Cargando…
How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections?
What effect does the spatial distribution of infected cells have on the efficiency of their removal by immune cells, such as cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL)? If infected cells spread in clusters, CTL may initially be slow to locate them but subsequently kill more rapidly than in diffuse infections. We...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4528487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0289 |
_version_ | 1782384683276828672 |
---|---|
author | Kadolsky, Ulrich D. Yates, Andrew J. |
author_facet | Kadolsky, Ulrich D. Yates, Andrew J. |
author_sort | Kadolsky, Ulrich D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | What effect does the spatial distribution of infected cells have on the efficiency of their removal by immune cells, such as cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL)? If infected cells spread in clusters, CTL may initially be slow to locate them but subsequently kill more rapidly than in diffuse infections. We address this question using stochastic, spatially explicit models of CTL interacting with different patterns of infection. Rather than the effector : target ratio, we show that the relevant quantity is the ratio of a CTL's expected time to locate its next target (search time) to the average time it spends conjugated with a target that it is killing (handling time). For inefficient (slow) CTL, when the search time is always limiting, the critical density of CTL (that required to control 50% of infections, C(*)) is independent of the spatial distribution and derives from simple mass-action kinetics. For more efficient CTL such that handling time becomes limiting, mass-action underestimates C(*), and the more clustered an infection the greater is C(*). If CTL migrate chemotactically towards targets the converse holds—C(*) falls, and clustered infections are controlled most efficiently. Real infections are likely to spread patchily; this combined with even weak chemotaxis means that sterilizing immunity may be achieved with substantially lower numbers of CTL than standard models predict. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4528487 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45284872015-09-23 How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? Kadolsky, Ulrich D. Yates, Andrew J. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Articles What effect does the spatial distribution of infected cells have on the efficiency of their removal by immune cells, such as cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL)? If infected cells spread in clusters, CTL may initially be slow to locate them but subsequently kill more rapidly than in diffuse infections. We address this question using stochastic, spatially explicit models of CTL interacting with different patterns of infection. Rather than the effector : target ratio, we show that the relevant quantity is the ratio of a CTL's expected time to locate its next target (search time) to the average time it spends conjugated with a target that it is killing (handling time). For inefficient (slow) CTL, when the search time is always limiting, the critical density of CTL (that required to control 50% of infections, C(*)) is independent of the spatial distribution and derives from simple mass-action kinetics. For more efficient CTL such that handling time becomes limiting, mass-action underestimates C(*), and the more clustered an infection the greater is C(*). If CTL migrate chemotactically towards targets the converse holds—C(*) falls, and clustered infections are controlled most efficiently. Real infections are likely to spread patchily; this combined with even weak chemotaxis means that sterilizing immunity may be achieved with substantially lower numbers of CTL than standard models predict. The Royal Society 2015-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4528487/ /pubmed/26150655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0289 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ © 2015 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Articles Kadolsky, Ulrich D. Yates, Andrew J. How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
title | How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
title_full | How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
title_fullStr | How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
title_full_unstemmed | How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
title_short | How is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
title_sort | how is the effectiveness of immune surveillance impacted by the spatial distribution of spreading infections? |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4528487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0289 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kadolskyulrichd howistheeffectivenessofimmunesurveillanceimpactedbythespatialdistributionofspreadinginfections AT yatesandrewj howistheeffectivenessofimmunesurveillanceimpactedbythespatialdistributionofspreadinginfections |