4.7 Article

Chronic Parasitic Infection Maintains High Frequencies of Short-Lived Ly6C+CD4+ Effector T Cells That Are Required for Protection against Re-infection

期刊

PLOS PATHOGENS
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004538

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to the ability of long-lived CD8(+) memory T cells to mediate protection against systemic viral infections, the relationship between CD4(+) T cell memory and acquired resistance against infectious pathogens remains poorly defined. This is especially true for T helper 1 (Th1) concomitant immunity, in which protection against reinfection coincides with a persisting primary infection. In these situations, pre-existing effector CD4 T cells generated by ongoing chronic infection, not memory cells, may be essential for protection against reinfection. We present a systematic study of the tissue homing properties, functionality, and life span of subsets of memory and effector CD4 T cells activated in the setting of chronic Leishmania major infection in resistant C57Bl/6 mice. We found that pre-existing, CD44(+)CD62L(-)T-bet(+)Ly6C(+) effector (T-EFF) cells that are short-lived in the absence of infection and are not derived from memory cells reactivated by secondary challenge, mediate concomitant immunity. Upon adoptive transfer and challenge, non-dividing Ly6C(+) T-EFF cells preferentially homed to the skin, released IFN-gamma, and conferred protection as compared to CD44(+)CD62L(-)Ly6C(-) effector memory or CD44(+)CD62L(+)Ly6C(-) central memory cells. During chronic infection, Ly6C(+) T-EFF cells were maintained at high frequencies via reactivation of TCM and the T-EFF themselves. The lack of effective vaccines for many chronic diseases may be because protection against infectious challenge requires the maintenance of pre-existing T-EFF cells, and is therefore not amenable to conventional, memory inducing, vaccination strategies.

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