4.6 Article

Broad repertoire of the CD4+ th cell response in spontaneously controlled hepatitis C virus infection includes dominant and highly promiscuous epitopes

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 175, 期 6, 页码 3603-3613

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.6.3603

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [K23 AI054379, R01 AI031563, AI054379, AI31563] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A vigorous hepatitis C virus (HCV)-specific Th cell response is regarded as essential to the immunological control of HCV viremia. The aim of this study was to comprehensively define the breadth and specificity of dominant HCV-specific CD4(+) T cell epitopes in large cohorts of subjects with chronic and spontaneously resolved HCV viremia. Following in vitro stimulation of PBMC, HCV-specific cell cultures from each subject were screened with an overlapping panel of synthetic 20-mer peptides spanning the entire HCV polyprotein. Of 22 subjects who spontaneously controlled HCV viremia, all recognized at least one of a group of six epitopes situated within the nonstructural (NS) proteins NS3, NS4, and NS5, each of which was detected by > 30% of subjects, but most subjects recognized additional, more heterogeneous specificities. In contrast, none of the most frequently targeted epitopes was detected by > 5% of persons with chronic infection. The most frequently recognized peptides showed promiscuous binding to multiple HLA-DR molecules in in vitro binding assays and were restricted by different HLA-DR molecules in functional assays in different persons. These data demonstrate that predominant CD4(+) T cell epitopes in persons with resolved HCV infection are preferentially located in the nonstructural proteins and are immunogenic in the context of multiple class 11 molecules. This comprehensive characterization of CD4(+) T cell epitopes in resolved HCV infection provides important information to facilitate studies of immunopathogenesis and HCV vaccine design and evaluation.

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