4.6 Article

Antigen-specific CD8+ T cells persist in the upper respiratory tract following influenza virus infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 167, 期 6, 页码 3293-3299

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.6.3293

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01HL63925-01A1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [F32AI-1050] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because little is known about lymphocyte responses in the nasal mucosa, lymphocyte accumulation in the nasal mucosa, nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT), and cervical lymph nodes (CLN) were determined after primary and heterosubtypic intranasal influenza challenge of mice. T cell accumulation peaked in the nasal mucosa on day 7, but peaked slightly earlier in the CLN (day 5) and later (day 10) in the NALT. Tetrameric staining of nasal mucosal cells revealed a peak accumulation of CD8 T cells specific for either the H-2D(b) influenza nucleoprotein epitope 366-374 ((DNP366)-N-b) or the H-2D(b) polymerase 2 protein epitope 224-233 (D(b)PA(224)) at 7 days. By day 13, D(b)PA(224)-specific CD8 T cells were undetectable in the mucosa, whereas (DNP366)-N-b-specific CD8 T cells persisted for at least 35 days in the mucosa and spleen. After heterosubtypic virus challenge, the accumulation of CD8 T cells in the nasal mucosa was quicker, more intense, and predominantly (DNP366)-N-b specific relative to the primary inoculation. The kinetics and specificity of the CD8 T cell response were similar to those in the CLN, but the responses in the NALT and spleen were again slower and more protracted. These results indicate that similar to what was reported in the lung, (DNP366)-N-b-specific CD8 T cells persist in the nasal mucosa after primary influenza infection and predominate in an intensified nasal mucosal response to heterosubtypic challenge. In addition, differences in the kinetics of the CD8 T cell responses in the CLN, NALT, and spleen suggest different roles of these lymphoid tissues in the mucosal response.

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