Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 7;12(1):e1005349. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005349

Fig 6. Effect of in vitro blockade with anti-TIGIT/anti-PD-L1 mAbs on HIV-specific CD8+ T cell responses.

Fig 6

Ex vivo PBMCs from chronically HIV-infected individuals were stimulated with HIV Gag peptide pool in the presence of mAb blocking antibodies. (A) Representative flow cytometry plots gated on CD8+ T cells, showing IFN-γ responses from an HIV-infected individual. No HIV-1 Gag stimulation with an isotype control, HIV-1 Gag stimulation with an isotype control, HIV-1 Gag stimulation with anti-TIGIT, HIV-1 Gag stimulation with anti-PD-L1, HIV-1 Gag stimulation with dual blockade (anti-TIGIT + anti-PD-L1) and a positive control (anti-CD3 + anti-CD28 Dynabeads). (B) Compiled data showing variation in the frequency (%) of IFN-γ in responses to HIV-1 Gag peptide pool with isotype control or mAb blockade; TIGIT blockade (left panel), PD-L1 blockade (middle panel), and dual blockade (right panel) (n = 25). P values were calculated by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranked test. (C) Representative flow cytometry plots gated on CD8+ T cells from HIV-infected individuals, showing intermediate and high CFSE dilution in response to HIV-1 Gag peptide pool stimulation in the presence of either an isotype control, anti-TIGIT mAb, anti-PD-L1 mAb, a combination of both anti-TIGIT and anti-PD-L1 mAbs or anti-CD3 + anti-CD28 Dynabeads as a positive control. (D) Graphs show compiled data showing variation in the frequency (%) of CFSEdim in responses to HIV-1 Gag peptide pool with either an isotype control or mAb blockade; TIGIT blockade (left panel), PD-L1 blockade (middle panel), and dual blockade (right panel) (n = 24). P values were calculated by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranked test.