Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • Vascular Malformations (Apr 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

CD8+ lymphocytes respond to different HIV epitopes in seronegative and infected subjects
Rupert Kaul, … , Andrew McMichael, Sarah L. Rowland-Jones
Rupert Kaul, … , Andrew McMichael, Sarah L. Rowland-Jones
Published May 15, 2001
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2001;107(10):1303-1310. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI12433.
View: Text | PDF
Article

CD8+ lymphocytes respond to different HIV epitopes in seronegative and infected subjects

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

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.

Authors

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 May 2024 through May 2025.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 646 31
PDF 58 14
Figure 51 1
Table 225 0
Citation downloads 66 0
Totals 1,046 46
Total Views 1,092
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

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.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts