4.6 Article

Immune Tolerance Negatively Regulates B Cells in Knock-In Mice Expressing Broadly Neutralizing HIV Antibody 4E10

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 191, 期 6, 页码 3186-3191

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1301285

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AI073148, R01AI059714, U01AI078224]
  2. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative Neutralizing Antibody Center
  3. Ragon Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A major goal of HIV research is to develop vaccines reproducibly eliciting broadly neutralizing Abs (bNAbs); however, this has proved to be challenging. One suggested explanation for this difficulty is that epitopes seen by bNAbs mimic self, leading to immune tolerance. We generated knock-in mice expressing bNAb 4E10, which recognizes the membrane proximal external region of gp41. Unlike b12 knock-in mice, described in the companion article (Ota et al. 2013. J. Immunol. 191: 3179-3185), 4E10HL mice were found to undergo profound negative selection of B cells, indicating that 4E10 is, to a physiologically significant extent, autoreactive. Negative selection occurred by various mechanisms, including receptor editing, clonal deletion, and receptor downregulation. Despite significant deletion, small amounts of IgM and IgG anti-gp41 were found in the sera of 4E10HL mice. On a Rag1(-/-) background, 4E10HL mice had virtually no serum Ig of any kind. These results are consistent with a model in which B cells with 4E10 specificity are counterselected, raising the question of how 4E10 was generated in the patient from whom it was isolated. This represents the second example of a membrane proximal external region-directed bNAb that is apparently autoreactive in a physiological setting. The relative conservation in HIV of the 4E10 epitope might reflect the fact that it is under less intense immunological selection as a result of B cell self-tolerance. The safety and desirability of targeting this epitope by a vaccine is discussed in light of the newly described bNAb 10E8.

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

4.6
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