4.2 Article

A side-by-side comparison of T cell reactivity to fifty-nine Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens in diverse populations from five continents

期刊

TUBERCULOSIS
卷 95, 期 6, 页码 713-721

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2015.07.001

关键词

Tuberculosis; T cell antigen; Vaccine; CD4

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HHSN272200900044C, HHSN266200700022C/NO1-AI-70022, R37AI052731]
  2. IOC/FIOCRUZ [CNPq research fellowship] [PQ-2-Brazil]
  3. Italian Ministry of Health [Ricerca Corrente]
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1066265]
  5. HIV Vaccine Trials Network [RAMP scholarship]
  6. Russian Science Foundation [15-15-00136]
  7. Russian Science Foundation [15-15-00136] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation
  8. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1066265] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared T cell recognition of 59 prevalently recognized Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) antigens in individuals latently infected with MTB (LTBI), and uninfected individuals with previous BCG vaccination, from nine locations and populations with different HLA distribution, MTB exposure rates, and standards of TB care. This comparison revealed similar response magnitudes in diverse LTBI and BCG-vaccinated cohorts and significant correlation between responses in LTBIs from the USA and other locations. Many antigens were uniformly recognized, suggesting suitability for inclusion in vaccines targeting diverse populations. Several antigens were similarly immunodominant in LTBI and BCG cohorts, suggesting applicability for vaccines aimed at boosting BCG responses. The panel of MTB antigens will be valuable for characterizing MTB-specific CD4 T cell responses irrespective of ethnicity, infecting MTB strains and BCG vaccination status. Our results illustrate how a comparative analysis can provide insight into the relative immunogenicity of existing and novel vaccine candidates in LTBIs. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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