Related Content
Search Google Scholar for:
More Information
Related Jobs from ScienceCareers
|
|
Science 2 October 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5489, p. 11 DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5489.11a
|
|
Technical Comments
Assessing the Mechanisms That Give Rise to Autoimmunity
I read with great interest the report by
Kouskoff et al. (1), in which the authors used an
immunoglobulin M (IgM) nonswitchable B cell transgenic (Tg)
mouse to show that the B cells could be made to react against a phage
exhibiting a cross-reactive antigenic determinant of 20 amino acids in
a polymeric form. This antigen was bound by the Tg antibody receptor
and induced antibodies as determined in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA), which probably assessed low-avidity antibodies (though
this was not measured or stated). The favored interpretation of
Kouskoff et al. was that infectious agents can break B cell
tolerance by expressing repetitive epitopes that mimic self.
Surprisingly, Kouskoff et al. did not discuss earlier
experiments and interpretations in which we showed that an antigen Tg mouse expressing the glycoprotein of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-G), and with no manipulation of the immune system, was
unresponsive against VSV-G if the Tg mice were immunized with the
antigen in purified form, even in complete Freund's adjuvant
(2, 3). If the same mice were exposed either to
replicating VSV or formaldehyde-fixed VSV, however, a prompt,
T-independent type 1 (TI-1) IgM B cell response was induced. We
concluded that the Tg mice could not develop an IgM or IgG response
against the Tg self-glycoprotein in an oligomeric or monomeric form,
and that T help was limiting because these Tg mice were tolerant at the level of T help (4). In contrast, the polymeric form of VSV-G on the viral envelope induced B cells to produce IgM in a
completely TI-1-dependent fashion in the absence of polyclonal activation (5) by cross-linking Ig receptors (6, 7). The fact that neutralization of virus requires
an affinity of greater than 5 × 107 M 1
(8) suggests the considerable affinity of these neutralizing antibodies. This IgM response also switched to IgG because the virus
particle included nuclear protein and matrix protein that in turn
induced new T cell help that could be recognized in a linked fashion
(2, 3).
The conclusion of other researchers and of ourselves (5,
6), therefore, was that B cells in general are not
tolerant and can switch. B cells do not react and do not get induced in
absence of T cell help, however, if the Ig-surface receptors are not
optimally cross-linked by paracrystalline rigidly polymeric repetitive
identical determinants, such as are exposed on viral envelopes, on
bacterial outer membranes, or on classical parasites (9,
10). Fehr et al. (11) took this
evidence one step further by comparing auto-antibody responses against
syngeneic IgM or allotypically marked IgG antibodies in mice (the IgG
allotype carries a serologically defined difference that could be
analyzed by ELISA). Fehr et al. immunized mice with the
neutralizing anti-VSV-G antibody alone, with VSV alone, or with
preformed complexes between VSV and the neutralizing monoclonal IgM or
allotypically marked IgG antibody (11). In the first two
examples, no anti-antibodies were formed that could be measured,
whereas, in the third case, antibodies against IgM or anti-allotypic
antibodies were promptly formed within one or two immunizations with
the complexes. This further illustrated and supported the simple notion
that, if self-antigens are exhibited in a highly repetitive form--as is
the case for these antibodies made repetitive because of the repetitive
matrix of the VSV-G on the viral envelope--then B cells react and are
promptly induced even against self-IgM or self-IgG proteins in serum.
We concluded (8-11) that against a sufficient dose of
highly repetitive, identical polymeric determinants, B cells are not
tolerant and react in a TI-1 fashion without an obvious polyclonal
activator--particularly if the determinants are spaced by about 8 to 10 nm (equivalent to the distance between the two recognition sites on the
immunoglobulin). In contrast, against monomeric antigens, B cells
strictly and exclusively react in a T cell-dependent and linked
fashion; therefore, autoantibody responses against monomeric or
oligomeric self-antigens, as they become accessible to B cells in the
blood of the intact host, are not induced because the obligatorily
necessary T cell help is not available. Instead of the still unproven
mimicry hypothesis, the results outlined above suggest that, besides
antigen dose, antigen patterns plus absence or presence of T cell help
play the principal roles in regulating B cell responsiveness
(5, 6, 10).
R. M. Zinkernagel
University Hospital Zurich Institute of Experimental Immunology Schmelzbergstrasse 12 8091 Zurich, Switzerland E-mail:
rolf.zinkernagel{at}pty.usz.ch
REFERENCES
-
V. Kouskoff,
G. Lacaud,
D. Nemazee,
Science
287,
2501
(2000)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
R. M. Zinkernagel,
et al.,
Nature
344,
68
(1990)
[Medline]
.
-
M. F. Bachmann,
et al.,
Science
262,
1448
(1993)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
M. F. Bachmann,
et al.,
Eur. J. Immunol.
24,
2966
(1994)
[ISI] [Medline]
.
-
G. Möller,
et al.,
J. Exp. Med.
143,
1429
(1976)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
H. M. Dintzis and
R. Z. Dintzis,
Immunol. Rev.
115,
243
(1990)
[CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
.
-
M. Cohn and
R. E. Langman,
Immunol. Rev.
115,
11
(1990)
[Medline]
.
-
M. F. Bachmann,
et al.,
Science
276,
2024
(1997)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
M. F. Bachmann and
R. M. Zinkernagel,
Immunol. Today
12,
553
(1996)
.
-
M. F. Bachmann and
R. M. Zinkernagel,
Annu. Rev. Immunol.
15,
235
(1997)
[CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
.
-
T. Fehr,
et al.,
J. Exp. Med.
185,
1785
(1997)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
16 May 2000; accepted 31 August 2000
Response: We regret any omissions in our report
(1), particularly our failure to cite the paper by Bachmann
et al. (2), which should have been included among
the citations in reference 4 of (1). We must, however, respectfully disagree with Zinkernagel on certain other points. Zinkernagel argues that immune tolerance does not occur at the B cell
level but exclusively through other forms of regulation. Although this
view may be consistent with his data, it cannot be generalized without
denying a large body of direct evidence to the contrary
(3-16). Figure 1 of Kouskoff et al.
(1) showed two obvious consequences of self-tolerance:
clonal elimination leading to reduced precursor frequency of reactive
cells, and reduced antibody response upon challenge with a
cross-reactive microbe. These results remind us that tolerance, like
immunity, is a quantitative phenomenon.
The role of antigen multivalency in our study is unknown. The
foreign antigen that we used has only five or fewer epitopes, which are
not believed to be paracrystalline or rigid, but displayed on a
flexible linker.
With respect to the use of antibody Tg mice, we acknowledge that, by
design, they distort B cell repertoire and heavy-chain class switching.
They have the compensatory advantage, however, of allowing tracking of
antigen-specific cells. This permitted us to verify that the responding
B cells were not ignorant of self because of antigen inaccessibility or
immaturity. Nor did they carry a different antigen receptor from those
of B cells developing in the absence of self-antigen; instead, upon
immunization, they were deviated from their ongoing tolerogenic
program. Because such determinations are difficult or impossible to
make in a polyclonal model--and, indeed, were not made in the studies
cited by Zinkernagel--our results provide novel mechanistic
insight that complements other types of studies.
David Nemazee
Scripps Research Institute 10550 North Torrey Pines Road La Jolla, CA 92037, USA E-mail: nemazee{at}scripps.edu
Valerie Kouskoff*
Georges Lacaud*
National Jewish Medical and Research
Center 1400 Jackson Street Denver, CO 80206, USA * Present address: Mount Sinai School of
Medicine Institute for Gene Therapy, 1425 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10029-6574, USA
REFERENCES
-
V. Kouskoff,
G. Lacaud,
D. Nemazee,
Science
287,
2501
(2000)
.
-
M. F. Bachmann,
et al.,
Science
262,
1448
(1993)
.
-
J. M. Chiller,
G. S. Habicht,
W. O. Weigle,
Science
171,
813
(1971)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
A. R. Lawton and
M. D. Cooper,
Contemp. Top. Immunobiol.
3,
193
(1974)
[Medline]
.
-
G. J. Nossal and
B. L. Pike,
J. Exp. Med.
141,
904
(1975)
[Abstract]
.
-
E. S. Metcalf and
N. R. Klinman,
J. Exp. Med.
143,
1327
(1976)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
E. S. Metcalf,
N. H. Sigal,
N. R. Klinman,
J. Exp. Med.
145,
1382
(1977)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
J. C. Cambier,
J. W. Uhr,
J. R. Kettman,
E. S. Vitetta,
J. Immunol.
119,
2054
(1977)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
D. W. Scott,
M. Venkataraman,
J. J. Jandinski,
Immunol. Rev.
43,
241
(1979)
[CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
.
-
H. M. Etlinger and
J. M. Chiller,
J. Immunol.
122,
2558
(1979)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
C. C. Goodnow et al., Nature
334, 676 (1988).
-
D. A. Nemazee and
K. Burki,
Nature
337,
562
(1989)
[CrossRef] [Medline]
.
-
J. Erikson et al., Nature
349, 331 (1991).
-
D. M. Russell,
et al.,
Nature
354,
308
(1991)
[CrossRef] [Medline]
.
-
A. Norvell,
L. Mandik,
J. G. Monroe,
J. Immunol.
154,
4404
(1995)
[Abstract]
.
-
P. C. Sandel and
J. G. Monroe,
Immunity
10,
289
(1999)
[CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
.
24 May 2000; accepted 31 August 2000
|
|