4.2 Article

Development and evaluation of an M2-293FT cell-based flow cytometric assay for quantification of antibody response to native form of matrix protein 2 of influenza A viruses

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 369, 期 1-2, 页码 115-124

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2011.04.010

关键词

Influenza A virus; Matrix protein 2; Gene transfection; Antibody response; Flow cytometry; Immune protection

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Matrix protein 2 (M2) of influenza A viruses is an attractive target for the development of broadly cross-protective influenza vaccines and therapeutic antibodies. The available evidence suggests that antibodies reactive to the natural tetrameric form of M2 proteins, rather than those to synthetic peptides of M2 ectodomain (M2e), best correlate with M2-mediated immune protection. However, the current ability to quantify strain-specific and/or subtype-cross-reactive M2 antibodies against the natural form of M2 antigens from influenza A viruses of different host origin is limited. In the present study, we generated a panel of 293FT transfected cell lines stably expressing full-length tetrameric forms of M2 molecules from human, avian and the swine-origin 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus, respectively, and developed an M2-293FT cell line-based flow cytometric assay (M2-FCA). Side-by-side comparison of M2-FCA with a synthetic M2e peptide-based indirect ELISA (M2e-ELISA) reveals that M2-FCA is highly efficient in quantifying both M2e sequence-specific and cross-reactive antibodies to the native form of M2 antigens. In contrast, promiscuity was evident when specificity and cross-reactivity of anti-M2 antibodies were assessed by M2e-ELISA. These results demonstrate that M2-FCA represents a rapid, simple and sensitive method to quantitatively assess specificity and cross-reactivity of anti-M2 antibodies after infection or vaccination. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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