E N D
1. Immunology of HIV Rupert Kaul
2. “The immunology of HIV” Review of HIV-1, life cycle, transmission
How does HIV infect a person?
Mucosal immune events
How does HIV cause disease?
Direct vs bystander, gut events
How does the host fight back?
Implications for vaccines, therapeutics
3. HIV structure
4. HIV - virus, genetics HIV is a lentivirus - an RNA virus from the class of retroviruses
2 HIV species (1 and 2) - 40-50% homologous
Several HIV clades - A,B,C,D,A/E,O (others) - 70-80% homologous
Within a clade - 85-90% homologous
Within an individual - “quasispecies” >95% homologous
About 109 viruses produced per day, error-prone reverse transcriptase (q 10-4-10-5)
5. HIV-1 life cycle
6. HIV - clinical progression
7. Two contrasting facts: HIV has spread widely and rapidly…
8. …and yet HIV is relatively difficult to transmit
10. Blood HIV levels predict amount of virus in “genital fluids”
11. Genital/mucosal protective factors Genital tract repels >99% of HIV exposures
Combination of factors:
Intact epithelium
Mucus, pH, SLPI, lactoferrin, Trappin-2, etc
?Adaptive mucosal immunity
Lack of co-infections also important
12. What are the major genital HIV targets?
13. Penile HIV target cells
14. Mucosal immune protection vs HIV… 3 large RCTs in SSA showed clear benefit
Very consistent results in Uganda, Kenya, SA
Efficacy: ITT ~55%, OTA ~63%
In Kenya: incidence 2.1% vs 4.2%
No short term behavioural disinhibition
is being followed prospectively
15. Mucosal immunology and coinfections
17. How does HIV cause disease? Not direct depletion of CD4+ T cells
See a number of immune effects that contribute:
Increased immune activation
? Via switched on innate immunity, ? damage to gut mucosa
Leads to skewed T cell function, apoptosis
Loss/dysfunction of many cell types:
pDCs, other dendritic cell subsets
CD4 and CD8 T cells
NK cells, NKT cells, GD cells, etc etc
18. HIV: immune effects on the gut
19. ?4?7 and HIV infection
20. Gut events and HIV pathogenesis HYPOTHESIS:
GI mucosal immune defects ? bacterial translocation ? systemic immune activation ? CD4 depletion.
21. Bacterial translocation andinflammation Systemic inflammation correlates closely with both:
Bacterial translocation
Rate of CD4 depletion
22. Non-pathogenic SIV models:Sooties and AGMs
23. Lessons from non-pathogenic models* Do not see enhanced cellular immunity
Do see reduced inflammation - initial “blip”, rapidly downregulated
Do see CD4+ depletion in the gut, but transient and then recovers
Target “shielding”??
SM - reduced CCR5 expression if activated
AGM - “CD4(-)” T helpers not depleted
24. Host defenses: antibodies
25. HIV: antibody responses IgG response is ubiquitous - basis of diagnosis
Most people do make neutralizing Abs against their own virus
BUT only work against the virus that was there a few months ago - not the one that is there today
Failure of infused “cocktail” to impact infection for more than a few days
26. HIV antibody responses (2) Conformational masking - entropy
Lack of broad neutralization
Shielding of highly-conserved coreceptor binding regions by hypervariable loops
“Irrelevant" antibodies vs gp120 monomers, or non-critical regions of the gp120-trimer (debris)
Surface glycosylation: focused changes in glycan packing prevent neutralizing Ab binding but not receptor binding
28. HIV antibody responses (3) BUT: some are specific for conserved regions, do neutralize primary virus, synergize
F105, b12 - CD4 binding site of gp120
2G12 - complex gp120 epitope
2F5, 4E10, Z13 - gp41
OTHERS just described
**Passive infusion of cocktail = ONLY model of sterilizing immunity (MCH, PEP trials)
?Pre-formed Ab applicable via microbicides
30. Host defenses: CTL
32. CTL responses: any good? In primate models, vaccine-induced CTL can slow progression, improve viral control
Timing of CTL and control
CD8+ depletion experiments
CTL (CD8+) impose major immune pressure on virus (SIV, HIV)
HIV-specific CD4+, CD8+ responses found in exposed, uninfected populations
33. Immune time course post infection
35. CTL: not good enough… Proviral latency - no antigen expressed
Downregulation of HLA class I (nef, vpu)
Upregulation of Fas ligand
Mutation:
epitope mutation prevents HLA binding, TLR binding
flanking mutations prevent processing
BUT do see benefits from a “less fit” virus
Impaired CD8+ function
36. Escape from CTL control
38. Cellular immune “exhaustion”
39. HIV superinfection can occur Despite strong CTL, can be infected by a second strain of HIV-1
But may be less common than initial infection
?? Half as likely to happen (very unclear)
40. Real life HIV protection? exposed uninfected individuals People who “should be infected but aren’t”
sex workers, discordant couples, etc
Several correlates:
Lack of CCR5
HIV specific cellular immunity: lysis, IFNg, proliferation (generally low level)
HIV neutralizing IgA
Dampened immune activation
? Actually mediating protection vs. paraphenomenon
41. Immune correlates of HIV protection: long-term nonprogressors People who “should be sick but aren’t”
Infected for >10 years, normal immune system, low VL
Also “elite controllers” - low/undetectable VL
Several correlates:
Certain class I HLA types: B5701/03, B27, etc
HIV specific cellular immunity: breadth? Function?
No good humoral associations
42. Polyfunctionality and survival
Progressors
LTNP
43. Vaccine-induced CTL: are they useful? Macaque models - several show that inducing SIV/SHIV-specific CD8+ T cells can lower viral load, slow/prevent progression
Generally don’t prevent infection - but maybe could protect against “real” challenge?
Hard to induce using candidate vaccines
Case of human infection post vaccine despite strong CD8+ responses against dominant epitope
44. STEP TRIAL Merck HIV vaccine
Adenovirus (Ad5) based, sole goal was to induce cellular immunity
Did so fairly well, BUT…
No protection against infection
No impact on post-infection VL
Increased HIV rates if prior adeno infection
45. Summary Resistance to acquisition is the norm
Gut events / immune activation and disease
Cellular responses are primarily responsible for (inadequate) control post-infection
Antibody responses against specific epitopes may provide passive protection
Circumcision is an effective mucosal intervention