The affinity of Ag interaction with a B cell's membrane IgM (mIgM) receptors has long been considered to play a critical role in the in vivo clonal selection of B lymphocytes. This study has examined a possible basis for this affinity selection at the level of Ag induction of sequential B cell activation phenomena, i.e., elevated membrane class II MHC expression (G0* excitation), G1 entry, and S phase entry. Functional experiments with model bivalent Ag, i.e., a group of murine mAb of diverse intrinsic binding affinities for human IgM, revealed that the minimal affinity requisites for inducing the above phenomena vary significantly. At a ligand concentration of 100 micrograms/ml, the induction of increased class II MHC expression, G1 entry, and S phase had minimal affinity thresholds of Ka approximately 0.2 to 2 x 10(6) M-1; approximately 7 x 10(6) M-1; and approximately 1 x 10(8) M-1, respectively. Pulsing studies revealed that whereas high affinity ligand was essential at later periods in the prolonged (greater than 24 h) signaling period that leads to S phase entry, mAb with significantly lower affinity were competent at signaling during the first 24 h. Because all but the lowest affinity ligand (Ka = 2 x 10(5) M-1) could effectively modulate mIgM, and furthermore, because B cells show a substantial increase in surface area during activation, it appears likely that one factor contributing to the higher affinity requirements for induction of late activation phenomena is a progressive decrease in the density of mIgM on the responsive B cells. These studies suggest that whereas only a small proportion of B cells, i.e., those with relatively high affinity for an antigenic epitope, will be triggered to clonally expand on encountering a paucivalent Ag in the absence of T cell help, a much wider spectrum of the B cell repertoire will be triggered to a state of partial activation. How the presence of ancillary T cells and cytokines may facilitate the full clonal expansion of these latter cells is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mongini et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: