4.6 Article

Induction of HIV-1 Broad Neutralizing Antibodies in 2F5 Knock-in Mice: Selection against Membrane Proximal External Region-Associated Autoreactivity Limits T-Dependent Responses

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 191, 期 5, 页码 2538-2550

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1300971

关键词

-

资金

  1. Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery Vaccine Development Center
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  3. Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health [U19AI067854]
  4. National Institutes of Health [R01AI087202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A goal of HIV-1 vaccine development is to elicit broadly neutralizing Abs (BnAbs). Using a knock-in (KI) model of 2F5, a human HIV-1 gp41 membrane proximal external region (MPER)-specific BnAb, we previously demonstrated that a key obstacle to BnAb induction is clonal deletion of BnAb-expressing B cells. In this study of this model, we provide a proof-of-principle that robust serum neutralizing IgG responses can be induced from pre-existing, residual, self-reactive BnAb-expressing B cells in vivo using a structurally compatible gp41 MPER immunogen. Furthermore, in CD40L-deficient 2F5 KI mice, we demonstrate that these BnAb responses are elicited via a type II T-independent pathway, coinciding with expansion and activation of transitional splenic B cells specific for 2F5's nominal gp41 MPER-binding epitope (containing the 2F5 neutralization domain ELDKWA). In contrast, constitutive production of nonneutralizing serum IgGs in 2F5 KI mice is T dependent and originates from a subset of splenic mature B2 cells that have lost their ability to bind 2F5's gp41 MPER epitope. These results suggest that residual, mature B cells expressing autoreactive BnAbs, like 2F5 as BCR, may be limited in their ability to participate in T-dependent responses by purifying selection that selectively eliminates reactivity for neutralization epitope-containing/mimicked host Ags.

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