Structural insights into engineering a T-cell receptor targeting MAGE-A10 with higher affinity and specificity for cancer immunotherapy.
adaptive immunity
cell engineering
drug evaluation, preclinical
immunotherapy
receptors, antigen
Journal
Journal for immunotherapy of cancer
ISSN: 2051-1426
Titre abrégé: J Immunother Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101620585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
accepted:
17
05
2022
entrez:
19
7
2022
pubmed:
20
7
2022
medline:
22
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
T-cell receptor (TCR) immunotherapy is becoming a viable modality in cancer treatment with efficacy in clinical trials. The safety of patients is paramount, so innovative cell engineering methods are being employed to exploit adaptive immunity while controlling the factors governing antigen receptor (ie, TCR) specificity and cross-reactivity. We recently reported a TCR engineering campaign and selectivity profiling assay (X-scan) targeting a melanoma antigen gene (MAGE)-A10 peptide. This helped to distinguish between two well-performing TCRs based on cross-reactivity potential during preclinical drug evaluation, allowing one to be advanced to T-cell immunotherapeutic clinical trials. Here, we present three-dimensional structural information on those TCRs, highlighting engineering improvements and molecular mechanisms likely underpinning differential selectivity. Parental and engineered TCRs were purified and crystallized either alone or complexed to human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-A*02:01 presenting the MAGE-A10 9-mer peptide, GLYDGMEHL (pHLA/MAGE-A10-9). Using X-ray diffraction, we solved four high-resolution crystal structures and evaluated them relative to previously reported functional results. The unligated parental TCR displayed similar complementarity-determining region (CDR) loop conformations when bound to pHLA/MAGE-A10-9; a rigid-body movement of TCR beta chain variable domain (TRBV) relative to TCR alpha chain variable domain helped optimal pHLA engagement. This first view of an HLA-bound MAGE-A10 peptide revealed an intrachain non-covalent 'staple' between peptide Tyr3 and Glu7. A subtle Glu31-Asp mutation in βCDR1 of the parental TCR generated a high-affinity derivative. Its pHLA-complexed structure shows that the shorter Asp leans toward the pHLA with resulting rigid-body TRBV shift, creating localized changes around the peptide's C-terminus. Structural comparison with a less selective TCR indicated that differential cross-reactivity to MAGE-A10 peptide variants is most readily explained by alterations in surface electrostatics, and the size and geometry of TCR-peptide interfacial cavities. Modest changes in engineered TCRs targeting MAGE-A10 produced significantly different properties. Conformational invariance of TCR and antigen peptide plus more space-filling CDR loop sequences may be desirable properties for clinically relevant TCR-pHLA systems to reduce the likelihood of structurally similar peptide mimics being tolerated by a TCR. Such properties may partially explain why the affinity-enhanced, in vitro-selected TCR has been generally well tolerated in patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
T-cell receptor (TCR) immunotherapy is becoming a viable modality in cancer treatment with efficacy in clinical trials. The safety of patients is paramount, so innovative cell engineering methods are being employed to exploit adaptive immunity while controlling the factors governing antigen receptor (ie, TCR) specificity and cross-reactivity. We recently reported a TCR engineering campaign and selectivity profiling assay (X-scan) targeting a melanoma antigen gene (MAGE)-A10 peptide. This helped to distinguish between two well-performing TCRs based on cross-reactivity potential during preclinical drug evaluation, allowing one to be advanced to T-cell immunotherapeutic clinical trials. Here, we present three-dimensional structural information on those TCRs, highlighting engineering improvements and molecular mechanisms likely underpinning differential selectivity.
METHODS
Parental and engineered TCRs were purified and crystallized either alone or complexed to human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-A*02:01 presenting the MAGE-A10 9-mer peptide, GLYDGMEHL (pHLA/MAGE-A10-9). Using X-ray diffraction, we solved four high-resolution crystal structures and evaluated them relative to previously reported functional results.
RESULTS
The unligated parental TCR displayed similar complementarity-determining region (CDR) loop conformations when bound to pHLA/MAGE-A10-9; a rigid-body movement of TCR beta chain variable domain (TRBV) relative to TCR alpha chain variable domain helped optimal pHLA engagement. This first view of an HLA-bound MAGE-A10 peptide revealed an intrachain non-covalent 'staple' between peptide Tyr3 and Glu7. A subtle Glu31-Asp mutation in βCDR1 of the parental TCR generated a high-affinity derivative. Its pHLA-complexed structure shows that the shorter Asp leans toward the pHLA with resulting rigid-body TRBV shift, creating localized changes around the peptide's C-terminus. Structural comparison with a less selective TCR indicated that differential cross-reactivity to MAGE-A10 peptide variants is most readily explained by alterations in surface electrostatics, and the size and geometry of TCR-peptide interfacial cavities.
CONCLUSIONS
Modest changes in engineered TCRs targeting MAGE-A10 produced significantly different properties. Conformational invariance of TCR and antigen peptide plus more space-filling CDR loop sequences may be desirable properties for clinically relevant TCR-pHLA systems to reduce the likelihood of structurally similar peptide mimics being tolerated by a TCR. Such properties may partially explain why the affinity-enhanced, in vitro-selected TCR has been generally well tolerated in patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35851311
pii: jitc-2022-004600
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2022-004600
pmc: PMC9295655
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Benzeneacetamides
0
Peptides
0
Piperidones
0
Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell
0
Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell, alpha-beta
0
antineoplaston A10
16VY3TM7ZO
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors are or have been employees of Adaptimmune and may hold shares or share options in the company. Adaptimmune has a patent on the T-cell receptors mentioned in this study with ECB a named coinventor.
Références
J Biol Chem. 2020 Aug 14;295(33):11486-11494
pubmed: 32532817
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):235-42
pubmed: 10592235
Protein Eng Des Sel. 2016 Dec;29(12):595-606
pubmed: 27624308
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010 Apr;66(Pt 4):486-501
pubmed: 20383002
Nat Commun. 2013;4:1948
pubmed: 23736024
J Immunother Cancer. 2022 Jan;10(1):
pubmed: 35086946
Front Immunol. 2020 Oct 22;11:565096
pubmed: 33193332
Oncoimmunology. 2018 Nov 20;8(2):e1532759
pubmed: 30713784
J Immunol. 2011 Sep 1;187(5):2453-63
pubmed: 21795600
Front Immunol. 2018 Apr 11;9:674
pubmed: 29696015
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2011 Apr;67(Pt 4):235-42
pubmed: 21460441
J Biol Chem. 2017 Jan 20;292(3):802-813
pubmed: 27903649
Nat Rev Cancer. 2005 Aug;5(8):615-25
pubmed: 16034368
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2011 Apr;67(Pt 4):355-67
pubmed: 21460454
Trends Immunol. 2014 Nov 11;35(12):604-612
pubmed: 25466310
Nat Chem Biol. 2018 Oct;14(10):934-942
pubmed: 30224695
J Immunol. 2020 Apr 1;204(7):1943-1953
pubmed: 32102902
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 18;12:818679
pubmed: 35372008
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010 Jan;66(Pt 1):12-21
pubmed: 20057044
Sci Rep. 2016 Jan 13;6:18851
pubmed: 26758806
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Jan 1;18:1533033819831068
pubmed: 30798772
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2019 Nov;68(11):1881-1889
pubmed: 31595324
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7873):583-589
pubmed: 34265844
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2011 Apr;67(Pt 4):386-94
pubmed: 21460457
Oncoimmunology. 2019 Nov 24;9(1):1682381
pubmed: 32002290
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2011 Apr;67(Pt 4):271-81
pubmed: 21460445
Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2015 Dec;37:1-8
pubmed: 26342994
Front Oncol. 2015 Jan 12;4:378
pubmed: 25629004
J Mol Biol. 2001 Jul 27;310(5):1167-76
pubmed: 11502003
Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2013 Jul;69(Pt 7):1204-14
pubmed: 23793146
Mol Ther. 2018 May 2;26(5):1206-1214
pubmed: 29567312
Front Immunol. 2020 Jul 08;11:1440
pubmed: 32733478
J Immunother. 2013 Feb;36(2):133-51
pubmed: 23377668
Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1319:95-141
pubmed: 26060072
Front Immunol. 2017 Oct 04;8:1210
pubmed: 29046675
Drug Saf. 2019 Feb;42(2):315-334
pubmed: 30649750
J Immunol. 2014 Sep 1;193(5):2587-99
pubmed: 25070852
J Appl Crystallogr. 2007 Aug 1;40(Pt 4):658-674
pubmed: 19461840
Nat Rev Immunol. 2012 Sep;12(9):669-77
pubmed: 22918468
Front Immunol. 2020 Apr 27;11:607
pubmed: 32395117
Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2018 Feb 1;74(Pt 2):85-97
pubmed: 29533234
Cell. 2018 Jan 25;172(3):549-563.e16
pubmed: 29275860
Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2020 Jul 31;18:443-456
pubmed: 32913893
Mol Ther. 2019 Feb 6;27(2):300-313
pubmed: 30617019
Front Immunol. 2020 Sep 03;11:1689
pubmed: 33013822