Comparative clonal analysis of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific CD4+ and CD8+ cytolytic T lymphocytes isolated from seronegative humans immunized with candidate HIV-1 vaccines

S A Hammond, R C Bollinger, P E Stanhope, T C Quinn, D Schwartz, M L Clements, R F Siliciano, S A Hammond, R C Bollinger, P E Stanhope, T C Quinn, D Schwartz, M L Clements, R F Siliciano

Abstract

The lysis of infected host cells by virus-specific cytolytic T lymphocytes (CTL) is an important factor in host resistance to viral infection. An optimal vaccine against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) would elicit virus-specific CTL as well as neutralizing antibodies. The induction by a vaccine of HIV-1-specific CD8+ CTL in humans has not been previously reported. In this study, CTL responses were evaluated in HIV-1-seronegative human volunteers participating in a phase I acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) vaccine trial involving a novel vaccine regimen. Volunteers received an initial immunization with a live recombinant vaccinia virus vector carrying the HIV-1 env gene and a subsequent boost with purified env protein. An exceptionally strong env-specific CTL response was detected in one of two vaccine recipients, while modest but significant env-specific CTL activity was present in the second vaccinee. Cloning of the responding CTL gave both CD4+ and CD8+ env-specific CTL clones, permitting a detailed comparison of critical functional properties of these two types of CTL. In particular, the potential antiviral effects of these CTL were evaluated in an in vitro system involving HIV-1 infection of cultures of normal autologous CD4+ lymphoblasts. At extremely low effector-to-target ratios, vaccine-induced CD8+ CTL clones lysed productively infected cells present within these cultures. When tested for lytic activity against target cells expressing the HIV-1 env gene, CD8+ CTL were 3-10-fold more active on a per cell basis than CD4+ CTL. However, when tested against autologous CD4+ lymphoblasts acutely infected with HIV-1, CD4+ clones lysed a much higher fraction of the target cell population than did CD8+ CTL. CD4+ CTL were shown to recognize not only the infected cells within these acutely infected cultures but also noninfected CD4+ T cells that had passively taken up gp120 shed from infected cells and/or free virions. These results were confirmed in studies in which CD4+ lymphoblasts were exposed to recombinant gp120 and used as targets for gp120-specific CD4+ and CD8+ CTL clones. gp120-pulsed, noninfected targets were lysed in an antigen-specific fashion by CD4+ but not CD8+ CTL clones. Taken together, these observations demonstrate that in an in vitro HIV-1 infection, sufficient amounts of gp120 antigen are produced and shed by infected cells to enable uptake by cells that are not yet infected, resulting in the lysis of these noninfected cells by gp120-specific, CD4+ CTL.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

References

    1. J Immunol. 1984 Feb;132(2):953-8
    1. J Exp Med. 1981 Aug 1;154(2):225-34
    1. J Virol. 1984 Mar;49(3):857-64
    1. J Virol. 1984 Sep;51(3):682-6
    1. Nature. 1987 Oct 1-7;329(6138):449-51
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Nov;85(22):8638-42
    1. Scand J Immunol. 1989 Dec;30(6):679-86
    1. J Exp Med. 1989 Apr 1;169(4):1421-34
    1. Nature. 1988 Aug 11;334(6182):530-2
    1. J Exp Med. 1979 Nov 1;150(5):1277-82
    1. Science. 1992 Jan 24;255(5043):456-9
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Aug;87(16):6136-40
    1. J Clin Invest. 1991 Apr;87(4):1462-6
    1. J Virol. 1991 Feb;65(2):852-60
    1. J Exp Med. 1978 Mar 1;147(3):897-911
    1. J Exp Med. 1992 Apr 1;175(4):961-71
    1. Lancet. 1991 Mar 9;337(8741):567-72
    1. Science. 1991 Nov 15;254(5034):963-9
    1. J Immunol. 1991 Mar 1;146(5):1470-7
    1. Science. 1991 Apr 19;252(5004):440-3
    1. Nature. 1991 Dec 12;354(6353):453-9
    1. Nature. 1991 Jun 6;351(6326):456-60
    1. J Immunol. 1990 May 1;144(9):3341-6
    1. Nature. 1991 Jun 6;351(6326):479-82
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Jun;87(12):4818-22
    1. Nature. 1990 Apr 26;344(6269):873-5
    1. J Virol. 1990 Nov;64(11):5585-93
    1. Science. 1990 Aug 24;249(4971):918-21
    1. J Immunol. 1985 Aug;135(2):906-14
    1. Cell. 1986 Jun 6;45(5):637-48
    1. Science. 1986 Dec 19;234(4783):1563-6
    1. J Immunol. 1988 Dec 1;141(11):3726-36
    1. Cell. 1988 Aug 12;54(4):561-75
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Jul;82(14):4813-7
    1. Science. 1985 Nov 22;230(4728):949-51
    1. Nature. 1986 Apr 10-16;320(6062):537-40
    1. Science. 1986 Jun 20;232(4757):1548-53
    1. Nature. 1986 Jul 31-Aug 6;322(6078):470-4
    1. J Virol. 1988 Oct;62(10):3779-88
    1. Science. 1988 Feb 5;239(4840):637-40
    1. Cell. 1988 Sep 9;54(6):777-85
    1. Nature. 1986 Aug 21-27;322(6081):687-9
    1. Nature. 1987 Jul 23-29;328(6128):345-8
    1. Nature. 1987 Jul 23-29;328(6128):348-51
    1. Virology. 1987 Jan;156(1):171-6
    1. J Exp Med. 1984 Sep 1;160(3):814-26
    1. J Exp Med. 1990 Mar 1;171(3):875-87
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Jan 15;114(2):119-27
    1. J Virol. 1990 May;64(5):2448-51
    1. Science. 1990 Jun 8;248(4960):1234-7
    1. Science. 1990 Aug 24;249(4971):932-5
    1. Cell. 1986 Mar 28;44(6):959-68
    1. Cell. 1986 Jul 4;46(1):63-74
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 May;85(9):3105-9
    1. J Immunol. 1989 Jan 15;142(2):452-62
    1. Mol Cell Biol. 1988 Jul;8(7):2837-47
    1. Nature. 1988 Sep 8;335(6186):178-81
    1. Eur J Immunol. 1988 Dec;18(12):1917-24
    1. Science. 1985 Aug 23;229(4715):759-62
    1. Nature. 1986 Apr 10-16;320(6062):535-7
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Jul;83(14):5038-42
    1. J Exp Med. 1986 Sep 1;164(3):723-38
    1. Science. 1986 Nov 28;234(4780):1123-7
    1. J Exp Med. 1986 Apr 1;163(4):903-21
    1. Science. 1986 Nov 7;234(4777):728-31
    1. J Immunol. 1987 Aug 15;139(4):988-90

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe