Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24516158›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Effector and central memory T helper 2 cells respond differently to peptide immunotherapy.

Karen J Mackenzie, Dominika J Nowakowska, Melanie D Leech, Amanda J McFarlane, Claire Wilson, Paul M Fitch, Richard A O'Connor, Sarah E M Howie, Jürgen Schwarze, Stephen M Anderton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. αThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Jug r 2-reactive CD4(+) T cells have a dominant immune role in walnut allergy.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. New treatments for allergen immunotherapy.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2014
    Review
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Karen J MackenzieMedical Research Council Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, United Kingdom.
Dominika J Nowakowska
Melanie D Leech
Amanda J McFarlane
Claire Wilson
Paul M Fitch
Richard A O'Connor
Sarah E M Howie
Jürgen Schwarze
Stephen M Anderton
Centre for Inflammation Research · GBMedical Research Council · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution · GBNational Health Service · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901697Medical Research Council G1002033Wellcome Trust 095831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peptide immunotherapy (PIT) offers realistic prospects for the treatment of allergic diseases, including allergic asthma. Much is understood of the behavior of naive T cells in response to PIT. However, treatment of patients with ongoing allergic disease requires detailed understanding of the responses of allergen-experienced T cells. CD62L expression by allergen-experienced T cells corresponds to effector/effector memory (CD62L(lo)) and central memory (CD62L(hi)) subsets, which vary with allergen exposure (e.g., during, or out with, pollen season). The efficacy of PIT on different T helper 2 (Th2) cell memory populations is unknown. We developed a murine model of PIT in allergic airway inflammation (AAI) driven by adoptively transferred, traceable ovalbumin-experienced Th2 cells. PIT effectively suppressed AAI driven by unfractionated Th2 cells. Selective transfer of CD62L(hi) and CD62L(lo) Th2 cells revealed that these two populations behaved differently from one another and from previously characterized (early deletional) responses of naive CD4(+) T cells to PIT. Most notably, allergen-reactive CD62L(lo) Th2 cells were long-lived within the lung after PIT, before allergen challenge, in contrast to CD62L(hi) Th2 cells. Despite this, PIT was most potent against CD62L(lo) Th2 cells in protecting from AAI, impairing their ability to produce Th2 cytokines, whereas this capacity was heightened in PIT-treated CD62L(hi) Th2 cells. We conclude that Th2 cells do not undergo an early deletional form of tolerance after PIT. Moreover, memory Th2 subsets respond differently to PIT. These findings have implications for the clinical translation of PIT in different allergic scenarios.

Indexed as

AnimalsBronchoalveolar LavageFlow CytometryHypersensitivityImmunologic MemoryImmunotherapyL-SelectinLungMiceMice, TransgenicOvalbuminPeptide FragmentsTh2 CellsL-SelectinOVA 323-339OvalbuminPeptide Fragments

Identifiers

PMID24516158
PMCPMC3939918
OpenAlexW2050103278

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.