Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Mass spectrometry–driven exploration reveals nuances of neoepitope-driven tumor rejection
Hakimeh Ebrahimi-Nik, Justine Michaux, William L. Corwin, Grant L.J. Keller, Tatiana Shcheglova, HuiSong Pak, George Coukos, Brian M. Baker, Ion I. Mandoiu, Michal Bassani-Sternberg, Pramod K. Srivastava
Hakimeh Ebrahimi-Nik, Justine Michaux, William L. Corwin, Grant L.J. Keller, Tatiana Shcheglova, HuiSong Pak, George Coukos, Brian M. Baker, Ion I. Mandoiu, Michal Bassani-Sternberg, Pramod K. Srivastava
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Immunology

Mass spectrometry–driven exploration reveals nuances of neoepitope-driven tumor rejection

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Neoepitopes are the only truly tumor-specific antigens. Although potential neoepitopes can be readily identified using genomics, the neoepitopes that mediate tumor rejection constitute a small minority, and there is little consensus on how to identify them. Here, for the first time to our knowledge, we use a combination of genomics, unbiased discovery mass spectrometry (MS) immunopeptidomics, and targeted MS to directly identify neoepitopes that elicit actual tumor rejection in mice. We report that MS-identified neoepitopes are an astonishingly rich source of tumor rejection-mediating neoepitopes (TRMNs). MS has also demonstrated unambiguously the presentation by MHC I, of confirmed tumor rejection neoepitopes that bind weakly to MHC I; this was done using DCs exogenously loaded with long peptides containing the weakly binding neoepitopes. Such weakly MHC I–binding neoepitopes are routinely excluded from analysis, and our demonstration of their presentation, and their activity in tumor rejection, reveals a broader universe of tumor-rejection neoepitopes than presently imagined. Modeling studies show that a mutation in the active neoepitope alters its conformation such that its T cell receptor–facing surface is substantially altered, increasing its exposed hydrophobicity. No such changes are observed in the inactive neoepitope. These results broaden our understanding of antigen presentation and help prioritize neoepitopes for personalized cancer immunotherapy.

Authors

Hakimeh Ebrahimi-Nik, Justine Michaux, William L. Corwin, Grant L.J. Keller, Tatiana Shcheglova, HuiSong Pak, George Coukos, Brian M. Baker, Ion I. Mandoiu, Michal Bassani-Sternberg, Pramod K. Srivastava

×

Figure 4

Models of peptide/MHC complexes indicate structural and physical correlates with immunogenicity.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Models of peptide/MHC complexes indicate structural and physical correla...
(A) For the tumor rejecting TGAARFDEF neoepitope, the serine-to-arginine substitution at position 5 is predicted to alter peptide conformation and increase exposed hydrophobic surface area. In the model of the wild-type complex (left panel), Phe6 acts as a secondary anchor. Asp7 is solvent exposed, as indicated by the red surface. In the neoepitope complex (middle panel), the new arginine at p5 takes on the secondary anchor role, forming a salt-bridge with Asp77 of the H2-Dd α1 helix. The switch in secondary anchor from p6 to p5 results in Asp7 shifting down toward the base of the groove to form a second salt-bridge with Arg5, reducing its solvent exposure. Coincident with this shift, Phe6 moves up to become solvent exposed, as indicated by the green surface. An overlay of the neoepitope and its wild-type counterpart demonstrates the substantial differences between the two (right panel). (B) For the inactive KYLQVASHV neoepitope, the arginine-to-leucine substitution at position 3 does not alter peptide conformation. In the model of the wild-type complex (left panel), Arg3 is positioned between the peptide backbone and the H2-Kd α2 helix. Gln4 and His7 are exposed and face up toward incoming TCRs. In the neoepitope complex, the new leucine at p3 simply fills the same space between the peptide and the α2 helix and does not introduce any structural alterations to the peptide (middle panel). An overlay of the neoepitope and its wild-type counterpart demonstrates the similarities between the wild-type peptide and neoepitope.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts