4.6 Article

Morbid Sequences Suggest Molecular Mimicry between Microbial Peptides and Self-Antigens: A Possibility of Inciting Autoimmunity

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01938

关键词

molecular mimicry; microbes; autoimmunity; autoantigens; immunoinformatics; HLA binders; sequence and structural mimicry; cytokines

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research [Genesis BSC0121]
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
  3. Department of Biotechnology, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding etiology of autoimmune diseases has been a great challenge for designing drugs and vaccines. The pathophysiology of many autoimmune diseases may be attributed to molecular mimicry provoked by microbes. Molecular mimicry hypothesizes that a sequence homology between foreign and self-peptides leads to cross-activation of autoreactive T cells. Different microbial proteins are implicated in various autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, human type 1 diabetes, primary biliary cirrhosis and rheumatoid arthritis. It may be imperative to identify the microbial epitopes that initiate the activation of autoreactive T cells. Consequently, in the present study, we employed immunoinformatics tools to delineate homologous antigenic regions between microbes and human proteins at not only the sequence level but at the structural level too. Interestingly, many cross-reactive MHC class II binding epitopes were detected from an array of microbes. Further, these peptides possess a potential to skew immune response toward Th1-like patterns. The present study divulges many microbial target proteins, their putative MHC-binding epitopes, and predicted structures to establish the fact that both sequence and structure are two important aspects for understanding the relationship between molecular mimicry and autoimmune diseases. Such findings may enable us in designing potential immunotherapies to tolerize autoreactive T cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据