crystallographic
structure: the backbone RMSD ranged from 0.75 to 1.81 .ANG., with
an average of 1.08.+-.0.20 .ANG.. A good correlation was observed
between the crystallographic temperature factors and the structural
variation exhibited by the ensemble of docked structures (FIG. 4).
The B-factors, averaged over the main-chain atoms of each peptide
residue, appeared to follow well the standard deviation on the
main-chain RMSD with the crystallographic structure, abbreviated as
SD(RMSD). The latter was taken as a measure of the theoretical
flexibility of the peptide main-chain. A somewhat larger than
expected flexibility was observed for Gly-P4, which was due to a
high degree of torsional freedom of the peptide planes flanking P4.
A surprisingly high flexibility was also observed for Pro-P6: the
C.sub..alpha.-C.sub..beta. vector of this residue displayed a
relatively large rotational variation over .about.90.degree. around
the peptide's principal axis. Yet, this theoretical result appears
to be fully justified on basis of the experimental B-factors. Also,
the general correlation between both parameters suggests that the
computed ensemble reflects the real dynamic behavior of the bound
peptide. Given these satisfactory results, it was concluded that
the experimental settings were correctly chosen. The latter were
applied in all next docking experiments.
[0197] The large-scale docking of all HPV E6 and E7 peptides was
performed in an automated fashion. The jobs were distributed over a
cluster of four SGI Origin 200 computers, each equipped with four
270 MHz R12000 processors and 4 GB of memory. The average
computational time needed per job was 8.7 CPU-hours, but some
terminated almost immediately (0.01 CPU-h) or took a very long time
(113.6 CPU-h). Typically, the docking of peptides containing large
side-chains (Phe, Tyr, Arg) or Pro at position P2 tended to
terminate before reaching their full length (FIG. 5). Analysis
showed that the P2 residue of these peptides could be accommodated
only in "non-standard" conformations, for sterical reasons.
[0198] Rudolf et al. (2001) published experimental affinity data
for peptides derived from the HPV E6 and E7 sequences and binding
to HLA A*0201. Fifteen out of the 247 displayed IC.sub.50 values
ranging from 3 to 943 nM. These peptides can thus be classified as
strong or moderate binders to HLA A*0201. All other possible E6 and
E7 peptides had IC.sub.50 values higher than 1000 nM and can be
termed weak or non-binders. Interestingly, many of the binding
peptides had amino acid residues at positions P2 and P9 (the
so-called primary anchor positions) that were non-typical for
binding to HLA A*0201. For example, the top-ranked peptide,
FAFKDLFVV (with Ala at position P2 instead of Leu, Ile or Met)
displayed an IC.sub.50 value of only 3 nM. The peptide FKDLFVVYR
(with Lys at P2 and Arg at P9) being a very non-typical peptide,
still had an IC.sub.50 value of 500 nM. Two other binding peptides
also had a non-typical aromatic residue at position P2, namely
LYNLLIRCL and LFLNTLSFV. Especially for these peptides it was
interesting to investigate the behavior of the docking
algorithm.
[0199] It can be seen from FIG. 5 that none of the docking
experiments failing to extend the peptide to its full length (26
out of 247 in total) concerned binding peptides (15 out of 247).
Even the two binding peptides containing Tyr or Phe at position P2
could be successfully docked (the LYNLLIRCL and LFLNTLSFV docking
resulted in 8 and 13 solutions, respectively), in contrast to many
other peptides containing an aromatic side-chain at that position
(FIG. 5). The FKDLFVVYR peptide could also be successfully docked
(30 solutions) in spite of its bulky Arg side-chain at P9. In
general, large side-chains at the primary anchors P2 and P9 had the
effect of reducing the number of docking solutions due to sterical
restraints. For some peptides, all of which are weak or
non-binders, this led to premature termination of the docking
process.
[0200] Another important observation was that the binding peptides
had, on average, a much higher number of docking solutions than the
non/weak binders. Binding peptides were represented by about twice
as much solutions as non/weak binders (on average: 91 vs. 42
solutions, respectively). Similarly, only 3 of the 15 binders (20%)
had less than 25 solutions whereas there were 132 of the 232 (57%)
with less than 25 solutions among the non/weak binders. A logical
conclusion is that the number of solutions obtained from the
peptide docking experiments provides an indication of true
conformational flexibility of a peptide within the MHC binding
groove. This is consistent with the fundamental entropical
principle stating that the higher the number of micro-states for a
given macro-state (in this case the bound state) the higher will be
the probability of that state. This example also illustrates the
importance of working with ensembles of structures, rather than
with a single modeled structure, to study the binding properties of
MHC/peptide complexes.
Example 3
Construction of a Generic MHC/Peptide Database
[0201] An embodiment of the present invention is a method wherein
the binding of one or more peptides is studied by applying an
advanced database approach. As explained in the detailed
description of the invention, such a database may be compiled from
experimental (preferably X-ray) or theoretical (preferably docked)
structures. A database obtained from known 3D structures has the
advantage of being based on validated structural information but
may suffer from the lack of such data, especially for certain MHC
subtypes for which no complex structure has been solved. Even for
well-represented subtypes, like the MHC class I HLA A*0201
allotype, there may be a strong bias towards particular observed
peptide binding modes whereas many other feasible conformations are
not yet represented in the Protein Databank. Consequently, in order
to avoid problems related to a lack of experimental structures, the
present inventors prefer to generate a database of MHC/P.sub.mc
structures by systematically docking a large number of peptides of
different sequence. Evidently, this can be done separately for
different MHC subtypes and for peptides of different length. In
this example we illustrate the construction of an {MHC/P.sub.mc}
ensemble for nonameric peptides oriented within the binding groove
of HLA A*0201 (represented by PDB code 1 DUZ, chain a).
[0202] The docking experiments were performed in an identical way
to the experiments described in Example 2. A set of 180 nonameric
peptide sequences to be docked was established in a pseudo-random
fashion as follows. The present inventors have selected
combinations of typical anchor residues at positions P2 and P9,
i.e. Leu, Ile and Met at P2 and Leu, Ile and Val at P9. At all
other positions, residue types were selected in a fully random
fashion from the set of naturally occurring amino acids. This means
that each of the 3.times.3=9 possible P2/P9 combinations was
represented by 180/9=20 sequences with randomized residues at
positions P1 and P3-P8. This procedure was followed to avoid the
docking of peptides that cannot bind to the HLA A*0201 model
because of incompatible anchor residues. At the same time, the
randomization was assumed to generate sufficient variation in the
peptide sequences to ensure a broad and unbiased sampling of the
conformational space.
[0203] All but one docking experiments terminated in a successful
way, i.e. only one simulation (of the peptide p=DIGVHKWVV)
terminated before the peptide was extended to its full length. All
other simulations yielded a number of MHC/p.sub.mc solutions
ranging from 1 to 500 (a user-set hard limit) and with an average
of 22 per peptide. The total number of MHC/p.sub.mc structures was
3951.
[0204] All docking results were then pooled into one global
{MHC/P.sub.mc} ensemble, the side-chains were stripped off and the
coordinates of the main-chain atoms of each peptide structure were
stored in a suitable format in a database. This completed the
construction of a generic database collection of MHC/P.sub.mc
structures, applicable for studying the binding of nonapeptides to
the MHC class I HLA A*0201 subtype.
[0205] The ensemble was afterwards further analyzed with respect to
the spatial distribution of peptide conformations in the
{MHC/P.sub.mc} ensemble. A suitable parameter to analyze this
distribution is the peptide backbone root-mean-square deviation
(RMSD) between different P.sub.mc structures in the ensemble. FIG.
6 shows the probability distribution of finding two main-chain
structures having a certain RMSD. From the integrated probability
curve it is seen that for any selected P.sub.mc structure the
expected number of other structures with an RMSD.ltoreq.0.5 .ANG.
is only about 0.3% of the total population. This shows that there
is very limited, if any, redundancy among the members of the
ensemble. The probability of an RMSD.ltoreq.1 .ANG. raises to 0.062
or 6.2%. With respect to modeling side-chains on backbones, a
difference in RMSD of up to 1 .ANG. can be expected to yield
similar results. In other words, the further modeling of a peptide
sequence onto each P.sub.mc structure will be statistically
performed onto 0.062.times.3951 or about 250 relatively correct
structures. This situation offers the possibility of a further
clustering of the ensemble and/or the averaging of the results from
different side-chain placements. Furthermore, the width of the
probability distribution (.about.3 .ANG.) suggests that a great
variety of different binding modes, some of which may be required
for specific peptides, are represented in the ensemble. From these
results, the inventors concluded that the database approach forming
an embodiment of the present invention may be very useful to
predict the binding properties of a peptide within an MHC binding
groove.
Example 4
Application of a Scoring Function to Predict Affinities
[0206] A property of an MHC/peptide complex is the affinity of the
peptide for the MHC molecule. In accordance with the
structure-based approach of the present invention, the binding
affinity is predominantly derived from information related to the
three-dimensional structure of a modeled complex. For this purpose,
a so-called scoring function is required which translates
structural information into one or more contributions that are
expected to correlate with experimental affinity. Different
contributions may be combined, for example added up, in order to
provide a qualitative or quantitative score for an MHC/peptide
complex of interest. By extension, different scores for different
complexes may be computed, for example to rank different peptides
according to their predicted affinity for a given MHC.
[0207] This example is included to illustrate a practical
implementation of an embodiment of the present invention. This
example is further included to demonstrate that the incorporation
of an entropical contribution derived from an ensemble of modeled
complex structures, rather than from a single modeled or
experimental structure, significantly enhances the quality of
predicted affinities. Said incorporation of an entropical component
is in agreement with both Eqs. [1] and [5] of the present
invention.
[0208] The results of the docking experiments described in example
2, more specifically the computer simulated binding of all HPV
E6/E7 peptides to the HLA A*0201 receptor, have been further
analyzed so as to eventually predict the affinity of the peptides.
We recall that each of these docking experiments yielded an
ensemble of MHC/p.sub.mc solutions, in accordance with a second
step (MHC/peptide main-chain construction) of an embodiment of the
present invention. These ensembles have been further processed in
accordance with a third step (MHC/full peptide construction) and a
fourth step (MHC/peptide affinity assessment) of an embodiment of
the present invention.
[0209] First, the side-chains of each MHC/p.sub.mc structure in
each ensemble were rebuilt by applying the DEE method of De Maeyer
et al. (2000). Side-chains of the MHC receptor that were flexibly
treated were the same as during the docking experiments described
in Example 2 (14 in total). In order to reduce the effects from
discrete rotameric placement of the side-chains, an additional
modeling step was performed on each DEE-modeled structure: the full
structures were further refined by 50 steps of steepest descent
energy minimization to optimize local contacts. This resulted in
the final set of ensembles {MHC/p.sub.full}, i.e. one ensemble of
full complex structures for each peptide p. These data formed the
major source of structure-related input information for a fourth
step of an embodiment of the present invention.
[0210] Since complex formation involves a physico-chemical reaction
between a receptor and ligand molecule from the unbound to the
bound state, the binding process is driven by a change in free
energy or .DELTA.G (see Eqs. [3] and [4]). Consequently, an
energetical evaluation of complex structures is preferably
complemented by a similar evaluation of models of the unbound
molecules. The free MHC receptor was therefore modeled separately
by performing DEE side-chain placement with the same 14 flexibly
treated side-chains as for the full complexes, followed by 50 steps
of steepest descent energy minimization. Structures for the free
peptide, on the other hand, were not generated by DEE modeling but
by generating maximally extended conformations, also followed by 50
steps of steepest descent energy refinement. The binding energy
E.sub.bind(p,i) of a solution i from the ensemble generated for a
peptide p was calculated using equation [6]:
E.sub.bind(p,i)=E.sub.complex(p,i)-E.sub.MHC-E.sub.p(p) [6]
where all energy values are the potential energies computed in
accordance with the force field, and where E.sub.complex(p,i),
E.sub.MHC and E.sub.p(p) are the potential energy of the complex,
free receptor and free peptide, respectively. Next, the binding
energies were averaged over all solutions i for each peptide p so
as to obtain the average binding energy <E.sub.bind(p)> for
the each ensemble {MHC/p.sub.full}. This quantity corresponds to
the term <E> in Eq. [1] of the present invention.
[0211] FIG. 7 shows the distribution of the average binding
energies for all predicted peptides. Peptides that were
experimentally found to be good binders by Rudolf et al. (2001) are
indicated in black whereas the non-binders are indicated with gray
bars. It is clearly seen that the known binders tend to score well
in comparison with the non-binders. Yet, both populations are not
clearly separated in that several non-binders score better than
most of the binders (they can be envisaged as "false positives").
This suggests that the discriminative power of potential energy
alone is not strong enough to obtain good separation.
[0212] In view of the observation that most of the non-binding
peptides had, on average, less MHC/p.sub.mc solutions in the
docking step (see Example 2), it was investigated whether this
factor could be converted into a significant, quantitative
contribution of the scoring function. The most significant
improvement in separation between binders and non-binders was
obtained when adding to the potential energy term a logarithmic
term depending on the total number of solutions N contained within
each ensemble. Thus, the optimal scoring function F appeared to be
of the form
F(p)=<E.sub.bind(p)>-c.times.ln N(p) [7]
wherein c is a constant. Interestingly, the theory of statistical
mechanics states that the entropy of (microcanonical) ensembles is
logarithmically related to the number of micro-states that are
energetically accessible. (More specifically, the entropy S equals
k.sub.B In(N) where k.sub.B is Boltzmann's constant). Thus, it was
straightforward to rationalize the logarithmical dependence on the
number of solutions as a true reflection the intrinsic
conformational flexibility a peptide within a complex. In other
words, the number of energetically feasible peptide conformations
as derived from the simulations probably correlates in a
statistically significant way with the true conformational entropy
of a complex.
[0213] From the optimization of the separation of binders and
non-binders, the best value for parameter c in Eq. [7] was found to
be 20 kcal mol.sup.-1. This value was applied in a further analysis
wherein the predicted scores for the 15 binding peptides were
directly correlated with the known experimental affinity (Rudolf et
al. (2001) only published quantitative values for the binding
peptides). FIG. 8 shows a correlation plot between predicted scores
and known binding free energies. In FIG. 8a the entropical term is
turned off (c=0) while in FIG. 8b it was set to its optimal value
from the previous optimization procedure (c=20). Two peptides
(FQQLFLNTL and FLNTLSFVC) showed an aberrant behavior compared to
the rest and were considered as outliers. They were not included in
the regression analysis. Interestingly, both peptides have a
non-typical anchor residue (Gln at P2 of FQQLFLNTL and Cys at P9 of
FLNTLSFVC) while their scores appeared to be overestimated. This
suggests that an additional correction factor may be desirable for
typical anchor residues.
[0214] An important observation within the context of the present
invention was the markedly better correlation obtained with the
scoring function including the entropical term (panel b,
R.sup.2=0.71) compared to the function based exclusively on
potential energy (panel a, R.sup.2=0.19). Without the entropy
component only a very weak correlation could be observed. This is
consistent with the distribution plot presented in FIG. 7 showing
that the energy component itself is practically useful only to
identify peptides with a clear suboptimal energetic compatibility
with the receptor. Only the combination of potential energy with a
term reflecting conformational entropy enabled a good qualitative
separation between binding and non-binding peptides. Furthermore,
it enabled the establishing of a quantitative relationship between
predicted and experimental affinities. FIG. 8b shows the equation
that can be used to convert any score value F into a predicted free
energy of binding.
* * * * *
References