4.7 Article

Th17 and Th17/Treg ratio at early HIV infection associate with protective HIV-specific CD8+ T-cell responses and disease progression

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep11511

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (PICT) [2008/0549, 2011/1658]
  2. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (PICTO Glaxo) [2013-0036]
  3. Fundacion A. J. Roemmers
  4. UBACyt [UBACyT 2013-2016 20020120200263BA]
  5. Southwest National Primate Research Center from the Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP), National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P51 OD011133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to analyze Th17 and Treg subsets and their correlation with anti-HIV T-cell responses and clinical parameters during (acute/early) primary HIV infection (PHI) and up to one year post-infection (p.i). Samples from 14 healthy donors (HDs), 40 PHI patients, 17 Chronics, and 13 Elite controllers (ECs) were studied. The percentages of Th17 and Treg subsets were severely altered in Chronics, whereas all HIV-infected individuals (including ECs) showed Th17/Treg imbalance compared to HDs, in concordance with higher frequencies of activated CD8(+) T-cells (HLA-DR+/CD38(+)). Better clinical status (higher CD4 counts, lower viral loads and activation) was associated with higher Th17 and lower Treg levels. We found positive correlations between Th17 at baseline and anti-HIV CD8(+) T-cell functionality: viral inhibitory activity (VIA) and key polyfunctions (IFN-gamma(+)/CD107(A/B)(+)) at both early and later times p.i, highlighting the prognostic value of Th17 cells to preserve an effective HIV T-cell immunity. Th17/Treg ratio and the IL-17 relative mean fluorescence intensity (rMFI of IL-17) were also positively correlated with VIA. Taken together, our results suggested a potential link between Th17 and Th17/Treg ratio with key HIV-specific CD8(+) T-cell responses against the infection.

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