4.7 Article

Efficient identification of HLA-A*2402-restricted cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T-cell epitopes by a computer algorithm and an enzyme-linked immunospot assay

期刊

BLOOD
卷 98, 期 6, 页码 1872-1881

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V98.6.1872

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antigenic peptides recognized by virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) are useful tools for studying the CTL responses exclusively among those who own the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules that present the peptides. For widening the application, an efficient strategy to determine such epitopes in the context of a given MHC is highly desirable. A rapid and efficient strategy is presented for the determination of CTL epitopes in the context of given MHC molecules of interest through multiple screenings consisting of a computer-assisted algorithm and MHC stabilization and enzyme-linked immunospot assays. A major cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CTL epitope, QYDPVAALF, in the amino acid sequence of its lower matrix 65 kd phosphoprotein (pp65) presented by HLA-A*2402 molecules was identified from 83 candidate peptides. The results indicate that the CMV-specific CTL response is highly focused to pp65 in the context of HLA-A*2402. Endogenous processing and presentation was confirmed using a peptide-specific CD8(+) T-cell clone as the effectors and autologous fibroblast cells infected with recombinant vaccinia virus expressing pp65 gene or CMV as anti gen-presenting cells. Flow cytometric analysis of intracellular interferon-gamma production revealed 0.04% to 0.27% of CD8(+) T cells in peripheral blood of HLA-A24(+) and CMV-seropositive donors to be specific for the peptide. The tetrameric MHC-peptide complexes specifically bound to the reactive T-cell clone and 0.79% of CD8(+) T cells in peripheral blood from a seropositive donor. The peptide could be a useful reagent to study CTL responses to CMV among populations positive for HLA-A*2402.

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

4.7
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