4.6 Article

Combining Next-Generation Sequencing and Immune Assays: A Novel Method for Identification of Antigen-Specific T Cells

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074231

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sequenta Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we combined a novel sequencing method, which can identify individual clonotypes based on their unique T cell receptor (TCR) rearrangement, with existing immune assays to characterize antigen-specific T cell responses. We validated this approach using three types of assays routinely used to measure antigen-specific responses: pentamers which enable identification of T cells bearing specific TCRs, activation marker expression following antigen stimulation and antigen-induced proliferation to identify cytomegalovirus (CMV) specific clonotypes. In one individual, 8 clonotypes were identified using a pentamer reagent derived from the CMV pp65 protein. The same 8 clonotypes were also identified following sequencing of cells that upregulated an activation marker following incubation with an identical peptide derived from pp65. These 8 and an additional 8 clonotypes were identified using a more sensitive CFSE-based proliferation assay. We found clear sequence homology among some of the clonotypes identified, and the CDR3 region in one clonotype was identical to a previously published pp65-specific clonotype sequence. Many of these CMV-specific clonotypes were present at frequencies below 10 25 which are undetectable using standard flow-cytometric methods. These studies suggest that an immune response is comprised of a diverse set of clones, many of which are present at very low frequencies. Thus, the combination of immune assays and sequencing depicts the richness and diversity of an immune response at a level that is not possible using standard immune assays alone. The methods articulated in this work provide an enhanced understanding of T cell-mediated immune responses at the clonal level.

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