4.8 Article

Preexisting memory CD4+ T cells contribute to the primary response in an HIV-1 vaccine trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 131, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI150823

关键词

-

资金

  1. SCHARP Statistical Center
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) US Public Health Service [UM1 AI00645, UM1 AI144371, UM1 AI068614, UM1 AI068635, UM1 AI068618, UM1 AI069412, UM1 AI069481, MR/K012037]
  3. Medical Research Council
  4. Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award [100326/Z/12/Z]
  5. Wellcome Trust [100326/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study found that preexisting memory CD4(+) T cells could shape the early immune response to vaccination with a previously unencountered HIV-1 antigen in HIV-1-seronegative volunteers who received an HIV-1 vaccine.
Naive and memory CD4(+) T cells reactive with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) are detectable in unexposed, unimmunized individuals. The contribution of preexisting CD4(+) T cells to a primary immune response was investigated in 20 HIV-1-seronegative volunteers vaccinated with an HIV-1 envelope (Env) plasmid DNA prime and recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) boost in the HVTN 106 vaccine trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02296541). Prevaccination naive or memory CD4(+) T cell responses directed against peptide epitopes in Env were identified in 14 individuals. After priming with DNA, 40% (8/20) of the elicited responses matched epitopes detected in the corresponding preimmunization memory repertoires, and clonotypes were shared before and after vaccination in 2 representative volunteers. In contrast, there were no shared epitope specificities between the preimmunization memory compartment and responses detected after boosting with recombinant MVA expressing a heterologous Env. Preexisting memory CD4(+) T cells therefore shape the early immune response to vaccination with a previously unencountered HIV-1 antigen.

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