The human b12 IgG1, specific for the CD4 binding site of the gp120 of HIV-1, was prepared by recombinant DNA technology. It had a high neutralization rate constant (-3.5 x 10(5) M(-1) sec(-1)), although this is about 10-fold less than the values for the best poliovirus or influenza A virus MAbs. The recombinant b12 Fab neutralized well, with about one-tenth of the activity of b12 IgG. The mechanisms by which b12 IgG1 and its Fab neutralize HIV-1 IIIB on C8166 cells have been investigated. Neither inhibited attachment of virus to the target cell as judged by FACS, immunofluorescence, and ELISA data. This was controlled using MAb F105, another human IgG1, that did neutralize by inhibiting attachment under our conditions. The interactions of b12 IgG- and Fab-neutralized virions with target cells were compared with those of nonneutralized virus using a number of different techniques (fluorescence dequenching of R18-labeled virions, immunofluorescence of virion gp41 and p24 antigens, and acquisition of resistance to removal of virions from the cell by protease). These and the inhibition of HIV-1-mediated cell-cell fusion all demonstrated that b12 IgG neutralized by inhibiting the primary fusion-uncoating mechanism. However, the interactions of b12 Fab-neutralized and nonneutralized virions with C8166 cells were indistinguishable. Thus b12 Fab did not inhibit fusion uncoating, and by inference inhibited a stage of infection that occurs after the entry of the virion core into the cytoplasm. It is therefore possible that b12 IgG kills HIV-1 twice over, by fusion-inhibition and by inhibiting the postentry event proposed for the Fab. The mechanism of neutralization of b12 Fab and of other MAbs that neutralize in a similar way and why b12 Fab and IgG neutralize by different mechanisms are discussed.

No abstract

The Kennedy peptide, (731)PRGPDRPEGIEEEGGERDRDRS(752), from the cytoplasmic domain of the gp41 transmembrane envelope glycoprotein of HIV-1 contains a conformationally dependent neutralizing epitope (ERDRD) and a linear nonneutralizing epitope (IEEE). No recognized murine T cell epitope is present. The peptide usually stimulates virus-specific antibody, but this is not always neutralizing. Here we show that IEEE (or possibly IEEE plus adjacent sequence) is immunogenically and antigenically dominant over the ERDRD neutralizing epitope. Thus rabbits immunized in a variety of routes, doses, and adjuvants with a chimeric cowpea mosaic virus (CPMV) expressing the Kennedy peptide on its surface (CPMV-HIV/1) synthesized IEEE-specific serum antibody but no ERDRD-specific or HIV-1-neutralizing antibody. To test if this resulted from immunodominance or from a hole in the antibody repertoire, we immunized rabbits with chimera CPMV-HIV/29, which expresses the GERDRDR part of the Kennedy sequence. This chimera readily stimulated ERDRD-specific, neutralizing antibody. In mice the situation was less extreme, but individual animals with low neutralizing titers had a high ratio of IEEE-specific:ERDRD-specific antibody. Data are consistent with immunodominance of IEEE over ERDRD in the Kennedy peptide. IEEE-specific antibody was also antigenically dominant and prevented ERDRD-specific antibody from binding to its epitope and from neutralizing HIV-1. It may be that HIV-1 has evolved a nonneutralizing immunodominant epitope that allows it to possess a neutralizing epitope without suffering the consequences, and this idea is supported by the covariance of both epitope sequences. To our knowledge this is the first example of a defined sequence that controls the activity of an adjacent epitope.