4.8 Article

SIV-specific CD8+ T cells are clonotypically distinct across lymphoid and mucosal tissues

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Volume 130, Issue 2, Pages 789-798

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI129161

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH
  2. Wellcome Trust [100326/Z/12/Z]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [ZIAAI001029, ZIAAI000370] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CD8(+) T cell responses are necessary for immune control of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). However, the key parameters that dictate antiviral potency remain elusive, conceivably because most studies to date have been restricted to analyses of circulating CD8(+) T cells. We conducted a detailed clonotypic, functional, and phenotypic survey of SIV-specific CD8(+ )T cells across multiple anatomical sites in chronically infected rhesus macaques with high (>10,000 copies/mL plasma) or low burdens of viral RNA (<10,000 copies/mL plasma). No significant differences in response magnitude were identified across anatomical compartments. Rhesus macaques with low viral loads (VLs) harbored higher frequencies of polyfunctional CXCR5(+) SIV-specific CD8(+) T cells in various lymphoid tissues and higher proportions of unique Gag-specific CD8(+) T cell clonotypes in the mesenteric lymph nodes relative to rhesus macaques with high VLs. In addition, public Gag-specific CD8(+) T cell clonotypes were more commonly shared across distinct anatomical sites than the corresponding private clonotypes, which tended to form tissue-specific repertoires, especially in the peripheral blood and the gastrointestinal tract. Collectively, these data suggest that functionality and tissue localization are important determinants of CD8(+) T cell-mediated efficacy against SIV.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available