4.7 Article

Recovery from the Middle East respiratory syndrome is associated with antibody and T cell responses

期刊

SCIENCE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 2, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aan5393

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [PO1 060699]
  2. 2015 Thousand Talents Plan Award of China
  3. Municipal Healthcare Joint-Innovation Major Project of Guangzhou [201604020011]
  4. Division of Intramural Research of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) causes a highly lethal pneumonia. MERS was recently identified as a candidate for vaccine development, but most efforts focus on antibody responses, which are often transient after CoV infections. CoV-specific T cells are generally long-lived, but the virus-specific T cell response has not been addressed in MERS patients. We obtained peripheral blood mononuclear cells and/or sera from 21 MERS survivors. We detected MERS-CoV-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell responses in all MERS survivors and demonstrated functionality by measuring cytokine expression after peptide stimulation. Neutralizing (PRNT50) antibody titers measured in vitro predicted serum protective ability in infected mice and correlated with CD4(+) but not CD8(+) T cell responses; patients with higher PRNT50 and CD4(+) T cell responses had longer intensive care unit stays and prolonged virus shedding and required ventilation. Survivors with undetectable MERS-CoV-specific antibody responses mounted CD8(+) T cell responses comparable with those of the whole cohort. There were no correlations between age, disease severity, comorbidities, and virus-specific CD8(+) T cell responses. In conclusion, measurements of MERS-CoV-specific T cell responses may be useful for predicting prognosis, monitoring vaccine efficacy, and identifying MERS patients with mild disease in epidemiological studies and will complement virus-specific antibody measurements.

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