Summary

🔗 Conformational entropy in antibodies decreases during affinity maturation (1,2). The claim is corroborated by anecdotal MD simulations (3–4) and various spectroscopy measurements (citation needed). Some studies found that only CDRH3 rigidified to a statistically significant degree (6), while other regions like the light chain CDRs either did not or became more flexible (7).

Details

Several examples of antibody rigidification:

  • Adhikary et al. (8) showed that five somatic mutations were sufficient to drastically reduce conformational entropy

  • Chong et al. (5) showed using MD that the affinity-matured hapten-binding antibody 48G7 is less conformationally flexible than the naive germline antibody.

  • Blackler et al. (9) crystallized several closely related germline antibodies with and without antigen and found substantial variation in the conformation adopted by CDRs. Nowak et al. (10) also found that CDRs, and especially CDRH3, can adopt multiple conformations that are difficult to cluster by sequence.

Rigidification of antibodies during affinity maturation was corroborated by three pulse photon echo peak shift spectroscopy studies showing that mature antibodies had fewer loop and sidechain motions (refs in intro to (11)). Jeliazkov et al found that the data from the PDB and from Rosetta models were not conclusive on the matter.

(2) propose that rigidification is due to the introduction of h-bonds, electrostatic interactions, VDW contacts, and shape complementarity. In contrast Zimmermann et al. (3) found that mutations introduced “far from the active site” and closer to beta strands were responsible.

To add to the confusion, HDX-MS data suggest that CDRH2 and CDRL2, but not CDRH3, have decreased dynamics following affinity maturation (11).

(12) suggest that rigidification is mediated by mutations in framework residues, and present a quantitative model for how broadly neutralizing antibodies balance broad specificity via flexibility with high affinity and selectivity with rigidification.

Figures

Ref (13)

See also

1.
Guloglu B, Deane CM. Specific attributes of the VL domain influence both the structure and structural variability of CDR-H3 through steric effects. Frontiers in Immunology. 2023;14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1223802
2.
Fernández-Quintero ML, Loeffler JR, Bacher LM, Waibl F, Seidler CA, Liedl KR. Local and Global Rigidification Upon Antibody Affinity Maturation. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. 2020;7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2020.00182
3.
Zimmermann J, Oakman EL, Thorpe IF, Shi X, Abbyad P, Brooks CL, et al. Antibody evolution constrains conformational heterogeneity by tailoring protein dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2006;103(37):13722–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603282103
4.
Fernández-Quintero ML, Pomarici ND, Math BA, Kroell KB, Waibl F, Bujotzek A, et al. Antibodies exhibit multiple paratope states influencing VH–VL domain orientations. Communications Biology. 2020;3(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01319-z
5.
Chong LT, Duan Y, Wang L, Massova I, Kollman PA. Molecular dynamics and free-energy calculations applied to affinity maturation in antibody 48G7. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999;96(25):14330–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.25.14330
6.
Haidar JN, Zhu W, Lypowy J, Pierce BG, Bari A, Persaud K, et al. Backbone Flexibility of CDR3 and Immune Recognition of Antigens. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2014;426(7):1583–99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2013.12.024
7.
Li T, Tracka MB, Uddin S, Casas-Finet J, Jacobs DJ, Livesay DR. Rigidity Emerges during Antibody Evolution in Three Distinct Antibody Systems: Evidence from QSFR Analysis of Fab Fragments. PLOS Computational Biology. 2015;11(7):e1004327. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004327
8.
Adhikary R, Yu W, Oda M, Zimmermann J, Romesberg FE. Protein Dynamics and the Diversity of an Antibody Response. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287(32):27139–47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m112.372698
9.
Blackler RJ, MĂĽller-Loennies S, Pokorny-Lehrer B, Legg MSG, Brade L, Brade H, et al. Antigen binding by conformational selection in near-germline antibodies. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2022;298(5):101901. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2022.101901
10.
Nowak J, Baker T, Georges G, Kelm S, Klostermann S, Shi J, et al. Length-independent structural similarities enrich the antibody CDR canonical class model. mAbs. 2016;8(4):751–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2016.1158370
11.
Jeliazkov JR, Sljoka A, Kuroda D, Tsuchimura N, Katoh N, Tsumoto K, et al. Repertoire Analysis of Antibody CDR-H3 Loops Suggests Affinity Maturation Does Not Typically Result in Rigidification. Frontiers in Immunology. 2018;9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00413
12.
Ovchinnikov V, Louveau JE, Barton JP, Karplus M, Chakraborty AK. Role of framework mutations and antibody flexibility in the evolution of broadly neutralizing antibodies. eLife. 2018;7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.33038
13.
Fernández-Quintero ML, Loeffler JR, Kraml J, Kahler U, Kamenik AS, Liedl KR. Characterizing the Diversity of the CDR-H3 Loop Conformational Ensembles in Relationship to Antibody Binding Properties. Frontiers in Immunology. 2019;9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.03065