Distinct epitope structures of defensin-like proteins linked to proline-rich regions give rise to differences in their allergenic activity.

BACKGROUND: Art v 1, Amb a 4, and Par h 1 are allergenic defensin-polyproline-linked proteins present in mugwort, ragweed, and feverfew pollen, respectively. We aimed to investigate the physicochemical and immunological features underlying the different allergenic capacities of those allergens. METHODS: Recombinant defensin-polyproline-linked proteins were expressed in E. coli and physicochemically characterized in detail regarding identity, secondary structure, and aggregation status. Allergenic activity was assessed by mediator releases assay, serum IgE reactivity, and IgE inhibition ELISA using sera of patients from Austria, Canada, and Korea. Endolysosomal protein degradation and T-cell cross-reactivity were studied in vitro. RESULTS: Despite variations in the proline-rich region, similar secondary structure elements were observed in the defensin-like domains. Seventy-four percent and 52% of the Austrian and Canadian patients reacted to all three allergens, while Korean patients were almost exclusively sensitized to Art v 1. This was reflected by IgE inhibition assays demonstrating high cross-reactivity for Austrian, medium for Canadian, and low for Korean sera. In a subgroup of patients, IgE reactivity toward structurally altered Amb a 4 and Par h 1 was not changed suggesting involvement of linear epitopes. Immunologically relevant endolysosomal stability of the defensin-like domain was limited to Art v 1 and no T-cell cross-reactivity with Art v 125-36 was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite structural similarity, different IgE-binding profiles and proteolytic processing impacted the allergenic capacity of defensin-polyproline-linked molecules. Based on the fact that Amb a 4 demonstrated distinct IgE-binding epitopes, we suggest inclusion in molecule-based allergy diagnosis.

HLA class II peptide tetramers vs allergen-induced proliferation for identification of allergen-specific CD4 T cells.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence-labeled MHC class II/peptide tetramer complexes are considered as optimal tools to characterize allergen-specific CD4(+) T cells, but this technique is restricted to frequently expressed HLA class II molecules and knowledge of immunodominant epitopes. In contrast, allergen-stimulated proliferation assessed by CFSE dilution is less sophisticated and widely applicable. The major mugwort allergen, Art v 1, contains only one single, immunodominant, HLA-DR1-restricted epitope (Art v 125-36 ). Thus, essentially all Art v 1-reactive cells should be identified by a HLA-DRB1*01:01/Art v 119-36 tetramer. METHODS: We compared specificity and sensitivity of tetramer(+) and allergen-induced proliferating (CFSE(lo) ) CD4(+) T cells by flow cytometry. RESULTS: The frequency of tetramer(+) CD4(+) T cells determined ex vivo in PBMC of mugwort-allergic individuals ranged from 0 to 0.029%. After 2-3 weeks of in vitro expansion, sufficient tetramer(+) T cells for phenotyping were detected in 83% of Art v 125-36 -reactive T-cell lines (TCL) from mugwort-allergic individuals, but not in TCL from healthy individuals. The tetramers defined bona fide Th2 cells. Notably, Art v 125-36 -reactive TCL depleted of tetramer(+) T cells still reacted to the peptide, and only 44% of Art v 125-36 -specific T-cell clones were detected by the tetramer. CFSE(lo) CD4(+) T cells contained only 0.3-10.7% of tetramer(+) T cells and very low proportions of Th2 cells. CONCLUSION: Allergen-specific T cells can be identified by HLA class II tetramers with high specificity, but unexpected low sensitivity. In contrast, allergen-stimulated CFSE(lo) CD4(+) T cells contain extremely high fractions of bystander cells. Therefore, for T-cell monitoring, either method should be interpreted with caution.