4.8 Review

Re-engaging cross-reactive memory B cells: the influenza puzzle

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00053

关键词

memory; B cells; cross-reactive; influenza; epitopes

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [U19-AI057266]
  2. ARRA [U19 AI057266-06S2]
  3. NIH/NIAID Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance [HHSN266200700006C]
  4. Northeast Biodefense Center [U54-AI057158-Lipkin]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of a novel influenza A virus strain into humans poses a continuous public health threat. Vaccination is the most effective means of protection against influenza. The generation of memory B cells and long-lived plasma cells that can maintain protective levels of influenza-specific antibodies for protracted periods of time is the foundation for the success of such vaccines. Influenza vaccines elicit an antibody response that is primarily targeting viral surface glycoproteins. However, frequent amino acid mutations within the immunodominant epitopes allow the virus to efficiently escape neutralization by preexisting antibodies and consequently cause annual epidemics and occasional pandemics. Recently, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that target subdominant influenza epitopes have been extensively characterized. These epitopes are immunogenic, can mediate virus neutralization, and most importantly are conserved among different influenza strains. It remains puzzling, however, that despite being repeatedly exposed to such conserved domains of influenza hemagglutinin (HA) either in the form of vaccination or natural infection, most humans do not develop immunological memory that can provide broad protection against emerging virus strains. Here we will discuss the conditions that may be required for engaging such cross-reactive memory B cells in the immune response to influenza infection and vaccination in humans.

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

4.8
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