| Literature DB >> 25546016 |
Radleigh Santos1, Alcinette Buying2, Nazila Sabri3, John Yu4, Anthony Gringeri5, James Bender6, Sylvia Janetzki7, Clemencia Pinilla8, Valeria A Judkowski9.
Abstract
Immune monitoring of functional responses is a fundamental parameter to establish correlates of protection in clinical trials evaluating vaccines and therapies to boost antigen-specific responses. The IFNg ELISPOT assay is a well-standardized and validated method for the determination of functional IFNg-producing T-cells in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC); however, its performance greatly depends on the quality and integrity of the cryopreserved PBMC. Here, we investigate the effect of overnight (ON) resting of the PBMC on the detection of CD8-restricted peptide-specific responses by IFNg ELISPOT. The study used PBMC from healthy donors to evaluate the CD8 T-cell response to five pooled or individual HLA-A2 viral peptides. The results were analyzed using a modification of the existing distribution free resampling (DFR) recommended for the analysis of ELISPOT data to ensure the most rigorous possible standard of significance. The results of the study demonstrate that ON resting of PBMC samples prior to IFNg ELISPOT increases both the magnitude and the statistical significance of the responses. In addition, a comparison of the results with a 13-day preculture of PBMC with the peptides before testing demonstrates that ON resting is sufficient for the efficient evaluation of immune functioning.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25546016 PMCID: PMC4381205 DOI: 10.3390/cells4010001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Figure 4Representative images of the IFNγ ELISPOT performed with previously frozen PBMC. PBMC samples from donors H3, H4, H10 and H12 were thawed and stimulated (A) with the A2-CEF pool or (B) with EBV-1. PBMCs were not rested (0 h) or rested for 18 h or 22 h prior to testing. Each picture is a representative of triplicate wells. Responses that were significantly different from 0 h were determined by a DFR-like permutation method with Westfall–Young max-T correction; 5% or 10% significances are denoted by (**) or (*), respectively.
Figure 2The magnitude of the response to the A2-CEF peptide pool in PBMC samples from normal donors increases with overnight resting. PBMC samples from the indicated donors were thawed and seeded in the presence and absence (no Ag, background control) of the A2-CEF peptide pool after 0 h, 18 h. or 22 h. of resting. (A) Results are the average of spots from triplicates wells. (B) Statistical significance for the responses to A2-CEF as compare to No Ag at each resting time were determined by modified DFR(2x) (DFR, distribution free resampling) after Westfall–Young max-T correction; p-values <5% are shown in green. The statistical significance of the responses obtained for the three different resting time points was determined by a DFR-like permutation method with Westfall–Young max-T correction; 5% or 10% significances are shown in dark blue or light blue, respectively.
Figure 3Resting of PBMC samples prior to the evaluation of individual peptides of the A2-CEF pool increases the magnitude of response detected by IFNγ ELISPOT. PBMC samples from the indicated donors where thawed and seeded in the presence or absence (no Ag, background control) of peptide. The peptides included TRP-2 and each of the individual peptides from the A2-CEF pool. PBMCs were not rested (0 h) or rested 18 h or 22 h prior to testing. (A) Results are the average of spots from triplicate wells for wells tested with peptide and from six replicates in the absence of peptide. (B) The statistical significance for the response at each of the rest times was determined by modified DFR(2x) or DFR(eq) after Westfall–Young max-T correction, and p-values <5% are shown in green or yellow, respectively. The statistical significance of the responses obtained for the three different resting time points were determined by a DFR-like permutation method with Westfall-Young max-T correction; 5% or 10% significances are denoted by dark blue or light blue, respectively.
The comparison of IFNγ ELISPOT performance using ex vivo vs. IVS-PBMC samples shows that IVS stimulation prior to testing does not provide clear advantages for the determination of peptide immunogenicity. PBMC samples from the indicated donors were either thawed and rested for 22 h. (ex vivo) or thawed and stimulated with a pool of TRP-2, HCMV and influenza M peptides during 13 days (IVS-peptide stimulated) or thawed and left unstimulated for 13 days ( IVS-no peptide) prior to testing with each of the indicated individual peptides. The table shows the fold increase calculated as follows: AVG (average) of spots from triplicate wells tested with peptide/AVG of spots from six replicate background wells (no peptide). The statistical significance for the differences between the number of spots in the presence of peptide and background was determined by modified DFR(2x) or DFR(eq) after Westfall–Young max-T correction; p-value <5% responses are shown in green or yellow formatting, respectively.
| IVS-Peptide Stimulated | IVS-No Peptide | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donor/Peptide | H3 | H4 | H10 | H12 | H3 | H4 | H10 | H12 | H3 | H4 | H10 | H12 |
| 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.1 | |
| 5.3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.2 | >50 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.3 | |
| 4.4 | >50 | 11 | 19 | 11 | >50 | >50 | >50 | 1.7 | 33 | 1.4 | 1.2 | |