4.6 Article

Dengue virus-reactive CD8+ T cells display quantitative and qualitative differences in their response to variant epitopes of heterologous viral serotypes

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 176, Issue 5, Pages 2817-2824

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.5.2817

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [K08 AI01729, U19 AI57319] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reactivation of serotype cross-reactive CD8(+) memory T lymphocytes is thought to contribute to the immunopathogenesis of dengue disease during secondary infection by a heterologous serotype. Using cytokine flow cytometry, we have defined four novel HLA-A*02-restricted dengue viral epitopes recognized by up to 1.5% of circulating CD8(+) T cells in four donors after primary vaccination. All four donors had the highest cytolkine response to the epitope NS4b 2353. We also studied the effect of sequence differences in heterologous dengue serotypes on dengue-reactive CD8(+) memory T cell cytolkine and proliferative responses. The D3 variant of a different NS4b epitope 2423 and the D2 variant of the NS4a epitope 2148 induced the largest cytokine response, compared with their respective heterologous sequences in all donors regardless of the primary vaccination serotype. Stimulation with variant peptides also altered the relative frequencies of the various subsets of cells that expressed IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, MIP-1 beta, and combinations of these cytolkines. These results indicate that the prior infection history of the individual as well as the serotypes of the primary and heterologous secondary viruses influence the nature of the secondary response. These differences in the effector functions of serotype cross-reactive memory T cells induced by heterologous variant epitopes, which are both quantitative and qualitative, may contribute to the clinical outcome of secondary dengue infection.

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