This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In order to clarify the differential activation of CD4+ and CD8+ HSV-specific CTL, we compared the characteristics of CTL generated by different methods of in vitro HSV stimulation by treatment of effectors with anti-CD4 and anti-CD8 mAb and C after the elimination of nonspecific cytotoxic effector cells. Cell-free HSV mainly activated CD4+ CTL precursors, whereas HSV-infected fibroblasts were more effective in activating CD8+ CTL precursors than CD4+ CTL precursors. In addition, limiting dilution analyses with enriched T cells from two HSV-seropositive donors revealed that the frequency of HSV-specific CD4+ CTL precursors responsive to stimulation with free HSV was approximately 1/4,000 to 6,000 CD4+ T cells, whereas that of precursors responsive to stimulation with HSV-infected fibroblasts was approximately 1/19,000 to 22,000 CD4+ T cells. Conversely, the frequency of CD8+ CTL precursors in peripheral blood responsive to stimulation with free HSV was approximately 1/28,000 to 30,000 CD8+ T cells, whereas that of precursors responsive to stimulation with HSV-infected fibroblasts was approximately 1/10,000 to 11,000 CD8+ T cells. The present data suggest that generalized viral infection due to cell-free viruses is fought mainly by CD4+ CTL, which have previously been reported to possess both cytotoxicity and helper function, and that localized viral infection on HLA class II-negative fibroblasts is prevented from spreading to adjacent cells mainly by CD8+ CTL. Such differential activation of CD4+ and CD8+ CTL seems probable when considering the protective mechanisms against viral infection.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yasukawa et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: