4.6 Article

Characteristics of the somatic hypermutation in the Camelus dromedarius T cell receptor gamma (TRG) and delta (TRD) variable domains

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMPARATIVE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 300-313

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dci.2014.05.001

关键词

T cell receptor; TRG and TRD genes; Somatic hypermutation; Dromedary; IMGT

资金

  1. Progetto MICROMAP [PON01_02589]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In previous reports, we had shown in Camelus dromedarius that diversity in T cell receptor gamma (TRG) and delta (TRD) variable domains can be generated by somatic hypermutation (SHM). In the present paper, we further the previous finding by analyzing 85 unique spleen cDNA sequences encoding a total of 331 mutations from a single animal, and comparing the properties of the mutation profiles of dromedary TRG and TRD variable domains. The transition preference and the significant mutation frequency in the AID motifs (dgyw/wrch and wa/tw) demonstrate a strong dependence of the enzymes mediating SHM in TRG and TRD genes of dromedary similar to that of immunoglobulin genes in mammals. Overall, results reveal no asymmetry in the motifs targeting, i.e. mutations are equally distributed among g:c and a:t base pairs and replacement mutations are favored at the AID motifs, whereas neutral mutations appear to be more prone to accumulate in bases outside of the motifs. A detailed analysis of clonal lineages in TRG and TRD cDNA sequences also suggests that clonal expansion of mutated productive rearrangements may be crucial in shaping the somatic diversification in the dromedary. This is confirmed by the fact that our structural models, computed by adopting a comparative procedure, are consistent with the possibility that, irrespective of where (in the CDR-IMGT or in FR-IMGT) the diversity was generated by mutations, both clonal expansion and selection seem to be strictly related to an enhanced structural stability of the 78 subunits. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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