No statistical difference between the levels of IFN-γ in CFP-10 test was observed between the LTBI and NC groups and TB (latent infection + disease) and NC groups (data not shown). Tavares et al. [26] and Hill et al. [47] obtained similar results, where the response of IFN-γ levels against CFP-10 was lower than that found against ESAT-6.

When the ROC curve analysis was performed, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed, even between the TB disease and NC groups (P = 0.076), indicating that the antigen CFP-10 is not a good diagnostic tool for childhood TB. Arend et al. [40] also observed Ulixertinib in vivo that most TB suspects responded to the antigen ESAT-6, but not to CFP-10. One possible reason for this is that the presence of HLA-DR15, which is the major DR2 subtype, is strongly associated with high responses of CD4+ T cells to the CFP-10 antigen [39], indicating a greater susceptibility

to infection by M. tuberculosis in populations where this gene is expressed [48]. The absence of expression of this gene in a specific population causes a reduced or even absent response to CFP-10, as different populations differ in antigen processing and recognition of antigenic epitopes by T cells, thereby explaining the genetic polymorphism found among populations [47] and the differences between the immune responses observed against the same antigen. Other studies corroborate the idea that the host’s immunogenetic Sirolimus nmr background is a decisive factor in the immunological response of specific T lymphocytes to CFP-10 antigen stimuli when it is presented by macrophages or other antigen-presenting cells [49]. It is possible that the epitope recognized by the induced T cells is not presented or presented inefficiently by M. tuberculosis-infected cells. This would explain why the DNA vaccine using CFP-10 antigens protect some species of mice from M. tuberculosis, as was observed by Wu et al. [50], although the same finding was not produced by Mollenkopf et al.

[49]. Mustafa et al. [51] argue that the variability of sensitivity and specificity found in tests using CFP-10 as the antigen is determined by factors that are intrinsic to the bacterium, such as the abundance of the protein, PRKACG its subcellular location, post-translational modification, participation in macromolecular complexes and in vivo regulation. They also cite factors relating to the antigen-presenting cell, including location with respect to the phagosome, proteolytic sensitivity and the presence of motifs suitable for interaction with TAP transporters and different MHC alleles. De Meher et al. [52] found a weak ligation among CFP-10 antigens among bilayers presenting cells, suggesting that this antigen might only remain loosely attached, which corroborates the findings of de Jonge et al. [53], in which ESAT-6 shows greater T-cell activation compared to the ESAT-6-CFP-10 complex.