4.5 Article

Characterization of Conserved and Promiscuous Human Rhinovirus CD4 T Cell Epitopes

Journal

CELLS
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells10092294

Keywords

Human rhinovirus; CD4 T cell; epitope; peptide

Categories

Funding

  1. UCM research special funds
  2. CAM research agency [IND2020/BMD-17364]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study identified 7 CD4 T cell epitopes from RV A and C serotypes, demonstrating their ability to bind to multiple HLA II molecules and be recognized by over 95% of the global population when combined. These epitopes could be crucial for monitoring RV infections and developing peptide-based vaccines against most RV A and C serotypes.
Human rhinovirus (RV) is the most common cause of upper respiratory infections and exacerbations of asthma. In this work, we selected 14 peptides (6 from RV A and 8 from RV C) encompassing potential CD4 T cell epitopes. Peptides were selected for being highly conserved in RV A and C serotypes and predicted to bind to multiple human leukocyte antigen class II (HLA II) molecules. We found positive T cell recall responses by interferon gamma (IFN gamma)-ELISPOT assays to eight peptides, validating seven of them (three from RV A and four from RV C) as CD4 T cell epitopes through intracellular cytokine staining assays. Additionally, we verified their promiscuous binding to multiple HLA II molecules by quantitative binding assays. According to their experimental HLA II binding profile, the combination of all these seven epitopes could be recognized by >95% of the world population. We actually determined IFN gamma responses to a pool encompassing these CD4 T cell epitopes by intracellular cytokine staining, finding positive responses in 29 out of 30 donors. The CD4 T cell epitopes identified in this study could be key to monitor RV infections and to develop peptide-based vaccines against most RV A and C serotypes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available