4.7 Article

A Quantitative Analysis of Complexity of Human Pathogen-Specific CD4 T Cell Responses in Healthy M. tuberculosis Infected South Africans

期刊

PLOS PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005760

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1066265]
  2. National Institutes of Health [HHSN272200900044C, U19 AI118626]
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1066265] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a quantitative analysis of the HLA restriction, antigen and epitope specificity of human pathogen specific responses in healthy individuals infected with M. tuberculosis (Mtb), in a South African cohort as a test case. The results estimate the breadth of T cell responses for the first time in the context of an infection and human population setting. We determined the epitope repertoire of eleven representative Mtb antigens and a large panel of previously defined Mtb epitopes. We estimated that our analytic methods detected 50-75% of the total response in a cohort of 63 individuals. As expected, responses were highly heterogeneous, with responses to a total of 125 epitopes detected. The 66 top epitopes provided 80% coverage of the responses identified in our study. Using a panel of 48 HLA class II-transfected antigen-presenting cells, we determined HLA class II restrictions for 278 epitope/donor recognition events (36% of the total). The majority of epitopes were restricted by multiple HLA alleles, and 380 different epitope/HLA combinations comprised less than 30% of the estimated Mtb-specific response. Our results underline the complexity of human T cell responses at a population level. Efforts to capture and characterize this broad and highly HLA promiscuous Mtb-specific T cell epitope repertoire will require significant peptide multiplexing efforts. We show that a comprehensive megapool of Mtb peptides captured a large fraction of the Mtb-specific T cells and can be used to characterize this response.

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