Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epitope-specific Evolution of Human CD8+ T Cell Responses from Primary to Persistent Phases of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection

Open access
Hislop, Andrew D., Annels, Nicola E., Gudgeon, Nancy H., Leese, Alison M., Rickinson, Alan B.·2002·The Journal of Experimental Medicine

Abstract

Primary virus infection often elicits a large CD8+ T cell response which subsequently contracts to a smaller memory T cell pool; the relationship between these two virus-specific populations is not well understood. Here we follow the human CD8+ T cell response to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) from its primary phase in infectious mononucleosis (IM) through to the persistent carrier state. Using HLA-A2.1 or B8 tetramers specific for four lytic cycle and three latent cycle epitopes, we find marked differences in the epitope-specific composition of the T cell populations between the two phases of infection. The primary response is dominated by lytic epitope specificities which are severely culled (and in one case extinguished) with resolution of the acute infection; in contrast latent epitope specificities are less abundant, if present at all, in acute IM but often then increase their percentage representation in the CD8 pool. Even comparing epitopes of the same type, the relative size of responses seen in primary infection does not necessarily correlate with that seen in the longer term. We also follow the evolution of phenotypic change in these populations and show that, from a uniform CD45RA−RO+CCR7− phenotype in IM, lytic epitope responses show greater reversion to a CD45RA+RO− phenotype whereas latent epitope responses remain CD45RA−RO+ with a greater tendency to acquire CCR7. Interestingly these phenotypic distinctions reflect the source of the epitope as lytic or latent, and not the extent to which the response has been amplified in vivo.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1084/jem.20011692

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Hislop, A. D., Annels, N. E., Gudgeon, N. H., Leese, A. M., & Rickinson, A. B.
Venue
The Journal of Experimental Medicine
Published
2002-04-01
Volume
195
Issue
7
Pages
893-905
ISSN
  • 0022-1007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9538
OpenAlex
W2136614697
Cited by
317
References
2
FWCI
8.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epitope-specific Evolution of Human CD8+ T Cell Responses from Primary to Persistent Phases of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1084/jem.20011692
The paper
Hislop, A. D., Annels, N. E., Gudgeon, N. H., Leese, A. M., & Rickinson, A. B. (2002). Epitope-specific Evolution of Human CD8+ T Cell Responses from Primary to Persistent Phases of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20011692

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.