4.6 Article

Inefficient cross-presentation limits the CD8+ T cell response to a subdominant tumor antigen epitope

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 175, Issue 2, Pages 700-712

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.2.700

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA025000, 5T32 CA 60395, CA 24694, CA 25000] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CD8(+) T lymphocytes (T-CD8) responding to subdominant epitopes provide alternate targets for the immunotherapy of cancer, particularly when self-tolerance limits the response to immunodominant epitopes. However, the mechanisms that promote T-CD8 subdominance to tumor Ags remain obscure. We investigated the basis for the lack of priming against (B6) mice with SV40 large tumor Ag (T Ag)-transformed cells. Immunization of B6 mice with wild-type T Ag-transformed cells primes T-CD8 specific for three immunodominant T Ag epitopes (epitopes I, II/III, and IV) but fails to induce T-CD8 specific for the subdominant T Ag epitope V. Using adoptively transferred T-CD8 from epitope V-specific TCR transgenic mice and immunization with T Ag-transformed cells, we demonstrate that the subdominant epitope V is weakly cross-presented relative to inummodominant epitopes derived from the same protein Ag. Priming of naive epitope V-specific TCR transgenic T-CD8 in B6 mice required cross-presentation by host APC. However, robust expansion of these T-CD8 required additional direct presentation of the subdominant epitope by T Ag-transformed cells and was only significant following immunization with T Ag-expressing cells lacking the inummodominant epitopes. These results indicate that limited cross-presentation coupled with competition by inummodominant epitope-specific T-CD8 contributes to the subdominant nature of a tumor-specific epitope. This finding has implications for vaccination strategies targeting T-CD8 responses to cancer.

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