HIV-1–specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses have been detected at a low frequency in many HIV-1–exposed, persistently seronegative (HEPS) subjects. However, it is unclear how CTLs could protect against HIV acquisition in HEPS subjects, when high levels of circulating CTL fail to prevent disease progression in most seropositive subjects. To address this issue we studied CD8+ lymphocyte responses to a panel of HIV-1 CTL epitopes in 91 HEPS and 87 HIV-1–infected Nairobi sex workers. HIV-specific responses in seropositive women focused strongly on epitopes rarely or never recognized in HEPS subjects, who targeted epitopes that were subdominant or unrecognized in infected women. These differences in epitope specificity were restricted by only those HLA class I alleles that are associated with a reduced risk of HIV-1 infection in this cohort. Late seroconversion in HEPS donors was associated with a switch in epitope specificity and/or immunodominance to those epitopes preferentially recognized by HIV-1–infected women. The likelihood of detecting HIV-1–specific responses in HEPS women increased with the duration of viral exposure, suggesting that HIV-1–specific CD8+ responses are acquired over time. The association between differential recognition of distinct CTL epitopes and protection from HIV-1 infection may have significant implications for vaccine design.
Rupert Kaul, Tao Dong, Francis A. Plummer, Joshua Kimani, Timothy Rostron, Peter Kiama, Ephantus Njagi, Erastus Irungu, Bashir Farah, Julius Oyugi, Rana Chakraborty, Kelly S. MacDonald, Job J. Bwayo, Andrew McMichael, Sarah L. Rowland-Jones
Usage data is cumulative from March 2024 through March 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 558 | 32 |
76 | 19 | |
Figure | 46 | 3 |
Table | 186 | 0 |
Citation downloads | 58 | 0 |
Totals | 924 | 54 |
Total Views | 978 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.