2001•The Journal of ImmunologyRequires access

High-Avidity CTL Exploit Two Complementary Mechanisms to Provide Better Protection Against Viral Infection Than Low-Avidity CTL

Michael A. Derby, Martha A. Alexander‐Miller, Richard Tse, Jay A. Berzofsky

Open publisher page 204 citations

Abstract

Previously, we observed that high-avidity CTL are much more effective in vivo than low-avidity CTL in elimination of infected cells, but the mechanisms behind their superior activity remained unclear. In this study, we identify two complementary mechanisms: 1) high-avidity CTL lyse infected cells earlier in the course of a viral infection by recognizing lower Ag densities than those distinguished by low-avidity CTL and 2) they initiate lysis of target cells more rapidly at any given Ag density. Alternative mechanisms were excluded, including: 1) the possibility that low-avidity CTL might control virus given more time (virus levels remained as high at 6 days following transfer as at 3 days) and 2) that differences in efficacy might be correlated with homing ability. Furthermore, adoptive transfer of high- and low-avidity CTL into SCID mice demonstrated that transfer of a 10-fold greater amount of low-avidity CTL could only partially compensate for their decreased ability to eliminate infected cells. Thus, we conclude that high-avidity CTL exploit two complementary mechanisms that combine to prevent the spread of virus within the animal: earlier recognition of infected cells when little viral protein has been made and more rapid lysis of infected cells.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Previously, we observed that high-avidity CTL are much more effective in vivo than low-avidity CTL in elimination of infected cells, but the mechanisms behind their superior activity remained unclear. In this study, we identify two complementary mechanisms: 1) high-avidity CTL lyse infected cells earlier in the course of a viral infection by recognizing lower Ag densities than those distinguished by low-avidity CTL and 2) they initiate lysis of target cells more rapidly at any given Ag density. Alternative mechanisms were excluded, including: 1) the possibility that low-avidity CTL might control virus given more time (virus levels remained as high at 6 days following transfer as at 3 days) and 2) that differences in efficacy might be correlated with homing ability. Furthermore, adoptive transfer of high- and low-avidity CTL into SCID mice demonstrated that transfer of a 10-fold greater amount of low-avidity CTL could only partially compensate for their decreased ability to eliminate infected cells. Thus, we conclude that high-avidity CTL exploit two complementary mechanisms that combine to prevent the spread of virus within the animal: earlier recognition of infected cells when little viral protein has been made and more rapid lysis of infected cells.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 204 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Previously, we observed that high-avidity CTL are much more effective in vivo than low-avidity CTL in elimination of infected cells, but the mechanisms behind their superior activity remained unclear. In this study, we identify two complementary mechanisms: 1) high-avidity CTL lyse infected cells earlier in the course of a viral infection by recognizing lower Ag densities than those distinguished by low-avidity CTL and 2) they initiate lysis of target cells more rapidly at any given Ag density. Alternative mechanisms were excluded, including: 1) the possibility that low-avidity CTL might control virus given more time (virus levels remained as high at 6 days following transfer as at 3 days) and 2) that differences in efficacy might be correlated with homing ability. Furthermore, adoptive transfer of high- and low-avidity CTL into SCID mice demonstrated that transfer of a 10-fold greater amount of low-avidity CTL could only partially compensate for their decreased ability to eliminate infected cells. Thus, we conclude that high-avidity CTL exploit two complementary mechanisms that combine to prevent the spread of virus within the animal: earlier recognition of infected cells when little viral protein has been made and more rapid lysis of infected cells.

Key concepts: Avidity, CTL*, Virology, Adoptive cell transfer, Biology, Cytolysis, Virus, Immunology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
High-Avidity CTL Exploit Two Complementary Mechanisms to Provide Better Protection Against Viral Infection Than Low-Avidity CTL — Research Paper | ScholarLens