4.6 Article

Persistent high frequencies of varicella-zoster virus ORF4 protein-specific CD4+ T cells after primary infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 80, 期 19, 页码 9772-9778

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00564-06

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. MRC [G116/150] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G116/150] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G116/150] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Open reading frame 4 (ORF4) of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) encodes an immediate-early protein that is believed to be important for viral infectivity and establishing latency. Evidence suggests that VZV-specific T cells are crucial in the control of viral replication, but there are no data addressing the existence of potential ORF4 protein-specific CD4(+) T cells. We tested the hypothesis that VZV ORF4 protein-specific CD4(+) T cells could be identified and characterized within the peripheral blood of healthy immune donors following primary infection. Gamma interferon (IFN-gamma) immunosorbent assays were used to screen peripheral blood mononuclear cells obtained from healthy seropositive donors for responses to overlapping ORF4 peptides, viral lysate, and live vaccine. High frequencies of ORF4 protein-specific T cells were detected ex vivo in individuals up to 52 years after primary infection. Several immunogenic regions of the ORF4 protein were identified, including a commonly recognized epitope which was restricted through HLA-DRB1*07. Total ORF4 protein-specific responses comprised 19.7% and 20.7% of the total lysate and vaccine responses, respectively, and were dominated by CD4(+) T cells. Indeed, CD4(+) T cells were found to dominate the overall virus-specific IFN-gamma cellular immune response both ex vivo and after expansion in vitro. In summary, we have identified an ORF4 protein as a novel target antigen for persistent VZV-specific CD4(+) T cells, with implications for disease pathogenesis and future vaccine development.

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

4.6
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