4.6 Article

The protective immune response to heat shock protein 60 of Histoplasma capsulatum is mediated by a subset of Vβ8.1/8.2+ T cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 169, Issue 10, Pages 5818-5826

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.10.5818

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI 34361, AI 42747] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunization with recombinant heat shock protein 60 (rHsp60) from Histoplasma capsulatum or a region of the protein designated fragment 3 (F3) confers protection from a subsequent challenge in mice. To determine the T cell repertoire involved in the response to Hsp60, T cell clones from C57BL/6 mice immunized with rHsp60 were generated and examined for Vbeta usage by flow cytometry and RT-PCR. Vbeta8.1/8.2(+) T cells were preferentially expanded; other clones bore Vbeta4, -6, or -11. When Vbeta8.1/8.2(+) cells were depleted. in mice, Vbeta4(+) T cell clones were almost exclusively isolated. Measurement of cytokine production demonstrated that nine of 16 Vbeta8.1/8.2(+) clones were Th1, while only three of 13 non-Vbeta8.1/8.2(+) clones were Th1. In mice immunized with rHsp60, depletion of Vbeta8.1/8.2(+), but not Vbeta6(+) plus Vbeta7(+), T cells completely abolished the protective efficacy of Hsp60 to lethal and sublethal challenges. Examination of the TCR revealed that a subset of Vbeta8.1/2(+) clones that produced IFN-gamma and were reactive to F3 shared a common CDR3 sequence, DGGQG. Transfer of these T cell clones into TCR alpha/beta(-/-) or IFN-gamma(-/-) mice significantly improved survival, while transfer of other Vbeta8.1/8.2(+) clones that were F3 reactive but were Th2 or clones that were not reactive to F3 but were Th1 did not confer protection. These data indicate, that a distinct subset of Vbeta8.1/8.2(+) T cells is crucial for the generation of a protective response to rHsp60.

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