ArticlePLoS pathogens2016
Type I IFN Signaling Is Dispensable during Secondary Viral Infection.
Article in PLoS pathogens, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Overview on the Epidemiology and Immunology of COVID-19.Journal of infection and public health · 2021Review
- T Cell Immunity to Bacterial Pathogens: Mechanisms of Immune Control and Bacterial Evasion.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Type I IFN blockade uncouples immunotherapy-induced antitumor immunity and autoimmune toxicity.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Innate immune responses in general, and type I interferons (T1IFNs) in particular, play an important and often essential role during primary viral infections, by directly combatting the virus and by maximizing the primary adaptive immune response. Several studies have suggested that T1IFNs also contribute very substantially to the secondary (recall) response; they are thought (i) to be required to drive the early attrition of memory T cells, (ii) to support the subsequent expansion of surviving virus-specific memory cells, and (iii) to assist in the suppression and clearance of the infectious agent. However, many of these observations were predicated upon models in which T1IFN signaling was interrupted prior to a primary immune response, raising the possibility that the resulting memory cells might be intrinsically abnormal. We have directly addressed this by using an inducible-Cre model system in which the host remains genetically-intact during the primary response to infection, and in which T1IFN signaling can be effectively ablated prior to secondary viral challenge. We report that, in stark contrast to primary infection, T1IFN signaling is not required during the recall response. IFNαβR-deficient memory CD8+ and CD4+ memory T cells undergo attrition and expansion with kinetics that are indistinguishable from those of receptor-sufficient cells. Moreover, even in the absence of functional T1IFN signaling, the host's immune capacity to rapidly suppress, and then to eradicate, a secondary infection remains intact. Thus, this study shows that T1IFN signaling is dispensable during the recall response to a virus infection. Moreover, two broader implications may be drawn. First, a T cell's requirement for a cytokine is highly dependent on the cell's maturation / differentiation status. Consequently, second, these data underscore the importance of evaluating a gene's impact by modulating its expression or function in a temporally-controllable manner.
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.