ArticleGenome medicine2025
Cut or bind? Antigen-specific processing mechanisms define CD4
Article in Genome medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conformational bias in SARS-CoV-2 Spike CD4+ T-cell epitope dominance.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCD4⁺ T cell responses are key to adaptive immunity, yet the mechanisms underlying peptide selection and immunodominance across MHC class II variants in humans remain poorly defined. Two non-mutually exclusive models - First Bind-then cut (FBtc) and First Cut-then bind (FCtb) - have been proposed to explain immunodominant peptide selection, but experimental evidence in humans is mostly limited to a single allotype (HLA-DRB1*01:01).
methodsTo generalize processing mechanisms across DRB1 alleles we developed an integrative strategy combining in silico prediction and a reconstituted antigen processing system. The independent and combined outcome of both approaches was validated on curated SARS-CoV-2 epitope data (IEDB) for responses to the Spike and Nucleocapsid proteins across a panel of 11 DRB1 allotypes, covering over 90% of European Caucasian populations. Potential immunogenic regions identified by the combination of both methods enabled the design of minimalistic peptide pools whose performance was validated via flow cytometry and ELISpot assays in post-Covid19 and pre-pandemic donors. Mechanistic insights for the selection of immunodominant peptides were derived analyzing biophysical parameters and proteolysis of the model antigens.
resultsThree prediction tools used showed limited concordance for some allotypes (< 5%), but their combined output for all allotypes considered revealed potential immunogenic hotspots in the model antigens. Complementary, the reconstituted in vitro system identified allotype-dependent and promiscuous peptide candidates. Minimal peptide pools designed from the overlap of both methods featured improved performance to identify IEDB entries and induced robust CD4⁺ T cell activation in post-COVID-19 donors. Mechanistic modeling classified most immunodominant peptides from the Spike protein as arising via FCtb while FBtc predominated for Nucleocapsid. Epitope selection pathways are therefore antigen-dependent defined by proteolytic resistance and solvent accessibility.
conclusionsWe establish a scalable, genomics-informed framework for decoding CD4⁺ T cell immunodominance across diverse HLA contexts. Our findings reveal that antigen-intrinsic features govern the preferential processing pathway - FCtb for Spike and FBtc for Nucleocapsid - and validate the utility of minimal peptide pools for population-level immune-monitoring. These insights inform the design of personalized immunotherapies and broadly effective vaccines.
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.