Viral Immunology
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
image
Immune Control of γ-Herpesviruses
Volume: 33, Issue: 3
DOI 10.1089/vim.2019.0080
  • PDF   
  • XML   
  •       
Abstract

Vaccination against γ-herpesviruses has been hampered by our limited understanding of their normal control. Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)-transformed B cells are killed by viral latency antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in vitro, but attempts to block B cell infection with antibody or to prime anti-viral CD8+ T cells have protected poorly in vivo. The Doherty laboratory used Murid Herpesvirus-4 (MuHV-4) to analyze γ-herpesvirus control in mice and found CD4+ T cell dependence, with viral evasion limiting CD8+ T cell function. MuHV-4 colonizes germinal center (GC) B cells via lytic transfer from myeloid cells, and CD4+ T cells control myeloid infection. GC colonization and protective, lytic antigen-specific CD4+ T cells are now evident also for EBV. Subunit vaccines have protected only transiently against MuHV-4, but whole virus vaccines give long-term protection, via CD4+ T cells and antibody. They block infection transfer to B cells, and need include no known viral latency gene, nor any MuHV-4-specific gene. Thus, the Doherty approach of in vivo murine analysis has led to a plausible vaccine strategy for EBV and, perhaps, some insight into what CD8+ T cells really do.

Keywords
Stevenson: Immune Control of γ-Herpesviruses

Understanding γ-Herpesvirus Control

Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) and the Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) are widespread and cause cancers, so cognate vaccines would improve human health (18). Analysis has focused on in vitro EBV-transformed B cells, which can be killed by CD8+ T cells recognizing viral latency antigens (74). However, genetic deficiencies in CD4+ T cells or NK cells, not CD8+ T cells, predispose to EBV disease (16); protecting immunocompromised patients correlates better with CD4+ than CD8+ T cell transfer (39); and vaccines to block virion attachment to B cells or prime latent antigen-specific CD8+ T cells have worked poorly (18).

Species restrictions make EBV and KSHV hard to study in vivo. The discovery of Murid Herpesvirus-4 (MuHV-4, archetypal strain MHV-68) by Slovakian virologists (7) opened γ-herpesvirus infection control to the Doherty approach of comprehensive murine analysis. MuHV-4, KSHV, and EBV share obvious genetic homology and persist in B cells (79). MuHV-4 normally infects yellow-necked mice (50), but intact immune evasion (84) and sexual transmission (29) in laboratory strains argue against significant attenuation.

Using mice to answer questions about human γ-herpesvirus infections has a simple evolution-based rationale. γ-Herpesvirus infections long preceded human speciation (63). Herpesviruses can evolve rapidly but are selected only by host change: any loss of transmission selects viral compensation. Thus, viral evolution tracks host evolution; the most virus-diverse genes interact with the most host-diverse genes; and they counteract host diversity to keep outcomes the same. Immune evasion provides a well-documented example. With MuHV-4, Doherty research program provided an opportunity to understand generically in vivo γ-herpesvirus control.

MuHV-4: Surprises from the Start

Preceding Doherty involvement, the Nash group showed that CD8+ T cells control acute MuHV-4 lung infection (22) and that CD4+ T cells promote acute B cell infection (103). Cancers were noted in old infected mice (93). The Doherty group focused more on long-term infection control and identified chronic illness in CD4+ T cell deficiency (15). The zeitgeist predicted CD8+ T cell exhaustion without CD4+ T cell help. However, while CD8+ T cell deficiency increased lytic infection, it did not cause chronic illness (88); and CD8+ T cell responses in CD4+ T cell-deficient mice were intact, even elevated (85), yet unable to stop chronic lytic infection (5). The reason was viral CD8+ T cell evasion (89), subsequently identified also for EBV (42). CD8+ T cells controlled acute lytic infection in epithelial cells, (88); but viral evasion protected myeloid cell infection.

Virus-infected cancers were found to be rare, even in immunocompromised mice. Ubiquitous EBV yet geographically restricted Burkitt's lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma indicates the importance of cofactors in γ-herpesvirus disease. Selection for host and virus survival conserves normal infection but not unconnected cofactors. Consequently, animals model human γ-herpesvirus infections much better than disease. This applies generally. For example, papillomavirus infection is conserved across species, so although disease varies (14), vaccinating against infection translated (94).

The lag between human γ-herpesvirus infections and cancer generally exceeds murine longevity, and many murine cancers involve retroviruses, which are rare in humans. Therefore, while humans and mice share oncogenes, equating genetically undefined cancers between them is problematic. Few cancers in MuHV-4-infected mice are MuHV-4-infected (98), and even the MuHV-4-infected S11 cancer also produces retrovirus (PGS, unpublished data). Thus, the Doherty group focused on viral loads rather than disease.

A Reassessment of EBV Control

The likely source of discrepancy between CD8+ T cell-dependent EBV control in vitro and CD4+ T cell-dependent MuHV-4 and EBV control in vivo was revealed by the Thorley-Lawson group. They showed that in vivo EBV colonizes not proliferating blasts, as in vitro, but germinal center (GC)-experienced resting memory B cells (82), like MuHV-4 (27) (Fig. 1). This explained why type 2 EBV, which transforms B cells poorly, nonetheless causes the same disease as type 1 EBV (48). Immunocompromised patients accumulated infected resting memory B cells, not blasts, and showed more lytic infection (3). Thus, in vivo EBV-driven B cell proliferation seemed to be self-limiting, suggesting that infected GC initiation is the key immune target.

The γ-herpesvirus GC cycle. ① Incoming epithelial infection reaches DC. They migrate to lymph nodes. ② Infected DC pass virus to naive B cells. DC seem also to recruit antigen-independent CD4+ T cell help for infected B cell proliferation in GC. EBV-driven GC B cell proliferation may be less CD4+ T cell-dependent through LMP-1 substituting for CD40 engagement. ③ Infected B cells emerge from GC as resting memory cells. Host mutations acquired in GC can cause lymphomas. ④ Memory B cells do not enter new GC. They reactivate virus in submucosal sites, feeding transmission, and transfer infection back to new naive B cells via DC. This lytic component of infection provides a target for immune control. DC, dendritic cells; EBV, Epstein–Barr virus; GC, germinal center.
FIG. 1.
The γ-herpesvirus GC cycle. ① Incoming epithelial infection reaches DC. They migrate to lymph nodes. ② Infected DC pass virus to naive B cells. DC seem also to recruit antigen-independent CD4+ T cell help for infected B cell proliferation in GC. EBV-driven GC B cell proliferation may be less CD4+ T cell-dependent through LMP-1 substituting for CD40 engagement. ③ Infected B cells emerge from GC as resting memory cells. Host mutations acquired in GC can cause lymphomas. ④ Memory B cells do not enter new GC. They reactivate virus in submucosal sites, feeding transmission, and transfer infection back to new naive B cells via DC. This lytic component of infection provides a target for immune control. DC, dendritic cells; EBV, Epstein–Barr virus; GC, germinal center.

MuHV-4 colonizes splenic GC via at least three rounds of myeloid/lymphoid virus transfer: from dendritic cells (DC) to lymph node B cells (34), from splenic marginal zone macrophages to marginal zone B cells, and then from follicular DC to GC B cells (30). Infected memory B cells cannot enter new GC (53); their virus must reactivate and transfer back to new naive B cells, via DC. Therefore, myeloid to B cell virus transfer is repeated and ongoing, making it a feasible target for infection control.

GC colonization is relevant to disease, as Burkitt's lymphoma has a GC origin. It is driven by host—not viral—oncogenes (99). It seems to result from EBV continually forcing B cells through the mutagenic GC setting, then upon chance mutation inhibiting regulatory mechanisms such as apoptosis and immune attack. Cancers routinely accumulate secondary mutations, so with host genes driving proliferation, viral genes could easily become redundant for cancer survival. Immune recognition might then select for viral genome loss.

γ-Herpesviruses have not evolved to persist in cancer cells, and MuHV-4 engineered to mutate defined host oncogenes is rapidly lost after transformation (90). Therefore, EBV might initiate many more cancers than those retaining viral genomes. Encouragingly, despite viral genome loss in the MuHV-4 model, vaccination protected against disease. This provides another argument for vaccination against EBV.

Vaccination and γ-Herpesvirus Host Entry

Gp350 vaccine aimed to stop EBV infection by blocking virion attachment to B cells (100). It protected tamarins against disease but did not stop human B cell infection (18). As xenogenic settings compromise viral evasion, tamarin infection may be unrealistically easy to suppress.

The same may apply to immunodeficient mice transplanted with human hematopoietic progenitor cells, as their infection similarly requires EBV injection and results in virus-driven transformation rather than memory B cell colonization (32). The Doherty approach was to keep infection control realistically difficult, by preserving a natural context.

Context starts with host entry. Gp350 vaccination assumed that the tonsillar B cell infection of infectious mononucleosis is EBV host entry. Yet the naive B cells EBV targets are normally segregated from free antigen, as antigen without costimulation triggers B cell apoptosis. Infectious mononucleosis occurs at least a month after transmission (43), and prospective analysis detected oral EBV only after systemic infection (20), implying not entry but a distinct route of host exit. Although EBV poorly infects epithelial cells in vitro (46), the right cells may not have been tested (26) and the EBV used has come from cancer cells, which may counter-select normal fitness. For example, the standard B95 strain has a large genomic deletion (68). Thus, there are good reasons to question the idea of direct B cell infection by incoming cell-free EBV.

The MHV-68 isolate of MuHV-4 appears to be intact, as a related virus is genetically colinear (44). It is noninfectious orally (66). The lungs can be infected by inoculation under sedation, but MuHV-4 enters alert mice via the olfactory epithelium (65). B cells first become infected in lymph nodes, via DC (34). Submucosal lymphoid tissue is colonized only after systemic spread (31). Oral rhesus lymphocryptovirus (RhLCV) can infect macaques. However, no oral RhLCV entry site is known, and the macaques are given a high virus dose under sedation (106). When oral MuHV-4 infects sedated mice, viral luciferase imaging shows not oral but respiratory infection, reflecting inoculum aspiration (66). Therefore, a natural γ-herpesvirus entry route other than olfactory or genital (29) is yet to be shown.

Gp350-specific antibodies abound in EBV carriers without stopping transmission or selecting antigenic variants (109). After gp350-independent epithelial entry (47), B cell infection via cell-to-cell spread might resist neutralization, and a failure of such spread might explain gp350 vaccine efficacy in tamarins. A gp350-type vaccine was reported to protect macaques against RhLCV (78). However, the result was infection in 2/4 rather than 4/4 animals (p > 0.4 by Fisher's exact test). Vaccination with the equivalent gp150 of MuHV-4 did not protect (76).

Antibody restricts MuHV-4 less by neutralization than by engaging IgG Fc receptors, and gp150-specific antibodies have failed to protect in this way (107). They also fail to neutralize (36). Therefore, in vivo analysis of γ-herpesvirus host entry and spread provides no clear rationale for a gp350 vaccine. Nor is there a clear precedent for blocking epithelial host entry: the IgA response to MuHV-4 is weak (95), and protection against superinfection operates after entry (37).

Understanding the Impact of Antiviral CD8+ T Cells

Priming latent antigen-specific CD8+ T cells has protected poorly against EBV (18), suggesting that in vitro-type transformation is not how in vivo infected B cell proliferation works. Some role for the viral latency genes seems likely, but a GC context may limit their immunological accessibility, for example, through reduced expression or associated viral evasion. Nor has CD8+ T cell priming protected against MuHV-4. Priming lytic antigen-specific CD8+ T cells potently reduced acute lytic infection, but B cells were still infected and their proliferation soon restored viral loads (55,87). Priming latent antigen-specific CD8+ T cells also failed to reduce long-term infection (104). Disrupting viral CD8+ T cell evasion severely curtails infection (6,12,91), so effector function seems more limiting than priming. Viral evasion notably protects the myeloid gateway to B cells (80), making its control CD4+ T cell-dependent (96) (Fig. 2).

Viral CD8+ T cell evasion. ① Infected DC entering lymph nodes pass virus to B cells. They also secrete viral evasins: M1, M3, and M4 (58). EBV and KSHV secrete their own evasin sets. M1 promotes an expansion of Vβ4+CD8+ T cells (24). M4 promotes lymphoid colonization (23,35). M3 binds chemokines (70) to evade CD8+ T cells (12) and can provide bystander protection (73). Thus, lytically infected DC create an evasive milieu for latently infected B cell proliferation. K3 degrades MHC class I heavy chains (10) and the associated peptide transporter (9), further protecting infected DC against CD8+ T cells (80) and promoting B cell proliferation (91). ② Infected B cells make ORF73, which maintains the viral episome, and M2, which like the EBV LMP-2 and KSHV K1 mimics antigen receptor signaling (75). Like EBNA-1, ORF73 minimizes its entry into the MHC class I presentation pathway and bypassing this evasion terminates lymphoid infection at an early stage (6). Linking a well-presented epitope to M2 also attenuates infection (38). KSHV, Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.
FIG. 2.
Viral CD8+ T cell evasion. ① Infected DC entering lymph nodes pass virus to B cells. They also secrete viral evasins: M1, M3, and M4 (58). EBV and KSHV secrete their own evasin sets. M1 promotes an expansion of Vβ4+CD8+ T cells (24). M4 promotes lymphoid colonization (23,35). M3 binds chemokines (70) to evade CD8+ T cells (12) and can provide bystander protection (73). Thus, lytically infected DC create an evasive milieu for latently infected B cell proliferation. K3 degrades MHC class I heavy chains (10) and the associated peptide transporter (9), further protecting infected DC against CD8+ T cells (80) and promoting B cell proliferation (91). ② Infected B cells make ORF73, which maintains the viral episome, and M2, which like the EBV LMP-2 and KSHV K1 mimics antigen receptor signaling (75). Like EBNA-1, ORF73 minimizes its entry into the MHC class I presentation pathway and bypassing this evasion terminates lymphoid infection at an early stage (6). Linking a well-presented epitope to M2 also attenuates infection (38). KSHV, Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.

The immunological approach to vaccines identifies protective responses and then delivers their targets in recombinant form. Because human infections are hard to analyze functionally, attention often focuses on numerically large responses, particularly for T cells. However, in complex infections, large T cell responses are not necessarily protective: mainly they identify abundant antigen. Protective responses must target an infection's self-renewing source. For example, the large CD8+ T cell responses to EBV (13) and MuHV-4 (86) lytic antigens in infectious mononucleosis imply poor control of upstream B cell proliferation.

When the cis-acting CD8+ T cell evasion of MuHV-4 episome maintenance is subverted, B cell proliferation is ablated by a T cell population that remains small because the viral antigen load remains low (6). The MuHV-4 M2 latency gene is a prominent CD8+ T cell target in BALB/c mice (45). It shows selection for antigenic change (39), and M2-specific CD8+ T cells limit long-term viral loads (57). However, M2-specific CD8+ T cell priming reduced host colonization only transiently (104). The site of normal M2 epitope recognition is unclear, and recognition after GC-associated proliferation, for example, during reactivation (40), could reduce viral loads and select antigenic variants without providing a good basis for vaccination.

Vaccine Targets for MuHV-4 and EBV

The virological approach to vaccines disrupts pathogenic functions to make immunogenic yet harmless strains. This has worked against some acute diseases caused by α-herpesviruses, including T cell lymphoma in chickens (11), and live-attenuated MuHV-4 protects against wild-type infection, via CD4+ T cells and antibody (62,101).

How CD4+ T cell contribute is still unclear. While they have been reported to recognize latent EBV infection via EBNA-1 (69), others did not reproduce this result (60). EBNA-1 limits its recognition through low turnover (110). As cell division increases EBNA-1 synthesis (19), rapid in vitro division may lead to breakthrough recognition. EBV-infected cells normally divide only intermittently (67), so such recognition seems unlikely to work in vivo. MuHV-4 forced to present a CD4+ T cell target in latency showed no in vivo attenuation (81), and further EBV studies concluded that protective CD4+ T cells recognize lytic antigens (59). CD4+ T cells suppress chronic MuHV-4 replication in myeloid cells (96). As myeloid cells transfer MuHV-4 to B cells (31), this fits with CD4+ T cell-dependent vaccine protection acting upstream of B cell infection (37).

Lytic infection suppression by CD4+ T cells requires interferon (IFNγ) (17,83), and human immunodeficiency phenotypes support an important role for IFNγ in herpesvirus control (16). Mechanisms remain unclear. In MuHV-4-infected mice that lack IFNγ signaling, CD8+ T cells drive multiorgan fibrosis and splenic atrophy (21). When perforin is also lacking, there is instead massive splenomegaly (4). Perforin plus fas deficiency also causes dramatic disease, even though these deficiencies are individually well tolerated (102). Partial redundancy between effector molecules, and each functioning in multiple cell types makes, useful conclusions hard to draw, and the sudden shifts from coping to catastrophe with combined mutations hard to unravel. The Doherty focus on T cells as complex but coherent functional units has proved easier to relate to vaccination.

An underlying assumption has been that protective CD4+ T cells directly recognize infected cells (59,92). However, this remains questionable. Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II glycoproteins present mainly cell exogenous antigens; not all infected MuHV-4-infected myeloid cells express MHC class II (96); and in acutely infected lungs, MuHV-4 replicates mainly in MHC class II alveolar epithelial cells (54). Murine cytomegalovirus (MCMV), which also shows control by CD4+ T cells (49) and IFNγ (56), removes MHC class II from infected cells (111). Therefore, CD4+ T cells seem likely to control herpesviruses indirectly. Antibody contributing via Fc receptor engagement (107) suggests a role for innate effector cells, and NK cell recruitment by CD4+ T cells (71) is important to control MuHV-4 (PGS, unpublished). Thus, the best vaccine antigens may be those presented by uninfected rather than by infected MHC class II+ cells.

How EBV reaches B cells is unknown. Direct tonsillar B cell infection by incoming virions now seems unlikely, and diverse viruses besides MuHV-4 exploit DC to reach lymphocytes (1,51,72), so this route is certainly plausible. MuHV-4 entry into splenic GC matches immune complex transport (30), so complement receptor binding by the EBV gp350 (97) also suggests close parallels. Infected Reed-Sternberg cells have many DC features (77). Based on single-cell polymerase chain reaction (PCR), they have been identified as GC B cells (52). Yet they express neither immunoglobulin nor any other B cell-specific marker, and in a complex GC setting, PCR may poorly distinguish nuclear from endocytosed DNA. Immunostaining olfactory epithelium for known EBV receptors and analyzing early RhLCV infection might usefully extend the leads from MuHV-4.

Vaccine Delivery for MuHV-4 and EBV

The Doherty approach of analyzing a realistic murine infection has given a coherent overview of γ-herpesvirus control that in vivo EBV data seem to fit, and live-attenuated MuHV-4 has demonstrated effective vaccination. Poor protection by recombinant MuHV-4 glycoproteins (61) suggests that multiple viral targets are needed. The oncogenic potential of EBV latency genes precludes their inclusion in a live vaccine. However, MuHV-4 crippled for latent infection still protects (8,28,108); and this remains effective when the vaccine virus lacks genes M1, M2, M3, M4, ORF4, and ORF73 (PGS, unpublished). Therefore, no known MuHV-4 latency gene, and no gene without an obvious homolog in EBV is needed, suggesting that EBV lacking latency genes might also be effective.

EBV virus-like particles have protected SCID-Hu mice against lymphoproliferative disease (105). However, protection by inactivated MuHV-4 (2) requires large antigen amounts, and EBV virus-like particle production depends on transfection-induced reactivation from latency that is likely to be limited by genome silencing, making it difficult to scale up. MuHV-4 data suggest that removing the EBV latency genes might, with repair of the known genomic defects (68) and transactivator complementation (66), make a safe vaccine that could be propagated in vitro; and nasal EBV lacking just its latency genes might prime safely and effectively via local lytic replication.

While MuHV-4 experiments have demonstrated effective vaccination, they have not encompassed the host and viral diversity of natural EBV and KSHV infections. Also the short life span of mice gives limited scope for testing protection longevity. Human T cell memory declines over 3–5 years (64), so EBV vaccine efficacy may depend on antibody alone—enhancing attack by IgG Fc receptor+ cells and accelerating new T cell priming through opsonization. Then, wild-type viral loads must be kept low for many years. Mainly MuHV-4 has provided a rational basis for EBV clinical trials, identifying key mechanisms and a vaccine approach that can suppress wild-type infection to an apparently new steady state.

What Do CD8+ T Cells Really Do?

One Doherty aim with MuHV-4 was to relate a molecular understanding of CD8+ T cell recognition to an important in vivo function. CD8+ T cells had been assumed to control γ-herpesviruses. However, while they have some role, viral evasion makes CD4+ T cells the key subset. MuHV-4 (and MCMV) suggests by their evasion that an important normal role of CD8+ T cells is to kill pathogen-infected myeloid cells, which might otherwise recirculate (25). A study of vaccinia virus showed inflammatory myeloid cells killing infected keratinocytes, whereas CD8+ T cells killed infected myeloid cells (41). Thus, T cells may have evolved in part to regulate an existing myeloid defense: CD4+ T cells turning it on through MHC class II, and CD8+ T cells turning it off through MHC class I. Intracellular bacteria typically reside in endosomes rather than the cytoplasm, but cross-presentation pathways could lead to their recognition via MHC class I; and a failure to kill bacterially infected or activated myeloid cells might explain transporter associated with antigen processing-deficient human phenotypes (33). This aspect of CD8+ T cell function needs further exploration.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to the many laboratory members contributing to MuHV-4 analysis, to Peter Doherty for providing the initial impetus and opportunity, and to Freda Stevenson for insights into lymphoma biology. Current funding is from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, and Queensland Health.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

1. 

Abendroth A, Morrow G, Cunningham AL, and Slobedman B. Varicella-zoster virus infection of human dendritic cells and transmission to T cells: implications for virus dissemination in the host. J Virol2001;75:, pp.6183–6192

2. 

Aricò E, Robertson KA, Belardelli F, Ferrantini M, and Nash AA. Vaccination with inactivated murine γ-herpesvirus 68 strongly limits viral replication and latency and protects type I IFN receptor knockout mice from a lethal infection. Vaccine2004;22:, pp.1433–1440

3. 

Babcock GJ, Decker LL, Freeman RB, and Thorley-Lawson DA. Epstein-Barr virus-infected resting memory B cells, not proliferating lymphoblasts, accumulate in the peripheral blood of immunosuppressed patients. J Exp Med1999;190:, pp.567–576

4. 

Bartholdy C, Høgh-Petersen M, Storm P, et al.. IFNγ and perforin cooperate to control infection and prevent fatal pathology during persistent γ-herpesvirus infection in mice. Scand J Immunol2014;79:, pp.395–403

5. 

Belz GT, Stevenson PG, Castrucci MR, Altman JD, and Doherty PC. Postexposure vaccination massively increases the prevalence of γ-herpesvirus-specific CD8+ T cells but confers minimal survival advantage on CD4-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2000;97:, pp.2725–2730

6. 

Bennett NJ, May JS, and Stevenson PG. γ-herpesvirus latency requires T cell evasion during episome maintenance. PLoS Biol2005;3:, pp.e120

7. 

Blaskovic D, Stanceková . M, Svobodová J, and Mistríková J. Isolation of five strains of herpesviruses from two species of free living small rodents. Acta Virol1980;24:, pp.468

8. 

Boname JM, Coleman HM, May JS, and Stevenson PG. Protection against wild-type murine γ-herpesvirus-68 latency by a latency-deficient mutant. J Gen Virol2004;85:, pp.131–135

9. 

Boname JM, de Lima BD, Lehner PJ, and Stevenson PG. Viral degradation of the MHC class I peptide loading complex. Immunity2004;20:, pp.305–317

10. 

Boname JM, and Stevenson PG. MHC class I ubiquitination by a viral PHD/LAP finger protein. Immunity2001;15:, pp.627–636

11. 

Boodhoo N, Gurung A, Sharif S, and Behboudi S. Marek's disease in chickens: a review with focus on immunology. Vet Res2016;47:, pp.119

12. 

Bridgeman A, Stevenson PG, Simas JP, and Efstathiou S. A secreted chemokine binding protein encoded by murine γ-herpesvirus-68 is necessary for the establishment of a normal latent load. J Exp Med2001;194:, pp.301–312

13. 

Callan MF, Steven N, Krausa P, et al.. Large clonal expansions of CD8+ T cells in acute infectious mononucleosis. Nat Med1996;2:, pp.906–911

14. 

Campo MS. Bovine papillomavirus and cancer. Vet J1997;154:, pp.175–188

15. 

Cardin RD, Brooks JW, Sarawar SR, and Doherty PC. Progressive loss of CD8+ T cell-mediated control of a γ-herpesvirus in the absence of CD4+ T cells. J Exp Med1996;184:, pp.863–871

16. 

Carneiro-Sampaio M, and Coutinho A. Immunity to microbes: lessons from primary immunodeficiencies. Infect Immun2007;75:, pp.1545–1555

17. 

Christensen JP, Cardin RD, Branum KC, and Doherty PC. CD4+ T cell-mediated control of a γ-herpesvirus in B cell-deficient mice is mediated by IFN-γ. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1999;96:, pp.5135–5140

18. 

Cohen JI, Mocarski ES, Raab-Traub N, Corey L, and Nabel GJ. The need and challenges for development of an Epstein-Barr virus vaccine. Vaccine2013;31:, pp.B194–B196

19. 

Davenport MG, and Pagano JS. Expression of EBNA-1 mRNA is regulated by cell cycle during Epstein-Barr virus type I latency. J Virol1999;73:, pp.3154–3161

20. 

Dunmire SK, Grimm JM, Schmeling DO, Balfour HH, and Hogquist KA. The Incubation period of primary Epstein-Barr virus infection: viral dynamics and immunologic events. PLoS Pathog2015;11:, pp.e1005286

21. 

Dutia BM, Clarke CJ, Allen DJ, and Nash AA. Pathological changes in the spleens of γ-interferon receptor-deficient mice infected with murine γ-herpesvirus: a role for CD8 T cells. J Virol1997;71:, pp.4278–4283

22. 

Ehtisham S, Sunil-Chandra NP, and Nash AA. Pathogenesis of murine γ-herpesvirus infection in mice deficient in CD4 and CD8 T cells. J Virol1993;67:, pp.5247–5252

23. 

Evans AG, Moorman NJ, Willer DO, and Speck SH. The M4 gene of γHV68 encodes a secreted glycoprotein and is required for the efficient establishment of splenic latency. Virology2006;344:, pp.520–531

24. 

Evans AG, Moser JM, Krug LT, et al.. A γ-herpesvirus-secreted activator of Vβ4+ CD8+ T cells regulates chronic infection and immunopathology. J Exp Med2008;205:, pp.669–684

25. 

Farrell HE, Bruce K, Lawler C, et al.. Murine cytomegalovirus spreads by dendritic cell recirculation. MBio2017;8:, pp.e01264

26. 

Feederle R, Neuhierl B, Bannert H, et al.. Epstein-Barr virus B95.8 produced in 293 cells shows marked tropism for differentiated primary epithelial cells and reveals individual variation in susceptibility to viral infection. Int J Cancer2007;121:, pp.588–594

27. 

Flaño E, Kim IJ, Woodland DL, and Blackman MA. γ-herpesvirus latency is preferentially maintained in splenic germinal center and memory B cells. J Exp Med2002;196:, pp.1363–1372

28. 

Fowler P, and Efstathiou S. Vaccine potential of a murine γ-herpesvirus-68 mutant deficient for ORF73. J Gen Virol2004;85:, pp.609–613

29. 

François S, Vidick S, Sarlet M, et al.. Illumination of murine γ-herpesvirus-68 cycle reveals a sexual transmission route from females to males in laboratory mice. PLoS Pathog2013;9:, pp.e1003292

30. 

Frederico B, Chao B, May JS, Belz GT, and Stevenson PG. A murid γ-herpesviruses exploits normal splenic immune communication routes for systemic spread. Cell Host Microbe2014;15:, pp.457–470

31. 

Frederico B, Milho R, May JS, Gillet L, and Stevenson PG. Myeloid infection links epithelial and B cell tropisms of Murid Herpesvirus-4. PLoS Pathog2012;8:, pp.e1002935

32. 

Fujiwara S, Imadome K, and Takei M. Modeling EBV infection and pathogenesis in new-generation humanized mice. Exp Mol Med2015;47:, pp.e135

33. 

Gadola SD, Moins-Teisserenc HT, Trowsdale J, Gross WL, and Cerundolo V. TAP deficiency syndrome. Clin Exp Immunol2000;121:, pp.173–178

34. 

Gaspar M, May JS, Sukla S, et al.. Murid herpesvirus-4 exploits dendritic cells to infect B cells. PLoS Pathog2011;7:, pp.e1002346

35. 

Geere HM, Ligertwood Y, Templeton KM, et al.. The M4 gene of murine γ-herpesvirus 68 modulates latent infection. J Gen Virol2006;87:, pp.803–807

36. 

Gillet L, May JS, Colaco S, and Stevenson PG. The murine γ-herpesvirus-68 gp150 acts as an immunogenic decoy to limit virion neutralization. PLoS One2007;2:, pp.e705

37. 

Glauser DL, Milho R, Lawler C, and Stevenson PG. Antibody arrests γ-herpesvirus olfactory super-infection independently of neutralization. J Gen Virol2019;100:, pp.246–258

38. 

Godinho-Silva C, Marques S, Fontinha D, et al.. Defining immune engagement thresholds for in vivo control of virus-driven lymphoproliferation. PLoS Pathog2014;10:, pp.e1004220

39. 

Haque T, Wilkie GM, Jones MM, et al.. Allogeneic cytotoxic T-cell therapy for EBV-positive posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disease: results of a phase 2 multicenter clinical trial. Blood2007;110:, pp.1123–1131

40. 

Herskowitz JH, Jacoby MA, and Speck SH. The murine γ-herpesvirus 68 M2 gene is required for efficient reactivation from latently infected B cells. J Virol2005;79:, pp.2261–2273

41. 

Hickman HD, Reynoso GV, Ngudiankama BF, et al.. Anatomically restricted synergistic antiviral activities of innate and adaptive immune cells in the skin. Cell Host Microbe2013;13:, pp.155–168

42. 

Hislop AD, Ressing ME, van Leeuwen D, et al.. A CD8+ T cell immune evasion protein specific to Epstein-Barr virus and its close relatives in old world primates. J Exp Med2007;204:, pp.1863–1873

43. 

Hoagland RJ. The incubation period of infectious mononucleosis. Am J Public Health Nations Health1964;54:, pp.1699–1705

44. 

Hughes DJ, Kipar A, Milligan SG, et al.. Characterization of a novel wood mouse virus related to murid herpesvirus 4. J Gen Virol2010;91:, pp.867–879

45. 

Husain SM, Usherwood EJ, Dyson H, et al.. Murine γ-herpesvirus M2 gene is latency-associated and its protein a target for CD8+ T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1999;96:, pp.7508–7513

46. 

Hutt-Fletcher LM. The long and complicated relationship between Epstein-Barr virus and epithelial cells. J Virol2016;91:, pp.e01677-16

47. 

Janz A, Oezel M, Kurzeder C, et al.. Infectious Epstein-Barr virus lacking major glycoprotein BLLF1 (gp350/220) demonstrates the existence of additional viral ligands. J Virol2000;74:, pp.10142–10152

48. 

Jenkins PJ, and Farrell PJ. Are particular Epstein-Barr virus strains linked to disease?Semin Cancer Biol1996;7:, pp.209–215

49. 

Jonjić S, Mutter W, Weiland F, Reddehase MJ, and Koszinowski UH. Site-restricted persistent cytomegalovirus infection after selective long-term depletion of CD4+ T lymphocytes. J Exp Med1989;169:, pp.1199–1212

50. 

Kozuch O, Reichel M, Lesso J, et al.. Further isolation of murine herpesviruses from small mammals in southwestern Slovakia. Acta Virol1993;37:, pp.101–105

51. 

Knight SC. Dendritic cells and HIV infection; immunity with viral transmission versus compromised cellular immunity?Immunobiology2001;204:, pp.614–621

52. 

Küppers R, Engert A, and Hansmann ML. Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Invest2012;122:, pp.3439–3447

53. 

Lawler C, de Miranda MP, May J, et al.. γ-herpesvirus colonization of the spleen requires lytic replication in B cells. J Virol2018;92:, pp.e02199-17

54. 

Lawler C, Milho R, May JS, and Stevenson PG. Rhadinovirus host entry by co-operative infection. PLoS Pathog2015;11:, pp.e1004761

55. 

Liu L, Usherwood EJ, Blackman MA, and Woodland DL. T-cell vaccination alters the course of murine herpesvirus 68 infection and the establishment of viral latency in mice. J Virol1999;73:, pp.9849–9857

56. 

Lucin P, Pavić I, Polić B, Jonjić S, and Koszinowski UH. γ-interferon-dependent clearance of cytomegalovirus infection in salivary glands. J Virol1992;66:, pp.1977–1984

57. 

Marques S, Alenquer M, Stevenson PG, and Simas JP. A single CD8+ T cell epitope sets the long-term latent load of a murid herpesvirus. PLoS Pathog2008;4:, pp.e1000177

58. 

Marques S, Efstathiou S, Smith KG, Haury M, and Simas JP. Selective gene expression of latent murine γ-herpesvirus 68 in B lymphocytes. J Virol2003;77:, pp.7308–7318

59. 

Mautner J, and Bornkamm GW. The role of virus-specific CD4+ T cells in the control of Epstein-Barr virus infection. Eur J Cell Biol2012;91:, pp.31–35

60. 

Mautner J, Pich D, Nimmerjahn F, et al.. Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen 1 evades direct immune recognition by CD4+ T helper cells. Eur J Immunol2004;34:, pp.2500–2509

61. 

May JS, and Stevenson PG. Vaccination with murid herpesvirus-4 glycoprotein B reduces viral lytic replication but does not induce detectable virion neutralization. J Gen Virol2010;91:, pp.2542–2552

62. 

McClellan JS, Tibbetts SA, Gangappa S, Brett KA, and Virgin HW. Critical role of CD4 T cells in antibody-independent vaccination against γ-herpesvirus latency. J Virol2004;78:, pp.6836–6845

63. 

McGeoch DJ, Gatherer D, and Dolan A. On phylogenetic relationships among major lineages of the γ-herpesvirinae. J Gen Virol2005;86:, pp.307–316

64. 

McMichael AJ, Gotch FM, Dongworth DW, Clark A, and Potter CW. Declining T-cell immunity to influenza, 1977–82. Lancet1983;2:, pp.762–764

65. 

Milho R, Frederico B, Efstathiou S, and Stevenson PG. A heparan-dependent herpesvirus targets the olfactory neuroepithelium for host entry. PLoS Pathog2012;8:, pp.e1002986

66. 

Milho R, Smith CM, Marques S, et al.. In vivo imaging of murid herpesvirus-4 infection. J Gen Virol2009;90:, pp.21–32

67. 

Miyashita EM, Yang B, Babcock GJ, and Thorley-Lawson DA. Identification of the site of Epstein-Barr virus persistence in vivo as a resting B cell. J Virol1997;71:, pp.4882–4891

68. 

Palser AL, Grayson NE, White RE, et al.. Genome diversity of Epstein-Barr virus from multiple tumor types and normal infection. J Virol2015;89:, pp.5222–5237

69. 

Paludan C, Bickham K, Nikiforow S, et al.. Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen 1-specific CD4+ Th1 cells kill Burkitt's lymphoma cells. J Immunol2002;169:, pp.1593–1603

70. 

Parry CM, Simas JP, Smith VP, et al.. A broad spectrum secreted chemokine binding protein encoded by a herpesvirus. J Exp Med2000;191:, pp.573–578

71. 

Perez-Diez A, Joncker NT, Choi K, et al.. CD4 cells can be more efficient at tumor rejection than CD8 cells. Blood2007;109:, pp.5346–5354

72. 

Pohl C, Shishkova J, and Schneider-Schaulies S. Viruses and dendritic cells: enemy mine. Cell Microbiol2007;9:, pp.279–289

73. 

Rice J, de Lima B, Stevenson FK, and Stevenson PG. A γ-herpesvirus immune evasion gene allows tumor cells in vivo to escape attack by cytotoxic T cells specific for a tumor epitope. Eur J Immunol2002;32:, pp.3481–3487

74. 

Rickinson AB, and Moss DJ. Human cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to Epstein-Barr virus infection. Annu Rev Immunol1997;15:, pp.405–431

75. 

Rodrigues L, Pires de Miranda M, Caloca MJ, Bustelo XR, and Simas JP. Activation of Vav by the γ-herpesvirus M2 protein contributes to the establishment of viral latency in B lymphocytes. J Virol2006;80:, pp.6123–6135

76. 

Ruiss R, Ohno S, Steer B, Zeidler R, and Adler H. Murine γ-herpesvirus 68 glycoprotein 150 does not contribute to latency amplification in vivo. Virol J2012;9:, pp.107

77. 

Sahin U, Neumann F, Tureci O, et al.. Hodgkin and Reed- autoantigen CLIP-170/restin is a marker for dendritic cells and is involved in the trafficking of macropinosomes to the cytoskeleton, supporting a function-based concept of Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells. Blood2002;100:, pp.4139–4145

78. 

Sashihara J, Hoshino Y, Bowman JJ, et al.. Soluble rhesus lymphocryptovirus gp350 protects against infection and reduces viral loads in animals that become infected with virus after challenge. PLoS Pathog2011;7:, pp.e1002308

79. 

Simas JP, and Efstathiou S. Murine γ-herpesvirus 68: a model for the study of γ-herpesvirus pathogenesis. Trends Microbiol1998;6:, pp.276–282

80. 

Smith CM, Gill MB, May JS, and Stevenson PG. Murine γ-herpesvirus-68 inhibits antigen presentation by dendritic cells. PLoS One2007;2:, pp.e1048

81. 

Smith CM, Rosa GT, May JS, et al.. CD4+ T cells specific for a latency antigen fail to control a γ-herpesvirus in vivo. Eur J Immunol2006;36:, pp.3186–3197

82. 

Souza TA, Stollar BD, Sullivan JL, Luzuriaga K, and Thorley-Lawson DA. Peripheral B cells latently infected with Epstein-Barr virus display molecular hallmarks of classical antigen-selected memory B cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2005;102:, pp.18093–18098

83. 

Sparks-Thissen RL, Braaten DC, Hildner K, et al.. CD4 T cell control of acute and latent murine γ-herpesvirus infection requires IFNγ. Virology2005;338:, pp.201–208

84. 

Stevenson PG. Immune evasion by γ-herpesviruses. Curr Opin Immunol2004;16:, pp.456–462

85. 

Stevenson PG, Belz GT, Altman JD, and Doherty PC. Virus-specific CD8+ T cell numbers are maintained during γ-herpesvirus reactivation in CD4-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1998;95:, pp.15565–15570

86. 

Stevenson PG, Belz GT, Altman JD, and Doherty PC. Changing patterns of immunodominance in the CD8+ T cell response to murine γ-herpesvirus infection. Eur J Immunol1999;29:, pp.1059–1067

87. 

Stevenson PG, Belz GT, Castrucci MR, Altman JD, and Doherty PC. A γ-herpesvirus sneaks through a CD8+ T cell response primed to a lytic-phase epitope. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1999;96:, pp.9281–9286

88. 

Stevenson PG, Cardin RD, Christensen JP, and Doherty PC. Immunological control of a murine γ-herpesvirus independent of CD8+ T cells. J Gen Virol1999;80:, pp.477–483

89. 

Stevenson PG, Efstathiou S, Doherty PC, and Lehner PJ. Inhibition of MHC class I-restricted antigen presentation by γ2-herpesviruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2000;97:, pp.8455–8460

90. 

Stevenson PG, May JS, Connor V, and Efstathiou S. Vaccination against a hit-and-run viral cancer. J Gen Virol2010;91:, pp.2176–2185

91. 

Stevenson PG, May JS, Smith XG, et al.. K3-mediated evasion of CD8+ T cells aids amplification of a latent γ-herpesvirus. Nat Immunol2002;3:, pp.733–740

92. 

Stuller KA, and Flaño E. CD4 T cells mediate killing during persistent γ-herpesvirus 68 infection. J Virol2009;83:, pp.4700–4703

93. 

Sunil-Chandra NP, Arno J, Fazakerley J, and Nash AA. Lymphoproliferative disease in mice infected with murine γ-herpesvirus 68. Am J Pathol1994;145:, pp.818–826

94. 

Suzich JA, Ghim SJ, Palmer-Hill FJ, et al.. Systemic immunization with papillomavirus L1 protein completely prevents the development of viral mucosal papillomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1995;92:, pp.11553–11557

95. 

Tan CS, and Stevenson PG. B cell response to herpesvirus infection of the olfactory neuroepithelium. J Virol2014;88:, pp.14030–14039

96. 

Tan CSE, Lawler C, and Stevenson PG. CD8+ T cell evasion mandates CD4+ T cell control of chronic γ-herpesvirus infection. PLoS Pathog2017;13:, pp.e1006311

97. 

Tanner J, Weis J, Fearon D, Whang Y, and Kieff E. Epstein-Barr virus gp350/220 binding to the B lymphocyte C3d receptor mediates adsorption, capping, and endocytosis. Cell1987;50:, pp.203–213

98. 

Tarakanova VL, Suarez F, Tibbetts SA, et al.. Murine γ-herpesvirus 68 infection is associated with lymphoproliferative disease and lymphoma in BALB β2 microglobulin-deficient mice. J Virol2005;79:, pp.14668–14679

99. 

Thorley-Lawson DA, and Allday MJ. The curious case of the tumour virus: 50 years of Burkitt's lymphoma. Nat Rev Microbiol2008;6:, pp.913–924

100. 

Thorley-Lawson DA, and Geilinger K. Monoclonal antibodies against the major glycoprotein (gp350/220) of Epstein-Barr virus neutralize infectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1980;77:, pp.5307–11

101. 

Tibbetts SA, McClellan JS, Gangappa S, Speck SH, and Virgin HW. Effective vaccination against long-term γ-herpesvirus latency. J Virol2003;77:, pp.2522–2529

102. 

Topham DJ, Cardin RC, Christensen JP, et al.. Perforin and Fas in murine γ-herpesvirus-specific CD8+ T cell control and morbidity. J Gen Virol2001;82:, pp.1971–1981

103. 

Usherwood EJ, Ross AJ, Allen DJ, and Nash AA. Murine γ-herpesvirus-induced splenomegaly: a critical role for CD4 T cells. J Gen Virol1996;77:, pp.627–630

104. 

Usherwood EJ, Ward KA, Blackman MA, Stewart JP, and Woodland DL. Latent antigen vaccination in a model γ-herpesvirus infection. J Virol2001;75:, pp.8283–8288

105. 

van Zyl DG, Tsai MH, Shumilov A, et al.. Immunogenic particles with a broad antigenic spectrum stimulate cytolytic T cells and offer increased protection against EBV infection ex vivo and in mice. PLoS Pathog2018;14:, pp.e1007464

106. 

Wang F. Nonhuman primate models for Epstein-Barr virus infection. Curr Opin Virol2013;3:, pp.233–237

107. 

Wright DE, Colaco S, Colaco C, and Stevenson PG. Antibody limits in vivo murid herpesvirus-4 replication by IgG Fc receptor-dependent functions. J Gen Virol2009;90:, pp.2592–2603

108. 

Wu TT, Blackman MA, and Sun R. Prospects of a novel vaccination strategy for human γ-herpesviruses. Immunol Res2010;48:, pp.122–146

109. 

Yao QY, Rowe M, Morgan AJ, et al.. Salivary and serum IgA antibodies to the Epstein-Barr virus glycoprotein gp340: incidence and potential for virus neutralization. Int J Cancer1991;48:, pp.45–50

110. 

Yin Y, Manoury B, and Fåhraeus R. Self-inhibition of synthesis and antigen presentation by Epstein-Barr virus-encoded EBNA1. Science2003;301:, pp.1371–1374

111. 

Yunis J, Farrell HE, Bruce K, et al.. Murine cytomegalovirus degrades MHC class II to colonize the salivary glands. PLoS Pathog2018;14:, pp.e1006905

https://www.researchpad.co/tools/openurl?pubtype=article&doi=10.1089/vim.2019.0080&title=Immune Control of <i>γ</i>-Herpesviruses&author=Philip G. Stevenson,&keyword=gammaherpesvirus,vaccine,immune control,T cells,&subject=Opinions and Reviews,