Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AI141452 to T. next moves in the trench warfare between humoral immunity and pathogen evasion and evolution.3 An important class of proteinCprotein interactions are antibody interactions with antigens. Here, the epitope is usually defined as the antigenic surface recognized by a given antibody. Identifying the structures, sequences, and sequence constraints on such antigen epitopes is essential for solving difficult problems in basic and applied immunology. For example, a key idea in modern vaccine design has been that Etizolam antigen structures can be modified rationally to present critical epitopes that elicit antibodies that neutralize contamination (neutralizing antibodies or nAbs) that, in turn, confer long-lasting protection. The first proof of concept Nid1 demonstration of such structure-based vaccine design in Phase I clinical trials was published4 for an immunogen mimicking a key conformational epitope of a viral protein in respiratory syncytial virus. Similarly, the search for a universal influenza A vaccine was jump-started by the structural and sequence identification of a conserved epitope around the influenza surface protein haemagglutinin.5C7 Antibodies targeting this haemagglutinin epitope are Etizolam able to neutralize broadly across different influenza A subtypes. This structural definition of an epitope led to immunogen designs that elicit high levels of broadly neutralizing antibody titers in a recently completed phase I clinical trial.8 Thus, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies are informed by, and often start with, a sequence and structural definition of an antigenic epitope. There exist several relatively mature technologies available to delineate the sequences, structures, or sequence constraints of epitopes. In fact, several comprehensive reviews of individual methods have been published in this century.9C16Table 1 lists common experimental methods for epitope mapping. There are two major classifications of epitopes primarily based around the experimental method used for their identification. Linear epitopes are those that involve sequential residues in the primary amino acid sequence and can be identified using techniques like peptide microarrays, phage, or bacterial display. By contrast, conformational epitopes involve surfaces recognized by antibodies only when a protein is usually folded in its tertiary or quaternary state. Such conformationally sensitive epitopes are typically resolved by structural determination using X-ray crystallography or electron microscopy (EM). Less commonly, hydrogenCdeuterium exchange coupled to mass spectrometry (HDX-MS)16 or deep mutational scanning17 can be employed. All methods have their relative strengths and drawbacks, but generally it has been difficult to compare directly between methods as not all are typically performed on the same set of proteins. Summary of common experimental methods for linear and conformational epitope mapping its receptor binding domain name (RBD)28 and contains an N-terminal domain name (NTD), while the S2 subunit made up of the C-terminal domain name (CTD) is critical for the fusion of the viral and host cell membranes. The S2 subunit Etizolam is usually more conserved than S1, perhaps because most of the surface exposed portion of the virus is usually on S1.29 Similar to Etizolam other coronaviruses, the prefusion metastable structure of S undergoes two major conformations: a conformation where the RBD is in the up state and a conformation with RBD down.20,30 The biological relevance for these conformations is that the ACE2 receptor binding motif (RBM) is exposed to solvent only when the RBD is in the up state. Thus, Etizolam at least one RBD must be in the up state for cell entry ACE2 recognition. Open in a separate window Fig. 1 Epitope.
Categories