DataSheet_2_Mycobacterium tuberculosis-Specific T Cell Functional, Memory, and Activation Profiles in QuantiFERON-Reverters Are Consistent With Controlled Infection.zip
Reversion of immune sensitization tests for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) infection, such as interferon-gamma release assays or tuberculin skin test, has been reported in multiple studies. We hypothesized that QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT) reversion is associated with a decline of M.tb-specific functional T cell responses, and a distinct pattern of T cell and innate responses compared to persistent QFT+ and QFT- individuals. We compared groups of healthy adolescents (n=~30 each), defined by four, 6-monthly QFT tests: reverters (QFT+/+/-/-), non-converters (QFT-/-/-/-) and persistent positives (QFT+/+/+/+). We stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells with M.tb antigens (M.tb lysate; CFP-10/ESAT-6 and EspC/EspF/Rv2348 peptide pools) and measured M.tb-specific adaptive T cell memory, activation, and functional profiles; as well as functional innate (monocytes, natural killer cells), donor-unrestricted T cells (DURT: γδ T cells, mucosal-associated invariant T and natural killer T-like cells) and B cells by flow cytometry. Projection to latent space discriminant analysis was applied to determine features that best distinguished between QFT reverters, non-converters and persistent positives. No longitudinal changes in immune responses to M.tb were observed upon QFT reversion. M.tb-specific Th1 responses detected in reverters were of intermediate magnitude, higher than responses in QFT non-converters and lower than responses in persistent positives. About one third of reverters had a robust response to CFP-10/ESAT-6. Among those with measurable responses, lower proportions of TSCM (CD45RA+CCR7+CD27+) and early differentiated (CD45RA-) IFN-γ-TNF+IL-2- M.tb lysate-specific CD4+ cells were observed in reverters compared with non-converters. Conversely, higher proportions of early differentiated and lower proportions of effector (CD45RA-CCR7-) CFP10/ESAT6-specific Th1 cells were observed in reverters compared to persistent-positives. No differences in M.tb-specific innate, DURT or B cell functional responses were observed between the groups. Statistical modelling misclassified the majority of reverters as non-converters more frequently than they were correctly classified as reverters or misclassified as persistent positives. These findings suggest that QFT reversion occurs in a heterogeneous group of individuals with low M.tb-specific T cell responses. In some individuals QFT reversion may result from assay variability, while in others the magnitude and differentiation status of M.tb-specific Th1 cells are consistent with well-controlled M.tb infection.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1164/art.1940.42.4.471
- https://doi.org//10.1164/arrd.1962.85.4.511
- https://doi.org//10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120069
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.tube.2011.03.002
- https://doi.org//10.1378/chest.35.4.348
- https://doi.org//10.1128/mmbr.00021-14
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pmed.0040192
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0101224
- https://doi.org//10.1002/iid3.269
- https://doi.org//10.1093/cid/ciz581
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jinf.2019.01.008
- https://doi.org//10.1164/rccm.200811-1704oc
- https://doi.org//10.1164/rccm.200511-1783oc
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0096613
- https://doi.org//10.1056/nejmoa1714021
- https://doi.org//10.1128/microbiolspec.tbtb2-0018-2016
- https://doi.org//10.1146/annurev.immunol.22.012703.104635
- https://doi.org//10.1084/jem.193.3.271
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.tube.2015.03.002
- https://doi.org//10.4049/jimmunol.1501996
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nri2274
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103233
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41591-019-0441-3
- https://doi.org//10.1172/jci66327
- https://doi.org//10.1164/rccm.202007-2686OC
- https://doi.org//10.1183/13993003.00153-2018
- https://doi.org//10.1002/cti2.1176
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fimmu.2017.00968
- https://doi.org//10.1164/rccm.201601-0116le
- https://doi.org//10.1172/jci77990
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nm.3412
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0017984
- https://doi.org//10.1164/rccm.201704-0817oc
- https://doi.org//10.1164/rccm.202007-2686oc
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nbt.3187
- https://doi.org//10.1002/cyto.a.21015
- https://doi.org//10.1093/biostatistics/kxt024
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.1408792111
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.chom.2017.05.012
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009197
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41586-019-1817-8
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41591-018-0319-9
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1471-2334-9-182
- https://doi.org//10.1038/srep45969
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-2567.2006.02355.x
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.0136863100
- https://doi.org//10.4049/jimmunol.180.3.1962
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Transplantation Immunology
- Tumour Immunology
- Immunology not elsewhere classified
- Immunology
- Veterinary Immunology
- Animal Immunology
- Genetic Immunology
- Applied Immunology (incl. Antibody Engineering, Xenotransplantation and T-cell Therapies)
- Autoimmunity
- Cellular Immunology
- Humoural Immunology and Immunochemistry
- Immunogenetics (incl. Genetic Immunology)
- Innate Immunity