4.8 Article

T cell repertoire following autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 124, 期 3, 页码 1168-1172

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI71691

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID
  2. NIDDK
  3. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF)
  4. Autoimmune Disease Clinical Trials Statistical and Clinical Coordinating Center
  5. UK MS society [938/10]
  6. Multiple Sclerosis Trial Collaboration [WMCN P36769]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is commonly employed for hematologic and non-hematologic malignancies. In clinical trials, HSCT has been evaluated for severe autoimmunity as a method to reset the immune system and produce a new, non-autoimmune repertoire. While the feasibility of eliminating the vast majority of mature T cells is well established, accurate and quantitative determination of the relationship of regenerated T cells to the baseline repertoire has been difficult to assess. Here, in a phase II study of HSCT for poor-prognosis multiple sclerosis, we used high-throughput deep TCR beta chain sequencing to assess millions of individual TCRs per patient sample. We found that HSCT has distinctive effects on CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell repertoires. In CD4(+) T cells, dominant TCR clones present before treatment were undetectable following reconstitution, and patients largely developed a new repertoire. In contrast, dominant CD8(+) clones were not effectively removed, and the reconstituted CD8(+) T cell repertoire was created by clonal expansion of cells present before treatment. Importantly, patients who failed to respond to treatment had less diversity in their T cell repertoire early during the reconstitution process. These results demonstrate that TCR characterization during immunomodulatory treatment is both feasible and informative, and may enable monitoring of pathogenic or protective T cell clones following HSCT and cellular therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据