Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparison between the structures and solvent-accessible surfaces of the antigen-binding fragments of two murine anti-p-azophenylarsonate monoclonal antibodies, one bearing a major cross-reactive idiotype of A/J strain mice (36-71) and one lacking the idiotype (R19.9; Lascombe et al., 1989), highlight the structural basis for the determination of hapten affinity and idiotypy. Since the sequence of R 19.9 is identical with the germline-encoded sequence at 16 positions in both heavy-chain and light-chain variable regions where somatic mutations and junctional differences have occurred to produce the 36-71 sequence, the structure of R 19.9 can be used to model the structure of the germline-encoded antibody (36-65) in the regions around these sites. These 16 sequence differences exclude the third heavy-chain complementarity-determining region because R 19.9 utilizes a D gene segment not associated with the predominant idiotype, which is 4 residues longer than the canonical D gene segment utilized in the sequences of 36-71 and 36-65. This difference between the structures of R 19.9 and 36-71 does not affect the validity of using the structure of R 19.9 to model the structure of 36-65 since the third heavy-chain complementarity-determining region is highly solvent-exposed in both 36-71 and R 19.9, and does not interact with any of these 16 sites. Comparing the structures of 36-71 and R 19.9 suggests that only three of the differences in the heavy-chain sequences, and three of the differences in the light-chain sequences of 36-71 and 36-65, increase the affinity for hapten.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Strong et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: