4.6 Article

Distinct CD8+ T cell repertoires primed with agonist and native peptides derived from a tumor-associated antigen

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 180, 期 3, 页码 1526-1534

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.180.3.1526

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA 102303] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heteroclitic peptides are used to enhance the immunogenicity of tumor-associated Ags to break T cell tolerance to these self-proteins. One such altered peptide ligand (Cap1-6D) has been derived from an epitope in human carcinoembryonic Ag, CEA(605-613) (Cap1). Clinical responses have been seen in colon cancer patients receiving a tumor vaccine comprised of this altered peptide. Whether Cap1-6D serves as a T cell agonist for Cap1-specific T cells or induces different T cells is unknown. We, therefore, examined the T cell repertoires elicited by Cap1-6D and Capl. Human CTL lines and clones were generated with either Cap1-6D peptide (6D-CTLs) or Cap1 peptide (Cap1-CTLs). The TCR V beta usage and functional avidity of the T cells induced in parallel against these target peptides were assessed. The predominant CTL repertoire induced by agonist Cap1-6D is limited to TCR V beta 1-J2 with homogenous CDR3 lengths. In contrast, the majority of Cap1-CTLs use different V beta 1 genes and also had diverse CDR3 lengths. 6D-CTLs produce IFN-gamma in response to Cap1-6D peptide with high avidity, but respond with lower avidity to the native Capl peptide when compared with the Cap1-CTLs. Nevertheless, 6D-CTLs could still lyse targets bearing the native epitope. Consistent with these functional results, 6D-CTLs possess TCRs that bind Cap-1 peptide/MHC tetramer with higher intensity than Cap1-CTLs but form less stable interactions with peptide/MHC as measured by tetramer decay. These results demonstrate that priming with this CEA-derived altered peptide ligand can induce distinct carcinoembryonic Ag-reactive T cells with different functional capacities.

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