4.6 Article

Immunomic Analysis of the Repertoire of T-Cell Specificities for Influenza A Virus in Humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 82, 期 24, 页码 12241-12251

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01563-08

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [N01-AI30039]
  2. Wenner-Gren Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Continuing antigenic drift allows influenza viruses to escape antibody-mediated recognition, and as a consequence, the vaccine currently in use needs to be altered annually. Highly conserved epitopes recognized by effector T cells may represent an alternative approach for the generation of a more universal influenza virus vaccine. Relatively few highly conserved epitopes are currently known in humans, and relatively few epitopes have been identified from proteins other than hemagglutinin and nucleoprotein. This prompted us to perform a study aimed at identifying a set of human T-cell epitopes that would provide broad coverage against different virus strains and subtypes. To provide coverage across different ethnicities, seven different HLA supertypes were considered. More than 4,000 peptides were selected from a panel of 23 influenza A virus strains based on predicted high-affinity binding to HLA class I or class II and high conservancy levels. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 44 healthy human blood donors were tested for reactivity against HLA-matched peptides by using gamma interferon enzyme-linked immunospot assays. Interestingly, we found that PB1 was the major target for both CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell responses. The 54 nonredundant epitopes (38 class I and 16 class II) identified herein provided high coverage among different ethnicities, were conserved in the majority of the strains analyzed, and were consistently recognized in multiple individuals. These results enable further functional studies of T-cell responses during influenza virus infection and provide a potential base for the development of a universal influenza vaccine.

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