↓ Skip to main content

Reconstitution of CD8 T Cells Protective against Cytomegalovirus in a Mouse Model of Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Dynamics and Inessentiality of Epitope Immunodominance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reconstitution of CD8 T Cells Protective against Cytomegalovirus in a Mouse Model of Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Dynamics and Inessentiality of Epitope Immunodominance
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00232
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafaela Holtappels, Niels A. W. Lemmermann, Jürgen Podlech, Stefan Ebert, Matthias J. Reddehase

Abstract

Successful reconstitution of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD8(+) T cells by hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) gives a favorable prognosis for the control of CMV reactivation and prevention of CMV disease after hematoablative therapy of hematopoietic malignancies. In the transient immunocompromised state after HCT, pre-emptive cytoimmunotherapy with viral epitope-specific effector or memory CD8(+) T cells is a promising option to speed up antiviral control. Despite high-coding capacity of CMVs and a broad CD8(+) T-cell response on the population level, which reflects polymorphism in major histocompatibility complex class-I (MHC-I) glycoproteins, the response in terms of quantity of CD8(+) T cells in any individual is directed against a limited set of CMV-encoded epitopes selected for presentation by the private repertoire of MHC-I molecules. Such epitopes are known as "immunodominant" epitopes (IDEs). Besides host immunogenetics, genetic variance in CMV strains harbored as latent viruses by an individual HCT recipient can also determine the set of IDEs, which complicates a "personalized immunotherapy." It is, therefore, an important question if IDE-specific CD8(+) T-cell reconstitution after HCT is critical or dispensable for antiviral control. As viruses with targeted mutations of IDEs cannot be experimentally tested in HCT patients, we employed the well-established mouse model of HCT. Notably, control of murine CMV (mCMV) after HCT was comparably efficient for IDE-deletion mutant mCMV-Δ4IDE and the corresponding IDE-expressing revertant virus mCMV-Δ4IDE-rev. Thus, antigenicity-loss mutations in IDEs do not result in loss-of-function of a polyclonal CD8(+) T-cell population. Although IDE deletion was not associated with global changes in the response to non-IDE epitopes, the collective of non-IDE-specific CD8(+) T-cells infiltrates infected tissue and confines infection within nodular inflammatory foci. We conclude from the model, and predict also for human CMV, that there is no need to exclusively aim for IDE-specific immunoreconstitution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 7 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#22,570
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,081
of 368,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#92
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.