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

How Superantigens Bind MHC

Luc Van Kaer
J Immunol October 1, 2018, 201 (7) 1817-1818; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1801104
Luc Van Kaer
Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Luc Van Kaer
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The initiation of an adaptive immune response requires the presentation of self-antigens or foreign Ags to Ag-specific T lymphocytes. Seminal studies by R.M. Zinkernagel and P.C. Doherty (1) in the 1970s revealed that T cells only respond to their cognate Ag when it is seen in the context of specific MHC products expressed in the host, a concept called self-MHC restriction. Work by E.R. Unanue (2) and others subsequently showed that protein Ags require processing by accessory cells such as macrophages before they are recognized by MHC-restricted T lymphocytes. These and other findings led to the hypothesis that MHC products can directly bind to protein Ag–derived peptides and present them at the surface of APCs to MHC-restricted T lymphocytes. Although consistent with proposed models of MHC protein structure available at the time, this concept remained unproven until crystal structures of MHC molecules revealed a peptide-binding groove occupied by cell-derived peptides (3, 4).

In addition to conventional Ags, which are recognized by rare T cells (1 in 100,000 or less), some immunomodulatory molecules, called superantigens (SAgs), can stimulate large numbers of T cells (up to 20%) (5, 6). Similar to conventional Ags, SAgs bind to MHC molecules, but how they do so had remained unclear until the work featured in this month’s Pillars of Immunology article by T.S. Jardetzky et al. (7). This paper documents a beautiful and insightful piece of work resulting from a long-standing collaboration between the laboratories of Don Wiley and Jack Strominger at Harvard University.

The effects of SAgs were originally identified by H. Festenstein (8) in the early 1970s, based on strong primary MLRs between MHC-identical mouse strains, a reactivity that violated the established rules of alloreactivity. The Ags responsible for these responses were called minor lymphocyte-stimulating determinants. About 15 years later, J. Kappler et al. (9) showed that Mls alleles could explain the mouse strain–specific deletion of T cells expressing certain TCR Vβ chains (10, 11). It turned out that minor lymphocyte-stimulating Ags were encoded by endogenous retroviruses of the mouse mammary tumor virus family (12). Around that time, C.A. Janeway et al. (13) showed that certain exotoxins produced by Staphylococci could expand large populations of T cells in a TCR Vβ-specific manner.

Since these early studies, SAg activity has been identified for a number of different bacteria and viruses (5, 6) and has been implicated in a wide range of human diseases. Staphylococcal and streptococcal SAgs are associated with food poisoning and toxic shock syndrome, and SAgs from a variety of organisms have been associated with Kawasaki disease and a number of autoimmune disorders. Endogenous exposure to retrovirally encoded SAgs causes intrathymic deletion of T cells expressing TCR Vβ chains bound by the relevant SAg, a finding that was instrumental in defining thymic T cell negative selection (9, 10). When mature T cells encounter SAg, they rapidly proliferate and secrete cytokines, after which they are either deleted or rendered functionally inactive (14). Because SAgs generate holes in the TCR repertoire, their response does not benefit the host but instead appears to benefit the pathogen. This has been confirmed for mouse mammary tumor virus, which relies on a virus-encoded SAg produced by infected B cells to stimulate SAg-reactive T cells. In turn, the stimulated T cells produce costimulatory molecules and cytokines that activate the infected B cells, thus amplifying the available pool of infected B cells, which facilitates viral transport to the mammary gland for transmission to the next generation via milk (12). How SAgs might benefit bacterial pathogens is less clear, although it has been assumed that the polyclonal SAg-specific T cell response overwhelms and masks protective Ag-specific responses to the pathogen (15).

Prior to publication of the paper by Jardezky et al. (7), it had been established that SAgs exhibit specificity or preference for certain MHC class II isotypes and allotypes but that SAg-induced T cell responses lack classical MHC restriction (16). In contrast to conventional Ags, which require proteolysis for MHC binding and are not affected by denaturation, binding of SAgs to MHC class II was shown to be sensitive to limited proteolysis and denaturation (17–19). The available evidence further suggested that SAgs do not occupy the peptide-binding groove of MHC class II (20). How then does SAg bind with MHC class II proteins? The main answer to this question provided by Jardezky et al. (7) was simple yet illuminating: SAg binds as an intact protein outside the peptide-binding site of the MHC class II molecule.

Jardetzky et al. (7) reported on the three-dimensional structure of the bacterial SAg, staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB), bound to the human MHC class II molecule HLA-DR1, as determined by x-ray crystallography. The structure revealed that SEB binds to the DR1 α-chain via an N-terminal, low-affinity binding domain. Peptide density corresponding to a mixture of self-peptides was observed in the DR1 peptide-binding site. SEB did not interact with the peptide and did not influence the conformation of bound peptide. Details of the SEB–DR1 interface provided a structural explanation for the capacity of SEB to bind distinct DR allotypes and for its hierarchy of binding with distinct human and mouse class II isotypes. The structure also provided insight into the binding of other bacterial SAgs, such as staphylococcal enterotoxin A (SEA) and staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1), to MHC class II. Prior studies had shown that SEA, but not SEB or TSST-1, binds to MHC class II via a zinc-binding site (21). Structural alignment with the SEB-binding interface suggested that TSST-1 binds MHC class II in a manner similar to SEB and that SEA has evolved two class II binding sites, one low-affinity interaction site with the class II α-chain similar to SEB and a second zinc-mediated, high-affinity interaction site with the class II β-chain. These predictions were subsequently confirmed by crystallographic studies (22–24).

The crystal structure also allowed predictions of the ternary SEB–DR1–TCR complex. Residues of SEB previously implicated in interactions with the TCR were shown to be clustered in a region located above and to one side of the MHC peptide-binding groove. Based on mutational analyses and three-dimensional models of the TCR available at the time, Jardetzky et al. (7) proposed an interface involving the hypervariable region 4 of the TCR Vβ chain. In this model, SEB was wedged in between DR1 and the TCR, and the CDRs of the TCR were situated over the MHC peptide-binding groove. This model suggested potential interactions between the TCR Vα chain and DR1, but these were nevertheless distinct from the interactions of the TCR with MHC class II molecules during antigenic peptide stimulation. Thus, this model provided structural insight into the capacity of SAgs to stimulate large numbers of T cells in a peptide Ag–independent manner. The key features of this model were confirmed in subsequent reports detailing the crystal structures of the SEB–TCR complex (25) and the ternary SEB–DR1–TCR complex (26). This general model of SAg recognition was also supported by crystallographic studies of other SAg–class II–TCR complexes (27, 28).

SAgs such as SEB induce potent cytokine responses in the host that can lead to shock and even death (6, 15). Because of their stability and potency, these toxins pose a major threat for biological warfare (29). The findings of Jardetzky et al. (7) provided a rational approach to target the interaction between SAgs and MHC class II for the development of vaccines, which has shown significant success (30, 31). A similar approach could be employed to generate antagonists interrupting SAg–class II interactions to treat SAg-mediated diseases, but this goal is yet to be achieved (31).

In summary, the structural studies of Jardetzky et al. (7) provided an elegant explanation for the capacity of SAgs to stimulate large numbers of T cells by binding outside of the peptide-binding cleft of MHC class II molecules. Since these seminal studies, SAgs have continued to intrigue, and they are employed to this day to explore principles of T cell activation, immune tolerance, and immune-mediated disease. The work of Jardetzky et al. (7) also provided a strong foundation for the rational design of interventions targeting SAg-mediated diseases.

Disclosures

The author has no financial conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

  • Abbreviations used in this article:

    SAg
    superantigen
    SEA
    staphylococcal enterotoxin A
    SEB
    staphylococcal enterotoxin B
    TSST-1
    staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome toxin-1.

  • Copyright © 2018 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Zinkernagel, R. M.,
    2. P. C. Doherty
    . 1974. Immunological surveillance against altered self components by sensitised T lymphocytes in lymphocytic choriomeningitis. Nature 251: 547–548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Unanue, E. R.
    1984. Antigen-presenting function of the macrophage. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2: 395–428.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bjorkman, P. J.,
    2. M. A. Saper,
    3. B. Samraoui,
    4. W. S. Bennett,
    5. J. L. Strominger,
    6. D. C. Wiley
    . 1987. Structure of the human class I histocompatibility antigen, HLA-A2. Nature 329: 506–512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Brown, J. H.,
    2. T. S. Jardetzky,
    3. J. C. Gorga,
    4. L. J. Stern,
    5. R. G. Urban,
    6. J. L. Strominger,
    7. D. C. Wiley
    . 1993. Three-dimensional structure of the human class II histocompatibility antigen HLA-DR1. Nature 364: 33–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Herman, A.,
    2. J. W. Kappler,
    3. P. Marrack,
    4. A. M. Pullen
    . 1991. Superantigens: mechanism of T-cell stimulation and role in immune responses. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 9: 745–772.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Llewelyn, M.,
    2. J. Cohen
    . 2002. Superantigens: microbial agents that corrupt immunity. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2: 156–162.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Jardetzky, T. S.,
    2. J. H. Brown,
    3. J. C. Gorga,
    4. L. J. Stern,
    5. R. G. Urban,
    6. Y.-i. Chi,
    7. C. Stauffacher,
    8. J. L. Strominger,
    9. D. C. Wiley
    . 1994. Three-dimensional structure of a human class II histocompatibility molecule complexed with superantigen. Nature 368: 711–718.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Festenstein, H.
    1973. Immunogenetic and biological aspects of in vitro lymphocyte allotransformation (MLR) in the mouse. Transplant. Rev. 15: 62–88.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kappler, J. W.,
    2. U. Staerz,
    3. J. White,
    4. P. C. Marrack
    . 1988. Self-tolerance eliminates T cells specific for Mls-modified products of the major histocompatibility complex. Nature 332: 35–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. MacDonald, H. R.,
    2. R. Schneider,
    3. R. K. Lees,
    4. R. C. Howe,
    5. H. Acha-Orbea,
    6. H. Festenstein,
    7. R. M. Zinkernagel,
    8. H. Hengartner
    . 1988. T-cell receptor V beta use predicts reactivity and tolerance to Mlsa-encoded antigens. Nature 332: 40–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kanagawa, O.,
    2. E. Palmer,
    3. J. Bill
    . 1989. The T cell receptor V beta 6 domain imparts reactivity to the Mls-1a antigen. Cell. Immunol. 119: 412–426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Acha-Orbea, H.,
    2. H. R. MacDonald
    . 1995. Superantigens of mouse mammary tumor virus. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 13: 459–486.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Janeway, C. A.,
    2. J. Chalupny,
    3. P. J. Conrad,
    4. S. Buxser
    . 1988. An external stimulus that mimics Mls locus responses. J. Immunogenet. 15: 161–168.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. MacDonald, H. R.,
    2. S. Baschieri,
    3. R. K. Lees
    . 1991. Clonal expansion precedes anergy and death of V beta 8+ peripheral T cells responding to staphylococcal enterotoxin B in vivo. Eur. J. Immunol. 21: 1963–1966.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Marrack, P.,
    2. J. Kappler
    . 1990. The staphylococcal enterotoxins and their relatives. Science 248: 705–711.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Scholl, P. R.,
    2. A. Diez,
    3. R. Karr,
    4. R. P. Sekaly,
    5. J. Trowsdale,
    6. R. S. Geha
    . 1990. Effect of isotypes and allelic polymorphism on the binding of staphylococcal exotoxins to MHC class II molecules. J. Immunol. 144: 226–230.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  17. ↵
    1. Fraser, J. D.
    1989. High-affinity binding of staphylococcal enterotoxins A and B to HLA-DR. Nature 339: 221–223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Scholl, P. R.,
    2. A. Diez,
    3. R. S. Geha
    . 1989. Staphylococcal enterotoxin B and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 bind to distinct sites on HLA-DR and HLA-DQ molecules. J. Immunol. 143: 2583–2588.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  18. ↵
    1. Fischer, H.,
    2. M. Dohlsten,
    3. M. Lindvall,
    4. H. O. Sjögren,
    5. R. Carlsson
    . 1989. Binding of staphylococcal enterotoxin A to HLA-DR on B cell lines. J. Immunol. 142: 3151–3157.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  19. ↵
    1. Dellabona, P.,
    2. J. Peccoud,
    3. J. Kappler,
    4. P. Marrack,
    5. C. Benoist,
    6. D. Mathis
    . 1990. Superantigens interact with MHC class II molecules outside of the antigen groove. Cell 62: 1115–1121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Fraser, J. D. and
    2. K. R. Hudson
    . 1993. Superantigens–remnants of a past process? Res. Immunol. 144: 188–193; discussion 214-122.
  21. ↵
    1. Kim, J.,
    2. R. G. Urban,
    3. J. L. Strominger,
    4. D. C. Wiley
    . 1994. Toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 complexed with a class II major histocompatibility molecule HLA-DR1. Science 266: 1870–1874.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Petersson, K.,
    2. M. Thunnissen,
    3. G. Forsberg,
    4. B. Walse
    . 2002. Crystal structure of a SEA variant in complex with MHC class II reveals the ability of SEA to crosslink MHC molecules. Structure 10: 1619–1626.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Sundberg, E. J.,
    2. L. Deng,
    3. R. A. Mariuzza
    . 2007. TCR recognition of peptide/MHC class II complexes and superantigens. Semin. Immunol. 19: 262–271.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Li, H.,
    2. A. Llera,
    3. D. Tsuchiya,
    4. L. Leder,
    5. X. Ysern,
    6. P. M. Schlievert,
    7. K. Karjalainen,
    8. R. A. Mariuzza
    . 1998. Three-dimensional structure of the complex between a T cell receptor beta chain and the superantigen staphylococcal enterotoxin B. Immunity 9: 807–816.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Rödström, K. E.,
    2. K. Elbing,
    3. K. Lindkvist-Petersson
    . 2014. Structure of the superantigen staphylococcal enterotoxin B in complex with TCR and peptide-MHC demonstrates absence of TCR-peptide contacts. J. Immunol. 193: 1998–2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Saline, M.,
    2. K. E. Rödström,
    3. G. Fischer,
    4. V. Y. Orekhov,
    5. B. G. Karlsson,
    6. K. Lindkvist-Petersson
    . 2010. The structure of superantigen complexed with TCR and MHC reveals novel insights into superantigenic T cell activation. Nat. Commun. 1: 119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Wang, L.,
    2. Y. Zhao,
    3. Z. Li,
    4. Y. Guo,
    5. L. L. Jones,
    6. D. M. Kranz,
    7. W. Mourad,
    8. H. Li
    . 2007. Crystal structure of a complete ternary complex of TCR, superantigen and peptide-MHC. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14: 169–171.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Madsen, J. M.
    2001. Toxins as weapons of mass destruction. A comparison and contrast with biological-warfare and chemical-warfare agents. Clin. Lab. Med. 21: 593–605.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Inskeep, T. K.,
    2. C. Stahl,
    3. J. Odle,
    4. J. Oakes,
    5. L. Hudson,
    6. K. L. Bost,
    7. K. J. Piller
    . 2010. Oral vaccine formulations stimulate mucosal and systemic antibody responses against staphylococcal enterotoxin B in a piglet model. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 17: 1163–1169.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Krakauer, T.
    2013. Update on staphylococcal superantigen-induced signaling pathways and therapeutic interventions. Toxins (Basel) 5: 1629–1654.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 201 (7)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 201, Issue 7
1 Oct 2018
  • 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.
How Superantigens Bind MHC
(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
How Superantigens Bind MHC
Luc Van Kaer
The Journal of Immunology October 1, 2018, 201 (7) 1817-1818; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1801104

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
How Superantigens Bind MHC
Luc Van Kaer
The Journal of Immunology October 1, 2018, 201 (7) 1817-1818; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1801104
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
    • 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