4.8 Article

Infants Infected with Respiratory Syncytial Virus Generate Potent Neutralizing Antibodies that Lack Somatic Hypermutation

期刊

IMMUNITY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 339-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.01.005

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA023108-37]
  2. Immunology COBRE Grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences [P30GM103415-15]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-76SF00515]
  5. DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  6. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [P41GM103393]
  7. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the NIH [T32GM008704, P20GM113132]
  8. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of infant mortality, and there are currently no licensed vaccines to protect this vulnerable population. A comprehensive understanding of infant antibody responses to natural RSV infection would facilitate vaccine development. Here, we isolated more than 450 RSV fusion glycoprotein (F)-specific antibodies from 7 RSV-infected infants and found that half of the antibodies recognized only two antigenic sites. Antibodies targeting both sites showed convergent sequence features, and structural studies revealed the molecular basis for their recognition of RSV F. A subset of antibodies targeting one of these sites displayed potent neutralizing activity despite lacking somatic mutations, and similar antibodies were detected in RSV-naive B cell repertoires, suggesting that expansion of these B cells in infants may be possible with suitably designed vaccine antigens. Collectively, our results provide fundamental insights into infant antibody responses and a framework for the rational design of age-specific RSV vaccines.

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