| Literature DB >> 20589067 |
M Shannon Keckler1, Vida L Hodara, Laura M Parodi, Luis D Giavedoni.
Abstract
The simian immunodeficiency virus- (SIV-) infected rhesus macaque is the preferred animal model for vaccine development, but the correlates of protection in this model are not completely understood. In this paper, we document the cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response to SIV and its effects on viral evolution in an effort to identify events associated with disease progression regardless of MHC allele expression. We observed the evolution of epitopes targeted by CTLs in a group of macaques that included long-term nonprogressing (LTNP), slowly progressing (SP), normally progressing (NP), and rapidly progressing (RP) animals. Collectively, our data (1) identify novel CTL epitopes from an SP animal that are not restricted by known protective alleles, (2) illustrate that, in this small study, RP and NP animals accrue more mutations in CTL epitopes than in SP or LTNP macaques, and (3) demonstrate that the loss of CTL responses to immunodominant epitopes is associated with viral replication increases, which are not controlled by secondary CTL responses. These findings provide further evidence for the critical role of the primary cell-mediated immune responses in the control of retroviral infections.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20589067 PMCID: PMC2877203 DOI: 10.1155/2010/279391
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol ISSN: 1110-7243
MHC class I allele and CTL Epitope Summary.
| Animal Number | Vaccination, Disease Progression | Mamu alleles | CTL Epitope | Significant Trend in CTL Response | Emergence of viral mutants | Restricting Allele for CTL Epitope |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16037 | LAV, LTNP | Gag CTPYDINQM* | Increasing | No | A*01 | |
| B*07, B*09 V[2] | Tat STPESANL | Increasing | No | A*01 | ||
| 16041 | LAV, LTNP | Gag CTPYDINQM* | Increasing | Unknown | A*01 | |
| determined | Tat STPESANL | Decreasing | Unknown | A*01 | ||
| 14757 | None, LTNP | Gag CTPYDINQM* | Increasing | No | A*01 | |
| B*07, | Nef RRLTARGLL | Increasing | No | B*08 | ||
| Tat STPESANL | Increasing | Yes | A*01 | |||
| Gag TAPSSGRGGNY | Increasing | No | Unknown | |||
| 16044 | LAV, SP | A*04 V, A*23, B*3002 V, | Vif YFPCFTAGEV R∗P | Decreasing | Yes | Unknown |
| B*09 V, B*21, B*49 | Gag EQIQWMYRQQP | Decreasing | No | Unknown | ||
| Gag MYNPTNILDVKP | Increasing | No | Unknown | |||
| 16040 | LAV, NP (118 W) | Gag CTPYDINQM* | Decreasing | Yes | A*01 | |
| 12416 | None, NP (52 W) | A*04, A*25 N[3], B*67 | Nef RTMSYKLAIDMP | Increasing | Yes | Unknown |
| 11896 | None, RP (12 W) | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| 12900 | None, RP (16 W) | A*02, A*02 V, A*04, B*05 V, B*07 | ND | ND | ND | ND |
LAV: live-attenuated vaccine, LTNP: long-term non progressor, SP: slow prog., NP: normal prog., RP: rapid prog., (time of euthanasia in weeks post-challenge).
[1]Bolded alleles have been reported as protective.
[2]Variant (less than 5 amino acid changes in α1 and α2 domains from published sequence of allele listed).
[3]Novel (more than 5 amino acid differences in α1 and α2 domains from published sequence of allele listed).
PPutative Epitope, *Immunodominant Epitope.
Figure 1Viral Evolution in an Animal with no Known Protective Mamu Alleles. (a) Comparison of Vif-specific IFN-γ ELISPOT values for the vaccinated Mamu-A*01−, -B*08−, -B*17− SP animal 16044 before and after an observed Vif YFPCFTAGEVR to YFPCFAAGEVR mutation. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann Whitney test. (b) NASBA viral loads and ELISPOT results for acute (Vif) and chronic (Gag) epitopes were compared to determine the ability of CTLs targeting either the Gag or Vif epitope to control viral replication.
Figure 2Viral Evolution in an Animal with Known Protective Mamu Alleles. (a) Comparison of IFN-γ ELISPOT values for the vaccinated, Mamu A*01+ NP animal 16040 before or after the Mamu A*01-restricted Gag CTPYDINQM to CIPYDINQM, Tat STPESANL to PTPESANP, and Pol STPPLVRLV to SSPPLVRLV mutations. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann Whitney test. (b) NASBA viral loads and IFN-γ ELISPOT results for all three epitopes were plotted to determine the effects of mutations on the control of viral replication.
Figure 3Viral Evolution and Disease Progression. (a) Sequencing was performed for all recognized CTL epitopes in the ELISPOT assay (3–5 clones per epitope and 2–3 epitopes per animal) for each animal (6 animals) at all time points that the animal was virus positive (2–5 per animal) (n = 24–72 clones per analysis). Accumulated mutations were noted and the percent of epitopes that showed mutations (regardless of the effect of the mutation on CTL responses) were compared between the NP/RP and SP/LTNP groups. (b) CD4 T cell absolute counts were measured at every time-point in which ELISPOT assays were performed and these counts were compared between animals carrying virus with wild-type epitopes or mutated epitopes. (c) Comparison of the number of accumulated mutations observed in CTL epitopes in viral proteins. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tail t-tests.