Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In vitro evolution of a T cell receptor with high affinity for peptide/MHC

Open access
Holler, Phillip D., Holman, Philmore O., Shusta, Eric V., O'Herrin, Sean, Wittrup, K. Dane, Kranz, David M.·2000·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

T cell receptors (TCRs) exhibit genetic and structural diversity similar to antibodies, but they have binding affinities that are several orders of magnitude lower. It has been suggested that TCRs undergo selection in vivo to maintain lower affinities. Here, we show that there is not an inherent genetic or structural limitation on higher affinity. Higher-affinity TCR variants were generated in the absence of in vivo selective pressures by using yeast display and selection from a library of Vα CDR3 mutants. Selected mutants had greater than 100-fold higher affinity (KD≈ 9 nM) for the peptide/MHC ligand while retaining a high degree of peptide specificity. Among the high-affinity TCR mutants, a strong preference was found for CDR3α that contained Pro or Gly residues. Finally, unlike the wild-type TCR, a soluble monomeric form of a high-affinity TCR was capable of directly detecting peptide/MHC complexes on antigen-presenting cells. These findings prove that affinity maturation of TCRs is possible and suggest a strategy for engineering TCRs that can be used in targeting specific peptide/MHC complexes for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.080078297

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Holler, P. D., Holman, P. O., Shusta, E. V., O'Herrin, S., Wittrup, K. D., & Kranz, D. M.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2000-04-25
Volume
97
Issue
10
Pages
5387-5392
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2068872497
Cited by
295
References
1
FWCI
5.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.