4.4 Article

Discrimination of T-cell subsets and T-cell receptor repertoire distribution

期刊

IMMUNOLOGIC RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 20-27

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12026-013-8473-0

关键词

T-cell receptor (TCR); T cells; Cell development/differentiation; Flow cytometry/FACS; Cytomegalovirus (CMV)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow cytometry-based analysis of T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoires is an essential tool for the detection of clonal T-cell expansions in physiologic and pathologic conditions. Individual T-cell subsets can be investigated based on their surface properties. The aims of our study were to provide reference values for various disease settings and delineate the contribution of individual TCR repertoires to the human T-cell differentiation pathway. We analyzed blood of 66 healthy subjects aged 0 (cord blood) to 72 years. Lymphocyte subpopulations and TCR repertoires were simultaneously explored using antibodies specific to CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45RA, CCR7, CD27, CD57 and a set of 25 antibodies detecting human TCR-V beta chains. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon, paired t and ANOVA tests. Initially, TCR expansion values were calculated based on the analysis of TCR-V beta distribution on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. We then established gating strategies and an algorithm for data analysis allowing for discrimination of T-cell subsets and TCR distribution. Dominant TCR expansions were present within effector as opposed to central/effector memory or naive cells, e.g., median TCR-V beta expansion rate was highest on CD45RA+/CCR7- effector CD4+/8+ cells (eight and 11-fold, respectively). Remarkably, TCR expansions were missing (0) or very low (0.5) on CD4+ and CD8+ central memory population, respectively. No significant gender-related variability of TCR repertoires was identified, and significant impact of chronic cytomegalovirus infection was shown. Our results serve as reference for future studies elucidating clonal TCR dominance of T-cell subsets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据