Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 166

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Memory Th1 Cells Are Protective in Invasive Staphylococcus aureus Infection

Open access
Brown, Aisling F., Murphy, Alison G., Lalor, Stephen J., Leech, John M., O’Keeffe, Kate M., Mac Aogáin, Micheál, O’Halloran, Dara P., Lacey, Keenan A., Tavakol, Mehri, Hearnden, Claire H., Fitzgerald-Hughes, Deirdre, Humphreys, Hilary, Fennell, Jérôme P., van Wamel, Willem J., Foster, Timothy J., Geoghegan, Joan A., Lavelle, Ed C., Rogers, Thomas R., McLoughlin, Rachel M.·2015·PLOS Pathogens

Abstract

Mechanisms of protective immunity to Staphylococcus aureus infection in humans remain elusive. While the importance of cellular immunity has been shown in mice, T cell responses in humans have not been characterised. Using a murine model of recurrent S. aureus peritonitis, we demonstrated that prior exposure to S. aureus enhanced IFNγ responses upon subsequent infection, while adoptive transfer of S. aureus antigen-specific Th1 cells was protective in naïve mice. Translating these findings, we found that S. aureus antigen-specific Th1 cells were also significantly expanded during human S. aureus bloodstream infection (BSI). These Th1 cells were CD45RO+, indicative of a memory phenotype. Thus, exposure to S. aureus induces memory Th1 cells in mice and humans, identifying Th1 cells as potential S. aureus vaccine targets. Consequently, we developed a model vaccine comprising staphylococcal clumping factor A, which we demonstrate to be an effective human T cell antigen, combined with the Th1-driving adjuvant CpG. This novel Th1-inducing vaccine conferred significant protection during S. aureus infection in mice. This study notably advances our understanding of S. aureus cellular immunity, and demonstrates for the first time that a correlate of S. aureus protective immunity identified in mice may be relevant in humans.

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 · 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005226

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 166

Metadata

Authors
Brown, A. F., Murphy, A. G., Lalor, S. J., Leech, J. M., O’Keeffe, K. M., Mac Aogáin, M., O’Halloran, D. P., Lacey, K. A., Tavakol, M., Hearnden, C. H., Fitzgerald-Hughes, D., Humphreys, H., Fennell, J. P., van Wamel, W. J., Foster, T. J., Geoghegan, J. A., Lavelle, E. C., Rogers, T. R., & McLoughlin, R. M.
Venue
PLOS Pathogens
Published
2015-11-05
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
e1005226
ISSN
  • 1553-7366 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7374
OpenAlex
W2176306829
Cited by
166
References
6
FWCI
10.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Memory Th1 Cells Are Protective in Invasive Staphylococcus aureus Infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005226
The paper
Brown, A. F., Murphy, A. G., Lalor, S. J., Leech, J. M., O’Keeffe, K. M., Mac Aogáin, M., O’Halloran, D. P., Lacey, K. A., Tavakol, M., Hearnden, C. H., Fitzgerald-Hughes, D., Humphreys, H., Fennell, J. P., van Wamel, W. J., Foster, T. J., Geoghegan, J. A., Lavelle, E. C., Rogers, T. R., & McLoughlin, R. M. (2015). Memory Th1 Cells Are Protective in Invasive Staphylococcus aureus Infection. PLOS Pathogens. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005226

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.