4.5 Article

Persistent viral replication and the development of T-cell responses after intranasal infection by MCMV

Journal

MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 208, Issue 3-4, Pages 457-468

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00430-019-00589-7

Keywords

Cytomegalovirus; Nasal mucosa; Intranasal infection; Tissue-resident memory T cells

Funding

  1. [AI106810]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Natural transmission of cytomegalovirus (CMV) has been difficult to observe. However, recent work using the mouse model of murine (M)CMV demonstrated that MCMV initially infects the nasal mucosa after transmission from mothers to pups. We found that intranasal (i.n.) inoculation of C57BL/6J mice resulted in reliable recovery of replicating virus from the nasal mucosa as assessed by plaque assay. After i.n. inoculation, CD8(+) T-cell priming occurred in the mandibular, deep-cervical, and mediastinal lymph nodes within 3days of infection. Although i.n. infection induced memory inflation of T cells specific for the M38(316-323) epitope, there were no detectable CD8(+) T-cell responses against the late-appearing IE3(416-423) epitope, which contrasts with intraperitoneal (i.p.) infection. MCMV-specific T cells migrated into the nasal mucosa where they developed a tissue-resident memory (T-RM) phenotype and this could occur independently of local virus infection or antigen. Strikingly however, virus replication was poorly controlled in the nasal mucosa and MCMV was detectable by plaque assay for at least 4months after primary infection, making the nasal mucosa a second site for MCMV persistence. Unlike in the salivary glands, the persistence of MCMV in the nasal mucosa was not modulated by IL-10. Taken together, our data characterize the development of local and systemic T-cell responses after intranasal infection by MCMV and define the nasal mucosa, a natural site of viral entry, as a novel site of viral persistence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available