Current status and future challenges in T-cell receptor/peptide/MHC molecular dynamics simulations

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1035-1044

  Knapp, Bernhard ^a   Demharter, Samuel ^a   Esmaielbeiki, Reyhaneh ^a   Deane, Charlotte M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

MHC; Molecular dynamics simulations; T cell receptor

Indexed keywords

LYMPHOCYTE ANTIGEN RECEPTOR; PEPTIDE;

CHEMISTRY; HUMAN; MAJOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY COMPLEX; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

HUMANS; MAJOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY COMPLEX; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; PEPTIDES; RECEPTORS, ANTIGEN, T-CELL;

EID: 84944788530     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv005     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Rudolph MG, Stanfield RL, Wilson IA. How TCRs bind MHCs, peptides, and coreceptors. Annu Rev Immunol 2006;24:419-66.
2. Janeway CA, Travers P, Walport M. et al. Immuno Biology. Garland Sci 2005;1-888.
3. van der Merwe PA, Dushek O. Mechanisms for T cell receptor triggering. Nat Rev Immunol 2011;11:47-55.
4. SlingluffCL, Jr. The present and future of peptide vaccines for cancer: single or multiple, long or short, alone or in combination? Cancer J 2011;17:343-50.
5. Zoete V, Irving M, Ferber M, et al. Structure-based, rational design of t cell receptors. Front Immunol 2013;4:268.
6. Larche M. T cell epitope-based allergy vaccines. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2011;352:107-19.
7. Purcell AW, McCluskey J, Rossjohn J. More than one reason to rethink the use of peptides in vaccine design. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6:404-14.
8. Gras S, Burrows SR, Turner SJ, et al. A structural voyage toward an understanding of the MHC-I-restricted immune response: lessons learned and much to be learned. Immunol Rev 2012;250:61-81.
9. Wang JH, Reinherz EL. The structural basis of alphabeta T-lineage immune recognition: TCR docking topologies, mechanotransduction, and co-receptor function. Immunol Rev 2012;250:102-19.
10. Flower DR, Phadwal K, Macdonald IK, et al. T-cell epitope prediction and immune complex simulation using molecular dynamics: state of the art and persisting challenges. Immunome Res 2010;6(Suppl 2):S4.
11. Stavrakoudis A. Conformational flexibility in designing peptides for immunology: the molecular dynamics approach. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2010;6:207-22.
12. Knapp B, Omasits U, Schreiner W. Side chain substitution benchmark for peptide/MHC interaction. Protein Sci 2008;17: 977-82.
13. Knapp B, Omasits U, Frantal S, et al. A critical cross-validation of high throughput structural binding prediction methods for pMHC. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2009;23:301-7.
14. Krivov GG, Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL, Jr. Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4. Proteins 2009;77:778-95.
15. Knapp B, Giczi V, Ribarics R, et al. PeptX: using genetic algorithms to optimize peptides for MHC binding. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:241.
16. Bui HH, Schiewe AJ, von Grafenstein H, et al. Structural prediction of peptides binding to MHC class I molecules. Proteins 2006;63:43-52.
17. Bordner AJ, Abagyan R. Ab initio prediction of peptide-MHC binding geometry for diverse class I MHC allotypes. Proteins 2006;63:512-26.
18. Molsoft LLC. ICM-Docking. 2006. http://www.molsoft.com/docking.html.
19. Khan JM, Ranganathan S. pDOCK: a new technique for rapid and accurate docking of peptide ligands to major histocompatibility complexes. Immunome Res 2010;6(Suppl 1):S2.
20. Sousa SF, Fernades P, Ramos MJ. Protein-ligand docking current status and future challanges. Proteins 2006; 65:15-26.
21. Lefranc MP, Giudicelli V, Ginestoux C, et al. IMGT, the international ImMunoGeneTics information system. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:D1006-12.
22. Webb B, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 2014;47:5.
23. Baker D, Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 2001;294:93-6.
24. Collins EJ, Riddle DS. TCR-MHC docking orientation: natural selection, or thymic selection? Immunol Res 2008;41: 267-94.
25. Ferber M, Zoete V, Michielin O. T-cell receptors binding orientation over peptide/MHC class I is driven by long-range interactions. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e51943.
26. Roomp K, Domingues FS. Predicting interactions between T cell receptors and MHC-peptide complexes. Mol Immunol 2011;48:553-62.
27. Leimgruber A, Ferber M, Irving M, et al. TCRep 3D: an automated in silico approach to study the structural properties of TCR repertoires. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e26301.
28. Janin J. Protein-protein docking tested in blind predictions: the CAPRI experiment. Mol Biosyst 2010;6: 2351-2362.
29. Pronk S, Pall S, Schulz R, et al. GROMACS 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit. Bioinformatics 2013;29:845-54.
30. Phillips JC, Braun R, Wang W, et al. Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem 2005;26:1781-802.
31. Case DA, Cheatham TE, Darden T, et al. The amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 2005;26:1668-88.
32. Brooks B, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, et al. CHARMM-a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 1983;4:187-217.
33. Omasits U, Knapp B, Neumann M, et al. Analysis of key parameters for molecular dynamics of pMHC molecules. Mol Simul 2008;34:781-93.
34. Mazur AK. Hierarchy of fast motions in protein dynamics. J Phys Chem B 1998;102:473-9.
35. Feenstra KA, Hess B, Berendsen HJ. Improving efficiency of large time-scale molecular dynamics simulations of hydrogen- rich systems. J Comput Chem 1999;20:768-98.
36. Hess B, Kutzner C, vanderSpoel D, et al. GROMACS 4: algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput 2008;4:435-47.
37. Minary P, Levitt M. Probing protein fold space with a simplified model. J Mol Biol 2008;375:920-33.
38. Sim AY, Levitt M, Minary P. Modeling and design by hierarchical natural moves. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:2890-5.
39. Cuendet MA, Zoete V, Michielin O. How T cell receptors interact with peptide-MHCs: a multiple steered molecular dynamics study. Proteins 2011;79:3007-24.
40. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 1996;14:33-8.
41. Knapp B, Lederer N, Omasits U, et al. vmdICE: a plug-in for rapid evaluation of molecular dynamics simulations using VMD. J Comput Chem 2010;31:2868-73.
42. Dien H, Deane CM, Knapp B. Gro2mat: a package to efficiently read gromacs output in MATLAB. J Computat Chem 2014;35: 1528-31.
43. Dunbar J, Fuchs A, Shi J, et al. ABangle: characterising the VHVL orientation in antibodies. Protein Eng Des Sel 2013;26: 611-620.
44. Knapp B, Dunbar J, Deane CM. Large scale characterization of the LC13 TCR and HLA-B8 Structural landscape in reaction to 172 altered peptide ligands: a molecular dynamics simulation study. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10:e1003748.
45. Dunbar J, Knapp B, Fuchs A, et al. Examining variable domain orientations in antigen receptors gives insight into TCR-like antibody design. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10:e1003852.
46. Hischenhuber B, Frommlet F, Schreiner W, et al. MH2c: Characterization of major histocompatibility-helices-an information criterion approach. Comput Phys Commun 2012; 183:1481-90.
47. Hischenhuber B, Havlicek H, Todoric J, et al. Differential geometric analysis of alterations in MH alpha-helices. J Comput Chem 2013;34:1862-79.
48. Michielin O, Karplus M. Binding free energy differences in a TCR-peptide-MHC complex induced by a peptide mutation: a simulation analysis. J Mol Biol 2002;324:547-69.
49. Alvarez-Navarro C, Cragnolini JJ, Dos Santos HG, et al. Novel HLA-B27-restricted epitopes from Chlamydia trachomatis generated upon endogenous processing of bacterial proteins suggest a role of molecular mimicry in reactive arthritis. J Biol Chem 2013;288:25810-25.
50. Knapp B, Omasits U, Bohle B, et al. 3-Layer-based analysis of peptide-MHC-interaction: in silico prediction, peptide binding affinity and T cell activation in a relevant allergen-specific model. Mol Immunol 2009;46:1839-44.
51. Knapp B, Omasits U, Schreiner W, et al. A comparative approach linking molecular dynamics of altered peptide ligands and MHC with in vivo immune responses. PLoS ONE 2010;5: e11653.
52. Laimou D, Lazoura E, Troganis AN, et al. Conformational studies of immunodominant myelin basic protein 1-11 analogues using NMR and molecular modeling. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2011;25:1019-32.
53. Knapp B, Dorffner G, Schreiner W. Early relaxation dynamics in the LC 13 T cell receptor in reaction to 172 altered peptide ligands: a molecular dynamics simulation study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e64464.
54. Narzi D, Becker CM, Fiorillo MT, et al. Dynamical characterization of two differentially disease associated MHC class I proteins in complex with viral and self-peptides. J Mol Biol 2012; 415:429-42.
55. Reboul CF, Meyer GR, Porebski BT, et al. Epitope flexibility and dynamic footprint revealed by molecular dynamics of a pMHC-TCR complex. PLoS Comput Biol 2012;8: e1002404.
56. Knapp B, Fischer G, Van HD, et al. Association of HLADR1 with the allergic response to the major mugwort pollen allergen: molecular background. BMC Immunol 2012; 13:43.
57. Kumar A, Cocco E, Atzori L, et al. Structural and dynamical insights on HLA-DR2 complexes that confer susceptibility to multiple sclerosis in Sardinia: a molecular dynamics simulation study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e59711.
58. Wolfson MY, Nam K, Chakraborty AK. The effect of mutations on the alloreactive T cell receptor/peptide-MHC interface structure: a molecular dynamics study. J Phys Chem B 2011; 115:8317-27.
59. Beddoe T, Chen Z, Clements CS et al. Antigen ligation triggers a conformational change within the constant domain of the alphabeta T cell receptor. Immunity 2009;30:777-88.
60. Stavrakoudis A. Cis-trans isomerization of the Epstein-Barr virus determinant peptide EENLLDFVRF after the DM1 TCR recognition of the HLA-B*4405/peptide complex. FEBS Lett 2011;585:485-91.
61. Painter CA, Cruz A, Lopez GE, et al. Model for the peptide-free conformation of class IIMHC proteins. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e2403.
62. Rupp B, Gunther S, Makhmoor T, et al. Characterization of structural features controlling the receptiveness of empty class II MHC molecules. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e18662.
63. Yaneva R, Springer S, Zacharias M. Flexibility of the MHC class II peptide binding cleft in the bound, partially filled, and empty states: a molecular dynamics simulation study. Biopolymers 2009;91:14-27.
64. Wan S, Flower DR, Coveney PV. Toward an atomistic understanding of the immune synapse: Large-scale molecular dynamics simulation of a membrane-embedded TCRpMHC- CD4 complex. Mol Immunol 2008;45:1221-30.
65. Bello M, Correa-Basurto J. Molecular dynamics simulations to provide insights into epitopes coupled to the soluble and membrane-boundMHC-II complexes. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e72575.
66. Cuendet MA, Michielin O. Protein-protein interaction investigated by steered molecular dynamics: the TCR-pMHC complex. Biophys J 2008;95:3575-90.
67. Koehl P, Levitt M. A brighter future for protein structure prediction. Nat Struct Biol 1999;6:108-11.
68. Cardenas C, Bidon-Chanal A, Conejeros P, et al. Molecular modeling of class I and II alleles of the major histocompatibility complex in Salmo salar. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2010;24: 1035-51.
69. De Rosa MC, Giardina B, Bianchi C, et al. Modeling the ternary complex TCR-Vbeta/CollagenII(261-273)/HLA-DR4 associated with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e11550.
70. Wright DW, Hall BA, Kenway OA, et al. Computing clinically relevant binding free energies of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J Chem Theory Comput 2014;10:1228-41.
71. Knapp B, Frantal S, Cibena M, et al. Is an intuitive convergence definition of molecular dynamics simulations solely based on the root mean square deviation possible? J Comput Biol 2011; 18:997-1005.
72. Dustin ML, Groves JT. Receptor signaling clusters in the immune synapse. Annu Rev Biophys 2012;41:543-56.