4.4 Article

Natural controlled HIV infection: Preserved HIV-specific immunity despite undetectable replication competent virus

期刊

VIROLOGY
卷 339, 期 1, 页码 70-80

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.virol.2005.06.001

关键词

HIV infection; immunity; antigen

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term non-progressive HIV infection, characterized by low but detectable viral load and stable CD4 counts in the absence of antiviral therapy, is observed in about 5% of HIV-infected patients. Here we identified four therapy naive individuals who are strongly seropositive for HIV-1 but who lack evidence of detectable HIV p24 antigen, plasma RNA, and proviral DNA in routine diagnostic testing. With an ultrasensitive PCR, we established that frequencies of pol proviral DNA sequences were as low as 0.2-0.5 copies/10(6) PBMC. HIV could not be isolated using up to 30 x 10(6) patient PBMC. One individual was heterozygous for CCR5 Delta 32, but CCR5 expression on CD4(+) T cells was normal to high in all four individuals. In vitro R5 and X4 HIV-1 susceptibility of CD8-depleted PBMC of all study subjects was significantly lower than the susceptibility of CD8-depleted PBMC of healthy blood donors. All individuals expressed protective HLA-B*58s alleles and showed evidence of HIV-specific cellular immunity either by staining with HLA-B*57 tetramers folded with an HIV RT or gag peptide or after stimulation with HIV-1 p24 gag, RT, or nef peptides in ELIspot analysis. HIV-specific CD4(+) T helper cells were demonstrated by proliferation of CD4(+) T cells and intracellular staining for IL-2 and IFN gamma after stimulation with an HIV-gag peptide pool. Sera of all individuals showed antibody-mediated neutralization of both R5 and X4 HIV-1 variants. These data implicate that very low-level antigen exposure is sufficient for sustained HIV-specific immunity and suggest the possibility of a multi-factorial control of HIV infection. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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