, 2011) and chickens (Boyd et al , 2012) A number of techniques

, 2011) and chickens (Boyd et al., 2012). A number of techniques and reagents are currently in use for the study of T cell responses in poultry. These include the measurement of antigen specific proliferation

by flow cytometry (Dalgaard et al., 2010) intracellular cytokine staining (De Boever et al., 2010), measurement of IFNγ production check details by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) (Ariaans et al., 2009 and Rauw et al., 2011) and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Spot (ELISpot) assay (Ariaans et al., 2008 and Ariaans et al., 2009). CTL responses to infectious bronchitis virus have previously been monitored using MHC matched chicken kidney cells (CKC) serving as antigen presenting cells (APC) (Seo and Collisson, 1997). Through the use of MHC matched infected

cells as surrogate APC, the measurement of chicken IFNγ responses against whole influenza virus or viral proteins has been achieved using an indirect method based on the ability of IFNγ to activate the HD11 macrophage cell line (Gobel et al., 2003, Singh et al., 2010a and Singh et al., 2010b). Peptides are often used to study antigen specific responses, and this method has been applied successfully in birds (Haghighi et al., 2009 and Reemers et al., 2012). While the use of peptide libraries to identify influenza antigen specific responses can be exquisitely informative, it also has his limitations. The cost of peptide libraries can be prohibitive for many labs, even before technical click here considerations.

The use of a library of predicted binding peptides excludes epitopes that are not predicted due to an incomplete understanding of the binding motifs of chicken class I MHC. This may be particularly challenging with haplotypes such as B21 that has a highly promiscuous motif (Koch et al., 2007). Although peptide length and motif can give an indication of which group of cells responds, this does not provide definitive information regarding the phenotypic identification of effector T cells (CD4 versus CD8), and there are no significant data regarding processes such as cross presentation in poultry Isotretinoin model, rendering interpretation of peptide data difficult. In addition, techniques such as intracellular staining are technically challenging, requiring many manipulations of the cells. ELISpot, while sensitive, provides no information as to the effector cell phenotype unless the responding cells are sorted prior to plating. This is also true for the HD11 activation method, which requires culture and stimulation of HD11 as an extra step. In the present study we set out to develop a method to preferentially detect CD8 T cell responses. We hypothesized that by infecting cells which only express class I MHC with AIVs and culturing these with splenocytes from infected birds we would potentiate detection of influenza specific CD8+ T cells.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>