4.7 Article

Differentiating between memory and effector CD8 T cells by altered expression of cell surface O-glycans

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 191, 期 7, 页码 1241-1246

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.191.7.1241

关键词

memory T cells; effector T cells; cytotoxic T lymphocytes; viral immunity; O-glycosylation

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA09120-21] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [AI30048] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS21496] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently there are few reliable cell surface markers that can clearly discriminate effector from memory T cells. To determine if there are changes in O-glycosylation between these two cell types, we analyzed virus-specific CD8 T cells at various time points after lymphocytic chlorio-meningitis virus infection of mice. Antigen-specific CD8 T cells were identified using major histocompatibility complex class I tetramers, and glycosylation changes were monitored with a monoclonal antibody (1B11) that recognizes O-glycans on mucin-type glycoproteins. We observed a striking upregulation of a specific cell surface O-glycan epitope on virus-specific CD8 T cells during the effector phase of the primary cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response. This upregulation showed a strong correlation with the acquisition of effector function and was downregulated on memory CD8 T cells. Upon reinfection, there was again increased expression of this specific O-glycan epitope on secondary CTL effectors, followed once more by decreased expression on memory cells. Thus, this study identifies a new cell surface marker to distinguish between effector and memory CD8 T cells. This marker call be used to isolate pure populations of effector CTLs and also to determine the proportion of memory CD8 T cells that are recruited into the secondary response upon reencounter with antigen. This latter information will be of value in optimizing immunization strategies for boosting CD8 T cell responses.

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