4.6 Article

Reduced functional capacity of CD8+ T cells expanded by post-exposure vaccination of γ-herpesvirus-infected CD4-deficient mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 168, 期 7, 页码 3477-3483

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.7.3477

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA21765] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mice (1-A(b-/-)) that lack CD4(+) T cells remain healthy for at least three months after respiratory exposure to the murine gamma-her-pesvirus 68 (gammaHV68), then succumb with symptoms of chronic wasting disease. Postexposure challenge of gammaHV68-infected I-A(b+/+) and I-A(b-/-) mice with a recombinant vaccinia virus (Vacc-p56) expressing an antigenic gammaHV68 peptide caused a massive increase in the numbers of D(b)p56-specific CD8(+) T cells. Previous experiments showed that, despite the large numbers of potential CTL effectors, there was little effect on the long-term survival of the CD4-deficient group and no diminution in the level of persistent virus shedding and latency. Comparison of the expanded CD8(+)D(b)p56(+) sets in the I-A(b+/+) and I-A(b-/-) mice indicated that these two T cell populations were not identical. More CD69(high)CD8(+)D(b)p56(+) T cells were found in the CD4-deficient mice, an effect that might be thought to reflect higher Ag load. By contrast, the mean fluorescence intensity of staining for the CD44 glycoprotein was diminished on CD8(+)D(b)p56(+) T cells from the I-A(b-/-) group, the level of CTL activity was lower on a per cell basis, and the relative prevalence of IFN-gamma(+)TNF-alpha(+) T cells detected after in vitro stimulation with the p56 peptide was decreased. Given that this experimental system provides an accessible model for evaluating postexposure vaccination protocols that might be used in diseases like HIV/AIDS, the further need is to clarify the underlying molecular mechanisms and the relative significance of lack of CD4(+) T help vs higher Ag load for these expanded CD8(+) effector populations.

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