Evaluation of T-activated proteins as recall antigens to monitor Epstein-Barr virus and human cytomegalovirus-specific T cells in a clinical trial setting.
Clinical trials
EBV
HCMV
Immune monitoring
Recall antigens
T cells
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 06 2020
17 06 2020
Historique:
received:
27
12
2019
accepted:
21
05
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pools of overlapping synthetic peptides are routinely used for ex vivo monitoring of antigen-specific T-cell responses. However, it is rather unlikely that these peptides match those resulting from naturally processed antigens. T-activated proteins have been described as immunogenic and more natural stimulants, since they have to pass through antigen processing and comprise activation of all clinically relevant effector cell populations. We performed comparative analysis of numbers and cytokine expression pattern of CD4 and CD8 T cells after stimulation with recombinant, urea-formulated T-activated EBV-BZLF1, -EBNA3A, and HCMV-IE1, and -pp65 proteins or corresponding overlapping peptide pools. Freshly isolated and cryopreserved PBMC of 30 EBV- and 19 HCMV-seropositive and seven EBV- and HCMV-seronegative subjects were stimulated ex vivo and analysed for IFN-γ, TNF and IL-2 production by flow cytometry-based intracellular cytokine staining. T-activated proteins showed a high specificity of 100% (EBV-BZLF1, HCMV-IE1, and -pp65) and 86% (EBV-EBNA3A), and a high T-cell stimulatory capacity of 73-95% and 67-95% using freshly isolated and cryopreserved PBMC, respectively. The overall CD4 T-cell response rates in both cohorts were comparable after stimulation with either T-activated protein or peptide pools with the exception of lower numbers of CD8 T cells detected after stimulation with T-activated EBV-EBNA3A- (p = 0.038) and HCMV-pp65- (p = 0.0006). Overall, the number of detectable antigen-specific T cells varied strongly between individuals. Cytokine expression patterns in response to T-activated protein and peptide pool-based stimulation were similar for CD4, but significantly different for CD8 T-cell responses. EBV and HCMV-derived T-activated proteins represent innovative, highly specific recall antigens suitable for use in immunological endpoint assays to evaluate success or failure in immunotherapy clinical trials (e.g. to assess the risk of EBV and/or HCMV reactivation after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation). T-activated proteins could be of particular importance, if an impaired antigen processing (e.g. in a post-transplant setting) must be taken into account.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pools of overlapping synthetic peptides are routinely used for ex vivo monitoring of antigen-specific T-cell responses. However, it is rather unlikely that these peptides match those resulting from naturally processed antigens. T-activated proteins have been described as immunogenic and more natural stimulants, since they have to pass through antigen processing and comprise activation of all clinically relevant effector cell populations.
METHODS
We performed comparative analysis of numbers and cytokine expression pattern of CD4 and CD8 T cells after stimulation with recombinant, urea-formulated T-activated EBV-BZLF1, -EBNA3A, and HCMV-IE1, and -pp65 proteins or corresponding overlapping peptide pools. Freshly isolated and cryopreserved PBMC of 30 EBV- and 19 HCMV-seropositive and seven EBV- and HCMV-seronegative subjects were stimulated ex vivo and analysed for IFN-γ, TNF and IL-2 production by flow cytometry-based intracellular cytokine staining.
RESULTS
T-activated proteins showed a high specificity of 100% (EBV-BZLF1, HCMV-IE1, and -pp65) and 86% (EBV-EBNA3A), and a high T-cell stimulatory capacity of 73-95% and 67-95% using freshly isolated and cryopreserved PBMC, respectively. The overall CD4 T-cell response rates in both cohorts were comparable after stimulation with either T-activated protein or peptide pools with the exception of lower numbers of CD8 T cells detected after stimulation with T-activated EBV-EBNA3A- (p = 0.038) and HCMV-pp65- (p = 0.0006). Overall, the number of detectable antigen-specific T cells varied strongly between individuals. Cytokine expression patterns in response to T-activated protein and peptide pool-based stimulation were similar for CD4, but significantly different for CD8 T-cell responses.
CONCLUSION
EBV and HCMV-derived T-activated proteins represent innovative, highly specific recall antigens suitable for use in immunological endpoint assays to evaluate success or failure in immunotherapy clinical trials (e.g. to assess the risk of EBV and/or HCMV reactivation after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation). T-activated proteins could be of particular importance, if an impaired antigen processing (e.g. in a post-transplant setting) must be taken into account.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32552697
doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02385-x
pii: 10.1186/s12967-020-02385-x
pmc: PMC7298696
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
242Références
Clin Dev Immunol. 2012;2012:931952
pubmed: 22319542
Pediatr Res. 2020 Jan;87(2):345-352
pubmed: 31641280
Sci Rep. 2016 May 16;6:25852
pubmed: 27181409
Annu Rev Immunol. 2013;31:443-73
pubmed: 23298205
J Immunol Methods. 2007 Sep 30;326(1-2):93-115
pubmed: 17707394
Nat Protoc. 2015 Jul;10(7):1098-115
pubmed: 26110715
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2009 Aug;16(8):1176-86
pubmed: 19515870
Haematologica. 2019 Dec 26;:
pubmed: 31879324
PLoS One. 2018 May 14;13(5):e0197407
pubmed: 29758051
Cytometry A. 2011 Feb;79(2):167-74
pubmed: 21265010
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 10;11(2):e0147812
pubmed: 26863315
Eur J Immunol. 2000 Jul;30(7):1807-12
pubmed: 10940869
Cytometry A. 2008 Nov;73(11):1071-8
pubmed: 18781655
Vaccine. 2014 Jun 30;32(31):3995-4000
pubmed: 24837783
J Med Virol. 2017 Feb;89(2):324-331
pubmed: 27447923
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;56(6):817-24
pubmed: 23196955
Molecules. 2019 Mar 12;24(5):
pubmed: 30871092
Immunity. 2009 Oct 16;31(4):527-8
pubmed: 19833080
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2010 Oct;59(10):1489-501
pubmed: 20549207
BMC Immunol. 2017 Mar 7;18(1):15
pubmed: 28270092
BMC Immunol. 2005 Jul 18;6:17
pubmed: 16026627
Front Immunol. 2017 Mar 17;8:292
pubmed: 28367149
Transplantation. 2011 Aug 27;92(4):e17-20
pubmed: 21814124
Transplantation. 2013 Aug 27;96(4):333-60
pubmed: 23896556
Am J Transplant. 2013 Feb;13 Suppl 3:1-8; quiz 8
pubmed: 23347210
J Immunol Methods. 2003 Jul;278(1-2):79-93
pubmed: 12957398
Viral Immunol. 2004;17(3):445-54
pubmed: 15357911
mBio. 2017 Dec 5;8(6):
pubmed: 29208744
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Dec;71(12):4737-41
pubmed: 4373728
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 1;43(9):1143-51
pubmed: 17029132
J Immunol Methods. 2003 Apr 1;275(1-2):19-29
pubmed: 12667667
Nat Rev Immunol. 2008 Apr;8(4):247-58
pubmed: 18323851
Am J Med. 2007 Oct;120(10):911.e1-8
pubmed: 17904463
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012 Nov;61(11):1953-63
pubmed: 22491788
Immunome Res. 2008 Nov 26;4:6
pubmed: 19036163
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 05;10(6):e0128714
pubmed: 26046523
Neurology. 2006 Dec 12;67(11):2063-5
pubmed: 17159123
Eur J Immunol. 2008 Feb;38(2):350-63
pubmed: 18200635
Bioinformatics. 2016 Feb 15;32(4):511-7
pubmed: 26515819
Cytometry A. 2016 Mar;89(3):246-58
pubmed: 26848928
J Immunol. 2005 Jan 15;174(2):1037-45
pubmed: 15634928
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 May 1;45(1):20-7
pubmed: 17310936
BMC Immunol. 2017 Mar 7;18(1):14
pubmed: 28270111
Am J Transplant. 2016 Jun;16(6):1697-706
pubmed: 26699950
J Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 1;195(5):633-44
pubmed: 17262704
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 11;8(10):e74744
pubmed: 24146744
J Transl Med. 2016 Jun 14;14(1):175
pubmed: 27297580
Nat Rev Immunol. 2004 Jan;4(1):24-34
pubmed: 14704765
J Pathol. 1991 Sep;165(1):17-24
pubmed: 1659626
J Immunol Methods. 2003 Jul;278(1-2):145-55
pubmed: 12957403
Int J Cancer. 1997 Feb 7;70(4):375-82
pubmed: 9033642
Med Microbiol Immunol. 2019 Dec;208(6):825-834
pubmed: 31289930
Transplant Proc. 2013 Sep;45(7):2754-7
pubmed: 24034040
Transpl Int. 2018 Apr;31(4):436-450
pubmed: 29284181
J Infect Dis. 2003 Jan 15;187(2):226-42
pubmed: 12552447
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 May 15;17(10):3064-76
pubmed: 21558394
Mol Immunol. 1999 Feb;36(2):103-12
pubmed: 10378682
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 19;116(8):3112-3117
pubmed: 30718433
Front Immunol. 2019 Apr 26;10:655
pubmed: 31105686
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1968 Jan;59(1):94-101
pubmed: 5242134
Transplantation. 2001 May 15;71(9):1287-94
pubmed: 11397964
Blood. 2006 Jun 15;107(12):4781-9
pubmed: 16467198
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2011 Jan;60(1):15-22
pubmed: 21080166
Int Immunol. 2005 Feb;17(2):167-76
pubmed: 15623547
Front Immunol. 2017 Oct 04;8:1210
pubmed: 29046675
J Immunol. 2002 Jan 15;168(2):909-18
pubmed: 11777989
Immunology. 2003 Mar;108(3):321-8
pubmed: 12603598
J Immunol Methods. 2001 Sep 1;255(1-2):27-40
pubmed: 11470284
Transplantation. 2003 Jan 15;75(1):137-45
pubmed: 12544886
PLoS Pathog. 2008 Nov;4(11):e1000198
pubmed: 18989461
J Immunol Methods. 2014 Jun;408:101-13
pubmed: 24877879