Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Immunology
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
The Journal of Immunology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on Twitter
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on RSS

The DNA Deamination Model of Somatic Antibody Diversification

Klaus Rajewsky
J Immunol March 1, 2015, 194 (5) 2041-2042; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1403252
Klaus Rajewsky
Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, 13125 Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Classical work had established that Ab diversity in mice and humans arises at two distinct developmental stages. First, a primary Ab repertoire is set up in developing B cells through an ordered program of Ab V region gene rearrangements by V(D)J recombination, including sequential rearrangements during so-called receptor editing. This repertoire is subsequently modified in Ag-driven Ab responses through somatic hypermutation (SHM) and class switch recombination (CSR), resulting in a secondary Ab repertoire adapted to environmental needs and persisting as immunological memory. A third mechanism of somatic Ab diversification, operating in other species at certain developmental stages, is gene conversion, in which repertoire diversification is achieved through the conversion of recipient Ab V region genes by upstream pseudogenes.

Despite extensive work during several decades, the molecular mechanisms of SHM, CSR, and gene conversion had long remained a mystery, although all three processes had been studied in much detail at the level of DNA sequence and the stages of B cell differentiation at which they operated. In the case of CSR, environmental signals inducing switches to particular Ab isotypes had been identified (reviewed in Ref. 1). From the early 1990s, with the availability of gene targeting approaches in mice, the search was on for the direct identification of molecules involved in the control of SHM and CSR. Furthermore, in the chicken, where gene conversion diversifies Ab V region genes, a B cell line called DT40 became available at around the same time in which genes could be efficiently targeted owing to a high frequency of homologous recombination between genomic genes and artificially introduced DNA (2). In the case of SHM, much of the thinking in the field was guided by the early Brenner and Milstein (3) model of Ab diversification through error-prone DNA break repair. Because DNA repair and error-prone DNA polymerases were the subjects of a rapidly expanding field of research, extensive work was done to study the impact of the ablation of genes involved in (error-prone) repair on the processes of secondary Ab diversification. This went hand in hand with the identification of cis-regulatory genetic elements in the Ab gene loci that control SHM and CSR.

Leaders in this area with regard to SHM were César Milstein and Michael Neuberger, who worked closely together at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, U.K. Over the years, they and their collaborators made major contributions to defining the intrinsic features of SHM and gained extensive knowledge of enhancer and promoter elements controlling SHM. With Cristina Rada, and in parallel with others, they had also studied the role of DNA mismatch repair enzymes in the control of SHM (reviewed in Ref. 4) and interpreted changes of the mutational signature observed in MutS homolog 2 knockout mice as an indication that SHM may proceed in two phases, the initial one preferentially targeting C:G base pairs, often in the context of C:G-centered mutational hot spots (5). They also suggested a mechanistic similarity between SHM and CSR owing to a similar effect that MutS homolog 2 deficiency has on the two processes in terms of efficiency and the targeting of DNA sequence–defined hot spots of somatic mutation or recombination breakpoints, respectively (6). This notion was surprising at the time, because SHM and CSR had mostly been considered entirely distinct processes.

Like a bombshell, in 2000 came the discovery by Tasuku Honjo, Alain Fischer, and Ann Durandy that activation-induced (cytidine) deaminase (AID), identified as a germinal center B cell–specific gene by Honjo and colleagues (7), is critical for both SHM and CSR in mice and humans (8, 9). That this is also true for Ab diversification through gene conversion was subsequently shown by Jean-Marie Buerstedde’s and Neuberger’s groups (10, 11). AID is thus central for the control of all secondary Ab diversification. Although the homology between AID and the RNA editing enzyme APOBEC1 raised the possibility of RNA editing being involved in the control of these processes (7−9), Neuberger’s mind was immediately drawn, on the basis of his and Milstein’s earlier results, to the possibility that AID might directly deaminate cytidine in DNA to uracil. This crystallized in a DNA deamination model for SHM, CSR, and gene conversion being famously put forward, and to an initial test in the Petersen-Mahrt et al. (12) Nature article reprinted here in the Pillars of Immunology series. (Note that Matthew Scharff and colleagues independently proposed a DNA deamination–based model of somatic Ab diversification; see Refs. 13, 14.) In the Petersen-Mahrt et al. article, the model was tested in Escherichia coli by induced expression of AID. This yielded a mutator phenotype: AID targeted C:G base pairs in a context-dependent manner, and its mutator activity was enhanced by uracil DNA glycosylase deficiency, exactly as predicted by the model. Two additional articles from Neuberger and colleagues (15, 16), published in short sequence thereafter in the same year, provided additional support for their model of C:G-targeted SHM, both in the DT40 chicken B cell line and in mice. Evidence from other laboratories suggested that in mice and humans, following detection of AID-generated lesions in DNA (17−20), nucleotide misincorporation by DNA polymerase η is the major contributor to SHM at A:T pairs in vivo (21, 22).

Since this time of dramatic progress, the DNA deamination model of secondary Ab diversification has guided much of the experimental work in the field and has received ample support from a wealth of biochemical and other data, which are beyond the scope of this brief introduction. More importantly, DNA deamination by AID and other members of the APOBEC family has emerged as a mechanism operating beyond the Ab system, mediating intracellular defense against retroviruses such as HIV (23−25), as well as mutagenic processes associated with tumorigenesis (26, 27). The Petersen-Mahrt et al. article has thus played a founding role in a broad new area of biomedical research.

Disclosures

The author has no financial conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

I thank Andrew Franklin for help and discussion in the preparation of this article.

Footnotes

  • Abbreviations used in this article:

    AID
    activation-induced (cytidine) deaminase
    CSR
    class switch recombination
    SHM
    somatic hypermutation.

  • Copyright © 2015 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Stavnezer J.
    1996. Immunoglobulin class switching. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 8: 199–205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Buerstedde J. M.,
    2. S. Takeda
    . 1991. Increased ratio of targeted to random integration after transfection of chicken B cell lines. Cell 67: 179–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Brenner S.,
    2. C. Milstein
    . 1966. Origin of antibody variation. Nature 211: 242–243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Reynaud C. A.,
    2. B. Bertocci,
    3. S. Frey,
    4. F. Delbos,
    5. L. Quint,
    6. J. C. Weill
    . 1999. Mismatch repair and immunoglobulin gene hypermutation: did we learn something? Immunol. Today 20: 522–527.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Rada C.,
    2. M. R. Ehrenstein,
    3. M. S. Neuberger,
    4. C. Milstein
    . 1998. Hot spot focusing of somatic hypermutation in MSH2-deficient mice suggests two stages of mutational targeting. Immunity 9: 135–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Ehrenstein M. R.,
    2. M. S. Neuberger
    . 1999. Deficiency in Msh2 affects the efficiency and local sequence specificity of immunoglobulin class-switch recombination: parallels with somatic hypermutation. EMBO J. 18: 3484–3490.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Muramatsu M.,
    2. V. S. Sankaranand,
    3. S. Anant,
    4. M. Sugai,
    5. K. Kinoshita,
    6. N. O. Davidson,
    7. T. Honjo
    . 1999. Specific expression of activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), a novel member of the RNA-editing deaminase family in germinal center B cells. J. Biol. Chem. 274: 18470–18476.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Muramatsu M.,
    2. K. Kinoshita,
    3. S. Fagarasan,
    4. S. Yamada,
    5. Y. Shinkai,
    6. T. Honjo
    . 2000. Class switch recombination and hypermutation require activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), a potential RNA editing enzyme. Cell 102: 553–563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Revy P.,
    2. T. Muto,
    3. Y. Levy,
    4. F. Geissmann,
    5. A. Plebani,
    6. O. Sanal,
    7. N. Catalan,
    8. M. Forveille,
    9. R. Dufourcq-Labelouse,
    10. A. Gennery,
    11. et al
    . 2000. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) deficiency causes the autosomal recessive form of the hyper-IgM syndrome (HIGM2). Cell 102: 565–575.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Arakawa H.,
    2. J. Hauschild,
    3. J. M. Buerstedde
    . 2002. Requirement of the activation-induced deaminase (AID) gene for immunoglobulin gene conversion. Science 295: 1301–1306.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Harris R. S.,
    2. J. E. Sale,
    3. S. K. Petersen-Mahrt,
    4. M. S. Neuberger
    . 2002. AID is essential for immunoglobulin V gene conversion in a cultured B cell line. Curr. Biol. 12: 435–438.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Petersen-Mahrt S. K.,
    2. R. S. Harris,
    3. M. S. Neuberger
    . 2002. AID mutates E. coli suggesting a DNA deamination mechanism for antibody diversification. Nature 418: 99–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Martin A.,
    2. M. D. Scharff
    . 2002. AID and mismatch repair in antibody diversification. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2: 605–614.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Poltoratsky V.,
    2. M. F. Goodman,
    3. M. D. Scharff
    . 2000. Error-prone candidates vie for somatic mutation. J. Exp. Med. 192: F27–F30.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Di Noia J.,
    2. M. S. Neuberger
    . 2002. Altering the pathway of immunoglobulin hypermutation by inhibiting uracil-DNA glycosylase. Nature 419: 43–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Rada C.,
    2. G. T. Williams,
    3. H. Nilsen,
    4. D. E. Barnes,
    5. T. Lindahl,
    6. M. S. Neuberger
    . 2002. Immunoglobulin isotype switching is inhibited and somatic hypermutation perturbed in UNG-deficient mice. Curr. Biol. 12: 1748–1755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Martomo S. A.,
    2. W. W. Yang,
    3. P. J. Gearhart
    . 2004. A role for Msh6 but not Msh3 in somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination. J. Exp. Med. 200: 61–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Rada C.,
    2. J. M. Di Noia,
    3. M. S. Neuberger
    . 2004. Mismatch recognition and uracil excision provide complementary paths to both Ig switching and the A/T-focused phase of somatic mutation. Mol. Cell 16: 163–171.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Shen H. M.,
    2. A. Tanaka,
    3. G. Bozek,
    4. D. Nicolae,
    5. U. Storb
    . 2006. Somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination in Msh6−/−Ung−/− double-knockout mice. J. Immunol. 177: 5386–5392.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Delbos F.,
    2. S. Aoufouchi,
    3. A. Faili,
    4. J. C. Weill,
    5. C. A. Reynaud
    . 2007. DNA polymerase η is the sole contributor of A/T modifications during immunoglobulin gene hypermutation in the mouse. J. Exp. Med. 204: 17–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Delbos F.,
    2. A. De Smet,
    3. A. Faili,
    4. S. Aoufouchi,
    5. J. C. Weill,
    6. C. A. Reynaud
    . 2005. Contribution of DNA polymerase eta to immunoglobulin gene hypermutation in the mouse. J. Exp. Med. 201: 1191–1196.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Zeng X.,
    2. D. B. Winter,
    3. C. Kasmer,
    4. K. H. Kraemer,
    5. A. R. Lehmann,
    6. P. J. Gearhart
    . 2001. DNA polymerase eta is an A-T mutator in somatic hypermutation of immunoglobulin variable genes. Nat. Immunol. 2: 537–541.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Bishop K. N.,
    2. R. K. Holmes,
    3. A. M. Sheehy,
    4. N. O. Davidson,
    5. S. J. Cho,
    6. M. H. Malim
    . 2004. Cytidine deamination of retroviral DNA by diverse APOBEC proteins. Curr. Biol. 14: 1392–1396.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Harris R. S.,
    2. K. N. Bishop,
    3. A. M. Sheehy,
    4. H. M. Craig,
    5. S. K. Petersen-Mahrt,
    6. I. N. Watt,
    7. M. S. Neuberger,
    8. M. H. Malim
    . 2003. DNA deamination mediates innate immunity to retroviral infection. Cell 113: 803–809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Mangeat B.,
    2. P. Turelli,
    3. G. Caron,
    4. M. Friedli,
    5. L. Perrin,
    6. D. Trono
    . 2003. Broad antiretroviral defence by human APOBEC3G through lethal editing of nascent reverse transcripts. Nature 424: 99–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Taylor B. J.,
    2. S. Nik-Zainal,
    3. Y. L. Wu,
    4. L. A. Stebbings,
    5. K. Raine,
    6. P. J. Campbell,
    7. C. Rada,
    8. M. R. Stratton,
    9. M. S. Neuberger
    . 2013. DNA deaminases induce break-associated mutation showers with implication of APOBEC3B and 3A in breast cancer kataegis. eLife 2: e00534.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Vartanian J. P.,
    2. D. Guétard,
    3. M. Henry,
    4. S. Wain-Hobson
    . 2008. Evidence for editing of human papillomavirus DNA by APOBEC3 in benign and precancerous lesions. Science 320: 230–233.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 194 (5)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 194, Issue 5
1 Mar 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Immunology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The DNA Deamination Model of Somatic Antibody Diversification
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Immunology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Immunology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The DNA Deamination Model of Somatic Antibody Diversification
Klaus Rajewsky
The Journal of Immunology March 1, 2015, 194 (5) 2041-2042; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1403252

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The DNA Deamination Model of Somatic Antibody Diversification
Klaus Rajewsky
The Journal of Immunology March 1, 2015, 194 (5) 2041-2042; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1403252
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Conceiving the Inconceivable: The Function of Aire in Immune Tolerance to Peripheral Tissue-Restricted Antigens in the Thymus
  • Glial Cells as Regulators of Neuroimmune Interactions in the Central Nervous System
  • The Colon as a Major Site of Immunoregulation by CD4+ T Cell Subsets in the Steady State
Show more PILLARS OF IMMUNOLOGY

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Next in The JI
  • Archive
  • Brief Reviews
  • Pillars of Immunology
  • Translating Immunology

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Journal Policies
  • Editors

General Information

  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Rights and Permissions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Public Access
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • ImmunoCasts
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2021 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606