Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24084262›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2014

Clinical validation of IFNγ/IL-10 and IFNγ/IL-2 FluoroSpot assays for the detection of Tr1 T cells and influenza vaccine monitoring in humans.

Anne Chauvat, Nadine Benhamouda, Alain Gey, Francois M Lemoine, Staffan Paulie, Fabrice Carrat, Marie-Lise Gougeon, Flore Rozenberg, Anne Krivine, Mustapha Cherai and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Immunological and clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations: a systematic review.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Anne ChauvatINSERM U970 ; Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris-Cité; Paris, France; Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou; Service d'Immunologie Biologique; Paris, France; CTL-Europe GmbH; Bonn, Germany.
Nadine BenhamoudaINSERM U970 ; Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris-Cité; Paris, France; Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou; Service d'Immunologie Biologique; Paris, France.
Alain GeyINSERM U970 ; Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris-Cité; Paris, France; Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou; Service d'Immunologie Biologique; Paris, France.
Francois M LemoineDepartement de Biothérapie; Centre d'Investigation Clinique de biothérapie 1001; Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière et Univ Pierre et Marie Curie Paris; Paris, France.
Staffan PaulieMabtech Ab; Nacka Strand, Sweden.
Fabrice CarratEpidemiology, Information System, Modeling; UMR-S 707; University Paris 6-UPMC; Paris, France; Inserm U707; Paris, France; Public Health Unit; Saint-Antoine Hospital; Paris, France.
Marie-Lise GougeonAntiviral Immunity; Biotherapy and Vaccine Unit; Infection and Epidemiology Department; Institut Pasteur; Paris, France.
Flore RozenbergLaboratoire de virologie; Hôpital Cochin; Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP); Paris, France.
Anne KrivineLaboratoire de virologie; Hôpital Cochin; Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP); Paris, France.
Mustapha CheraiDepartement de Biothérapie; Centre d'Investigation Clinique de biothérapie 1001; Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière et Univ Pierre et Marie Curie Paris; Paris, France.
Paul LehmannCellular Technology Limited; Shaker Heights, OH USA.
Françoise Quintin-ColonnaINSERM U970 ; Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris-Cité; Paris, France.
Odile LaunayUniversité Paris Descartes; Paris, France; Inserm; CIC BT505; Paris, France; Hôpital Cochin; AP-HP CIC de Vaccinologie Cochin-Pasteur; Paris, France.
Eric TartourINSERM U970 ; Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris-Cité; Paris, France; Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou; Service d'Immunologie Biologique; Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes; Paris, France; Inserm; CIC BT505; Paris, France.
Inserm · FRDélégation Paris 5 · FRInstitut de Virologie · FRSorbonne Université · FRCellular Engineering Technologies (United States) · USHôpital Saint-Antoine · FRInstitut de Recherche Vaccinale · FRMabtech (Sweden) · SEUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The type of T cell polarization and simultaneous production of multiple cytokines have been correlated with vaccine efficacy. ELISpot is a T cell detection technique optimized for the measurement of a secreted cytokine at the single cell level. The FluoroSpot assay differs from ELISpot by the use of multiple fluorescent-labeled anticytokine detection antibodies, allowing optimal measurement of multiple cytokines. In the present study, we show that an IFNγ/IL-10 FluoroSpot assay is more sensitive than flow cytometry to detect Tr1 regulatory T cells, an immunosuppressive T cell population characterized by the production of IL-10 and IFNγ. As many tolerogenic vaccines are designed to induce these Tr1 cells, this FluoroSpot test could represent a standard method for the detection of these cells in the future. The use of an IFNγ/IL-2 FluoroSpot assay during influenza vaccine monitoring showed that the influenza-specific IL-2-producing T-cell response was the dominant response both before and after vaccine administration. This study therefore questions the rationale of using the single-color IFNγ ELISpot as the standard technique to monitor vaccine-specific T-cell response. Using this same test, a trend was also observed between baseline levels of IFNγ T cell response and T cell vaccine response. In addition, a lower IFNγ+IL-2+ T-cell response after vaccine was observed in the group of patients treated with TNFα inhibitors (P=0.08). This study therefore supports the use of the FluoroSpot assay due to its robustness, versatility and the complementary information that it provides compared with ELISpot or flow cytometry to monitor vaccine-specific T-cell responses.

Indexed as

Enzyme-Linked Immunospot AssayFluorescenceHumansImmunoblottingInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesInterferon-gammaInterleukin-10Interleukin-2OsteoprotegerinT-Lymphocytes, RegulatoryIL10 protein, humanInfluenza VaccinesInterferon-gammaInterleukin-10Interleukin-2OsteoprotegerinTNFRSF11B protein, humanFluoroSpotIL-10 suppressive T cellsimmunomonitoringinfluenza vaccineT cell response

Identifiers

PMID24084262
PMCPMC4181035
OpenAlexW2048708497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.