The study conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsin

The study conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki, it was reviewed and approved by the University of Thessaly Ethics Committee, and all participants provided informed consent. Detection of EBV-specific CTLs Peptide-specific CTLs were detected using HLA-multimer flow cytometry after a previous step of in vitro amplification of MLPCs with peptides under limiting dilution conditions, exactly as described in detail previously [8]. Two EBV peptides, GLCTLVAML (BMLF1.A2 presented by HLA-A2) and RYSIFFDYM (EBNA3C.A24 presented by HLA-A24) were used. These were synthesized

on solid phase using F-moc for transient NH2-terminal buy Lonafarnib protection, purchased as lyophilised at > 90% purity ascertained by mass spectrometry (Abgent, San Diego, USA), selleckchem dissolved in DMSO at 10 mg/mL, and stored at -20 °C before use. Specific multimers labelled with APC and control multimers with PE were used

to stain MLPC. Each MLPC was considered to contain a multimer positive population, only if staining with the specific HLA-multimer resulted in a distinct cell cluster that did not stain with control HLA-multimers of different specificity. Statistical analysis Results are expressed as mean ± SD and were analyzed using two tailed chi-square analysis without Yate’s correction. The level of significance was 0.05 (two-sided). The commercially available statistical software (SPSS

for Windows, release 14.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.) was used. Results EBV-specific CTL responses were ARS-1620 in vivo detected in the peripheral blood of 8/19 lung cancer patients (42%) and 5/14 (36%) aged-matched controls (p = 0.713). Both of these proportions were statistically significantly different than 86% (6/7) of younger healthy individuals (p = 0.048 and p = 0.031, respectively) that presented with an EBV-specific CTL response (Figure 1). When we examined whether corresponding alterations could be observed against other viruses such as CMV, our findings indicated that the anti-CMV response was similar to that described in the literature [9]. Hence, although all subjects had prior Etofibrate exposure to CMV as determined by serology, younger individuals appeared to have a lesser response as compared to aged individuals (p = 0.046) and aged individuals had a higher response than that observed with patients (p = 0.025) (Table 1). Figure 1 Proportion of individuals (young healthy, aged healthy and patients) containing an EBV peptide specific tet + CD8 + T cell amongst peripheral blood CD8 T cells. Table 1 Anti-CMV serological response amongst each group Subject group Mean ± Standard deviationa Rangea p Young healthy individuals 267 ± 183 8-486 Young vs Aged: 0.049 Aged healthy individuals 377 ± 83 411-612 Young vs Patients: 0.466 Patients with lung cancer 341 ± 199 22-831 Aged vs Patients: 0.

Comments are closed.