Phenotypic and functional characterisation of circulating cytomegalovirus-specific T cells in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates

Mohammed Altaf, Md Azhar Irfan, Nazneen Naheed, NM Aleemuddin
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.04.21256785

ABSTRACT

Background Deficiencies in CMV-specific T cell immunity pre-transplant increase patient risk of CMV reactivation and disease post-transplantation. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare CMV-specific cellular immunity in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates pre-transplant to identify key immune mediators associated with functional defects in CMV-specific T cells.

Methods A prospective cohort study of 43 adult lung transplant candidates and 14 healthy virus carriers was conducted in Brisbane, Australia. Intracellular cytokine staining and immune phenotyping (by multiparametric flow cytometry) were performed to explore phenotypic and functional characteristics of CMV-specific T cells.

Results In this study, 60% of lung transplant candidates were CMV-seropositive pre-transplant. The numbers of CMV-specific T cells in the periphery were comparable between CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates and healthy virus carriers. Effector molecule (CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2) expression on CMV-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells was significantly higher in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy virus carriers. However, expression of key T cell function mediators (CD11a, CD29, CD49f, and Granzyme B) was significantly higher in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy virus carriers. Conversely, expression levels of CD49d, CD103, and Eomes on T cells and CMV-specific T cells were significantly lower in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy virus carriers.

Conclusions The findings from this study reveal significant phenotypic differences between healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates. Assessment of pre-existing CMV-specific T-cell immunity in lung transplant candidates may help to inform and personalise post-transplant clinical management.

INTRODUCTION

Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a ubiquitous beta human herpesvirus 5 belonging to the Herpesviridae family [1, 2] that was first observed in 1881 by German pathologist Hugo Ribbert in infants as typical cytomegalic cells with intranuclear inclusions that were suspected to be protozoa [3]. The virus was later identified as CMV and isolated in 1957 by paediatrician and research scientist Thomas H. Weller [3]. In the human population, CMV is a common infection with 30-90% CMV seroprevalence in healthy individuals [1, 4] who are usually asymptomatic. However, CMV can cause disease and virus-associated complications (e.g. retinitis, encephalitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, nephritis, and colitis etc.) in immunocompromised and immunosuppressed solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients [1, 5].

The number of solid organ transplantations performed annually exceeds 200,000 globally, therefore, a significant number of patients will experience risk of CMV disease and other virus-associated complications [4, 6]. Pre-existing CMV-specific T-cell immunity plays an important role in controlling CMV infection and virus-associated disease post-transplant. Therefore, organ transplantation from a CMV-seropositive donor to a CMV-seronegative SOT recipient (R-/D+) increases the risk of CMV-associated disease and poor post-transplant outcomes compared to a CMV-seropositive transplant recipient receiving an organ from a CMV-seropositive or seronegative donor (R+/D±) [5-10].

Therapeutic management of CMV infection in SOT recipients consists of first-line anti-viral prophylaxes, ganciclovir or valganciclovir, and second-line anti-viral therapies, foscarnet or cidofovir [7, 11]. Despite therapeutic intervention, CMV remains a significant threat in transplant recipients due to drug resistance following prolonged exposure to first-line anti-viral therapies and the side effects (e.g. myelosuppression and nephrotoxicity) associated with second-line anti-viral therapies [7, 11]. Reactivation of CMV is currently managed by reducing immunosuppressive therapy to promote immune reconstitution against CMV, however, this approach can increase the risk of graft rejection, premature graft loss, and death [12, 13]. Hence, a better understanding of T cell-mediated immune regulation of CMV infection is needed to assess the risk profile of each SOT recipient and enable individualised treatments, including potential immunotherapeutic approaches.

Cellular immunity against CMV plays a crucial role in controlling persistent viral infection. Monitoring CMV-specific cellular immunity after transplantation has shown potential for assessing individual risk of CMV reactivation and disease. Several clinical assays have been approved for this purpose [14-16]. Recent studies involving kidney transplant candidates have also shown how pre-transplant CMV-specific immune monitoring can help distinguish patients at risk of CMV disease and virus-associated complications [17, 18].

Cytomegalovirus is a persistent viral infection that undergoes periodic reactivation of the latent virus. In healthy individuals, periodic reactivation is controlled by the adaptive immune system, particularly the HLA‐restricted CMV‐specific CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocyte compartment. Importantly, CMV-specific CD4+ T lymphocytes help maintain CD8+ memory T cell function [19-21]. Immune control of CMV infection is compromised in patients with weakened immune systems, like SOT recipients, where CMV is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Primary CMV infection is usually benign in immunocompetent hosts and provides an ideal setting for investigating CMV-specific cellular immune responses to a latent virus. The existence of defined HLA class I and class II restricted CMV-specific T cell epitopes and populations of CMV-specific T cells easily recognised by ex vivo functional T cell assays makes primary CMV infection an ideal setting for exploring immune responses to a latent virus. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate and compare CMV-specific T cell responses in healthy CMV-seropositive individuals and lung transplant candidates.

METHODS

Study participants

This prospective cohort research was performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval to undertake the research involving healthy volunteers was obtained from QIMR Berghofer Human Research Ethics Committee. Ethics approval to undertake the research involving lung transplant candidates was obtained from both The Prince Charles Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to inclusion in the study. A total of 43 lung transplant patients were recruited prior to lung transplantation, from The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane between 2013 and 2014. Fourteen healthy virus carriers were also recruited to the study from QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. The demographics and clinical characteristics of the lung transplant patients are provided in Table 1. The demographics and clinical characteristics of healthy CMV-seropositive individuals is given in Table 2. Forty patients went on to receive a lung transplant. Blood samples were collected in EDTA tubes from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates pre-transplant to assess pre-existing CMV-specific T-cell immunity using the intracellular cytokine staining assay. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from whole blood of healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates were isolated for flow cytometric analysis.

View this table:
Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of lung transplant candidates
View this table:
Table 2. HLA typing of healthy CMV-seropositive individuals and HLA-matched CMV-specific peptide-MHC multimers used in the study

Intracellular cytokine staining

To investigate the functionality of T cells, an Intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assay was performed using PBMC of transplant candidates. PBMC were incubated overnight in R10 medium at 37°C. After incubation, T cells were counted. Approximately 5×105 T cells in 100 μL of R10 medium were added to 96-well V-bottom plate. To the required wells, 2 μl/well of overlapping CMV-peptide pools (CMV pepmix, CMV pp65, CMV IE1) (JPT Technologies) were added. To the required wells, 100 μL/well of master mix containing R10 medium, 2 μL/mL of GolgiPlug or Brefeldin A (BD Biosciences, New Jersey, USA), 1.4 μL/mL of GolgiStop or Monensin (BD Biosciences) and 50 μL/mL of anti-CD107a-FITC (clone H4A3, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA) was added and were incubated for 4 h at 37°C. After incubation, cells were washed and labelled with anti-CD4-Pacific Blue (clone RPA-T4, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), anti-CD8-PerCP-Cy5.5 (clone RPA-T8, Life Technologies, CA, USA) and LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, USA) for 30 min at 4°C. Cells were washed with PBS-2% FCS, fixed and permeabilised with Cytofix/Cytoperm solution (BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), then incubated with anti-IL-2-PE (clone MQ1-17H12, Life Technologies, CA, USA), anti-IFN-γ-AF700 (clone B27, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA) and anti-TNF-APC (clone Mab11, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA) for 30 min at 4°C. Cells were washed with perm/wash buffer and resuspended in fixation buffer containing 1% paraformaldehyde and incubated for 15-30 min at 4°C. Cells were washed and resuspended in PBS-2% FCS and acquired using a BD LSRFortessa with FACSDiva software (BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA). Post-acquisition analysis was performed using FlowJo version 10.7.2 software (FlowJo LLC, Ashland, Oregon, USA).

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells immune phenotyping

To identify the phenotype and functional characteristics of PBMC from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates, 1 mL vial of PBMC containing approximately 10×106 cells from each healthy CMV-seropositive individual and lung transplant candidate were thawed and added to 9 mL of R10 (RPMI-10% FCS) and then centrifuged at 400g for 10 min. PBMC pellets were resuspended in 10mL of R10. Number of viable cells per mL of PBMC was determined using the trypan blue exclusion method; wherein a sample of trypan blue and cells were prepared to a ratio of 1:1. 10µL of sample was loaded into a haemocytometer and examined under microscope immediately. PBMC (5×105 cells/test) were added to required wells of a 96-well V-bottom plate. T cells were washed with 200μL per well of wash buffer (PBS-2% FCS) and the cell pellet was resuspended in PBS-2% FCS containing cell surface antibodies; APC-labelled HLA-matched peptide-MHC (pMHC) multimers (Immudex, Copenhagen, Denmark) and anti-CCR7-PE-Cy7 (clone 3D12, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), incubated for 10 min at 4°C and then incubated with anti-CD3-BV711 (clone SK7, BioLegend, San Diego, USA), anti-CD19-PE-Cy5 (clone HIB19, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), anti-CD8-BV786 (clone RPA-T8, eBioscience, San Diego, USA), anti-CD4-Pacific Blue (clone RPA-T4, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), anti-CD27-PE-Dazzle (clone LG.3A10, BioLegend, San Diego, USA), anti-CD28-BV480 (clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), anti-CD45RA-FITC (clone HI100, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), anti-CD57-BV605 (clone QA17A04, BioLegend, San Diego, USA) and LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, USA), or with anti-CD11a-FITC (clone HI111, BioLegend, San Diego, USA), anti-CD18-PE-Cy7 (clone 1B4/CD18, BioLegend, San Diego, USA), anti-CD29-AF700 (clone TS2/16, BioLegend, San Diego, USA), anti-CD49d-PerCP-Cy5.5 (clone 9F10, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA), anti-CD49f-BV421 (clone GoH3, BioLegend, San Diego, USA) for 30 min at 4°C. Following incubation, cells were centrifuged at 1000g for 2 min and then washed with PBS-2% FCS, fixed and permeabilised with transcription factor cytofix/cytoperm solution (BD Biosciences) for 1 h at 4°C. After fixation, cells were washed with perm/wash buffer (BD Biosciences) and resuspended in 50 μL of perm/wash buffer containing intracellular markers; anti-CD103-PE (clone B-Ly7, Life Technologies, CA, USA) or with anti-T-bet-PE (clone eBio4B10, Life Technologies, CA, USA), anti-Eomes-PCP-eFluor710 (clone WD1928, Life Technologies, CA, USA) and anti-Granzyme B-AF700 (clone GB11, BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA) for 30 min at 4°C. After incubation, cells were washed with perm/wash buffer and resuspended in fixation buffer containing 1% paraformaldehyde and incubated for 15-30 min at 4°C. Cells were washed and resuspended in PBS-2% FCS and acquired using a BD LSRFortessa with FACSDiva software (BD Biosciences, San Jose, USA). Post-acquisition analysis was performed using FlowJo version 10.7.2 software (FlowJo LLC, Ashland, Oregon, USA).

Statistical analysis

GraphPad Prism 9.0.1 (San Diego, CA, USA) was used to perform statistical analyses. Demographics and clinical characteristics of healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates were represented as median (interquartile range (IQR)) and n (%), respectively. Statistical comparisons between two continuous variables were made using a two-tailed non-parametric unpaired t test (Mann–Whitney U test). All graphs were prepared in GraphPad Prism, with box plots used to represent the median (horizontal line), 25th and 75th percentiles (boxes) and 5th and 95th percentiles (whiskers). P<0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

RESULTS

Cohort characteristics

Forty-three prospective lung transplant candidates with a median age of 54 were recruited to the study. From the 43 lung transplant candidates, 21 were males and 22 were females. Twenty-six (60%) were CMV-seropositive and 17 (40%) were CMV-seronegative pre-transplant. The majority of the lung transplant candidates (18, 42%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Twelve (28%) had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), 10 (23%) had cystic fibrosis (CF), while one candidate each had bronchiectasis (2.3%), pulmonary sarcoidosis (2.3%), or chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (2.3%), as the indication for transplantation. All candidates received bilateral lung transplants. Detailed clinical characteristics of the cohort are presented in Table 1. A total of 14 CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers with ages and HLA type closely matched to transplant candidates were also recruited to the study. Demographic and clinical characteristics of healthy CMV-seropositive individuals are provided in Table 2.

Ex vivo profiling of CMV-specific T cell responses in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates

To assess CMV-specific T-cell responses, experiments began by isolating peripheral blood mononuclear cells from whole blood of healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates by density gradient centrifugation with Ficoll-Paque™. Next, expression of effector molecules (CD107a (cytotoxic degranulation), IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2) was measured on both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells by intracellular cytokine staining following stimulation with an overlapping CMV peptide pool (CMV pepmix, pp65 and IE1 antigen). The CMV pepmix is a clinical-grade custom peptide pool that includes predefined HLA class I and class II-restricted peptide epitopes from pp65, pp50, IE-1, gH, and gB [22-25]. These peptides have important functions in CMV infection. For example, viral glycoproteins gB and gB are responsible for virus attachment and host cell penetration [23] while CMV pp65 (UL83) is a structural tegument phosphoprotein and CMV IE1 (UL123) is a non-structural immediate early protein [23]. Tegument protein CMV pp65 provides the most immunodominant MHC class I and II antigens that are responsible for evading the immune system during CMV infection [26]. Similarly, CMV IE1 provides the most immunodominant MHC class I antigens that are expressed during viral replication [23, 27, 28]. In addition, CD8+ T cells specific for pp65 and IE1 are detectable in most CMV-seropositive individuals and provide protection from CMV infection [24, 28, 29].

A representative gating strategy for expression of effector molecules (CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-2) on CMV-specific CD8+ T cells in a healthy CMV-seropositive individual is shown in Figure 1. Findings from this study showed that the frequency of CD107a producing pp65-specific CD8+ T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates was significantly higher than healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 2A). The frequency of effector molecule (CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2) producing CMV IE1 specific CD8+ T cells was also significantly higher in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 2A).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Gating strategy of intracellular cytokine staining analysis.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy virus carrier were used for intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) analysis. Lymphocytes were first gated into single cells, single cells were then gated into viable cells, and viable cells were finally gated into CD8+/CD4+ T cells. The ICS analysis for the expression of CD107a (cytotoxic degranulation), IFN-γ, TNF and IL-2 on CD8+ T cells upon stimulation with overlapping CMV peptide pools (CMV pepmix, pp65 and IE1 antigen) was performed. Representative FACS plot for the frequency of effector molecules (CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF and IL-2) on CMV-specific CD8+ T cells in CMV-seropositive healthy individual is shown.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Frequency of effector molecules within the CD8+/CD4+ T cell population.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates pre-transplant were used for intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) analysis. Samples were categorised into two groups CMV-seropositive healthy individuals (n=14) and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates (CMV+LTR (n=21)). The cells were stimulated with overlapping CMV peptide pool (CMV pepmix, pp65 and IE1). The ICS analysis for the expression of CD107a (cytotoxic degranulation), IFN-γ, TNF and IL-2, upon stimulation with CMV peptide pool was performed. The frequency of CD8+ T cells (A) and CD4+ T cells (B) expressing the respective effector molecules upon stimulation with CMV pepmix, pp65 and IE1 antigen was analysed and compared between CMV-seropositive healthy individuals and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates. Each dot represents a different transplant candidate. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001 as determined by two-tailed nonparametric unpaired t test (Mann-Whitney U test).

Stimulation with immunodominant antigens produced similar results. The CMV pp65 antigen significantly increased the frequency of CD107a, IFN-γ, and IL-2 on CD4+ T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive volunteers (Figure 2B). Similarly, stimulation with the CMV IE1 antigen also significantly increased the frequency of effector molecules CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2 on CD4+ T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive volunteers (Figure 2B). These results demonstrate that CD8+ and CD4+ T cells from CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates exhibit more polyfunctionality compared to healthy virus carriers. Increased T cell functionality in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates could be due to underlying disease conditions, recent reactivation of CMV, or more CMV-specific T cells pre-transplant.

CMV-specific T cells in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive transplant candidates were stained with HLA-matched CMV-specific peptide (pMHC) multimer for identification of CMV-specific T cells. This experimental approach was based on the assumption that CMV-specific T cell deficiency in healthy virus carriers, compared to CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates, is associated with decreased polyfunctionality in healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (i.e. decreased expression of effector molecules on CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells when T cells are stimulated with the overlapping CMV peptide pool pp65 and IE1).

A representative gating strategy to identify CMV-specific T cells is shown in Figure 3A. CMV-specific T cells were observed in healthy CMV-seropositive individuals and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates (Figure 3B). No significant differences were observed in the proportion of CMV-specific T cells between CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers and lung transplant candidates (Figure 3C). The HLA types of healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates, along with the pMHC multimers used in this study, are listed in Tables 2 and 3.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Frequency of CMV-specific T cells in healthy volunteers and lung transplant candidates.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates were stained with surface markers such as CD3, CD8, CD4, CD19, LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain, and HLA matched CMV-specific peptide-pMHC multimer and analysed using flow cytometry. (A) represents gating strategy to identify CMV-specific T cells. Lymphocytes gated into single cells. Single cells were then gated into viable cells. Viable cells were gated into CD3+ T cells and CD19+ B cells. CD3+ T cells were gated into CD8+/CD4+ T cells. CD8+ T cells were gated into CD8+ Multimer+ (CMV-specific) T cells. (B) representative flow cytometry plots from a healthy CMV-seropositive individual and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidate. (C) represents the proportion of CMV-specific T cells in CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers (n=12) and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates (CMV+LTR (n=19)) pre-transplant. P value was determined by using two-tailed non-parametric unpaired t test (Mann-Whitney U test).

View this table:
Table 3. HLA typing of lung transplant candidates and HLA-matched CMV-specific peptide-MHC multimers used in the study

Phenotypic and functional characteristics of CMV-specific T cells in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates

Circulating CMV-specific T cells were observed in healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates pre-transplant to determine whether differences in immune phenotype were associated with differential expression of effector molecules (CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-2) on CMV-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Immune phenotypes were observed in PBMC from healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates to determine whether transplant candidates exhibit different immune phenotypes compared to healthy virus carriers. A representative staining is shown in Supplementary Figure 1. T and B cell subsets were quantified using PBMC from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates. The proportion of CD3+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, and B cells were similar between healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates (Figure 4A). In addition, the frequency of early central memory (ECM), late central memory (LCM), early effector memory (EEM), and late effector memory (LEM) CD8+ T cells (Figure 4B), and CD4+ T cells (Figure 4C) did not differ significantly between healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates. However, the frequency of naïve B cells significantly increased in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals, while the frequency of memory B cells significantly decreased in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 4D).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Phenotypic analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers and lung transplant candidates pre-transplant.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors and transplant candidates were stained with surface markers such as CD3, CD8, CD4, LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain, CD19, CD27, CD28, CD45RA, CCR7 and CD57 and analysed using flow cytometry. Samples were categorised into three groups CMV-seropositive healthy donors (n=14), CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates (CMV+LTR (n=21)) and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates (CMV-LTR (n=14)) pre-transplant. (A) represents the proportion of viable T (CD3+) cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells and B cells in CMV+ healthy donors, CMV+ and CMV-lung transplant candidates. (B) and (C), represents the proportions of CD8+/CD4+ memory T cells (early central memory (ECM), late central memory (LCM), early effector memory (EEM), late effector memory (LEM)) in CMV+ healthy donors, CMV+ and CMV-lung transplant candidates. (D) represents the proportions of CD19+ naïve and memory B cells in CMV+ healthy donors, CMV+ and CMV-lung transplant candidates. P<0.05 as determined by two-tailed nonparametric unpaired t test (Mann-Whitney U test).

A phenotypic analysis of CMV-specific T cells from healthy CMV-seropositive individuals and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates was performed to address why healthy virus carriers produce less cytokines compared to CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates. A representative gating strategy to identify the phenotypes of CMV-specific T cells is shown in Supplementary Figure 2A. Proportion of memory T cells (ECM, LCM, EEM, and LEM) were similar between healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates (Supplementary Figure 2B).

Expression of costimulatory molecules and integrins on CMV-specific T cells from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates

No significant differences were observed in the central and effector memory phenotypes of T cells or CMV-specific T cells between healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates, therefore, a panel of cell surface integrin markers, CD11a (ITGAL), CD18 (ITGB2), CD29 (ITGB1), CD49d (ITGA4), CD49f (ITGA6), and CD103 (ITGA6), was selected to investigate differences in T cell functionality between healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates. This experimental approach was based on the assumption that increased production of cytokines in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates, when compared to healthy virus carriers, may be due to higher expression of co-stimulatory and integrin molecules on T cells.

The panel of cell surface integrin markers selected are responsible for memory T cell differentiation, co-stimulation on T cells, and for T cell trafficking to different organs and tissues. CD11a pairs with CD18 to form the lymphocyte function associated antigen (LFA)-1 (αLβ2, CD11a/CD18) that plays a critical role in enhancing T cell activation [30]. CD29 pairs not only with CD49d to form the very late antigen (VLA)-4 (α4β1, CD49d/CD29), but also with CD49f to form VLA-6 (α6β1, CD49f/CD29); a marker of IFN-γ-producing cells with enhanced cytotoxic potential [31]. Integrin alpha 4 (CD49d) plays a role in T cell stimulation that includes inducing IFN-γ production [32]. Following infectious challenge, co-stimulatory molecule CD49d participates in T cell trafficking into lower respiratory compartments [33].

Expression of co-stimulatory and integrin markers, CD11a, CD18, CD29, CD49d, CD49f, and CD103, was assessed on CD8+ T cells, CMV-specific CD8+ T cells, and CD4+ T from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates. Significantly higher expression of CD29 (P<0.001), CD49f (P<0.001), and CD103 (P<0.01) was observed on CD8+ T cells from CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 5A). Conversely, significantly lower expression of CD103 (P<0.05) was observed in CMV-specific (CD8+multimer+) T cells from CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 5B). Significantly higher expression of CD11a (P<0.05), CD29 (P<0.0001) and significantly lower expression of CD49d (P<0.0001) and CD103 (P<0.0001) was observed on CD4+ T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 5C). Overall, the findings suggest that differential expression of integrins and memory T cell differentiation markers may be associated with underlying disease conditions in lung transplant candidates pre-transplant.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Cell surface expression of integrins and co-stimulatory molecules on CD8+/CD4+/CMV-specific T cells healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates pre-transplant.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers and transplant candidates were stained with surface markers such as CD4, CD8, LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain, CD11a, CD18, CD29, CD49d CD49f, CD103 and HLA matched pMHC multimer and analysed using flow cytometry. Samples were categorised into three groups CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers (n=14), CMV-seropositive (n=21) and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates (n=14). Data represents the median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of cell surface integrin or co-stimulatory molecules; CD11a, CD18, CD29, CD49d, CD49f, and CD103 on CD8+ T cells (A), CD8+ Multimer+ (CMV-specific) T cells (B) and CD4+ T cells (C) and compared between CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers, CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates (CMV+LTR and CMV-LTR) groups. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001 as determined by two-tailed non-parametric unpaired t test (Mann-Whitney U test).

Expression of transcription factors and effector molecule in CMV-specific T cells from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates

Transcription factors play an important role in memory and effector T cell differentiation and function during infection [34]. T cells deficient in T-bet, Eomes, and Granzyme B are associated with poor T cell function and differentiation and impact the effector profile of T cells [35-38]. To assess whether lower CMV-specific T cell responses in healthy virus carriers compared to CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates, is linked to expression of immune regulatory T-box transcription factors TBX21 (T-bet) and Eomesodermin (Eomes) and effector molecule Granzyme B, CD8+ T cells, CMV-specific (CD8+multimer+) T cells, and CD4+ T cells from healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates were assessed for intracellular expression of Eomes, T-bet, and Granzyme B.

Significantly lower expression of Eomes (P<0.01) and higher expression of Granzyme B (P<0.05) was observed in CD8+ T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 6A). Similarly, significantly lower expression of Eomes (P<0.05) was observed in CMV-specific T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 6B). In addition, CD4+ T cells exhibited significantly lower expression of Eomes (P<0.05), T-bet (P<0.01), and significantly higher expression of Granzyme B (P<0.0001) in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates compared to healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (Figure 6C).

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Expression of transcription factors and effector molecule within the CD8+/CD4+/ CMV-specific T cell population.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from CMV-seropositive healthy virus carriers and transplant candidates were stained with CD4, CD8, LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain, Eomes, T-bet, Granzyme B and HLA matched pMHC multimer and analysed using flow cytometry. Samples were categorised into three groups CMV-seropositive healthy virus carriers, CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates pre-transplant. Data represents median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of Eomes, T-bet and Granzyme B in CD8+ T cells (A), CMV-specific T cells (B) and CD4+ T cells (C) and compared between CMV-seropositive healthy volunteers, CMV-seropositive and CMV-seronegative lung transplant candidates (CMV+LTR and CMV-LTR) groups. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ****P<0.0001 as determined by two-tailed non-parametric unpaired t test (Mann-Whitney U test).

DISCUSSION

In this study, CMV-specific T cell responses, phenotypic and functional characteristics of CMV-specific T cells was investigated and compared between 14 healthy virus carriers and 43 lung transplant candidates. Analysis from this study defined significant changes in the expression patterns of key integrin molecules, transcription factors and effector molecules on T cells that correlate with functional defects in CMV-specific T cells.

A study reported previously have shown that CMV-seropositive kidney transplant recipients post-transplant had significantly higher levels of CMV-specific IFN-γ+CD8+ T cells response compared to healthy controls [39]. Another retrospective study have shown that SOT recipients pre-transplant had significantly higher CMV IgG titres compared to healthy individuals [40]. Interestingly, the findings in the study presented here demonstrates significantly higher frequency of CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-2 producing IE1-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells and CD107a, IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-2 producing pp65-specific CD4+ T cells in CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates pre-transplant compared to healthy virus carriers. These observations might be associated with endogenous CMV reactivation of the latent virus and intermittent virus shedding and immune boosting against CMV in end stage organ disease leading to SOT [40].

CMV-specific T cell functional differences between healthy virus carriers and CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates was not associated with the absence of virus-specific T cells in the periphery or central or effector memory phenotype. However, CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates pre-transplant had significantly higher expression of integrin molecules CD29 and CD49f on CD8+ T cells, CD11a and CD29 on CD4+ T cells compared to healthy virus carriers. CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates had significantly lower expression of CD103 on CD8+ T cells, CMV-specific T cells and CD4+ T cells and co-stimulatory molecule CD49d on CD4+ T cells compared to healthy virus carriers. A recent study by Nicolet et al. [31] have revealed the importance of β1 integrin (CD29) for enhancing IFN-γ-producing CD8+ T cells with increased expression of cytotoxic molecules. Multiple studies reported previously have used integrin α4 (CD49d) alone or in combination with another co-stimulatory molecule (CD28) as a co-stimulatory molecule on T cells for enhancing the production of IFN-γ and other cytokines [32, 41-44]. Furthermore, CD49d is considered to play a key role in trafficking of T cells into the lungs in response to infection [45, 46]. Previous studies have shown that the co-expression of CD11ahiCD49dhi on CD3+ T cells is associated with enhanced IFN-γ production following vaccination [47]. Similarly, another study has shown that co-expression of CD11ahiCD49d+ on CD4+ T cells following LCMV infection was associated with increased IFN-γ production [46]. Recent observations have also demonstrated the importance of CD29, which pairs with CD49d and CD49f to form very late antigen (VLA)-4 and VLA-6, as a marker of IFN-γ-producing cells with enhanced cytotoxic potential [31]. Similarly, CD49f plays an important role in stem cell biology [48]. Recent study have demonstrated that CD49f is essential for regulatory T cell function and differentiation [48]. Previous studies demonstrated the role of CD103 as an important marker for tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells which provides protection against viral infections [49, 50].

Similarly, CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates had significantly lower expression of immune regulatory transcription factor Eomes on CD8+ T cells, CMV-specific T cells and CD4+ T cells compared to healthy virus carriers. In contrast, CMV-seropositive lung transplant candidates had significantly higher expression of transcription factor T-bet on CD4+ T cells, effector molecule Granzyme B on CD8+ T cells, CMV-specific T cells and CD4+ T cells compared to healthy virus carriers. T-box transcription factors (T-bet and Eomes) are important for the development and differentiation of effector and memory CD8+ T cells [37, 51-54]. Previous studies have shown distinct role for T-bet and Eomes during acute and chronic infection [51, 55, 56]. During acute infection, expression of T-bet and Eomes increased following T cell activation, when they facilitate the production of effector molecules like IFN-γ [51, 53, 54, 56, 57]. During chronic infection, T-bet and Eomes are indispensable and in the absence of any of these transcription factors, the exhausted CD8+ T cells fails to form [55]. Early T cell exhaustion during chronic viral infection is associated with Eomeslow PD-1int expression on T cells leading to decreased IL-2 production. While terminally exhausted T cells following high antigen load during chronic viral infection lack the ability to produce effector molecules (IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-2) and are associated with PD-1hi Eomeshi T-betlow expression [34].

A previous study has shown that a low CMV antibody titre in CMV-seropositive liver transplant candidates pre-transplant was associated with higher incidence of CMV infection post-transplant [58]. A study has recently demonstrated the safety of autologous CMV-specific T-cell therapy in SOT recipients in a phase I clinical trial, and associated this therapy with evidence of improved immune control and drastic changes in peripheral T-cell immunity in responding patients [59].

It is important to note that this study had some limitations. The study had a small sample size cohort and was a single-centre study. Multi-centre and large cohort studies are needed to validate these findings. In conclusion, results from this study provide evidence that the assessment of CMV-specific T-cell immunity in lung transplant candidates can provide a mechanism to assess the risk of viral reactivation post-transplant. Assessment of pre-existing CMV-specific T-cell immunity in lung transplant candidates may help to inform and personalise post-transplant clinical management.

Data Availability

Data is available on request to corresponding author by email.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

The authors declare no competing interests.

SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES

Figure S1.
Figure S1. Gating strategy to identify the phenotypic characteristics of T and B cell population.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from transplant recipients were stained with surface markers such as CD3, CD8, CD4, LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain, CD19, CD27, CD28, CD45RA, CCR7 and CD57 and analysed using flow cytometry. Lymphocytes gated into single cells. Single cells were then gated into viable cells. Viable cells were gated into CD3+ T cells and CD19+ B cells. CD3+ T cells were gated into CD8+/CD4+ T cells. CD8+/CD4+ T cells were gated into memory and naïve T cells using markers CD45RA and CCR7. Memory CD8+/CD4+ T cells were gated into early central memory (ECM), late central memory (LCM), effector memory (EM) using markers CD27 and CD28. EM (CD27-CD28-) T cells were gated into early effector memory (EEM) and late effector memory (LEM) T cells using CD57. CD19+ B cells were gated into memory B cells (CD27+CD19+) and naïve B cells (CD27-CD19+). Representative FACS plots in one lung transplant recipient.

Figure S2.
Figure S2. Phenotype of CMV-specific T cells in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates pre-transplant.

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy virus carriers and lung transplant recipients were stained with surface markers such as CD3, CD8, CD4, CD27, CD28, CD57, LIVE/DEAD fixable near-IR Dead Cell Stain and HLA matched CMV-specific pMHC multimer and analysed using flow cytometry. (A) represents the gating strategy to identify phenotype of CMV-specific T cells. Lymphocytes gated into single cells. Single cells were then gated into viable cells. Viable cells were gated into CD3+ T cells and CD19+ B cells. CD3+ T cells were gated into CD8+/CD4+ T cells. CD8+ T cells were gated into CD8+ Multimer+ (CMV-specific) T cells. CMV-specific T cells were gated into memory T cells (early central memory (ECM), late central memory (LCM), effector memory (EM)) using markers CD27 and CD28. EM T cells were gated into early effector memory (EEM) and late effector memory (LEM) T cells using CD57. (B) represents the proportion of memory T cells (ECM, LCM, EEM, LEM) in CD8+Multimer+ T cells between healthy CMV-seropositive individuals (n=12) and CMV-seropositive lung transplant recipients (CMV+LTR (n=19)) pre-transplant. P>0.05 as determined by two-tailed nonparametric unpaired t test (Mann-Whitney U test).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Linda Jones, Jacqueline Burrows, Matthew Solomon and the patients for the extensive support with the work carried out in the project. This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Crough, T. and R. Khanna, Immunobiology of human cytomegalovirus: from bench to bedside. Clinical microbiology reviews, 2009. 22(1): p. 76–98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Herbein, G. and Z. Nehme, Tumor Control by Cytomegalovirus: A Door Open for Oncolytic Virotherapy? Mol Ther Oncolytics, 2020. 17: p. 1–8.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Ho, M., The history of cytomegalovirus and its diseases. Medical Microbiology and Immunology, 2008. 197(2): p. 65–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Groves, I.J., S.E. Jackson, E.L. Poole, et al., Bromodomain proteins regulate human cytomegalovirus latency and reactivation allowing epigenetic therapeutic intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021. 118(9): p. e2023025118.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Sezgin, E., P. An, and C.A. Winkler, Host Genetics of Cytomegalovirus Pathogenesis. Frontiers in Genetics, 2019. 10(616).
  6. 6.↵
    Chambers, D.C., W.S. Cherikh, M.O. Harhay, et al., The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-sixth adult lung and heart-lung transplantation Report-2019; Focus theme: Donor and recipient size match. The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation, 2019. 38(10): p. 1042–1055.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Kotton, C.N., D. Kumar, A.M. Caliendo, et al., Updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation, 2013. 96(4): p. 333–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.
    Almaghrabi, R.S., A.S. Omrani, and Z.A. Memish, Cytomegalovirus infection in lung transplant recipients. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 2017. 11(5): p. 377–383.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.
    Schoeppler, K.E., D.M. Lyu, T.J. Grazia, J.T. Crossno, Jr., K.M. Vandervest, and M.R. Zamora, Late-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) in lung transplant recipients: can CMV serostatus guide the duration of prophylaxis? Am J Transplant, 2013. 13(2): p. 376–82.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Khush, K.K., W.S. Cherikh, D.C. Chambers, et al., The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-sixth adult heart transplantation report - 2019; focus theme: Donor and recipient size match. The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation, 2019. 38(10): p. 1056–1066.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Smith, C., D. Corvino, L. Beagley, et al., T cell repertoire remodeling following post-transplant T cell therapy coincides with clinical response. The Journal of clinical investigation, 2019. 129(11): p. 5020–5032.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Fishman, J.A., Infection in Organ Transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation, 2017. 17(4): p. 856–879.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Srinivas, T.R. and H.-U. Meier-Kriesche, Minimizing Immunosuppression, an Alternative Approach to Reducing Side Effects: Objectives and Interim Result. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2008. 3(Supplement 2): p. S101–S116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Walker, S., C. Fazou, T. Crough, et al., Ex vivo monitoring of human cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T-cell responses using QuantiFERON-CMV. Transpl Infect Dis, 2007. 9(2): p. 165–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    Tey, S.K., G.A. Kennedy, D. Cromer, et al., Clinical assessment of anti-viral CD8+ T cell immune monitoring using QuantiFERON-CMV® assay to identify high risk allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients with CMV infection complications. PLoS One, 2013. 8(10): p. e74744.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Khanna, R., Immune Monitoring of Infectious Complications in Transplant Patients: an Important Step towards Improved Clinical Management. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. 56(4): p. e02009–17.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Molina-Ortega, A., C. Martín-Gandul, J.D. Mena-Romo, et al., Impact of pretransplant CMV-specific T-cell immune response in the control of CMV infection after solid organ transplantation: a prospective cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2019. 25(6): p. 753–758.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Mena-Romo, J.D., P. Pérez Romero, C. Martín-Gandul, et al., CMV-specific T-cell immunity in solid organ transplant recipients at low risk of CMV infection. Chronology and applicability in preemptive therapy. J Infect, 2017. 75(4): p. 336–345.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Fishman, J.A., Infection in Organ Transplantation. 2017. 17(4): p. 856–879.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.
    Chee, J., C. Wilson, A. Buzzai, et al., Impaired T cell proliferation by ex vivo BET-inhibition impedes adoptive immunotherapy in a murine melanoma model. Epigenetics, 2020. 15(1-2): p. 134–144.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Gao, F.G., V. Khammanivong, W.J. Liu, G.R. Leggatt, I.H. Frazer, and G.J. Fernando, Antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell help is required to activate a memory CD8+ T cell to a fully functional tumor killer cell. Cancer Res, 2002. 62(22): p. 6438–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Smith, C., L. Beagley, S. Rehan, et al., Autologous Adoptive T-cell Therapy for Recurrent or Drug-resistant Cytomegalovirus Complications in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Single-arm Open-label Phase I Clinical Trial. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2018. 68(4): p. 632–640.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Elkington, R., S. Walker, T. Crough, et al., Ex vivo profiling of CD8+-T-cell responses to human cytomegalovirus reveals broad and multispecific reactivities in healthy virus carriers. Journal of virology, 2003. 77(9): p. 5226–5240.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Gandhi, M.K. and R. Khanna, Human cytomegalovirus: clinical aspects, immune regulation, and emerging treatments. Lancet Infect Dis, 2004. 4(12): p. 725–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Schuessler, A., C. Smith, L. Beagley, et al., Autologous T-cell therapy for cytomegalovirus as a consolidative treatment for recurrent glioblastoma. Cancer Res, 2014. 74(13): p. 3466–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    Tomtishen, J.P., 3rd, Human cytomegalovirus tegument proteins (pp65, pp71, pp150, pp28). Virology journal, 2012. 9: p. 22–22.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Malik, A., E. Adland, L. Laker, et al., Immunodominant cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T-cell responses in sub-Saharan African populations. PloS one, 2017. 12(12): p. e0189612–e0189612.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Ameres, S., J. Mautner, F. Schlott, et al., Presentation of an Immunodominant Immediate-Early CD8+ T Cell Epitope Resists Human Cytomegalovirus Immunoevasion. PLOS Pathogens, 2013. 9(5): p. e1003383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Slezak, S.L., M. Bettinotti, S. Selleri, S. Adams, F.M. Marincola, and D.F. Stroncek, CMV pp65 and IE-1 T cell epitopes recognized by healthy subjects. Journal of translational medicine, 2007. 5: p. 17–17.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Liu, Y.-X., F. Zhang, Q.-M. Yao, T. Yuan, J. Xu, and X.-J. Zhu, Expression of CD11a in lymphocyte subpopulation in immune thrombocytopenia. International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2015. 8(12): p. 15642–15651.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Nicolet, B.P., A. Guislain, F.P.J. van Alphen, et al., CD29 identifies IFN-γ–producing human CD8<sup>+</sup> T cells with an increased cytotoxic potential. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020. 117(12): p. 6686–6696.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    Thakur, A., U. Riber, W.C. Davis, and G. Jungersen, Increasing the ex vivo antigen-specific IFN-γ production in subpopulations of T cells and NKp46+ cells by anti-CD28, anti-CD49d and recombinant IL-12 costimulation in cattle vaccinated with recombinant proteins from Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 2013. 155(4): p. 276–83.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Pacheco, K.A., M. Tarkowski, J. Klemm, and L.J. Rosenwasser, CD49d expression and function on allergen-stimulated T cells from blood and airway. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol, 1998. 18(2): p. 286–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Laura, M.M., S.A.-H. Mohamed, and E.J. Wherry, CD8 T Cell Exhaustion During Chronic Viral Infection and Cancer. Annual Review of Immunology, 2019. 37(1 %R 10.1146/annurev-immunol-041015-055318): p. 457–495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Hassouneh, F., N. Lopez-Sejas, C. Campos, et al., Effect of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Ageing on T-Bet and Eomes Expression on T-Cell Subsets. International journal of molecular sciences, 2017. 18(7): p. 1391.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.
    Smith, C., D. Elhassen, S. Gras, et al., Endogenous antigen presentation impacts on T-box transcription factor expression and functional maturation of CD8+ T cells. Blood, 2012. 120(16): p. 3237–3245.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    Pearce, E.L., A.C. Mullen, G.A. Martins, et al., Control of effector CD8+ T cell function by the transcription factor Eomesodermin. Science, 2003. 302(5647): p. 1041–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Hertoghs, K.M.L., P.D. Moerland, A. van Stijn, et al., Molecular profiling of cytomegalovirus-induced human CD8+ T cell differentiation. The Journal of clinical investigation, 2010. 120(11): p. 4077–4090.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Radha, R., S. Jordan, D. Puliyanda, et al., Cellular Immune Responses to Cytomegalovirus in Renal Transplant Recipients. American Journal of Transplantation, 2005. 5(1): p. 110–117.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    La, Y., D.E. Kwon, S.G. Yoo, K.H. Lee, S.H. Han, and Y.G. Song, Human cytomegalovirus seroprevalence and titres in solid organ transplant recipients and transplant donors in Seoul, South Korea. BMC Infectious Diseases, 2019. 19(1): p. 948.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Nomura, L.E., J.M. Walker, and H.T. Maecker, Optimization of whole blood antigen-specific cytokine assays for CD4+ T cells. Cytometry, 2000. 40(1): p. 60–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.
    Papageorgiou, C.V., A. Anastasopoulos, M. Ploussi, et al., Flow cytometry analysis of CD4+IFN-γ+ T-cells for the diagnosis of mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry, 2016. 90(3): p. 303–311.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Burel, J.G., S.H. Apte, P.L. Groves, J.S. McCarthy, and D.L. Doolan, Polyfunctional and IFN-γ monofunctional human CD4+ T cell populations are molecularly distinct. JCI Insight, 2017. 2(3).
  44. 44.↵
    Waldrop, S.L., K.A. Davis, V.C. Maino, and L.J. Picker, Normal Human CD4<sup>+ </sup>Memory T Cells Display Broad Heterogeneity in Their Activation Threshold for Cytokine Synthesis. The Journal of Immunology, 1998. 161(10): p. 5284–5295.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Knudson, C.J., K.A. Weiss, S.M. Hartwig, and S.M. Varga, The Pulmonary Localization of Virus-Specific T Lymphocytes Is Governed by the Tissue Tropism of Infection. Journal of Virology, 2014. 88(16): p. 9010–9016.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    McDermott, D.S. and S.M. Varga, Quantifying antigen-specific CD4 T cells during a viral infection: CD4 T cell responses are larger than we think. Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950), 2011. 187(11): p. 5568–5576.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Christiaansen, A.F., U.G. Dixit, R.N. Coler, et al., CD11a and CD49d enhance the detection of antigen-specific T cells following human vaccination. Vaccine, 2017. 35(33): p. 4255–4261.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Weerakoon, H., J. Straube, K. Lineburg, et al., Expression of CD49f defines subsets of human regulatory T cells with divergent transcriptional landscape and function that correlate with ulcerative colitis disease activity. bioRxiv, 2021: p. 2021.02.22.432185.
  49. 49.↵
    Molodtsov, A. and M.J. Turk, Tissue Resident CD8 Memory T Cell Responses in Cancer and Autoimmunity. Front Immunol, 2018. 9: p. 2810.
  50. 50.↵
    Perciani, C.T., W. Jaoko, B. Farah, et al., αEβ7, α4β7 and α4β1 integrin contributions to T cell distribution in blood, cervix and rectal tissues: Potential implications for HIV transmission. PloS one, 2018. 13(2): p. e0192482–e0192482.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Intlekofer, A.M., N. Takemoto, E.J. Wherry, et al., Effector and memory CD8+ T cell fate coupled by T-bet and eomesodermin. Nat Immunol, 2005. 6(12): p. 1236–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.
    Sullivan, B.M., A. Juedes, S.J. Szabo, M. von Herrath, and L.H. Glimcher, Antigen-driven effector CD8 T cell function regulated by T-bet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2003. 100(26): p. 15818–15823.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    Banerjee, A., S.M. Gordon, A.M. Intlekofer, et al., Cutting edge: The transcription factor eomesodermin enables CD8+ T cells to compete for the memory cell niche. J Immunol, 2010. 185(9): p. 4988–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    McLane, L.M., M.S. Abdel-Hakeem, and E.J. Wherry, CD8 T Cell Exhaustion During Chronic Viral Infection and Cancer. Annu Rev Immunol, 2019. 37: p. 457–495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Paley, M.A., D.C. Kroy, P.M. Odorizzi, et al., Progenitor and terminal subsets of CD8+ T cells cooperate to contain chronic viral infection. Science, 2012. 338(6111): p. 1220–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    Joshi, N.S., W. Cui, A. Chandele, et al., Inflammation directs memory precursor and short-lived effector CD8(+) T cell fates via the graded expression of T-bet transcription factor. Immunity, 2007. 27(2): p. 281–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Intlekofer, A.M., N. Takemoto, C. Kao, et al., Requirement for T-bet in the aberrant differentiation of unhelped memory CD8+ T cells. J Exp Med, 2007. 204(9): p. 2015–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    Bruminhent, J., C. Thongprayoon, R.A. Dierkhising, W.K. Kremers, E.S. Theel, and R.R. Razonable, Risk factors for cytomegalovirus reactivation after liver transplantation: can pre-transplant cytomegalovirus antibody titers predict outcome? Liver Transpl, 2015. 21(4): p. 539–46.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Smith, C., L. Beagley, S. Rehan, et al., Autologous Adoptive T-cell Therapy for Recurrent or Drug-resistant Cytomegalovirus Complications in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Single-arm Open-label Phase I Clinical Trial. Clin Infect Dis, 2019. 68(4): p. 632–640.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted June 04, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Phenotypic and functional characterisation of circulating cytomegalovirus-specific T cells in healthy virus carriers and lung transplant candidates
Mohammed Altaf, Md Azhar Irfan, Nazneen Naheed, NM Aleemuddin
medRxiv 2021.06.04.21256785; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.04.21256785
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area