Unveiling the influence of factor VIII physicochemical properties on hemophilia A phenotype through an in silico methodology

Prediction of the antigenic regions in eight RhD variants identified by computational biology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Changes in RHD generate variations in protein structure that lead to antigenic variants. The classical model divides them into quantitative (weak and Del) and qualitative (partial D). There are two types of protein antigens: linear and conformational. Computational biology analyses the theoretical assembly of tertiary protein structures and allows us to identify the 'topological' differences between isoforms. Our aim was to determine the theoretical antigenic differences between weak RhD variants compared with normal RhD based on structural analysis using bioinformatic techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed the variations in secondary structures and hydrophobicity of RHD*01, RHD*01W.1, W2, W3, RHD*09.03.01, RHD*09.04, RHD*11, RHD*15 and RHD*21. We then modelled the tertiary structure and calculated their probable antigenic regions, intra-protein interactions, displacement and membrane width and compared them with Rhce.

RESULTS

The 10 proteins are similar in their secondary structure and hydrophobicity, with the main differences observed in the exofacial coils. We identified six potential antigenic regions: one that is unique to RhD (R3), one that is common to all D (R6), three that are highly variable among RhD isoforms (R1, R2 and R4), one that they share with Rhce (R5) and two that are unique to Rhce (Ra and Rbc).

CONCLUSION

The alloimmunization capacity of these subjects could be explained by the variability of the antigen pattern, which is not necessarily recognized or recognized with lower intensity by the commercially available antibodies, and not because they have a lower protein concentration in the membrane.

Use of computational biology to compare the theoretical tertiary structures of the most common forms of RhCE and RhD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Computational biology analyses the theoretical tertiary structure of proteins and identifies the 'topological' differences between RhD and RhCE. Our aim was to identify the theoretical structural differences between the four isoforms of RhCE and RhD using computational biological tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Physicochemical profile was determined by hydrophobicity and electrostatic potential analysis. Secondary and tertiary structures were generated using computational biology tools. The structures were evaluated and validated using Ramachandran algorithm, which calculates the single score, p-value and root mean square deviation (RMSD). Structures were overlaid on local refinement of 'RhAG-RhCE-ANK' (PBDID 7uzq) and RhAG to compare their spatial distribution within the membrane.

RESULTS

All proteins differed in surface area and electrostatic distance due to variations in hydrophobicity and electrostatic potential. The RMSD between RhD and RhCE was 0.46 ± 0.04 Å, and the comparison within RhCE was 0.57 ± 0.08 Å. The percentage of amino acids in the hydrophobic thickness was 50.24% for RhD while for RhCE it ranged between 73.08% and 76.68%. The RHAG hydrophobic thickness was 34.2 Å, and RhCE's hydrophobic thickness was 33.83 Å. We suggest that the C/c antigens differ exofacially at loops L1 and L2. For the E/e antigens, the difference lies in L6. By contrast, L4 is the same for all proteins except Rhce.

CONCLUSION

The physicochemical properties of Rh proteins made them different, although their genes are homologous. Using computational biology, we model structures with sufficient precision, similar to those obtained experimentally. An amino acid variation alters the folding of the tertiary structure and the interactions with other proteins, modifying the electrostatic environment, the spatial conformations and therefore the antigenic recognition.