4.6 Article

Estimation of the Size of the Alloreactive NK Cell Repertoire: Studies in Individuals Homozygous for the Group A KIR Haplotype

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 181, 期 9, 页码 6010-6019

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.9.6010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Swedish Cancer Society
  4. Swedish Children's Cancer Foundation
  5. Cancer Society of Stockholm
  6. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  7. Tobias Foundation
  8. Soderberg foundation
  9. Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scell transplantation across HLA barriers may trigger NK cell-mediated graft-vs-leukemia effects leading to improved survival for patients with hematological malignancies. However, the genetic algorithm based on killer cell Ig-like receptor (KIR) and HLA genes used to predict NK cell alloreactivity have yielded discrepant results. Accordingly, it has been difficult to define transplantation settings that favor NK cell alloreactivity. In this study, we have used multiparameter flow cytometry to simultaneously analyze the cell surface expression of all four major inhibitory KIR and CD94/NKG2A to determine the size of the alloreactive NK cell repertoires in 31 individuals homozygous for the group A KIR haplotype. We observed a vast variability in the frequencies of cells with an alloreactive potential, ranging from 0 to 62% of the total NK cell population depending on which, and how many, KIR ligands were missing in theoretical recipients. This analysis required a functional examination of KIR3DL2-single positive NK cells, showing that this subset was hyporesponsive in individuals harboring the cognate ligands HLA-A3/A11. The results provide new insights into the variability of the functional alloreactive NK cell repertoire and have implications for donor selection in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and adoptive NK cell-based immunotherapy. The Journal of Immunology, 2008, 181: 6010-6019.

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

4.6
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