ArticlePLoS computational biology2014
Spatial heterogeneity and peptide availability determine CTL killing efficiency in vivo.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of CD8 T cell killing models with computer simulations of 2-photon imaging experiments.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Distributed Adaptive Search in T Cells: Lessons From Ants.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Review
- Effect of heated naringenin on immunomodulatory properties and cellular antioxidant activity.Cell stress & chaperones · 2016Article
- In Vivo Killing Capacity of Cytotoxic T Cells Is Limited and Involves Dynamic Interactions and T Cell Cooperativity.Immunity · 2016Article
- How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The rate at which a cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) can survey for infected cells is a key ingredient of models of vertebrate immune responses to intracellular pathogens. Estimates have been obtained using in vivo cytotoxicity assays in which peptide-pulsed splenocytes are killed by CTL in the spleens of immunised mice. However the spleen is a heterogeneous environment and splenocytes comprise multiple cell types. Are some cell types intrinsically more susceptible to lysis than others? Quantitatively, what impacts are made by the spatial distribution of targets and effectors, and the level of peptide-MHC on the target cell surface? To address these questions we revisited the splenocyte killing assay, using CTL specific for an epitope of influenza virus. We found that at the cell population level T cell targets were killed more rapidly than B cells. Using modeling, quantitative imaging and in vitro killing assays we conclude that this difference in vivo likely reflects different migratory patterns of targets within the spleen and a heterogeneous distribution of CTL, with no detectable difference in the intrinsic susceptibilities of the two populations to lysis. Modeling of the stages involved in the detection and killing of peptide-pulsed targets in vitro revealed that peptide dose influenced the ability of CTL to form conjugates with targets but had no detectable effect on the probability that conjugation resulted in lysis, and that T cell targets took longer to lyse than B cells. We also infer that incomplete killing in vivo of cells pulsed with low doses of peptide may be due to a combination of heterogeneity in peptide uptake and the dissociation, but not internalisation, of peptide-MHC complexes. Our analyses demonstrate how population-averaged parameters in models of immune responses can be dissected to account for both spatial and cellular heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.