S Mugaba1, R Nakiboneka1, M Nanyonjo1, D Bugembe-Lule1, I Kaddu1, B Nanteza1, R Tweyongyere1, P Kaleebu2, J Serwanga3. 1. MRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, Entebbe, Uganda. 2. MRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, Entebbe, Uganda; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom. 3. MRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, Entebbe, Uganda. Electronic address: jennifer.serwanga@mrcuganda.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating HIV-1 specific T-cell response in African populations is sometimes compromised by extensive virus diversity and paucity of non-clade B reagents. We evaluated whether consensus group M (ConM) peptides could serve as comparable substitutes for detecting immune responses in clade A and clade D HIV-1 infection. METHODS: Frequencies, breadths and polyfunctionality (≥ 3 functions: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and Perforin) of HIV-specific responses utilizing ConM, ConA and ConD Gag and Nef peptides was compared. RESULTS: Median genetic distances of infecting gag sequences from consensus group M were (8.9%, IQR 8.2-9.7 and 9%, IQR 3.3-10) for consensus A and D, respectively. Of 24 subjects infected with A and D clade virus, Gag responses were detected in comparable proportions of subjects when using ConM peptides 22/24, ConA peptides 17/24, and ConD peptides 21/24; p=0.12. Nef responses were also detected at similar proportions of subjects when using ConM peptides 15/23, ConA peptides 19/23, and ConD peptides 16/23, p=0.39. Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell polyfunctionality were also detected in similar proportions of infected individuals when using different peptide sets. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of consensus group M overlapping peptide sets as reagents for detecting HIV-specific responses in a clade A and D infected population, but underscore the limitations of utilizing these reagents when evaluating the breadth of virus-specific responses.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating HIV-1 specific T-cell response in African populations is sometimes compromised by extensive virus diversity and paucity of non-clade B reagents. We evaluated whether consensus group M (ConM) peptides could serve as comparable substitutes for detecting immune responses in clade A and clade D HIV-1 infection. METHODS: Frequencies, breadths and polyfunctionality (≥ 3 functions: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and Perforin) of HIV-specific responses utilizing ConM, ConA and ConD Gag and Nef peptides was compared. RESULTS: Median genetic distances of infecting gag sequences from consensus group M were (8.9%, IQR 8.2-9.7 and 9%, IQR 3.3-10) for consensus A and D, respectively. Of 24 subjects infected with A and D clade virus, Gag responses were detected in comparable proportions of subjects when using ConM peptides 22/24, ConA peptides 17/24, and ConD peptides 21/24; p=0.12. Nef responses were also detected at similar proportions of subjects when using ConM peptides 15/23, ConA peptides 19/23, and ConD peptides 16/23, p=0.39. Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell polyfunctionality were also detected in similar proportions of infected individuals when using different peptide sets. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of consensus group M overlapping peptide sets as reagents for detecting HIV-specific responses in a clade A and D infected population, but underscore the limitations of utilizing these reagents when evaluating the breadth of virus-specific responses.
Authors: Xu G Yu; Mathias Lichterfeld; Beth Perkins; Elizabeth Kalife; Stanley Mui; Jianping Chen; Michael Cheng; Wenzhen Kang; Galit Alter; Christian Brander; Bruce D Walker; Marcus Altfeld Journal: AIDS Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Philippa J Easterbrook; Mel Smith; Jane Mullen; Siobhan O'Shea; Ian Chrystie; Annemiek de Ruiter; Iain D Tatt; Anna Maria Geretti; Mark Zuckerman Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: V Novitsky; U R Smith; P Gilbert; M F McLane; P Chigwedere; C Williamson; T Ndung'u; I Klein; S Y Chang; T Peter; I Thior; B T Foley; S Gaolekwe; N Rybak; S Gaseitsiwe; F Vannberg; R Marlink; T H Lee; M Essex Journal: J Virol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: B Julg; K L Williams; S Reddy; K Bishop; Y Qi; M Carrington; P J Goulder; T Ndung'u; B D Walker Journal: J Virol Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Adam C Finnefrock; Xiaomei Liu; David W Opalka; John W Shiver; Danilo R Casimiro; Jon H Condra Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: M M Addo; X G Yu; A Rathod; D Cohen; R L Eldridge; D Strick; M N Johnston; C Corcoran; A G Wurcel; C A Fitzpatrick; M E Feeney; W R Rodriguez; N Basgoz; R Draenert; David R Stone; C Brander; P J R Goulder; E S Rosenberg; M Altfeld; B D Walker Journal: J Virol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: M E Feeney; K A Roosevelt; Y Tang; K J Pfafferott; K McIntosh; S K Burchett; C Mao; B D Walker; P J R Goulder Journal: J Virol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Photini Kiepiela; Kholiswa Ngumbela; Christina Thobakgale; Dhanwanthie Ramduth; Isobella Honeyborne; Eshia Moodley; Shabashini Reddy; Chantal de Pierres; Zenele Mncube; Nompumelelo Mkhwanazi; Karen Bishop; Mary van der Stok; Kriebashnie Nair; Nasreen Khan; Hayley Crawford; Rebecca Payne; Alasdair Leslie; Julia Prado; Andrew Prendergast; John Frater; Noel McCarthy; Christian Brander; Gerald H Learn; David Nickle; Christine Rousseau; Hoosen Coovadia; James I Mullins; David Heckerman; Bruce D Walker; Philip Goulder Journal: Nat Med Date: 2006-12-17 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ritah Nakiboneka; Susan Mugaba; Betty O Auma; Christopher Kintu; Christina Lindan; Mary Bridget Nanteza; Pontiano Kaleebu; Jennifer Serwanga Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.641