4.8 Article

Selective expansion of myeloid and NK cells in humanized mice yields human-like vaccine responses

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-07478-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grand Health Challenge program from Princeton University
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI079031, R01AI107301]
  3. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  4. Searle Scholars Program
  5. Beckman Young Investigator Program
  6. NIH [1DP2OD020839, 5U24AI118672, 1U54CA217377, 1R33CA202820, 2U19AI089992, 1R01HL134539, 2RM1HG006193, 2R01HL095791, P01AI039671]
  7. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1139972]
  8. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32GM007753]
  9. New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research
  10. Cancer Institute of New Jersey Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA072720]
  11. [T32GM007388]
  12. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1139972] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mice engrafted with components of a human immune system have become widely-used models for studying aspects of human immunity and disease. However, a defined methodology to objectively measure and compare the quality of the human immune response in different models is lacking. Here, by taking advantage of the highly immunogenic live-attenuated yellow fever virus vaccine YFV-17D, we provide an in-depth comparison of immune responses in human vaccinees, conventional humanized mice, and second generation humanized mice. We demonstrate that selective expansion of human myeloid and natural killer cells promotes transcriptomic responses akin to those of human vaccinees. These enhanced transcriptomic profiles correlate with the development of an antigen-specific cellular and humoral response to YFV-17D. Altogether, our approach provides a robust scoring of the quality of the human immune response in humanized mice and highlights a rational path towards developing better pre-clinical models for studying the human immune response and disease.

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