Molecular features underlying differential SHP1/SHP2 binding of immune checkpoint receptors

  1. Xiaozheng Xu
  2. Takeya Masubuchi
  3. Qixu Cai
  4. Yunlong Zhao
  5. Enfu Hui

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

A large number of inhibitory receptors recruit SHP1 and/or SHP2, tandem-SH2-containing phosphatases through phosphotyrosine-based motifs immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM) and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based switch motif (ITSM). Despite the similarity, these receptors exhibit differential effector binding specificities, as exemplified by the immune checkpoint receptors PD-1 and BTLA, which preferentially recruit SHP2 and SHP1, respectively. The molecular basis by which structurally similar receptors discriminate SHP1 and SHP2 is unclear. Here, we provide evidence that human PD-1 and BTLA optimally bind to SHP1 and SHP2 via a bivalent, parallel mode that involves both SH2 domains of SHP1 or SHP2. PD-1 mainly uses its ITSM to prefer SHP2 over SHP1 via their C-terminal SH2 domains (cSH2): swapping SHP1-cSH2 with SHP2-cSH2 enabled PD-1:SHP1 association in T cells. In contrast, BTLA primarily utilizes its ITIM to prefer SHP1 over SHP2 via their N-terminal SH2 domains (nSH2). The ITIM of PD-1, however, appeared to be de-emphasized due to a glycine at pY+1 position. Substitution of this glycine with alanine, a residue conserved in BTLA and several SHP1-recruiting receptors, was sufficient to induce PD-1:SHP1 interaction in T cells. Finally, structural simulation and mutagenesis screening showed that SHP1 recruitment activity exhibits a bell-shaped dependence on the molecular volume of the pY+1 residue of ITIM. Collectively, we provide a molecular interpretation of the SHP1/SHP2-binding specificities of PD-1 and BTLA, with implications for the mechanisms of a large family of therapeutically relevant receptors.

Article activity feed

  6. Version published to 10.7554/elife.74276 on eLife
  7. Review Commons

    Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    We thank all four reviewers for their positive and constructive comments! We have carefully considered these comments and provided a point-by-point response below.

    Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

    This paper explores an interesting problem of SHP1/SHP2 preferences of inhibitory immunoreceptors. The author are quick to point out that many of their individual data points confirm published results at some level, but the power of the paper is in the parallel analysis of both PD1, which is strongly biased towards SHP2 and BTLA, which is biased towards SHP1. This gives them the opportunity to test the predictions of descriptive experiment by making simple mutated receptors with swapped ITIM or ITSM domains.

    The work is very well done and generally the authors are quite careful and precise about the language used to describe results, in general.

    The results are quite striking in that the find plenty of evidence for transient interaction of SHP1 with PD1 based on the biophysical measurements, but don't detect the interactions in pull down or in "in cell" microcluster recruitment experiments. In describing the pull-downs they discuss the issue of dissociation during washing potentially missing interactions that are taking place. I would prefer that the pull down is fine evidence for binding, but lack of pull down is not evidence for lack of binding. They should double check that this language is consistent. Also, unless something has changed in the microcluster binding experiments, this in situ recruitment of SHP2 to PD1 is only observed or a 2-3 minutes and then can't be detected, the situation for SHP2 becoming the same as it is for SHP1. If the kinetics are different in the cleaner systems that have now developed they should show this in a primary figure as this would be then different when what is reported previously.

    We agree with the reviewer that pull down is evidence for binding. Indeed, in most, if not all of our assays, our results with pull down were consistent with those in the microcluster imaging. As suggested by the reviewer, we will check through the manuscript and ensure the language is accurate and consistent. In our recent study (Xu et al., JCB, 2020, PMID: 32437509), we conducted a side-by-side comparison of SHP2 and SHP1 recruitment kinetics to PD-1 in a similar system as the current study. Both microcluster imaging and co-IP assays showed that PD-1:SHP2 association lasted at least 10 minutes, whereas PD-1:SHP1 recruitment was nearly undetectable. The duration of PD- 1:SHP2 association was in good agreement with Takashi Saito’s finding in CD4+ mouse T cells (Yokosuka et al., JEM, 2012, PMID: 22641383). Regardless the somewhat different kinetics in different studies, SHP2 recruitment was transient, as pointed out by the reviewer. We believe that some other effectors contribute to PD-1 inhibitory signaling. In supportive of this notion, we recently found that PD-1 remains partially inhibitory in CD8+ T cells deficient in both SHP1 and SHP2 (Xu et al., JCB, 2020).

    The gap in this study is lack of any functional analysis. The Jurkat model could be quite useful as they have a relatively clean system for asking if the transient binding of SHP1 to PD1 has any functional impact, which they have not yet followed through on. Does PD-1 recruited SHP2 have any impact on function after the 5 minutes? Furthermore, the authors need to keep in mind that mice deficient in SHP2 respond to anti-PD1 checkpoint therapies (Rota, G., Niogret, C., Dang, A. T., Barros, C. R., Fonta, N. P., Alfei, F., Morgado, L., Zehn, D., Birchmeier, W., Vivier, E., & Guarda, G. (2018). Shp-2 Is Dispensable for Establishing T Cell Exhaustion and for PD-1 Signaling In Vivo. Cell Rep, 23(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.026). This is an important issue to discuss in light the the very interesting binding analysis the authors have performed. But I think the functional analysis can be part of a future paper.

    In our recent publication (Xu et al. JCB, 2020, PMID: 32437509), we found that deletion of SHP1 from Jurkat cells had little, if any effect on PD-1 mediated suppression of IL-2 production. As the reviewer alluded to, we did observe SHP2 dissociation from PD-1 after 10 minutes, so the question of whether and how PD-1:SHP2 complex influence T cell function in a longer term is a great one. We currently are pursuing a hypothesis that there is a SHP2-independent mechanism of PD-1 inhibitory function, and indeed, in our recent study (Xu et al. JCB, 2020, PMID: 32437509), we found that PD-1 retains its partial inhibitory function in SHP1/SHP2 double knockout murine primary T cells. These results are consistent with the in vivo data by Rota et al. cited by the reviewer. We will also briefly discuss this point in a revised manuscript.

    I would suggest that the title be modified slightly from "SHP1/SHP2 discrimination" to "differential SHP1/SHP2 interaction" and leave discussion of discrimination until they have the functional data integrated over times that are relevant to T cell transcriptional regulation (1-2 hrs). The functional analysis can be in another paper, but it would be interesting to have a paragraph in the discussion raising the outstanding issues beyond stable binding detected by the pull-down and microcluster recruitment experiments- what are the implications for function. Could the transient interactions in the noise of the steady state and equilibrium measurements be functional?

    We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, even though reviewer #3 felt that our current title is appropriate. We will be happy to change the title at the editors’ discretion.

    I would summarise that the work is outstanding as biochemistry and biophysics and it should be published nearly as is. I'm suggesting minor revisions in that the changes are just to text, but I think this is important and somewhat nuanced aspect of the paper that will make it even more helpful to readers.

    We appreciate the positive and insightful comments!

    Reviewer #1 (Significance):

    The authors generate a detailed descriptive data set about the component interaction of SHP1 and SHP2 SH2 domains with PD1 and BTLA intracellular domains. They then test hypotheses generated from the descriptive data set to better define the nature of the interactions and why PD1 recruits primarily SHP2, while BTLA mainly recruits SHP1. PD1 is a major driver or the cancer immunotherapy revolution and SHP2 is the major candidate for a signalling effector of PD1. This paper can become the reference paper for the specificity and engineering of this interaction, which will make it highly significant in a very active and still expanding field.

    Referee Cross-commenting

    I still feel that "discrimination" has a functional/activity connotation that is not addressed at all in this paper, but can be addressed. I'm happy to have the suggestion stand and let the authors decide. They need to live with it once its published. Another suggestion- the citations on regulation are mostly old. A good recent paper is Pádua, R. A. P., Sun, Y., Marko, I., Pitsawong, W., Stiller, J. B., Otten, R., & Kern, D. (2018). Mechanism of activating mutations and allosteric drug inhibition of the phosphatase SHP2. Nature Communications, 9(1),

    1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06814-w .

    We believe that some of the functional questions raised by this reviewer, including the SHP1 and SHP2 contribution in PD-1 signaling, was addressed in our recent publication (Xu et al., JCB, 2020). Using SHP1 KO and SHP2 KO T cells, we showed that PD-1 inhibitory function is contributed by SHP2, but very little if any by SHP1. Thus in the current study, we focus on the mechanism behind the striking SHP2 preference by PD-1. We thank this reviewer for suggesting this excellent reference. We will cite this reference in the revised manuscript.

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

    In this study, Xu and co-workers investigate the biophysical nature of the interaction between the structurally-related non-transmembrane PTPs Shp1 and Shp2 with the ITIM/ITSM-containing inhibitory receptors PD-1 and BTLA using cell-based, biochemical, biophysical and domain swapping assays. The primary aim being to better understand how these receptors discriminate between binding Shp1 and/or Shp2, and the orientation of Shp1 and Shp2 engagement. These are major unresolved questions in the field that the authors go some way to addressing in a methodical, rigorous, clear and concise manner. Findings are convincing, correlate well with previous findings and internally, and are complemented with excellent schematics, making it easy to comprehend.

    Major comments

    The authors focus primarily on binding affinities to explain differential binding of Shp1 and Shp2 by PD-1 and BTLA ITIMs and ITSMs, but this is only part of the story. Avidity, compartmentalization, stoichiometry of kinases, and relative abundance of Shp1 and Shp2 are also important aspects of the discriminatory mechanism that are not addressed. Competition assays would go some way to addressing the latter point and should be at least be considered and discussed.

    We agree that various parameters mentioned by this reviewers, such as compartmentalization and relative expression levels would be a concern for purely cell-free assays such as SPR, however, we feel that our cell-based assays already integrate these parameters. This is also precisely the reason why we chose to examine the recruitments of Shp1/2 in a cellular context instead of a purely cell-free system.

    Regarding the competition, we have confirmed our key results in both WT and SHP2 KO background, with or without the potential competition from endogenous SHP2, suggesting that competition might not be a dominant mechanism for the recruitment specificity we observed.

    Similarly, authors do not address how distortion of the pY binding pocket of Shp1 and Shp2 nSH2 domains in the auto-inhibited conformation is released, allowing the domain to engage with phopho-ITIM/ITSM. Again, this should be at least discussed. Current binding studies do not address this issue.

    We feel that the overall recruitment to the PD-1 microclusters as we observed in cells already integrate this auto-inhibition mechanism of Shp1 and Shp2, because we used full length proteins. We do agree with the reviewer that future studies are warranted to address the contributions of each mechanism, including auto-inhibition, concentration, competition, etc., to the overall recruitment. This might require careful and extensive biophysical analyses coupled with mathematical modeling.

    Minor comments:

    Phosphorylation should be indicated in schematic representations in Figures 3, 6 b, c.

    We thank the reviewer for this advice, we will indicate phosphorylation in the revised figure 3.

    Cellular and physiological significance should be further discussed, as well as broader implications of findings to other ITIM/ITSM-containing receptors in other lineages.

    We will further discuss this as suggested.

    Reviewer #2 (Significance)

    Findings from this study advance our knowledge of how inhibitory checkpoint regulatory receptors discriminate between Shp1 and Shp2, which has important implications for understanding how the unique biochemical, cellular and physiological functions of these receptors and phosphatases are dictated. Indeed, findings lay the foundation for a universal mechanism, that may apply to all ITIM/ITSM receptors in other cell lineages, and perhaps novel ways of targeting these interactions therapeutically.

    Compare to existing published knowledge

    Although largely correlative with previous studies, findings from this study start to fill major gaps in our knowledge of these biochemical processes, in a highly rigorous, concise and clear manner. Findings from previous studies were more 'piecemeal', whereas this study consolidates and advances important nuances of these interactions. Moreover, it lays the foundation for further structural, physiological and therapeutic studies.

    Audience

    The immune receptor signaling community and beyond, including any lineage in which ITIM/ITSM-containing receptors play a major role in regulating cellular responses.

    Your expertise

    ITIM/ITSM-containing receptors, kinase-phosphatase molecular switches, cellular reactivity to extracellular matrix proteins

    Referee Cross-commenting

    Generally agree with reviewer's comments. Constructive overall and fair. Although I was thinking additional competition experiments, I do not think necessary. Over the top for this study. Hence, 1 month should suffice to revise accordingly.

    We thank this reviewer for the excellent comments and understanding!

    Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

    Summary:

    Inhibitory immune receptors containing ITIMs function through recruiting the phosphatases SHP-1 and SHP-2. SHP-1 and SHP-2 are remarkably similar yet have different roles in vivo. How can ITIM-containing immune receptors specifically recruit SHP-1 or SHP-2? In this paper, Xu et al ask how SHP-1 vs SHP-2 specificity is achieved. They use very thorough biochemical assays to measure the affinity of SHP-1 and SHP-2 for various ITIM/ITSMs and finally pin point some key amino acids that switch an ITIM/ITSM from SHP-2 to SHP-1 specificity. The in vitro biochemical assays are augmented by in cell assays that support their conclusions. Overall, this paper is an incredibly elegant and straight forward paper addressing how SHP-1/SHP-2 specificity is achieved.

    Major Comments: none

    Minor Comments:

    • Could the western blots in Figure 1 be quantified as the western blots in other figures?

    We will quantify the western blots in Figure 1 as suggested in the revised manuscript.

    • The data that the y+1 reside is essential for SHP-1/2 specificity is very convincing. We are curious if the other residues of the ITIM/ITSM also contribute to this specificity, albeit less potently. The PD-1 G224A mutant is still less potent than the PD-1 BTLA ITIM swap, suggesting that while the y+1 position is most important, the other residues contribute some specificity. The authors also included data on a PD-1 variant with the BTLA ITIM A224G mutation (8f), which is slightly better at recruiting SHP-1 than the PD-1 ITIM. It may be worth mentioning this data in the text of the paper as well as displaying it in the figure.

    The reviewer raised an excellent point, yes, our data does suggest that other pY-flanking residues within the ITIM also contribute to SHP1 binding. However, the pY+1 residue replacement produced the strongest effect as the reviewer noted. In the revised manuscript, we will acknowledge the potential contributions of other residues.

    • A brief introduction to ITIM vs ITSM in the introduction of the paper may be helpful background for readers. For example, ITIM receptors are reasonably well known but how ITSM functionally differs is probably less well known.

    We will rewrite the introduction about ITIM and ITSM for better clarity.

    • Although not the major focus of the paper, broadening out this SHP-1/2 specificity to other immune receptors in the discussion is fascinating. (a) The authors find that a Valine, Leucine, or Isoleucine in place of the Alanine in y+1 is very close to equivalent, yet the A is highly conserved. The authors speculate that there may be an advantage to sub-maximal SHP-1 affinity because it is more easy to regulate. I think this is reasonable speculation but a little unsatisfying given the very small observed difference in SHP-1 binding. If the authors have additional thoughts, I would be interested to hear them. (b) The authors note that PD-1 is the only ITIM with a glycine in the Y+1 position. Are there other receptors that function primarily through SHP-2, and how might they achieve this specificity?

    Response to a: Even though valine, leucine or isoleucine did not produce a striking enhancement in Shp1 recruitment over alanine, the differences were statistically significant. In fact, when we performed these point mutations at a BTLA ITIM background, valine, leucine or isoleucine markedly enhanced the SHP1 recruitment (see unpublished data below). We speculate that other pY-flanking residues in BTLA, as this reviewer alluded to above, creates an environment that amplifies the differences. The strong sensitivity on pY+1 residue, as observed in BTLA, might be true for other SHP1-recruiting receptors too. If they were to have leucine or isoleucine at the pY+1 position of ITIM, they may recruit too much SHP1 that presumably decreases the fitness/growth of the cells. We propose to show this unpublished data as a supplemental figure in the revised manuscript. We will also discuss the potential contributions of other pY-flanking residues as this reviewer suggested.

    {{images cannot be rendered at this time in reply letters}}

    Response to b: Among the several receptors that we tested, PD-1 is the only receptor that exhibited no recruitment of SHP1. The lack of SHP1 recruitment is also true for murine PD-1, which has a glutamate residue (charged) at Y+1 position. In addition, earlier work reported that PECAM1 also selectively recruits SHP2, but not SHP1. We have noted that PECAM1 contain a threonine (polar) at the pY+1 position of their ITIMs. Thus, their inability to recruit SHP1 is consistent with our model that a nonpolar residue at Y+1 position is required for strong SHP1 recruitment. We will discuss these points in the revised manuscript.

    • Figure 9 b Val not Vla, Figure 3a - a legend for the color code may be nice (ie, 20-1000 nM) Thanks for catching this, we will fix the error in Figure 9b and provide the color code in Figure 3a in the revised manuscript.

    Reviewer #3 (Significance):

    Significance:

    SHP-1 and SHP-2 play a critical role in regulating immune system function. In addition, the receptors recruiting these phosphatases (like PD-1) are important immunotherapy targets. Previously, the question of SHP-1/SHP-2 specificity has been primarily described for ITIM bearing receptors individually. Other studies have predicted consensus sequences for the tSH2 domains of SHP-1 or SHP-2, but not addressed the defining molecular characteristics of these consensus sites or how these could be combined on ITIM receptors to generate selectivity between these related phosphatases. This paper represents a significant step forward because it provides a unifying mechanism explaining how ITIM-bearing immune receptors specifically recruit SHP-1 or SHP-2. I expect this paper will be broadly interesting to biochemists, immunologists and cancer biologists.

    Referee Cross-commenting

    I generally think the other reviewers comments are reasonable and insightful. Together, they suggest no new experiments are necessary. As for the proposed title change, I prefer the authors title and find it to be justified given their data.

    Reviewer #4 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity):

    In this manuscript, Xu and college performed an elaborate study to investigate the molecular basis of Shp1 and Shp2 discrimination by immune checkpoints PD-1 and BTLA. The paper is original, clear, and well written. I only have a few minor comments:

    1. Please label the molecular weights to all the western blots/IPs results.

    We will label the molecular weights to all the blots in the revised manuscript.

    1. Please add scale bars to all the microscopy pictures.

    We will add scale bars to all the microcopy images in the revised manuscript.

    1. For the SPR data, please add the fitting curves.

    We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. However, we did not use the fitting curve to calculate the Kd, we plotted the maximum response as a function of concentration to determine the Kd. This is another well accepted method for Kd calculation. In fact, some of the SPR curves fit poorly with the existing algorithm. Thus, showing the fitting curve might distract the readers.

    Reviewer #4 (Significance):

    The strength of this paper relies on the details they dissected by using a series of mutagenesis screening experiments, which should be interesting to cell biologists and cancer immunologists.

    Referee Cross-commenting

    I think the other reviewer's comments are insightful and constructive, the suggested experiments are necessary and will improve the paper.

    We thank this reviewer for the positive comments!

  8. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #4

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    In this manuscript, Xu and college performed an elaborate study to investigate the molecular basis of Shp1 and Shp2 discrimination by immune checkpoints PD-1 and BTLA. The paper is original, clear, and well written. I only have a few minor comments:

    1. Please label the molecular weights to all the western blots/IPs results.
    2. Please add scale bars to all the microscopy pictures.
    3. For the SPR data, please add the fitting curves.

    Significance

    The strength of this paper relies on the details they dissected by using a series of mutagenesis screening experiments, which should be interesting to cell biologists and cancer immunologists.

    Referee Cross-commenting

    I think the other reviewer's comments are insightful and constructive, the suggested experiments are necessary and will improve the paper.

  9. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    Inhibitory immune receptors containing ITIMs function through recruiting the phosphatases SHP-1 and SHP-2. SHP-1 and SHP-2 are remarkably similar yet have different roles in vivo. How can ITIM-containing immune receptors specifically recruit SHP-1 or SHP-2? In this paper, Xu et al ask how SHP-1 vs SHP-2 specificity is achieved. They use very thorough biochemical assays to measure the affinity of SHP-1 and SHP-2 for various ITIM/ITSMs and finally pin point some key amino acids that switch an ITIM/ITSM from SHP-2 to SHP-1 specificity. The in vitro biochemical assays are augmented by in cell assays that support their conclusions. Overall, this paper is an incredibly elegant and straight forward paper addressing how SHP-1/SHP-2 specificity is achieved.

    Major Comments:

    none

    Minor Comments:

    • Could the western blots in Figure 1 be quantified as the western blots in other figures?
    • The data that the y+1 reside is essential for SHP-1/2 specificity is very convincing. We are curious if the other residues of the ITIM/ITSM also contribute to this specificity, albeit less potently. The PD-1 G224A mutant is still less potent than the PD-1 BTLA ITIM swap, suggesting that while the y+1 position is most important, the other residues contribute some specificity. The authors also included data on a PD-1 variant with the BTLA ITIM A224G mutation (8f), which is slightly better at recruiting SHP-1 than the PD-1 ITIM. It may be worth mentioning this data in the text of the paper as well as displaying it in the figure.
    • A brief introduction to ITIM vs ITSM in the introduction of the paper may be helpful background for readers. For example, ITIM receptors are reasonably well known but how ITSM functionally differs is probably less well known.
    • Although not the major focus of the paper, broadening out this SHP-1/2 specificity to other immune receptors in the discussion is fascinating. (a) The authors find that a Valine, Leucine, or Isoleucine in place of the Alanine in y+1 is very close to equivalent, yet the A is highly conserved. The authors speculate that there may be an advantage to sub-maximal SHP-1 affinity because it is more easy to regulate. I think this is reasonable speculation but a little unsatisfying given the very small observed difference in SHP-1 binding. If the authors have additional thoughts, I would be interested to hear them. (b) The authors note that PD-1 is the only ITIM with a glycine in the Y+1 position. Are there other receptors that function primarily through SHP-2, and how might they achieve this specificity?
    • Figure 9 b Val not Vla, Figure 3a - a legend for the color code may be nice (ie, 20-1000 nM)

    Significance

    SHP-1 and SHP-2 play a critical role in regulating immune system function. In addition, the receptors recruiting these phosphatases (like PD-1) are important immunotherapy targets. Previously, the question of SHP-1/SHP-2 specificity has been primarily described for ITIM bearing receptors individually. Other studies have predicted consensus sequences for the tSH2 domains of SHP-1 or SHP-2, but not addressed the defining molecular characteristics of these consensus sites or how these could be combined on ITIM receptors to generate selectivity between these related phosphatases. This paper represents a significant step forward because it provides a unifying mechanism explaining how ITIM-bearing immune receptors specifically recruit SHP-1 or SHP-2. I expect this paper will be broadly interesting to biochemists, immunologists and cancer biologists.

    Referee Cross-commenting

    I generally think the other reviewers comments are reasonable and insightful. Together, they suggest no new experiments are necessary. As for the proposed title change, I prefer the authors title and find it to be justified given their data.

  10. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    In this study, Xu and co-workers investigate the biophysical nature of the interaction between the structurally-related non-transmembrane PTPs Shp1 and Shp2 with the ITIM/ITSM-containing inhibitory receptors PD-1 and BTLA using cell-based, biochemical, biophysical and domain swapping assays. The primary aim being to better understand how these receptors discriminate between binding Shp1 and/or Shp2, and the orientation of Shp1 and Shp2 engagement. These are major unresolved questions in the field that the authors go some way to addressing in a methodical, rigorous, clear and concise manner. Findings are convincing, correlate well with previous findings and internally, and are complemented with excellent schematics, making it easy to comprehend.

    Major comments

    The authors focus primarily on binding affinities to explain differential binding of Shp1 and Shp2 by PD-1 and BTLA ITIMs and ITSMs, but this is only part of the story. Avidity, compartmentalization, stoichiometry of kinases, and relative abundance of Shp1 and Shp2 are also important aspects of the discriminatory mechanism that are not addressed. Competition assays would go some way to addressing the latter point and should be at least be considered and discussed.

    Similarly, authors do not address how distortion of the pY binding pocket of Shp1 and Shp2 nSH2 domains in the auto-inhibited conformation is released, allowing the domain to engage with phopho-ITIM/ITSM. Again, this should be at least discussed. Current binding studies do not address this issue.

    Minor comments:

    Phosphorylation should be indicated in schematic representations in Figures 3, 6 b, c.

    Cellular and physiological significance should be further discussed, as well as broader implications of findings to other ITIM/ITSM-containing receptors in other lineages.

    Significance

    Findings from this study advance our knowledge of how inhibitory checkpoint regulatory receptors discriminate between Shp1 and Shp2, which has important implications for understanding how the unique biochemical, cellular and physiological functions of these receptors and phosphatases are dictated. Indeed, findings lay the foundation for a universal mechanism, that may apply to all ITIM/ITSM receptors in other cell lineages, and perhaps novel ways of targeting these interactions therapeutically.

    Compare to existing published knowledge

    Although largely correlative with previous studies, findings from this study start to fill major gaps in our knowledge of these biochemical processes, in a highly rigorous, concise and clear manner. Findings from previous studies were more 'piecemeal', whereas this study consolidates and advances important nuances of these interactions. Moreover, it lays the foundation for further structural, physiological and therapeutic studies.

    Audience

    The immune receptor signaling community and beyond, including any lineage in which ITIM/ITSM-containing receptors play a major role in regulating cellular responses.

    Your expertise

    ITIM/ITSM-containing receptors, kinase-phosphatase molecular switches, cellular reactivity to extracellular matrix proteins

    Referee Cross-commenting

    Generally agree with reviewer's comments. Constructive overall and fair. Although I was thinking additional competition experiments, I do not think necessary. Over the top for this study. Hence, 1 month should suffice to revise accordingly.

  11. Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    This paper explores an interesting problem of SHP1/SHP2 preferences of inhibitory immunoreceptors. The author are quick to point out that many of their individual data points confirm published results at some level, but the power of the paper is in the parallel analysis of both PD1, which is strongly biased towards SHP2 and BTLA, which is biased towards SHP1. This gives them the opportunity to test the predictions of descriptive experiment by making simple mutated receptors with swapped ITIM or ITSM domains.

    The work is very well done and generally the authors are quite careful and precise about the language used to describe results, in general.

    The results are quite striking in that the find plenty of evidence for transient interaction of SHP1 with PD1 based on the biophysical measurements, but don't detect the interactions in pull down or in "in cell" microcluster recruitment experiments. In describing the pull-downs they discuss the issue of dissociation during washing potentially missing interactions that are taking place. I would prefer that the pull down is fine evidence for binding, but lack of pull down is not evidence for lack of binding. They should double check that this language is consistent. Also, unless something has changed in the microcluster binding experiments, this in situ recruitment of SHP2 to PD1 is only observed or a 2-3 minutes and then can't be detected, the situation for SHP2 becoming the same as it is for SHP1. If the kinetics are different in the cleaner systems that have now developed they should show this in a primary figure as this would be then different when what is reported previously.

    The gap in this study is lack of any functional analysis. The Jurkat model could be quite useful as they have a relatively clean system for asking if the transient binding of SHP1 to PD1 has any functional impact, which they have not yet followed through on. Does PD-1 recruited SHP2 have any impact on function after the 5 minutes? Furthermore, the authors need to keep in mind that mice deficient in SHP2 respond to anti-PD1 checkpoint therapies (Rota, G., Niogret, C., Dang, A. T., Barros, C. R., Fonta, N. P., Alfei, F., Morgado, L., Zehn, D., Birchmeier, W., Vivier, E., & Guarda, G. (2018). Shp-2 Is Dispensable for Establishing T Cell Exhaustion and for PD-1 Signaling In Vivo. Cell Rep, 23(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.026). This is an important issue to discuss in light the the very interesting binding analysis the authors have performed. But I think the functional analysis can be part of a future paper.

    I would suggest that the title be modified slightly from "SHP1/SHP2 discrimination" to "differential SHP1/SHP2 interaction" and leave discussion of discrimination until they have the functional data integrated over times that are relevant to T cell transcriptional regulation (1-2 hrs). The functional analysis can be in another paper, but it would be interesting to have a paragraph in the discussion raising the outstanding issues beyond stable binding detected by the pull-down and microcluster recruitment experiments- what are the implications for function. Could the transient interactions in the noise of the steady state and equilibrium measurements be functional?

    I would summarise that the work is outstanding as biochemistry and biophysics and it should be published nearly as is. I'm suggesting minor revisions in that the changes are just to text, but I think this is important and somewhat nuanced aspect of the paper that will make it even more helpful to readers.

    Significance

    The authors generate a detailed descriptive data set about the component interaction of SHP1 and SHP2 SH2 domains with PD1 and BTLA intracellular domains. They then test hypotheses generated from the descriptive data set to better define the nature of the interactions and why PD1 recruits primarily SHP2, while BTLA mainly recruits SHP1. PD1 is a major driver or the cancer immunotherapy revolution and SHP2 is the major candidate for a signalling effector of PD1. This paper can become the reference paper for the specificity and engineering of this interaction, which will make it highly significant in a very active and still expanding field.

    Referee Cross-commenting

    I still feel that "discrimination" has a functional/activity connotation that is not addressed at all in this paper, but can be addressed. I'm happy to have the suggestion stand and let the authors decide. They need to live with it once its published. Another suggestion- the citations on regulation are mostly old. A good recent paper is Pádua, R. A. P., Sun, Y., Marko, I., Pitsawong, W., Stiller, J. B., Otten, R., & Kern, D. (2018). Mechanism of activating mutations and allosteric drug inhibition of the phosphatase SHP2. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06814-w .

  12. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.23.449580v1 on bioRxiv
  13. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.23.449580v2 on bioRxiv