4.7 Article

Definition of the viral targets of protective HIV-1-specific T cell responses

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-208

关键词

HIV specific CTL; clade B; clade C; HLA; vaccine immunogen design; functional avidity; epitope; entropy; immune correlate

资金

  1. NIH [N01-AI-30024, N01-AI-15422]
  2. NIH-NIDCR [R01 DE018925-04]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia [MTM2008-06747-C02-00]
  4. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS PS09/00283]
  5. Fundacio para la Investigacion y Prevencion del SIDA en Espana (FIPSE) [360737/09]
  6. European Community
  7. FIS (Rio Hortega, Madrid, Spain) [CM08/00020]
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  9. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The efficacy of the CTL component of a future HIV-1 vaccine will depend on the induction of responses with the most potent antiviral activity and broad HLA class I restriction. However, current HIV vaccine designs are largely based on viral sequence alignments only, not incorporating experimental data on T cell function and specificity. Methods: Here, 950 untreated HIV-1 clade B or -C infected individuals were tested for responses to sets of 410 overlapping peptides (OLP) spanning the entire HIV-1 proteome. For each OLP, a protective ratio (PR) was calculated as the ratio of median viral loads (VL) between OLP non-responders and responders. Results: For both clades, there was a negative relationship between the PR and the entropy of the OLP sequence. There was also a significant additive effect of multiple responses to beneficial OLP. Responses to beneficial OLP were of significantly higher functional avidity than responses to non-beneficial OLP. They also had superior in-vitro antiviral activities and, importantly, were at least as predictive of individuals' viral loads than their HLA class I genotypes. Conclusions: The data thus identify immunogen sequence candidates for HIV and provide an approach for T cell immunogen design applicable to other viral infections.

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

4.7
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