Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, June 2008, p. 6067-6072, Vol. 82, No. 12
0022-538X/08/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.00252-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305,1 Center for Hepatitis Research, Institute for Human Infections and Immunity, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555,2 MRC Virology Unit, Institute of Virology, University of Glasgow, Church Street, Glasgow G11 5JR, United Kingdom,3 Université de Lyon 1, INSERM, U758, Human Virology Department, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, and Université Lyon 1, F-69007 Lyon, France4
Received 4 February 2008/ Accepted 26 March 2008
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
CBH-2 is an HMAb derived from B cells of a donor who was chronically infected with genotype 1b HCV (5). The antibody is directed against a conformational epitope, as suggested by its ability to immunoprecipitate E2, but it is unable to detect denatured E2 by Western blot analysis. Initially, we found that CBH-2 neutralizes the infectivity of retrovirus-based pseudotyped particles (HCVpp) bearing the genotype 1a HCV E1E2 glycoproteins from an H strain variant (Hvar) that is closely related to the prototypical genotype 1a H77c strain (accession number AAB67037) (2, 6). In a subsequent study, we found that this antibody also neutralized HCVpp bearing envelope proteins from multiple other genotypes (1b, 2a, 2b, 4, 5, and 6) but failed to neutralize HCVpp bearing E1E2 from a genotype 3a virus or, surprisingly, E1E2 from the 1a H77c strain itself (13).
To follow up on these observations, we carried out comparative neutralization studies of HCVpp bearing the Hvar and H77c E1E2 proteins, and a cell culture infectious chimeric HCV containing the H77c structural proteins (with a Y361H substitution in E1) placed in the background of the replication-competent JFH1 strain: H-NS2/NS3-J/Y361H/Q1251L (HJ3-5) virus (18) (referred to here simply as HCVcc). We studied neutralization mediated by CBH-2, as well as by two other neutralizing anti-HCV HMAbs, CBH-5 and CBH-7, which are representatives of antibodies recognizing two distinct immunogenic domains in E2: domain B and domain C (10). R04, an isotype-matched HMAb directed against an unrelated antigen, was used as a negative control. Neutralization of HCVpp and the chimeric HCVcc was done as described previously (8, 18). As shown in Fig. 1A, CBH-2, CBH-5, and CBH-7 (at 20 µg/ml) each neutralized the Hvar HCVpp (40, 60, and 70% neutralization, respectively). However, CBH-2 failed to neutralize H77c HCVpp, whereas CBH-5 and CBH-7 were capable of doing so (0, 40, and 90%, respectively). Similar results were obtained with the infectious chimeric HCVcc, in which E1E2 are derived from H77c (18). It was resistant to neutralization by CBH-2 but effectively neutralized by CBH-5 and CBH-7 (60 and 85% reduction, respectively, in infected cell foci) (Fig. 1B). Importantly, the finding that the H77c envelope was resistant to CBH-2 neutralization but not neutralization by CBH-5 and CBH-7 suggests that the relevant differences in the E2 proteins of Hvar and H77c are not global but rather localized specifically to the CBH-2 epitope.
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Neutralization of HCVpp and HCVcc by CBH-2. (A) HCVpp containing either H77c or Hvar envelope proteins were preincubated with 20 µg of HMAb CBH-2, CBH-5, or CBH-7/ml before infection of Huh7 cells. The negative control R04 is an isotype-matched HMAb to cytomegalovirus. The results are expressed as the percentage of neutralization as measured by luciferase activity. (B) Neutralization of 1a HCVcc by HMAbs CBH-2, CBH-5, and CBH-7. Infectious genotype 1a HJ3-5 chimeric virus inoculum was incubated with each antibody at different concentrations, as indicated for 1 h at 37°C prior to inoculation onto Huh-7.5 cells preseeded into eight-well tissue culture chamber slides. Cells were fixed and stained by an indirect immunofluorescence procedure using MAb to core antigen at day 4 postinoculation, followed by enumeration of the foci of infected cells. Neutralization is reported as the percent reduction in focus-forming units of virus.
|
![]() View larger version (40K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. CBH-2 epitope mapping. (A) Alanine scanning of the CBH-2 epitope from residues 523 to 540, a CD81 binding region that includes the glycosylation site N532. 293T cells transfected with Hvar wt and E2 mutants were lysed and analyzed by ELISA as described previously (9) The individual protein expression level was normalized by CBH-17 binding, an HCV E2 HMAb to a linear epitope (5). On the x axis, the mutated amino acids are depicted. The numbers correspond to their relative positions in the polyprotein of reference strain H (GenBank accession no. AF009606). The y axis shows the mean optical density values for triplicate values, and the error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean. The binding was normalized to the nonsubstituted sequence (Hvar) that is set at 100%. CBH-4G binding was used as an indicator for specific CBH-2 binding sites. (B) Substitution mutagenesis of the CBH-2 epitope from residues 430 to 444, a second CD81 binding region, and surrounding glycosylation sites N417 (residues 415 to 428) and N645 (residues 640 to 647). (C) Conformational epitope mapping strategy is shown as a linear schematic of HCV 1a E2 with labeled regions that are associated with CD81 binding, glycosylation sites that affect domain B HMAb neutralization, and hypervariable regions. The underlined residues are in the CBH-2 epitope. L640, A642, and A643 in italics are necessary for overall E2 structure. Residue differences between H77c and Hvar are shown as "(H77c/Hvar)".
|
As shown in Fig. 2B, the binding of CBH-2 was eliminated by the D431A and F437A mutations and reduced approximately 70% by T425A and A426G. CBH-4G binding to these mutants was minimally affected, with the exception of F437A that was reduced by 60%. Substitutions at S432, L433, and N434 reduced CBH-2 binding by 50 to 60% but similarly reduced the binding of CBH-4G, suggesting that they induced global changes in the conformation of E2. Substitutions at N417 or N645 did not directly affect CBH-2 or CBH-4G binding. However, changes in the residues in close proximity to N645 (L640A, A642G, and A643G mutations) resulted in near elimination of binding by both CBH-2 and CBH-4G, suggesting that this region is essential to the native E2 structure, possibly modulated by the glycan at N645 (6). These data indicate that the critical contact residues for CBH-2 include D431, G523, G530, and D535. F437 may also be involved in the epitope, but E2 proteins containing W437, such as Hvar, are also bound by CBH-2 (see below). The data also indicate that the CBH-2 epitope also involves L640, A642, and A643, all of which are in close proximity to glycan N645. Overall, when taken collectively, they suggest that there is spatial proximity of the two CD81-binding regions, and two of the three glycosylation sites, on the surface of the folded E2 glycoprotein. In addition, the findings of contact residues at distant sites confirm that CBH-2 recognizes a conformational epitope.
Since the substitution of D431 with Ala completely eliminated CBH-2 binding, it seemed likely that the presence of E431 in H77c (rather than D431, as in Hvar) might account for the escape of H77c from neutralization by CBH-2. To assess whether the different side chains residing at position 431 in the two H strains are in fact responsible for the differences in neutralization by CBH-2, we replaced the E431 residue in the H77c HCVpp with Asp (as found in Hvar) or Ala. As shown in Fig. 3A, wt H77c and E431A mutant HCVpp were not neutralized by CBH-2 at concentrations up to 100 µg/ml. However, the E431D H77c HCVpp mutant showed dose-dependent CBH-2 neutralization with a 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of 0.48 µg/ml (Fig. 3E), thereby proving that residue 431 is critical for CBH-2 neutralization activity. Interestingly, CBH-2 showed higher neutralizing activity against E431D HCVpp than wt Hvar, as CBH-2 was unable to reach 50% of the Hvar HCVpp at 20 µg/ml (compare Fig. 3A and 1A). It is thus possible that other residues that differ between the two E2 sequences may contribute to differences in the susceptibility of Hvar and H77c HCVpp to neutralization by CBH-2. The E431A and E431D mutant HCVpp remained sensitive to CBH-5 and CBH-7 (Fig. 3B and C), as expected. However, the IC50 for CBH-5 against the E431A mutant was 36 µg/ml compared to 3.84 µg/ml for the E431D mutant, suggesting that the nature of the side chain on residue 431 influences the CBH-5 epitope in a discrete conformational manner leading to altered neutralizing potencies with this antibody. This could explain why CBH-5 neutralized wt H77c at 40% but Hvar at 60%, as shown in Fig. 1A. To confirm these observations with infectious virus, we also constructed an infectious E431D HCVcc variant. The methods of mutagenesis, HCVcc virus stock production, infection, and neutralization have been described previously (18). As shown in Fig. 3D, whereas the parental HCVcc with the wt H77c E2 protein was resistant to neutralization, the mutated chimeric HCVcc became sensitive to CBH-2 neutralization. The mutant also showed enhanced susceptibility to neutralization with CBH-5 compared to the wt chimeric HCVcc, confirming the observations made with HCVpp.
![]() View larger version (24K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Neutralization of H77c and mutants E431A and E431D. HCVpp containing either H77c (WT), mutant E431A, or mutant E431D envelope proteins were preincubated for 1 h with each HMAb—CBH-2 (A), CBH-5 (B), and CBH-7 (C)—at the indicated concentrations for 1 h at 37°C before infection of Huh7 cells. Neutralization of test antibody is expressed as a percentage of luciferase activity reduction compared to RO4. (D) Inoculum of infectious genotype 1a HJ3-5 chimeric virus (WT) or E431D mutant was incubated with each HMAb at different concentrations for 1 h at 37°C prior to inoculation onto Huh7.5 cells preseeded into eight-well tissue culture chamber slides. Cells were fixed and stained with MAb to core antigen at day 4 postinoculation, and the focus-forming units (FFU) were enumerated. (E) HMAb neutralization potency. The table summarizes the IC50 of each HMAb against wt and mutant HCVpp.
|
![]() View larger version (24K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Binding of HMAbs to E2 glycoproteins of H77c (WT) and mutants (E431A and E431D) by ELISA. Antibody affinity measurements were performed with E1E2 expressed in 293T cells containing 1 µg of E2/ml essentially as described previously (9). E1E2 was captured by precoated GNA on the plate and later bound by a range of 0.01 to 200 µg of each HMAb/ml (x axis): CBH-2 (A), CBH-5 (C), and CBH-7 (D). The y axis shows the mean optical density values for triplicate wells. Error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean. (B) Comparison of antibody binding affinity to wt and 431 substitution mutants. The data were analyzed by nonlinear regression to calculate the antibody disassociation constant (Kd) using Prism software (GraphPad).
|
In summary, our findings show how an amino acid substitution at one residue within a conformation-dependent epitope can result in escape from neutralization by a MAb, leaving the mutant virus sensitive to other related and unrelated neutralizing antibodies. CBH-2 is one of a series of antibodies that have been described as recognizing overlapping epitopes that comprise a discreet antigenic domain (domain B). The conserved nature of this domain makes it of interest in terms of vaccine development. However, the results reported here indicate that additional studies are required to assess the likelihood that other substitutions in E2 may similarly lead to escape from neutralization by other domain B HMAbs without loss of envelope function or viral fitness. While the identification of neutralizing epitopes that are broadly conserved among different HCV genotypes and subtypes is important, an effective vaccine will need to induce antibodies that ideally are directed at more invariant epitopes in order to minimize the possibility of virus escape. Further, our findings are relevant to antibody-based therapy and suggest that such therapies should consist of two or more antibodies recognizing different and nonoverlapping epitopes to lessen the chances of virus escape.
Published ahead of print on 2 April 2008. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»