The chicken B locus is a minimal essential major histocompatibility complex

Article metrics

Abstract

Here we report the sequence of the region that determines rapid allograft rejection in chickens, the chicken major histocompatibility complex (MHC). This 92-kilobase region of the B locus1,2,3,4 contains only 19 genes, making the chicken MHC roughly 20-fold smaller than the human MHC5. Virtually all the genes have counterparts in the human MHC, defining a minimal essential set of MHC genes conserved over 200 million years of divergence between birds and mammals. They are organized differently, with the class III region genes located outside the class II and class I region genes. The absence of proteasome genes5,6 is unexpected and might explain unusual peptide-binding specificities of chicken class I molecules. The presence of putative natural killer receptor gene(s)5,7 is unprecedented and might explain the importance of the B locus in the response to the herpes virus responsible for Marek's disease8,9,10. The small size and simplicity of the chicken MHC allows co-evolution of genes as haplotypes over considerable periods of time, and makes it possible to study the striking MHC-determined pathogen-specific disease resistance8,9,10 at the molecular level.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: The order of genes in the B-F/B-L region from the B12 haplotype.
Figure 2: The NKr (B-NK1) gene encodes an NK receptor.

References

  1. 1

    Briles,W., McGibbon,W. & Irwin,M. On multiple alleles affecting cellular antigens in the chicken. Genetics 35, 633–640 (1950).

  2. 2

    Pink,J., Droege,W., Hala,K., Miggiano,V. & Ziegler,A. A three-locus model for the chicken major histocompatibility complex. Immunogenetics 5, 203–216 (1977).

  3. 3

    Guillemot,F. et al. A molecular map of the chicken major histocompatibility complex: the class IIβ genes are closely-linked to the class I genes and the nucleolar organizer. EMBO J. 7, 2775–2785 (1988).

  4. 4

    Kaufman,J., Völk,H. & Wallny,H. J. A “minimal essential Mhc” and an “unrecognized Mhc”: two extremes in selection for polymorphism. Immunol. Rev. 143, 63–88 (1995).

  5. 5

    MHC Sequencing Consortium. Complete sequence and gene map of a human major histocompatibility complex. Nature 401, 921–923 (1999).

  6. 6

    Pamer,E. & Cresswell,P. Mechanisms of MHC class I-restricted antigen processing. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 16, 323–358 (1998).

  7. 7

    Lanier,L. NK cell receptors. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 16, 359–393 (1998).

  8. 8

    Briles,W., Briles,R., Taffs,R. & Stone,H. Resistance to a malignant lymphoma in chickens is mapped to a subregion of the major histocompatibility (B) complex. Science 219, 977–979 (1983).

  9. 9

    Plachy,J., Pink,J. & Hala,K. Biology of the chicken MHC (B complex). Crit. Rev. Immunol. 12, 47–79 (1992).

  10. 10

    Kaufman,J. & Lamont,S. in The Major Histocompatibility Complex Region in Domestic Animal Species (eds Schook, L.B. & Lamont, S. L.) (CRC, Boca Raton, 1996).

  11. 11

    Miller,M. et al. Assignment of Rfp-Y to the chicken MHC/NOR microchromosome and evidence for high frequency recombination associated with the nucleolar organizer region. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 3958–3962 (1994).

  12. 12

    Pazderka,F., Longenecker,B., Law,G. & Ruth,R. The major histocompatibility complex of the chicken. Immunogenetics 2, 101–130 (1975).

  13. 13

    Vainio,O., Veromaa,T., Eerola,E., Toivanen,P. & Ratcliffe,M. Antigen-presenting cell-T cell interaction in the chicken is MHC class II antigen restricted. J. Immunol. 140, 2864–2868 (1988).

  14. 14

    Vainio,O., Koch,C. & Toivanen,A. B-L antigens (class II) of the chicken major histocompatibility complex control T–B cell interaction. Immunogenetics 19, 131–140 (1984).

  15. 15

    Thorpe,K., Abdulla,S., Kaufman,J., Trowsdale,J. & Beck,S. Phylogeny and structure of the RING3 gene. Immunogenetics 44, 391–396 (1996).

  16. 16

    Kaufman,J., Bustead,N., Miller,M., Riegert,P. & Salomonsen,J. in Advances in Avian Immunology Research (eds Davison, T. E., Bumstead, N. & Kaiser, P.) 119–127 (Carfax Publishing, Abingdon, 1995).

  17. 17

    Frangoulis,B. et al. Identification of the Tapasin gene in the chicken major mistocompatibility complex. Immunogenetics 49, 328–337 (1999).

  18. 18

    Nonaka,M. et al. Major histocompatibility complex gene mapping in the amphibian Xenopus implies a primordial organisation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 5789–5791 (1997).

  19. 19

    Kaufman,J., Skjødt,K. & Salomonsen,J. The B-G multigene family of the chicken MHC. Crit. Rev. Immunol. 11, 113–143 (1991).

  20. 20

    Henry,J., Miller,M. & Pontarotti,P. Structure and evolution of the extended B7 family. Immunol. Today 20, 285–288 (1999).

  21. 21

    Kandil,E. et al. Isolation of low molecular mass polypeptide complementary clones from primitive vertebrates. J. Immunol. 156, 4245–4253 (1996).

  22. 22

    Rammensee, H.-G., Friede,T. & Stevanovic,S. MHC ligands and peptide motifs: first listing. Immunogenetics 41, 178–228 (1995).

  23. 23

    Bumstead,N. Genomic mapping of resistance to Marek's disease. Avian Pathol. 27, s78–s81 (1998).

  24. 24

    Skjødt,K., Koch,C., Crone,M. & Simonsen,M. Analysis of chickens for recombination with the MHC (B complex). Tissue Antigens 25, 278–282 (1985).

  25. 25

    Germain,R., Bentley,D. & Quill,H. Influence of allelic polymorphism on the assembly and surface expression of class II MHC (Ia) molecules. Cell 43, 233–242 (1985).

  26. 26

    Momburg,F. et al. Selectivity of MHC-encoded peptide transporters from human, mouse and rat. Nature 367, 648–651 (1994).

  27. 27

    Joly,E. et al. Co-evolution of rat TAP transporters and MHC class I RT1-A molecules. Curr. Biol. 8, 169–172 (1998).

  28. 28

    Pharr,G., Dodgson,J., Hunt,H. & Bacon,L. Class II MHC cDNAs in 12I5 B-congenic chickens. Immunogenetics 5, 350–354 (1998).

  29. 29

    Bacon,L., Ismail,N. & Motta,J. Allograft and antibody responses of 15I5 B congenic chickens. Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 238, 219–233 (1987).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank I. Shaw, T. Powell, S. Rogers, A. Smith, P. Kaiser and G. Griffiths for help with analysis and/or critical review of the manuscript. S.M. and S.B. are funded by the Wellcome Trust and, at the early stage of the project, by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and a grant from the EU BioMed 1 programme. J.J. is supported by the EU FAIR program.

Author information

Correspondence to Jim Kaufman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.