4.8 Article

Determinants of HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibody induction

Journal

NATURE MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 11, Pages 1260-1267

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.4187

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030_152663, PZ00P3-142411, BSSGI0_155851, 33CS30_148522]
  2. Clinical Priority Research Priority Program of the University of Zurich (viral infectious diseases: Zurich Primary HIV Infection Study)
  3. Yvonne-Jacob Foundation
  4. Swiss Vaccine Research Institute
  5. SystemsX.ch grant (AntibodyX)
  6. small nested SHCS project [744]
  7. SHCS research foundation
  8. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [33CS30_148522] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) are a focal component of HIV-1 vaccine design, yet basic aspects of their induction remain poorly understood. Here we report on viral, host and disease factors that steer bnAb evolution using the results of a systematic survey in 4,484 HIV-1-infected individuals that identified 239 bnAb inducers. We show that three parameters that reflect the exposure to antigen-viral load, length of untreated infection and viral diversity-independently drive bnAb evolution. Notably, black participants showed significantly (P = 0.0086-0.038) higher rates of bnAb induction than white participants. Neutralization fingerprint analysis, which was used to delineate plasma specificity, identified strong virus subtype dependencies, with higher frequencies of CD4-binding-site bnAbs in infection with subtype B viruses (P = 0.02) and higher frequencies of V2-glycan-specific bnAbs in infection with non-subtype B viruses (P = 1 x 10(-5)). Thus, key host, disease and viral determinants, including subtype specific envelope features that determine bnAb specificity, remain to be unraveled and harnessed for bnAb-based vaccine design.

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