MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790971620 · doi:10.1128/mbio.00358-18

Uninfected Bystander Cells Impact the Measurement of HIV-Specific Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity Responses

2018· article· en· W2790971620 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Richard, Jérémie Prévost, Amy E. Baxter, Benjamin von Bredow, Shilei Ding, Halima Medjahed, Gloria Delgado, Nathalie Brassard, Christina M. Stürzel, Frank Kirchhoff, Beatrice H. Hahn, Matthew S. Parsons, Daniel E. Kaufmann, David T. Evans, Andrés Finzi

Bibliographic record

VenuemBio · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCIHR Skin Research Training CentreNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Institutes of HealthInternational AIDS Vaccine InitiativeGovernment of CanadaElizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS FoundationamfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsBystander effectCytotoxicityAntibodyImmunologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineVirologyBiologyChemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The conformation of the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env) substantially impacts antibody recognition and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) responses. In the absence of the CD4 receptor at the cell surface, primary Envs sample a “closed” conformation that occludes CD4-induced (CD4i) epitopes. The virus controls CD4 expression through the actions of Nef and Vpu accessory proteins, thus protecting infected cells from ADCC responses. However, gp120 shed from infected cells can bind to CD4 present on uninfected bystander cells, sensitizing them to ADCC mediated by CD4i antibodies (Abs). Therefore, we hypothesized that these bystander cells could impact the interpretation of ADCC measurements. To investigate this, we evaluated the ability of antibodies to CD4i epitopes and broadly neutralizing Abs (bNAbs) to mediate ADCC measured by five ADCC assays commonly used in the field. Our results indicate that the uninfected bystander cells coated with gp120 are efficiently recognized by the CD4i ligands but not the bNabs. Consequently, the uninfected bystander cells substantially affect in vitro measurements made with ADCC assays that fail to identify responses against infected versus uninfected cells. Moreover, using an mRNA flow technique that detects productively infected cells, we found that the vast majority of HIV-1-infected cells in in vitro cultures or ex vivo samples from HIV-1-infected individuals are CD4 negative and therefore do not expose significant levels of CD4i epitopes. Altogether, our results indicate that ADCC assays unable to differentiate responses against infected versus uninfected cells overestimate responses mediated by CD4i ligands. IMPORTANCE Emerging evidence supports a role for antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) in protection against HIV-1 transmission and disease progression. However, there are conflicting reports regarding the ability of nonneutralizing antibodies targeting CD4-inducible (CD4i) Env epitopes to mediate ADCC. Here, we performed a side-by-side comparison of different methods currently being used in the field to measure ADCC responses to HIV-1. We found that assays which are unable to differentiate virus-infected from uninfected cells greatly overestimate ADCC responses mediated by antibodies to CD4i epitopes and underestimate responses mediated by broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs). Our results strongly argue for the use of assays that measure ADCC against HIV-1-infected cells expressing physiologically relevant conformations of Env to evaluate correlates of protection in vaccine trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemBioSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207