Cooperation between Epstein-Barr Virus Immune Evasion Proteins Spreads Protection from CD8⁺ T Cell Recognition across All Three Phases of the Lytic Cycle

<div><p>CD8⁺ T cell responses to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) lytic cycle expressed antigens display a hierarchy of immunodominance, in which responses to epitopes of immediate-early (IE) and some early (E) antigens are more frequently observed than responses to epitopes of late (L) expressed antigens. It has been proposed that this hierarchy, which correlates with the phase-specific efficiency of antigen presentation, may be due to the influence of viral immune-evasion genes. At least three EBV-encoded genes, BNLF2a, BGLF5 and BILF1, have the potential to inhibit processing and presentation of CD8⁺ T cell epitopes. Here we examined the relative contribution of these genes to modulation of CD8⁺ T cell recognition of EBV lytic antigens expressed at different phases of the replication cycle in EBV-transformed B-cells (LCLs) which spontaneously reactivate lytic cycle. Selective shRNA-mediated knockdown of BNLF2a expression led to more efficient recognition of immediate-early (IE)- and early (E)-derived epitopes by CD8⁺ T cells, while knock down of BILF1 increased recognition of epitopes from E and late (L)-expressed antigens. Contrary to what might have been predicted from previous ectopic expression studies in EBV-negative model cell lines, the shRNA-mediated inhibition of BGLF5 expression in LCLs showed only modest, if any, increase in recognition of epitopes expressed in any phase of lytic cycle. These data indicate that whilst BNLF2a interferes with antigen presentation with diminishing efficiency as lytic cycle progresses (IE>E>>L), interference by BILF1 increases with progression through lytic cycle (IE+ T cell responses to EBV lytic antigens.</p></div

Lack of Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies to Optimize the Treatment of Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affect more than one billion people, mainly living in developing countries. For most of these NTDs, treatment is suboptimal. To optimize treatment regimens, clinical pharmacokinetic studies are required where they have not been previously conducted to enable the use of pharmacometric modeling and simulation techniques in their application, which can provide substantial advantages. Objectives: Our aim was to provide a systematic overview and summary of all clinical pharmacokinetic studies in NTDs and to assess the use of pharmacometrics in these studies, as well as to identify which of the NTDs or which treatments have not been sufficiently studied. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched for all clinical trials and case reports until the end of 2015 that described the pharmacokinetics of a drug in the context of treating any of the NTDs in patients or healthy volunteers. Results: Eighty-two pharmacokinetic studies were identified. Most studies included small patient numbers (only five studies included >50 subjects) and only nine (11 %) studies included pediatric patients. A large part of the studies was not very recent; 56 % of studies were published before 2000. Most studies applied non-compartmental analysis methods for pharmacokinetic analysis (62 %). Twelve studies used population-based compartmental analysis (15 %) and eight (10 %) additionally performed simulations or extrapolation. For ten out of the 17 NTDs, none or only very few pharmacokinetic studies could be identified. Conclusions: For most NTDs, adequate pharmacokinetic studies are lacking and population-based modeling and simulation techniques have not generally been applied. Pharmacokinetic clinical trials that enable population pharmacokinetic modeling are needed to make better use of the available data. Simulation-based studies should be employed to enable the design of improved dosing regimens and more optimally use the limited resources to effectively provide therapy in this neglected area