Comparative analysis of activation induced marker (AIM) assays for sensitive identification of antigen-specific CD4 T cells
Open accessAbstract
The identification and study of antigen-specific CD4 T cells, both in peripheral blood and in tissues, is key for a broad range of immunological research, including vaccine responses and infectious diseases. Detection of these cells is hampered by both their rarity and their heterogeneity, in particular with regards to cytokine secretion profiles. These factors prevent the identification of the total pool of antigen-specific CD4 T cells by classical methods. We have developed assays for the highly sensitive detection of such cells by measuring the upregulation of surface activation induced markers (AIM). Here, we compare two such assays based on concurrent expression of CD69 plus CD40L (CD154) or expression of OX40 plus CD25, and we develop additional AIM assays based on OX40 plus PD-L1 or 4-1BB. We compare the relative sensitivity of these assays for detection of vaccine and natural infection-induced CD4 T cell responses and show that these assays identify distinct, but overlapping populations of antigen-specific CD4 T cells, a subpopulation of which can also be detected on the basis of cytokine synthesis. Bystander activation had minimal effect on AIM markers. However, some T regulatory cells upregulate CD25 upon antigen stimulation. We therefore validated AIM assays designed to exclude most T regulatory cells, for both human and non-human primate (NHP, Macaca mulatta) studies. Overall, through head-to-head comparisons and methodological improvements, we show that AIM assays represent a sensitive and valuable method for the detection of antigen-specific CD4 T cells.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Given the paucity and rarity of SARS-CoV2-specific T cells, very often results were confirmed by using an activation-induced marker (AIM) assay to measure upregulation of CD69 and 4-1BB (CD137).
“Given the paucity and rarity of SARS-CoV2-specific T cells, very often results were confirmed by using an activation-induced marker (AIM) assay to measure upregulation of CD69 and 4-1BB (CD137) [130].”
From Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (third edition) (2021) · cites this paper as [130]
The Abstract and Discussion describe AIM assays as sensitive ways to detect rare antigen-specific CD4 T cells by measuring activation-marker upregulation. But the paper does not study SARS-CoV-2-specific cells or report that such results were often confirmed with an AIM assay. Its Results use CD69 with CD40L, and 4-1BB with OX40 in non-human primates—not CD69 with 4-1BB. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 343
- Authors
- Reiss, S., Baxter, A. E., Cirelli, K. M., Dan, J. M., Morou, A., Daigneault, A., Brassard, N., Silvestri, G., Routy, J.-P., Havenar-Daughton, C., Crotty, S., & Kaufmann, D. E.
- Affiliations
- La Jolla Institute for Immunology (US)
- Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
- Emory University (US)
- McGill University Health Centre (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Reiss, Samantha
- Baxter, Amy E.
- Cirelli, Kimberly M.
- Dan, Jennifer M.
- Morou, Antigoni
- Daigneault, Audrey
- Brassard, Nathalie
- Silvestri, Guido
- Routy, Jean-Pierre
- Crotty, Shane
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-10-24
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e0186998
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5655442
- OpenAlex
- W2765584638
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12
- FWCI
- 6.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (HL-092565, AI-12796, AI100663)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Virology › HIV Research and Treatment
- Keywords
- antigen-specific CD4+ T cells, CD69, CD40 ligand, OX40, PD-L1, 4-1BB, CD25, regulatory T cells, vaccine-induced T cell responses, natural infection, non-human primates, rhesus monkeys, T cell activation, cytokine production
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Antigens, Humans, Lymphocyte Activation, Macaca mulatta, Cohort Studies, Biomarkers, CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes, Antigens, CD, Bystander Effect
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