4.7 Article

In vitro naive T cell proliferation failure predicts poor post-immunization responses to neoantigen, but not recall antigens, in HIV-infection

期刊

CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 136, 期 3, 页码 400-408

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clim.2010.04.016

关键词

Naive T cells; HIV; HAART; Immune reconstitution; T cell proliferation; Neoantigens; Vaccine responses

资金

  1. Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) at Case Western Reserve University [AI 36219]
  2. University Hospitals of Cleveland
  3. National Institutes of Health [AI076174]
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [P30AI036219, U01AI038858, P01AI076174] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune reconstitution after HAART is incomplete, but no widely accepted method to quantify subclinical immune deficiency is available. We immunized 9 HIV-negative subjects and 29 HIV-infected patients with CD4 >= 450 cells/mu L and undetectable HIV RNA levels with 2 doses of diphtheria/tetanus toxoid (TT) and KLH, a presumed neoantigen. We quantified the response by lymphoproliferative assay, delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH), and antibody titers up to 59 days after enrollment. We assessed T cell proliferative capacity using anti-V beta 3 and anti-V beta 5 antibody stimulation, which we herein show induced predominant proliferation of naive T cells. Subjects with detectable responses to KLH tended to exhibit greater proliferative responses to anti-V beta 3/V beta 5 stimulation; no such pattern was seen with response to TT. Several measures of in vitro T cell proliferative capacity correlated significantly with DTH and antibody responses to KLH, but not with TT responses; this association was independent of naive T cell numbers. Our results indicate that naive T cell proliferation predicts response to neo-, but not recall antigens, and suggest that it may be a meaningful reflection of in vivo immune competence in HIV-infected persons. (C) 2010 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

4.7
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