Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Oct 14;100(21):12295-300.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2032858100. Epub 2003 Oct 2.

Invasion-inhibitory antibodies inhibit proteolytic processing of apical membrane antigen 1 of Plasmodium falciparum merozoites

Affiliations

Invasion-inhibitory antibodies inhibit proteolytic processing of apical membrane antigen 1 of Plasmodium falciparum merozoites

Sheetij Dutta et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

Apical membrane antigen 1 (AMA-1) is a promising vaccine candidate for Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Antibodies against AMA-1 of P. falciparum (PfAMA-1) interrupt merozoite invasion into RBCs. Initially localized within the apical complex, PfAMA-1 is proteolytically processed and redistributed circumferentially on merozoites at about the time of their release and invasion into RBCs. An 83-kDa precursor form of PfAMA-1 is processed to 66-kDa and then to 48- and 44-kDa products. We show that, even at low concentrations, IgG antibodies against correctly folded recombinant PfAMA-1 cross-linked and trapped the 52-, 48-, and 44-kDa proteolytic products on merozoites. These products are normally shed into the culture medium. At higher concentrations antibodies inhibited invasion into RBCs and caused a reduction in the amount of 44- and 48-kDa products, both on merozoites and in the culture medium. A corresponding increase also occurred in the amount of the 66- and 52-kDa forms detected on the merozoites. These antibodies also prevented circumferential redistribution of AMA-1. In contrast, monovalent invasion-inhibitory Fab fragments caused accumulation of 66- and 52-kDa forms, with no cross-linking, trapping, or prevention of redistribution. Antibodies at low concentrations can be used as trapping agents for intermediate and soluble forms of AMA-1 and are useful for studying proteolytic processing of AMA-1. With this technique, it was confirmed that protease inhibitor chymostatin and Ca2+ chelators can inhibit the breakdown of the 66-kDa form. We propose that antibodies to AMA-1 capable of inhibiting erythrocyte invasion act by disrupting proteolytic processing of AMA-1.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
(A) Processing assay with immune serum pool at two dilutions. Each lane represents merozoites released from ≈1.4 × 105 schizonts: lane 1, preimmune (1:10 dilution); lanes 2 and 3, postimmune at 1:10 and 1:2,500 dilutions, respectively; lane 4, soluble AMA-1 fragments immunoprecipitated from culture supernatant (representative of ≈5 × 106 rupturing schizonts, assuming 100% recovery). (B) Processing assay samples corresponding to lanes 3 and 4 of A run under reduced conditions and immunostained with biotin-labeled IgG against reduced and alkylated AMA-1 protein. (C) Immunoprecipitation from culture supernatants of the processing assay containing 1:10 preimmune (lane 1), 1:10 postimmune (lane 2), and 1:2,500 postimmune serum (lane 3). PfAMA-1-specific bands and molecular mass marker positions (Multimark, Invitrogen) are shown with arrows.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Effect of anti-AMA-1 antibodies on AMA-1 processing during schizont maturation and merozoite release. The processing assay was performed with 1:10 dilution of preimmune or postimmune pools. Samples were drawn at five times (T1–T5 corresponding to 0–90% rupture; see Results). To rule out immunoprecipitation from culture supernatant, postimmune serum was added to a preimmune serum-containing well (at T5, keeping the final dilution 1:10), and incubation continued at 37°C for another 30 min (lane a, postimmune sample at T6; lane b, preimmune control incubated with the postimmune serum at T6). Lane c corresponds to the sample in lane a analyzed for reactivity to AMA-1-specific mAb 4G2dc1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Processing assay showing dose–response of an individual inhibitory rabbit serum on AMA-1 processing. Final serum dilutions used in the assay were 1:2,400, 1:810, 1:270, 1:90, 1:30, and 1:20.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
(A) Processing assay showing the effects of IgG against reduced and alkylated AMA-1 (IgG-R/A) and refolded AMA-1 (IgG-Ref) proteins. IgG concentrations in lanes 1–4 were 0.00035, 0.0035, 0.035, and 0.35 mg/ml, respectively. (B) Processing assay showing the effect of anti-AMA-1 Fab fragments. Fab fragment concentrations in lanes 1–5 were 0.000014, 0.00014, 0.0014, 0.014, and 0.14 mg/ml, respectively. C indicates media control. A parallel assay with trapping antibodies (1:2,500 postimmune pool) is also shown.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Double immunofluorescence image, with a dual-cube filter, of free merozoites released in the presence of preimmune (Left, 1:10 dilution) or postimmune (Right, 1:10 dilution) serum. The preimmune sample was incubated with 1:10 postimmune sera for 1.5 h on ice after rupture. Slides were acetone-fixed, and AMA-1 was visualized by staining with FITC-conjugated anti-rabbit (green fluorescence), and the merozoite surface was demarcated by staining with P. falciparum MSP-1-specific mAb 5.2 and anti-mouse phycoerythrin (red fluorescence). (Insets) Enlarged view of a single merozoite.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
(a) Processing assay in the presence of protease inhibitors. (b) Identical assay performed in the presence of trapping antibodies (1:2,500 AMA-1 immune serum pool). (A) Lane 1, PMSF (200 μM); lane 2, TLCK (100 μM); lane 3, TPCK (100 μM); lane 4, leupeptin (100 μM); lane 5, chymostatin (100 μM); lane 6, antipain (100 μM); lane 7, E64 (10 μM); lane 8, pepstatin (5 μM); lane 9, 1,10-phenanthroline (1 mM); lane 10, EDTA (1 mM); lane 11, EGTA (1 mM); lane 12, ethanol control; lane 13, DMSO control; lane 14, PBS control. (B) Dose–response of chymostatin, EDTA, and EGTA on AMA-1 processing. Concentrations of inhibitors used from lanes 1–4 were: chymostatin, 100, 50, 25, and 12.5 μM; EDTA and EGTA, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 mM, respectively; lane c, DMSO control; lane c′, PBS control. (C) Processing assay showing the effect of 1 mM MgCl2 or 1 mM CaCl2 added to reverse the EDTA and EGTA (1 mM each) mediated processing inhibition. Lane 1, EDTA; lane 2, EGTA; lane c, PBS control.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.
Proposed model of AMA-1 processing. The PfAMA-1 molecule is represented by a prosequence (open oval), three subdomains based on the predicted disulfide bond structure (see ref. 29) (dark domain I-, medium domain II-, and light domain III-colored circles), transmembrane domain (clear rectangle), and cytoplasmic domain (gray rectangle). Putative membrane-bound sheddases are represented by filled triangles. PfAMA-148 and PfAMA-144 represent the soluble forms of AMA-1. PfAMA-144 is represented in its native conformation with a disulfide bond (—Sformula imageS—) connecting the 44-kDa form to its proteolytic fragment (see ref. 11). Arrows indicate the substrate (start) and products (end) of each putative enzymatic step. Dashed arrow represents translocation of PfAMA-166 from the apical complex to the surface (apical end). Our data suggest that PfAMA-1 processing on merozoites includes a 52-kDa form, which is either a normal intermediate or a product of anomalous processing that may further be processed to PfAMA-148+44. In this hypothetical model, proteolytic steps 1 and 2 are expected to be chymostatin-sensitive, whereas steps 2 and 3 are EGTA-sensitive. All three proteolytic steps and the redistribution of AMA-1 appear to be sensitive to anti-AMA-1 antibodies. (Left) Normal processing, translocation, and redistribution of AMA-1. (Right) Antibody-mediated processing inhibition, cross-linking, and trapping of AMA-1 fragments.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dunn, B. M., ed. (1991) Proteases of Infectious Agents (Academic, New York).
    1. Blackman, M. J. (2000) Curr. Drug Targets 1, 59–83. - PubMed
    1. Holder, A. A., Guevara Patino, J. A., Uthaipibull, C., Syed, S. E., Ling, I. T., Scott-Finnigan, T. & Blackman, M. J. (1999) Parassitologia (Rome) 41, 409–414. - PubMed
    1. Blackman, M. J., Scott-Finnigan, T. J., Shai, S. & Holder, A. A. (1994) J. Exp. Med. 180, 389–393. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peterson, M. G., Marshall, V. M., Smythe, J. A., Crewther, P. E., Lew, A., Silva, A., Anders, R. F. & Kemp, D. J. (1989) Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, 3151–3154. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources