4.6 Article

In Vitro Responses to Avian Influenza H5 by Human CD4 T Cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 183, Issue 10, Pages 6432-6441

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0901617

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Allergy and Immunology Diseases, National Institutes of Health [U19 AI062627]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To address the question of whether human T cells are capable of recognizing novel isolates of influenza virus, in vitro responses to recombinant Ags and synthetic peptides derived from the sequences of H1, H3, and H5 were examined in a cohort of 64 individuals selected from a healthy blood donor population. Humans respond in vitro to HI and H3 following exposure through natural infection and vaccination. Responses to H5 were well correlated with those to HI or H3, and thus, a significant repertoire of H5-responsive T cells is present in many individuals; clear nonresponders to H1, H3, and H5, however, do exist. Differences were observed in the cytokine responses to H1, H3, and H5, whereas both IL-2 and IFN-gamma production characteristic of memory responses were observed for H1 and H3, and H5-specific responses elicited primarily IL-2 and little or no IFN-gamma, consistent with a naive T cell phenotype. Responses to all influenza HA were restricted by HLA-DR molecules. To address the structural basis for T cell recognition of H1 and H5, overlapping synthetic peptides were used to identify epitopes and to determine whether recognition of H5 was limited to homologous sequences in H1, the most closely related HA phylogenetically. Although responses were generally correlated, no complete structural overlap was observed. These results suggest that helper T cell cross reactivity between different influenza strains may impart cross-protection to H5N1 strain of influenza. The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 183: 6432-6441.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available