The JI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
 


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frauwirth, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, C. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frauwirth, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, C. B.
The Journal of Immunology, 2001, 167: 4936-4941.
Copyright © 2001 by The American Association of Immunologists

CTLA-4 Is Not Required for Induction of CD8+ T Cell Anergy In Vivo1

Kenneth A. Frauwirth*, Maria-Luisa Alegre{dagger} and Craig B. Thompson2,*

* Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute and Department of Cancer Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and {dagger} Department of Medicine, Section of Rheumatology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Recent studies of T cell anergy induction have produced conflicting conclusions as to the role of the negative regulatory receptor, CTLA-4. Several in vivo models of tolerance have implicated the interaction of CTLA-4 and its ligands, B7.1 and B7.2, as an essential step in induction of anergy, while results from a number of other systems have indicated that signals from the TCR/CD3 complex alone are sufficient to induce T cell unresponsiveness. One explanation for this disparity is that the requirements for anergy induction depend closely on the details of the system: in vivo vs in vitro, route of stimulus administration, naive vs memory cells, CD4+ vs CD8+ cells, etc. To test this possibility, we established an in vivo anergy model using mice transgenic for the 2C TCR on a recombination-activating gene-2-deficient background, that either express or lack the CTLA-4 molecule. This system provides us with a very homogeneous pool of naive Ag-specific CD8+ T cells, allowing us to control some of the conditions mentioned above. We found that T cells from CTLA-4-deficient mice were anergized by injections of soluble antigenic peptide as efficiently as were CTLA-4-expressing cells. These results indicate that CTLA-4 is not universally required for in vivo T cell anergy induction and may point to distinctions between regulation of peripheral tolerance in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The efficient activation of resting T lymphocytes requires multiple signaling events. One signal is delivered upon engagement of the T cell Ag receptor with its cognate peptide/MHC complex on an APC. Additional costimulatory signals, such as those occurring following CD28 engagement, are also required for a productive immune response to occur.

T cells that receive TCR-derived signals in the absence of costimulatory signals enter a hyporesponsive state, termed anergy (1, 2, 3). Anergic T cells fail to proliferate or secrete IL-2 upon subsequent Ag receptor engagement, even in the presence of costimulation, and have been reported to have defects in the Ras and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways (4, 5, 6), reduced Ca2+ flux (7, 8, 9, 10), and altered tyrosine kinase activity (7, 11). These signaling deficiencies appear to lead to reduced NF-{kappa}B and AP-1 transcriptional activities (12, 13, 14), and overexpression of c-Fos has been found to prevent anergy induction by staphylococcal enterotoxin B or Con A (15).

The TCR CTLA-4 has been proposed as a critical molecule for the initiation of anergy. CTLA-4, like CD28, binds to members of the B7 family but has an inhibitory effect on the T cell (16, 17), making CTLA-4 a logical candidate for initiating anergy. Furthermore, administration of anti-CTLA-4 Abs during anergy induction protocols appears to block the induction of Ag-specific tolerance in several in vivo systems (18, 19, 20, 21, 22), and CTLA-4-deficient CD4+ T cells were recently reported to be resistant to in vivo anergy induction (23).

Although a model with CTLA-4 as the anergy initiator molecule is an attractive one, there is a significant body of conflicting data. Anergy is not blocked by anti-CTLA-4 Abs in some in vivo systems (24, 25), despite close parallels to those in which CTLA-4 appears critical. Furthermore, B7.1/2-blocking agents, which prevent interaction with both CD28 and CTLA-4, can be used to induce anergy in vitro (26, 27, 28, 29) and long-term allograft tolerance in vivo (30, 31). Because interaction with B7 is required for CTLA-4 to signal, it is difficult to reconcile the model with these data. Furthermore, CTLA-4-deficient CD8+ T cells can be anergized in vitro (32). These apparent inconsistencies have led to the suggestion that the mechanisms of anergy induction may differ among systems, with details such as route of stimulus administration (in vitro/in vivo, i.p./i.v./oral/intranasal), differentiation state of the cells (naive/memory, primary cells/clones), and T cell subset (CD4+/CD8+, Th1/Th2) influencing the requirements. We therefore undertook a direct examination of the role of CTLA-4 in the initiation of T cell anergy in vivo in TCR-transgenic (Tg)3 mice, providing a very homogeneous population of naive T cells and control over many of the variables that may influence tolerance induction. Using CD8+ TCR-Tg, recombination-activating gene (RAG)2-deficient, CTLA-4-deficient T cells, we found that CTLA-4 signaling is unnecessary for in vivo anergy induction of naive CD8+ T cells.


    Materials and Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Animals

C57BL/6 mice (4–8 wk old) were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). 2C TCR-Tg (33)/RAG2-/-/CTLA-4+/- mice were kindly provided by Dr. T. Gajewski (University of Chicago, Chicago, IL). All mice were maintained in the University of Pennsylvania Animal Barrier Facilities (Philadelphia, PA). Animals received humane care in compliance with the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" published by the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD).

Abs and reagents

FITC-labeled hamster IgG, anti-Thy1.2, anti-CD3, anti-TCR, and anti-CD45RB, and PE-labeled hamster IgG, anti-Thy1.2, anti-CD44, anti-CD25, and anti-Fas were purchased from BD PharMingen (San Diego, CA). The H-2Kb-restricted 2C TCR-reactive peptide SIYRYYGL was purchased from Multiple Peptide Systems (San Diego, CA). Recombinant human IL-2 was purchased from Boehringer Mannheim (Mannheim, Germany).

Cell culture

All cells were maintained in DMEM (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) supplemented with glutamine, penicillin/streptavidin, HEPES buffer, MEM nonessential amino acids, 2-ME, and 10% FCS (Life Technologies) at 37°C in a 7% CO2 atmosphere.

T cell purification

Murine T cells were isolated from spleen using the StemSep negative-selection system (StemCell Technologies, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) following the manufacturer’s instructions, as previously described (32). The nonretained fraction typically contained >95% Thy1+ cells, as determined by flow cytometry. For separation of CD4high and CD4low cells, purified T cells were passed through the StemSep system a second time, using biotinylated anti-CD44 mAb (StemCell Technologies) as the negatively selecting agent, and both flow-through (CD44low) and retained (CD44high) fractions were collected.

In vivo anergy induction

2C TCR-Tg T cells were anergized in vivo by multiple peptide injections, modifying the protocol of Dubois et al. (8). Mice were injected i.p. one to three times, at 4-day intervals, with either 20–25 nM of peptide in PBS or PBS alone. Spleens were harvested 7 days after the final injection. T cells were purified as described above and tested for proliferation and cytokine secretion upon stimulation in vitro with irradiated C57BL/6 splenocytes plus titrated doses of peptide.

Cytokine and proliferation assays

IL-2, IFN-{gamma}, TGF{beta}1, and IL-10 levels in 1-day restimulation culture supernatants were measured by sandwich ELISA. Primary and biotinylated secondary anti-cytokine Abs and recombinant cytokine standards were purchased from BD PharMingen and used at the concentrations recommended by the manufacturer. Alkaline phosphatase-conjugated avidin was purchased from Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories (West Grove, PA) and used at a 1/3000 dilution. Colorimetric alkaline phosphatase substrate was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO) and used at 1 mg/ml in 10% diethanolamine buffer, and quantitation was performed on a SpectraMax 190 spectrophotometer (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA). Data were analyzed using SoftMax Pro software (Molecular Devices) by comparison with a standard curve generated using recombinant cytokines at known concentrations. Proliferation after 3 days of restimulation was determined by [3H]thymidine incorporation. Cells were pulsed for 6–8 h with 1 µCi/well [3H]thymidine (ICN Pharmaceuticals, Costa Mesa, CA), transferred to glass-fiber filters with a 96-well cell harvester (Tomtec, Hamden, CT), and analyzed by liquid scintillation using a 1450 Microbeta scintillation counter (Wallac, Turku, Finland). Data points for all analyses are presented as the mean of triplicate wells.

Flow cytometry

Levels of CD3, TCR, CD25, CD44, CD45RB, and Fas were determined on T cells by two-color flow cytometry. Following harvest, cells were washed once in flow cytometry buffer (1% BSA and 0.01% sodium azide in PBS, pH 7.4) and incubated for 30 min on ice in 100 µl of flow cytometry buffer containing FITC-conjugated (anti-CD3, anti-TCR, anti-CD45RB) or PE-conjugated (anti-CD25, anti-CD44, anti-Fas) mAb; FITC- and PE-conjugated hamster IgG were used as negative controls. Cells were simultaneously stained with PE- or FITC-conjugated anti-Thy1.2 to assess T cell purity. Cells were resuspended in flow cytometry buffer and analyzed on either a FACSCaliber or an LSR flow cytometer (BD Biosciences, Mountain View, CA). Forward and side scatter gates were used to exclude dead cells. Data from ~104 live cells were analyzed using CellQuest software (BD Biosciences). For cell cycle analysis, 5 x 105 cells were fixed in 25% PBS/75% ethanol overnight at 4°C. The fixed cells were resuspended in propidium iodide staining solution (3.8 mM sodium citrate, 0.125 mg/ml RNase A, and 0.01 mg/ml propidium iodide), incubated on ice for 30 min, and then analyzed by flow cytometry as described above.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Induction of in vivo anergy in 2C TCR-Tg mice

To examine whether anergy could be induced in vivo in the absence of CTLA-4, we developed an anergy induction system using mice Tg for the 2C TCR on a RAG2-deficient background. Anergy was induced by multiple i.p. injections of the 2C agonist peptide SIYRYYGL. Injecting CTLA-4-positive, 2C TCR-Tg, RAG-deficient mice two or three times with 2C agonist peptide led to a significant depletion of splenic T cells, ranging from ~40 to 80% reduction in T cell recovery relative to saline-injected controls (data not shown). Although the peptide-treated T cells had a small (resting) size (Fig. 1GoA) and showed no increase in CD25 levels (Fig. 1GoB), they expressed increased CD44 (Fig. 1GoC) and decreased CD45RB (data not shown), a pattern generally associated with Ag-experienced T cells. As previously reported (8), TCR levels on T cells from peptide-injected mice were consistently at least 80% of those on control T cells (Fig. 1GoD).



View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 1. Comparison of T cells isolated from PBS- and peptide-injected 2C TCR-Tg mice. T cells were purified from mice injected twice with either PBS (thin black line) or agonist peptide (thick gray line). A, Forward scatter, an indicator of cell size. B, CD25 expression level. C, CD44 expression level. The fraction of CD44high cells (indicated by M1) for control cells is 6.5% and for peptide-injected cells is 57.7%. D, TCR expression level. Isotype control is indicated by the dashed line (B, C, and D).

 
T cells from control and peptide-injected mice were stimulated in vitro with antigenic peptide and irradiated splenic APC, and the responses were compared. Peptide injection caused a dramatic reduction in both proliferation (Fig. 2GoA) and IL-2 secretion (Fig. 2GoB). We consistently saw at least 90% inhibition of both proliferation and IL-2 production with this protocol. We were unable to detect IL-10 in any culture supernatants, and TGF-{beta} production was comparable for T cells from control and peptide-injected mice (data not shown). Viable T cells were recovered after 2 days of in vitro stimulation and analyzed for cell cycle distribution. Peptide-treated cells were arrested in the G1 phase of the cell cycle, whereas the majority of control T cells were in S or G2/M phase at this point (Fig. 2GoC). Thus, injection of soluble peptide induces a state of proliferative unresponsiveness in 2C TCR-Tg T cells.



View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 2. Multiple injections of peptide induce T cell anergy in vivo. T cells purified from mice injected as in Fig. 1Go were stimulated in vitro with APC plus peptide, and proliferation (A) and IL-2 production (B) were measured. Data are presented as the means of triplicate wells, and error bars represent SD from the mean. C, DNA content was analyzed in freshly isolated (left panels) and stimulated (right panels) cells.

 
The high level of inhibition was somewhat surprising, as the fraction of cells with a CD44high (Ag-exposed) phenotype was generally <70%, and in some experiments was <30% (Fig. 1GoC and data not shown). The presence of a sizable fraction of nonresponsive, but apparently naive, cells suggested that anergic cells might be suppressing the responses of CD44low T cells (34, 35, 36, 37). To test this possibility, T cells from peptide-injected mice were separated into CD44high and CD44low fractions (Fig. 3GoA) before restimulation. Although proliferation of the CD44low T cells was somewhat higher than that of the CD44high T cells, responses in both fractions were strongly inhibited (Fig. 3GoB), indicating that the CD44low cells were independently anergic and were not being suppressed by CD44high cells. CD44low cells separated from control (saline-injected) T cells responded identically to unseparated cells, showing that the separation procedure itself did not inhibit subsequent proliferation. This suggests that a fraction of T cells may have encountered injected Ag and been rendered nonresponsive, but failed to up-regulate CD44. This is supported by an analysis of CD25 and CD44 levels at various times after Ag injection. T cells from saline-treated mice were CD25- (<1% CD25+) and CD44low (<10% CD44high). Within 24 h of peptide injection, ~92% of splenic T cells were found to be CD25+, indicating exposure to Ag, whereas the CD44high fraction was 33% at this time and reached a maximum of 62% at 48 h postinjection (data not shown).



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 3. CD44low T cells from peptide-injected mice are anergic. T cells were purified from mice injected as in Fig. 1Go and further separated into CD44high and CD44low fractions. A, CD44 levels on total (dashed line), CD44low fraction (thick gray line), and CD44high fraction (thin black line) peptide-injected T cells. The portion of each that expresses high levels of CD44 (indicated by M1) is: total, 70%; CD44low, 9.5%; CD44high, 82.5%. B, Proliferation of total and fractionated T cells was measured after in vitro stimulation with APC plus peptide.

 
CTLA-4-deficient T cells can be rendered anergic in vivo

We next compared anergy induction in 2C TCR-Tg/RAG2-/-/CTLA-4+/+ and CTLA-4-/- mice. Mice were injected with peptide as described above, and then T cells were isolated and stimulated in vitro. Peptide-induced depletion of T cells from spleen was comparable in CTLA-4+/+ and CTLA-4-/- mice (41% depletion in CTLA4+/+ and 56% depletion in CTLA4-/- in one representative experiment). As shown in Fig. 4Go, proliferation and IL-2 secretion were inhibited to comparable levels in CTLA-4+ and CTLA-4- T cells. As with CTLA-4-expressing cells, TCR levels on peptide-treated CTLA-4-deficient T cells were at least 80% of control TCR levels (Fig. 4GoC). CD25, CD44, and CD45RB expression levels on CTLA-4+ and CTLA-4- cells were also comparable (data not shown).



View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 4. Anergy induction in CTLA-4-expressing vs CTLA-4-deficient T cells. CTLA-4 wild-type (+/+) or knockout (-/-) mice were injected with either PBS or peptide as indicated. Proliferation (A) and IL-2 secretion (B) of purified T cells were measured after in vitro stimulation with APC plus peptide. C, TCR levels from PBS-injected (thin black line) and peptide-injected (thick gray line) mice are comparable. Isotype control is indicated by the dashed line. Upper panel, CTLA-4-positive mice. Lower panel, CTLA-4-negative mice. D, Proliferation of T cells anergized by multiple injections is rescued by addition of IL-2.

 
Although the T cells from peptide-injected mice appeared to be resting when isolated, we were concerned that the multiple injections may have led to an increased sensitivity to death (such as activation-induced cell death or TNF-mediated killing) upon stimulation (8), and that this could account for the nonresponsiveness of the CTLA-4-deficient cells. However, addition of rIL-2 to cultures restored the proliferation of T cells from multiply injected mice (Fig. 4GoD), indicating that the cells were not being killed upon in vitro stimulation. We also tested for anergy induction after only one injection of peptide, as single-injection protocols were used in several of the models implicating CTLA-4 (18, 19, 23) and might be less likely to sensitize cells to apoptosis. A single injection of peptide resulted in CD44 expression comparable to multiple injections (data not shown). Although the level of inhibition was somewhat more variable than with multiple injections, a one-time peptide injection also significantly reduced T cell responsiveness and affected CTLA-4+ and CTLA-4- cells comparably (Fig. 5Go). Thus, naive CD8+ T cells can be rendered anergic in vivo even in the absence of CTLA-4 expression.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 5. In vivo anergy induction after a single injection of soluble Ag. CTLA-4 wild-type (+/+) or knockout (-/-) mice were injected once with either PBS or peptide as indicated. Proliferation (A) and IL-2 secretion (B) of purified T cells were measured after in vitro stimulation with APC plus peptide.

 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
We have recently shown that CTLA-4-deficient T cells can be anergized in vitro (32), whereas in several in vivo models, blocking of CTLA-4 appears to prevent anergy induction (18, 19, 20, 21). To address whether this represented a difference between requirements for anergy in vitro and in vivo, we established a tolerance model to compare anergy induction of a homogeneous Ag-specific population of CTLA-4-expressing and CTLA-4-deficient T cells in vivo.

2C TCR-Tg/RAG2-deficient T cells isolated from mice multiply injected with soluble agonist peptide showed dramatically reduced proliferation and IL-2 secretion in response to in vitro stimulation and arrested in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle, indicating that they were rendered anergic, as has been reported for mice Tg for the F5 TCR (8). Surprisingly, we also found that a single peptide injection was sufficient to induce a high degree of unresponsiveness to restimulation. This is in contrast to several other systems, in which a single dose of soluble Ag is not able to induce anergy in intact TCR-Tg mice (8, 38, 39). It is unclear whether this is unique to the 2C TCR, or whether the peptide we used is simply particularly tolerogenic.

Using the 2C Tg/RAG2-deficient mice, we compared in vivo anergy induction in CTLA-4-expressing and CTLA-4-deficient T cells. With both single-injection and multiple-injection protocols, CTLA-4-deficient T cells were anergized as efficiently as cells expressing CTLA-4. Thus, there appears to be no difference between in vitro and in vivo anergy induction for CD8+ TCR-Tg T cells with regard to CTLA-4 requirement. However, these in vitro and in vivo results conflict with the recent report of Greenwald et al. (23). Using a CD4+ TCR-Tg system, DO11.10, Greenwald et al. found that i.p. injection of soluble Ag tolerized CTLA-4-positive, but not CTLA-4-negative, naive T cells. Similar results were obtained by Perez et al. (18), who showed that a blocking anti-CTLA-4 Ab could prevent anergy induction in the same DO11.10 Tg system. Understanding the difference between the 2C and DO11.10 models will be important for determining the role that CTLA-4 plays in regulating peripheral tolerance.

One distinction between the two models involves the details of the anergy induction protocols. The DO11.10 system uses adoptive transfer of a relatively small number of Ag-specific T cells into non-Tg mice, whereas the 2C system involves Ag injection into intact Tg mice. We would predict that this would make it more difficult to induce anergy in the 2C system due to the higher number of Ag-specific T cells. However, it is possible that the monoclonality of the 2C system leads to a massive immune response to peptide injection, causing systemic effects that result in anergy as a secondary consequence independent of CTLA-4 expression. We do not favor this explanation, as the strong systemic response induced by bacterial superantigen does not bypass the CTLA-4 requirement for anergy induction by staphylococcal enterotoxin B (19); however, the spectrum of cytokines induced by soluble peptide may differ from that induced by superantigen.

A second difference between the systems is that the DO11.10 TCR is MHC class II-restricted, giving rise to CD4+ T cells, while the 2C TCR is MHC class I-restricted, giving rise to CD8+ T cells. It has been found that there is a skewing toward preferential activation of CD4+ T cells in (non-TCR-Tg) CTLA-4-deficient mice, and that both the activated T cell phenotype and lymphoproliferative disease in these mice are dependent on CD4+, but not CD8+ T cells (40). This suggests that the inhibitory function of CTLA-4 plays a greater role in the regulation of CD4+ cells than that of CD8+ cells. Thus, induction of anergy in CD8+ T cells may depend on CTLA-4-independent signals, while CD4+ T cells require CTLA-4. Viewed in a larger context, this may reflect the fact that a wide variety of B7-negative cells in the body are potential class I MHC APC, allowing tolerization of CD8+ T cells without the need to cross-present tissue-specific Ags on "professional," B7-expressing APC.


    Acknowledgments
 
We thank Dr. Thomas Gajewski for providing mice, Dr. Francesca Fallarino for assistance with anergy induction protocols, and members of the Thompson laboratory for helpful discussions and critical reading of this manuscript.


    Footnotes
 
1 This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants P01DK49799 and 5P01AI35294-03 and funds from the Abramson Cancer Research Institute. Back

2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Craig B. Thompson, Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, 421 Curie Boulevard, Room 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail address: drt{at}mail.med.upenn.edu Back

3 Abbreviations used in this paper: Tg, transgenic; RAG, recombination-activating gene. Back

Received for publication May 10, 2001. Accepted for publication August 24, 2001.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Jenkins, M. K., R. H. Schwartz. 1987. Antigen presentation by chemically modified splenocytes induces antigen-specific T cell unresponsiveness in vitro and in vivo. J. Exp. Med. 165:302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Quill, H., R. H. Schwartz. 1987. Stimulation of normal inducer T cell clones with antigen presented by purified Ia molecules in planar lipid membranes: specific induction of a long-lived state of proliferative nonresponsiveness. J. Immunol. 138:3704.[Abstract]
  3. Jenkins, M. K., C. A. Chen, G. Jung, D. L. Mueller, R. H. Schwartz. 1990. Inhibition of antigen-specific proliferation of type 1 murine T cell clones after stimulation with immobilized anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody. J. Immunol. 144:16.[Abstract]
  4. DeSilva, D. R., W. S. Feeser, E. J. Tancula, P. A. Scherle. 1996. Anergic T cells are defective in both jun NH2-terminal kinase and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathways. J. Exp. Med. 183:2017.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Li, W., C. D. Whaley, A. Mondino, D. L. Mueller. 1996. Blocked signal transduction to the ERK and JNK protein kinases in anergic CD4+ T cells. Science 271:1272.[Abstract]
  6. Fields, P. E., T. F. Gajewski, F. W. Fitch. 1996. Blocked Ras activation in anergic CD4+ T cells. Science 271:1276.[Abstract]
  7. Gajewski, T. F., D. Qian, P. Fields, F. W. Fitch. 1994. Anergic T-lymphocyte clones have altered inositol phosphate, calcium, and tyrosine kinase signaling pathways. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:38.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Dubois, P. M., M. Pihlgren, M. Tomkowiak, M. Van Mechelen, J. Marvel. 1998. Tolerant CD8 T cells induced by multiple injections of peptide antigen show impaired TCR signaling and altered proliferative responses in vitro and in vivo. J. Immunol. 161:5260.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Kimura, M., M. Yamashita, M. Kubo, M. Iwashima, C. Shimizu, K. Tokoyoda, J. Chiba, M. Taniguchi, M. Katsumata, T. Nakayama. 2000. Impaired Ca/calcineurin pathway in in vivo anergized CD4 T cells. Int. Immunol. 12:817.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Utting, O., S. J. Teh, H. S. Teh. 2000. A population of in vivo anergized T cells with a lower activation threshold for the induction of CD25 exhibit differential requirements in mobilization of intracellular calcium and mitogen-activated protein kinase activation. J. Immunol. 164:2881.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Boussiotis, V. A., G. J. Freeman, A. Berezovskaya, D. L. Barber, L. M. Nadler. 1997. Maintenance of human T cell anergy: blocking of IL-2 gene transcription by activated Rap1. Science 278:124.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Kang, S. M., B. Beverly, A. C. Tran, K. Brorson, R. H. Schwartz, M. J. Lenardo. 1992. Transactivation by AP-1 is a molecular target of T cell clonal anergy. Science 257:1134.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Mondino, A., C. D. Whaley, D. R. DeSilva, W. Li, M. K. Jenkins, D. L. Mueller. 1996. Defective transcription of the IL-2 gene is associated with impaired expression of c-Fos, FosB, and JunB in anergic T helper 1 cells. J. Immunol. 157:2048.[Abstract]
  14. Sundstedt, A., M. Dohlsten. 1998. In vivo anergized CD4+ T cells have defective expression and function of the activating protein-1 transcription factor. J. Immunol. 161:5930.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Kawasaki, H., Y. Nakata, G. Suzuki, K. Chihara, T. Tokuhisa, S. Shiozawa. 1999. Increased c-Fos/activator protein-1 confers resistance against anergy induction on antigen-specific T cell. Int. Immunol. 11:1873.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Walunas, T. L., D. J. Lenschow, C. Y. Bakker, P. S. Linsley, G. J. Freeman, J. M. Green, C. B. Thompson, J. A. Bluestone. 1994. CTLA-4 can function as a negative regulator of T cell activation. Immunity 1:405.[Medline]
  17. Krummel, M. F., J. P. Allison. 1995. CD28 and CTLA-4 have opposing effects on the response of T cells to stimulation. J. Exp. Med. 182:459.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Perez, V. L., L. Van Parijs, A. Biuckians, X. X. Zheng, T. B. Strom, A. K. Abbas. 1997. Induction of peripheral T cell tolerance in vivo requires CTLA-4 engagement. Immunity 6:411.[Medline]
  19. Walunas, T. L., J. A. Bluestone. 1998. CTLA-4 regulates tolerance induction and T cell differentiation in vivo. J. Immunol. 160:3855.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Samoilova, E. B., J. L. Horton, H. Zhang, S. J. Khoury, H. L. Weiner, Y. Chen. 1998. CTLA-4 is required for the induction of high dose oral tolerance. Int. Immunol. 10:491.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Judge, T. A., Z. Wu, X. G. Zheng, A. H. Sharpe, M. H. Sayegh, L. A. Turka. 1999. The role of CD80, CD86, and CTLA4 in alloimmune responses and the induction of long-term allograft survival. J. Immunol. 162:1947.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Issazadeh, S., M. Zhang, M. H. Sayegh, S. J. Khoury. 1999. Acquired thymic tolerance: role of CTLA4 in the initiation and maintenance of tolerance in a clinically relevant autoimmune disease model. J. Immunol. 162:761.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Greenwald, R. J., V. A. Boussiotis, R. B. Lorsbach, A. K. Abbas, A. H. Sharpe. 2001. CTLA-4 regulates induction of anergy in vivo. Immunity 14:145.[Medline]
  24. Tsitoura, D., R. DeKruyff, J. Lamb, D. Umetsu. 1999. Intranasal exposure to protein antigen induces immunological tolerance mediated by functionally disabled CD4+ T cells. J. Immunol. 163:2592.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Sotomayor, E. M., I. Borrello, E. Tubb, J. P. Allison, H. I. Levitsky. 1999. In vivo blockade of CTLA-4 enhances the priming of responsive T cells but fails to prevent the induction of tumor antigen-specific tolerance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:11476.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Tan, P., C. Anasetti, J. A. Hansen, J. Melrose, M. Brunvand, J. Bradshaw, J. A. Ledbetter, P. S. Linsley. 1993. Induction of alloantigen-specific hyporesponsiveness in human T lymphocytes by blocking interaction of CD28 with its natural ligand B7/BB1. J. Exp. Med. 177:165.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Chen, C., N. Nabavi. 1994. In vitro induction of T cell anergy by blocking B7 and early T cell costimulatory molecule ETC-1/B7–2. Immunity 1:147.[Medline]
  28. McIntosh, K. R., P. S. Linsley, D. B. Drachman. 1995. Immunosuppression and induction of anergy by CTLA4 Ig in vitro: effects on cellular and antibody responses of lymphocytes from rats with experimental autoimmune myasthenia gravis. Cell. Immunol. 166:103.[Medline]
  29. Yi-qun, Z., K. Lorre, M. de Boer, J. L. Ceuppens. 1997. B7-blocking agents, alone or in combination with cyclosporin A, induce antigen-specific anergy of human memory T cells. J. Immunol. 158:4734.[Abstract]
  30. Pearson, T. C., D. Z. Alexander, M. Corbascio, R. Hendrix, S. C. Ritchie, P. S. Linsley, D. Faherty, C. P. Larsen. 1997. Analysis of the B7 costimulatory pathway in allograft rejection. Transplantation 63:1463.[Medline]
  31. Lakkis, F. G., B. T. Konieczny, S. Saleem, F. K. Baddoura, P. S. Linsley, D. Z. Alexander, R. P. Lowry, T. C. Pearson, C. P. Larsen. 1997. Blocking the CD28–B7 T cell costimulation pathway induces long term cardiac allograft acceptance in the absence of IL-4. J. Immunol. 158:2443.[Abstract]
  32. Frauwirth, K. A., M. L. Alegre, C. B. Thompson. 2000. Induction of T cell anergy in the absence of CTLA-4/B7 interaction. J. Immunol. 164:2987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Sha, W. C., C. A. Nelson, R. D. Newberry, D. M. Kranz, J. H. Russell, D. Y. Loh. 1988. Selective expression of an antigen receptor on CD8-bearing T lymphocytes in transgenic mice. Nature 335:271.[Medline]
  34. Lombardi, G., S. Sidhu, R. Batchelor, R. Lechler. 1994. Anergic T cells as suppressor cells in vitro. Science 264:1587.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Taams, L. S., A. J. van Rensen, M. C. Poelen, C. A. van Els, A. C. Besseling, J. P. Wagenaar, W. van Eden, M. H. Wauben. 1998. Anergic T cells actively suppress T cell responses via the antigen-presenting cell. Eur. J. Immunol. 28:2902.[Medline]
  36. Thornton, A. M., E. M. Shevach. 1998. CD4+CD25+ immunoregulatory T cells suppress polyclonal T cell activation in vitro by inhibiting interleukin 2 production. J. Exp. Med. 188:287.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Takahashi, T., Y. Kuniyasu, M. Toda, N. Sakaguchi, M. Itoh, M. Iwata, J. Shimizu, S. Sakaguchi. 1998. Immunologic self-tolerance maintained by CD25+CD4+ naturally anergic and suppressive T cells: induction of autoimmune disease by breaking their anergic/suppressive state. Int. Immunol. 10:1969.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Kearney, E. R., K. A. Pape, D. Y. Loh, M. K. Jenkins. 1994. Visualization of peptide-specific T cell immunity and peripheral tolerance induction in vivo. Immunity 1:327.[Medline]
  39. Lanoue, A., C. Bona, H. von Boehmer, A. Sarukhan. 1997. Conditions that induce tolerance in mature CD4+ T cells. J. Exp. Med. 185:405.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Chambers, C. A., T. J. Sullivan, J. P. Allison. 1997. Lymphoproliferation in CTLA-4-deficient mice is mediated by costimulation-dependent activation of CD4+ T cells. Immunity 7:885.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
S. K. Dalai, S. Mirshahidi, A. Morrot, F. Zavala, and S. Sadegh-Nasseri
Anergy in Memory CD4+ T Cells Is Induced by B Cells
J. Immunol., September 1, 2008; 181(5): 3221 - 3231.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
M. Srinivasan and K. A. Frauwirth
Reciprocal NFAT1 and NFAT2 Nuclear Localization in CD8+ Anergic T Cells Is Regulated by Suboptimal Calcium Signaling
J. Immunol., September 15, 2007; 179(6): 3734 - 3741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
P. Pandiyan, J. K. E. Hegel, M. Krueger, D. Quandt, and M. C. Brunner-Weinzierl
High IFN-{gamma} Production of Individual CD8 T Lymphocytes Is Controlled by CD152 (CTLA-4)
J. Immunol., February 15, 2007; 178(4): 2132 - 2140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BloodHome page
L. Gattinoni, A. Ranganathan, D. R. Surman, D. C. Palmer, P. A. Antony, M. R. Theoret, D. M. Heimann, S. A. Rosenberg, and N. P. Restifo
CTLA-4 dysregulation of self/tumor-reactive CD8+ T-cell function is CD4+ T-cell dependent
Blood, December 1, 2006; 108(12): 3818 - 3823.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
I. E. Brown, C. Blank, J. Kline, A. K. Kacha, and T. F. Gajewski
Homeostatic Proliferation as an Isolated Variable Reverses CD8+ T Cell Anergy and Promotes Tumor Rejection
J. Immunol., October 1, 2006; 177(7): 4521 - 4529.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
G.-X. Zhang, S. Yu, D. Calida, Z. Zhao, B. Gran, M. Kamoun, and A. Rostami
Loss of the Surface Antigen 3G11 Characterizes a Distinct Population of Anergic/Regulatory T Cells in Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis
J. Immunol., March 15, 2006; 176(6): 3366 - 3373.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Leukoc. Biol.Home page
S. Mukherjee, A. Ahmed, and D. Nandi
CTLA4-CD80/CD86 interactions on primary mouse CD4+ T cells integrate signal-strength information to modulate activation with Concanavalin A
J. Leukoc. Biol., July 1, 2005; 78(1): 144 - 157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
M. Inobe and R. H. Schwartz
CTLA-4 Engagement Acts as a Brake on CD4+ T Cell Proliferation and Cytokine Production but Is Not Required for Tuning T Cell Reactivity in Adaptive Tolerance
J. Immunol., December 15, 2004; 173(12): 7239 - 7248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
T. F. Rowley and A. Al-Shamkhani
Stimulation by Soluble CD70 Promotes Strong Primary and Secondary CD8+ Cytotoxic T Cell Responses In Vivo
J. Immunol., May 15, 2004; 172(10): 6039 - 6046.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JEMHome page
M. S. Vacchio and R. J. Hodes
CD28 Costimulation Is Required for In Vivo Induction of Peripheral Tolerance in CD8 T Cells
J. Exp. Med., January 6, 2003; 197(1): 19 - 26.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Leukoc. Biol.Home page
S. Mukherjee, P. K. Maiti, and D. Nandi
Role of CD80, CD86, and CTLA4 on mouse CD4+ T lymphocytes in enhancing cell-cycle progression and survival after activation with PMA and ionomycin
J. Leukoc. Biol., November 1, 2002; 72(5): 921 - 931.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
M. Sho, A. Yamada, N. Najafian, A. D. Salama, H. Harada, S. E. Sandner, A. Sanchez-Fueyo, X. X. Zheng, T. B. Strom, and M. H. Sayegh
Physiological Mechanisms of Regulating Alloimmunity: Cytokines, CTLA-4, CD25+ Cells, and the Alloreactive T Cell Clone Size
J. Immunol., October 1, 2002; 169(7): 3744 - 3751.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Immunol.Home page
K. W. Hwang, W. B. Sweatt, I. E. Brown, C. Blank, T. F. Gajewski, J. A. Bluestone, and M.-L. Alegre
Cutting Edge: Targeted Ligation of CTLA-4 In Vivo by Membrane-Bound Anti-CTLA-4 Antibody Prevents Rejection of Allogeneic Cells
J. Immunol., July 15, 2002; 169(2): 633 - 637.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frauwirth, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, C. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frauwirth, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, C. B.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS