4.6 Article

Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis Virus Infection Yields Overlapping CD4+ and CD8+ T-Cell Responses

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 82, 期 23, 页码 11734-11741

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00435-08

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [AI-065359]
  2. [5SC3GM082343-02]
  3. [HHSN 266200400023C]
  4. [AI50840]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of CD4(+) T cells helps establish and sustain other immune responses. We have previously shown that responses against a broad set of nine CD4(+) T-cell epitopes were present in the setting of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) Armstrong infection in the context of H-2(d). This is quite disparate to the H-2(b) setting, where only two epitopes have been identified. We were interested in determining whether a broad set of responses was unique to H-2(d) or whether additional CD4(+) T-cell epitopes could be identified in the setting of the H-2(b) background. To pursue this question, we infected C57BL/6 mice with LCMV Armstrong and determined the repertoire of CD4(+) T-cell responses using overlapping 15-mer peptides corresponding to the LCMV Armstrong sequence. We confirmed positive responses by intracellular cytokine staining and major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-peptide binding assays. A broad repertoire of responses was identified, consisting of six epitopes. These epitopes originate from the nucleoprotein (NP) and glycoprotein (GP). Out of the six newly identified CD4(+) epitopes, four of them also stimulate CD8(+) T cells in a statistically significant manner. Furthermore, we assessed these CD4(+) T-cell responses during the memory phase of LCMV Armstrong infection and after infection with a chronic strain of LCMV and determined that a subset of the responses could be detected under these different conditions. This is the first example of a broad repertoire of shared epitopes between CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells in the context of viral infection. These findings demonstrate that immunodominance is a complex phenomenon in the context of helper responses.

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