TCR-pMHC interactions: Two peptide repertoires-one signal

The peptide (P) ligand seen by the TCR is presented by an MHC-encoded restricting element (R). Peptide is viewed from two perspectives, that of the TCR and that of R. The TCR looks at P using an anti-P site that is somatically generated and selected, whereas R looks at P using a binding site that is germline generated and selected. The two segments of P, the one viewed by the TCR, the other viewed by R divide P into two repertoires, Ptcr and Pr that are recognized independently but function cooperatively. The consequences of this for an understanding of TCR specificity and signalling as well as the role of differential processing are analysed. It is ironic that from the point of view of the immunologist, the TCR is highly polyreactive recognizing over a million peptides, whereas from the point of view of the immune system, the TCR is highly specific recognizing essentially only one epitope.

Why rethink the structure-function relationships regulating TCR behavior?

Although the generally accepted (Standard) Model of the TCR has powered the accumulation of a large body of crucial data, it is lacking because of the failure of its basic tenet that allele-specific recognition of MHC-encoded restricting elements can be derived by somatic selection on a random repertoire. The limitations of the Standard Model due to this tenet and a glimpse at what a competing model might look like add up to yield a surprising new view of the structure-function relationships of the TCR. A published experiment illustrating this is discussed.

An in depth analysis of the concept of "polyspecificity" assumed to characterize TCR/BCR recognition

A workshop group developed the concept of a "polyspecific" TCR/BCR in the framework of today's consensus model. They argue that the individual TCR/BCR combining site is composed of a packet of specificities randomly plucked from the repertoire, hence it is "polyspecific." This essay analyzes the conclusions of the workshop and suggests an alternative. "Polyspecificity" must be dissected into its two component parts, specificity and degeneracy. The TCR and the BCR must be treated differently because the TCR recognizes allele-specifically the MHC-encoded restricting element (R) that serves as the platform presenting peptide (P). Only the anti-P paratope of the TCR behaves analogously to the BCR paratope. The two paratopes are selected to recognize a shape-determinant referred to as an epitope or ligand. The paratope is functionally unispecific in recognition, not polyspecific, with respect to shape; it is degenerate in recognition with respect to chemistry. The recognized shape-determinant can be the product of many chemically different substances, peptide, carbohydrate, lipid, steroid, nucleic acid, etc. Such a degenerate set is functionally treated by the paratope as one shape/epitope/ligand and, in no sense, can a paratope recognizing such a degenerate set be described as "polyspecific." Degeneracy and specificity are concepts that must be distinguished. The two positions are analyzed in this essay, the experiments used to support the view that the paratope of the TCR/BCR is polyspecific, are reinterpreted, and an alternative framework with its accompanying nomenclature, is presented.