4.7 Article

Distinct germinal center selection at local sites shapes memory B cell response to viral escape

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 212, 期 10, 页码 1709-1723

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20142284

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology in Japan
  2. Japan Science and Technology Agency, Core Research of Evolutional Science and Technology
  3. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan (Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases and Regulatory Science of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices)
  4. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K19127] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory influenza virus infection induces cross-reactive memory B cells targeting invariant regions of viral escape mutants. However, cellular events dictating the cross-reactive memory B cell responses remain to be fully defined. Here, we demonstrated that lung-resident memory compartments at the site of infection, rather than those in secondary lymphoid organs, harbor elevated frequencies of cross-reactive B cells that mediate neutralizing antibody responses to viral escape. The elevated cross-reactivity in the lung memory compartments was correlated with high numbers of V-H mutations and was dependent on a developmental pathway involving persistent germinal center (GC) responses. The persistent GC responses were focused in the infected lungs in association with prolonged persistence of the viral antigens. Moreover, the persistent lung GCs supported the exaggerated B cell proliferation and clonal selection for cross-reactive repertoires, which served as the predominant sites for the generation of cross-reactive memory progenitors. Thus, we identified the distinct GC selection at local sites as a key cellular event for cross-reactive memory B cell response to viral escape, a finding with important implications for developing broadly protective influenza vaccines.

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

4.7
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