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 Sun, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Bevan, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sun, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Bevan, M. J.
The Journal of Immunology, 2004, 172: 3385-3389.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Association of Immunologists

CUTTING EDGE

Cutting Edge: Long-Lived CD8 Memory and Protective Immunity in the Absence of CD40 Expression on CD8 T Cells1

Joseph C. Sun and Michael J. Bevan2

Department of Immunology and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
CD8 T cells need CD4 T cells to develop into long-lived, functional memory cells that provide protection against pathogen rechallenge. We investigated whether signaling via CD40 expressed on the CD8 cells themselves is involved in this cooperation. In murine responses to Listeria monocytogenes and lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, we found no evidence of any requirement for CD40-CD40 ligand interaction at this level. No differences were observed between CD40-/- and CD40+/+ CD8 T cells that had matured in the same environment when comparing their expansion in a primary or secondary response, their contribution to memory, and their ability to enter nonlymphoid tissues such as the liver. Thus, we find no evidence that CD40 ligand-expressing CD4 T cells are required to activate CD40 on CD8 T cells directly for the full differentiation of the cytotoxic T cell response.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Recent work has demonstrated that the absence of CD4 T cells results in defective CD8 T cell memory (1, 2, 3, 4). The "unhelped" memory CD8 T cells were characterized by an impairment in their ability to proliferate and secrete effector cytokines in response to secondary challenge. The precise role CD4 T cells play in generating or maintaining memory CD8 T cells has not been elucidated. One mechanism that has been proposed suggests that CD40 expression on activated CD8 T cells is required for proper proliferation and differentiation into functional memory cells (4). In this model, CD4 T cells directly provide signals to CD8 T cells via CD40 ligand (CD40L)3-CD40 interactions, similar to helper interactions involving B cells and CD4 T cells (5).

In certain systems, ligation of CD40 on APCs or other cells has been shown to replace the requirement for CD4 T cell help in the priming of CD8 T cell responses (6, 7, 8). Similarly, blockade of CD40L using mAbs results in the inhibition of helper-dependent CD8 T cell responses, presumably by interfering with CD4-APC interactions (8). In light of new suggestions of a role for CD40 expression on CD8 T cells, one may ask whether the activating and blocking Abs influence CD8 responses exclusively at the level of the APC, or also directly affect the CD8 T cell.

Although CD40 expression on APC and CD8 T cells during priming with cell-associated Ag in a noninflammatory environment is important (4, 7, 8), an acute bacterial infection, such as with Listeria monocytogenes, can overcome CD40L blockade and allow for priming of CD8 T cell responses (9). No studies have been done to directly examine a role for CD40 on CD8 T cells in the generation of long-lived CD8 T cell memory in the context of infection and inflammation. In this study, we investigate what role CD40 expression on CD8 T cells may play in the generation of effector responses and subsequent long-term, protective CD8 memory.


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

Age-matched C57BL/6 (B6) and MHC class II-/- mice were purchased from Taconic Farms (Germantown, NY). Age-matched B6, B6.PL (Thy1.1), B6.SJL (Ly5.1), CD4-/-, CD40-/-, and CD40L-/- mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). All mice were housed in specific pathogen-free facilities at the University of Washington (Seattle, WA). Experiments began when mice were 6–8 wk of age; all experiments were done according to institutional guidelines.

Generation of mixed bone marrow chimeric mice

To generate chimeric mice, 6- to 8-wk-old recipient B6.SJL (Ly5.1) or B6 (Ly5.1 x Ly5.2) mice were irradiated with 1000 rad from a 137Cs source, and i.v. injected 1 day later with a 1:1 mixture of T cell-depleted bone marrow cells isolated from wild-type congenic B6 and CD40-/- mice. Bone marrow cells were purified by negative selection with biotin-labeled anti-CD3 (BD PharMingen, San Diego, CA) followed by anti-biotin MACS beads (Miltenyi Biotec, Auburn, CA). The resulting population contained <1% T cells. Chimeric mice were maintained on antibiotic water containing neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B sulfate for 3 wk following irradiation. PBL from chimeric mice were analyzed to confirm equal wild-type and mutant lymphocyte reconstitution and the animals were infected 8 wk following bone marrow reconstitution.

In vivo Ab treatment

Wild-type and MHC class II-/- mice were injected i.v. with 50 µg of purified anti-CD40 mAb (IC10) or PBS at the time of immunization. To determine the effectiveness of the mAb treatment, we showed that CD8 T cell responses to soluble OVA could be induced in MHC class II-/- mice treated with anti-CD40 mAb, but not in untreated mice (Table I).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table I. Efficacy of Ab treatments in mice

 
Wild-type mice were injected i.p. with 500 µg of purified anti-CD40L mAb (MR1) or PBS at days -2, 0, and 2 following immunization. MR1 was kindly provided by C. Larsen (Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA). As with the anti-CD40 mAb, we tested the efficacy of the anti-CD40L mAb during CD8 T cell priming to cell-associated OVA, showing that only untreated mice, and not anti-CD40L-treated mice, were able to mount CD8 responses (Table I).

Bacteria and viral infections

The recombinant L. monocytogenes strains engineered to secrete either chicken OVA (rLmOva) or the glycoprotein of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV; rLmGP) were kindly provided by H. Shen (University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA). Frozen stocks of the rLmOva or rLmGP were grown in brain-heart infusion broth. Bacteria culture samples were grown to mid-log phase, measured by OD (A600), and diluted in PBS for injection. Injected bacteria numbers, or CFU, were more accurately determined by spreading bacterial samples on brain-heart infusion plates and incubating them overnight at 37°C. Mice were infected with priming doses equivalent to 2000–5000 CFU of the recombinant Listeria and challenge doses equivalent to 1–2 x 105 CFU by tail vein injection. CFU per spleen in the infected mice were determined by plating serial 1/10 dilutions of disassociated spleen suspensions and counting colonies following overnight incubation at 37°C.

LCMV Armstrong 53b was grown on BHK cells and titered on Vero cells. Mice were infected i.p. with 105 PFU of virus.

Intracellular IFN-{gamma} staining

Intracellular IFN-{gamma} staining was performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s protocol (BD PharMingen). In 96-well plates, 1–2 x 106 cells/well were stimulated with medium alone or 10-8 M OVA (SIINFEKL) or GP (KAVYNFATC) peptide for 5 h in the presence of 1 µg/ml brefeldin A. Cells were then washed, stained with anti-CD8, anti-Thy1.1,anti-Ly5.1, anti-Ly5.2, or anti-CD40 mAb (BD PharMingen), resuspended in permeabilization-fixation buffer, and stained with anti-IFN-{gamma} Ab. Labeled cells were washed in permeabilization buffer, resuspended in fix buffer, and analyzed on a FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences, Mountain View, CA). In all experiments, cells incubated in medium without peptide gave <0.1% positive cells in the CD8 population.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Use of mAbs to block CD40L-CD40 interactions

If CD40L-CD40 interactions between CD4 and CD8 T cells are essential for the proper differentiation of effector and memory CD8 T cells, an activating mAb to CD40 that directly engages CD8 T cells would be sufficient to provide the required "help" signals lacking in CD4-deficient environments. To test this, we immunized wild-type C57BL/6 (B6) and MHC class II-deficient mice with recombinant L. monocytogenes which secretes OVA (rLmOva), along with an activating anti-CD40 mAb. A control group of mice was infected without the anti-CD40 mAb. As expected, at day 7 postinfection (PI), all mice showed strong primary OVA-specific CD8 responses, measured by intracellular IFN-{gamma} staining (Fig. 1A). Mice were given a secondary challenge dose of rLmOva at 28 days PI and 3 days following challenge, secondary CD8 responses were measured along with pathogen clearance. In wild-type mice, the recall OVA-specific CD8 T cell response was not affected by treatment with anti-CD40 mAb (Fig. 1A). As in previous studies, we observed a drastic deficiency in the recall CD8 response of class II-/- mice and this was not reversed in class II-/- mice that had been treated with the anti-CD40 mAb during priming (Fig. 1A). In addition, whereas both sets of wild-type mice cleared the challenge dose of Listeria, untreated and {alpha}CD40-treated class II-/- mice were unable to control the infection (Fig. 1B).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1. An activating anti-CD40 mAb does not enhance CD8 immunity against Listeria challenge in MHC class II-/- mice. A, Wild-type and MHC class II-/- mice were immunized with rLmOva alone or rLmOva plus anti-CD40 mAb and primary CD8 T cell responses were measured by intracellular IFN-{gamma} staining (left panels). Mice were challenged 28 days later and secondary CD8 T cell responses were measured 3 days after challenge. The percentage of Ag-specific cells in the total CD8 T cell population (top numbers) and in the whole splenocyte population (bottom numbers) were determined. B, Protective immunity was measured by determining the number of CFU in spleens 3 days after challenge. The values represent the mean CFU ± SE. The limit of detection was 20 CFU/spleen (designated by the dotted line). The data shown are representative of two independent studies, with two to three mice per group at each time point.

 
We also used a mAb that binds to CD40L on CD4 T cells to inhibit interaction with APCs or CD8 T cells. It has been previously shown that Listeria infection can overcome a CD40L blockade for the primary CD8 response, presumably working to replace CD4 help by directly activating APCs (9). In line with this, we observed that primary CD8 T cell responses in anti-CD40L-treated wild-type mice were only slightly diminished compared with untreated controls (Fig. 2). Both sets of mice cleared the infection within 7 days (data not shown). Mice were given a secondary challenge of rLmOva at 60 days PI. The recall CD8 T cell response was comparable between both groups (Fig. 2), and no impairment in the ability to clear bacteria challenge was observed in the mice treated with anti-CD40L compared with untreated controls (data not shown).



View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2. A blocking {alpha}CD40L mAb does not inhibit generation of primary and secondary CD8 T cell responses. Wild-type B6 mice were immunized with rLmOva alone or rLmOva plus anti-CD40L mAb, and 7 days later, CD8 T cell responses were measured by IFN-{gamma} staining. At day 60 PI, both sets of mice were challenged with rLmOva and secondary CD8 T cell responses were measured 3 days later.

 
Use of CD40 and CD40L knockout mice

CD40-/- mice were used to examine primary and recall CD8 T cell responses in the absence of CD40. Upon immunization of wild-type, CD4-/-, and CD40-/- mice, all strains cleared the primary rLmOva infection within 7 days. Furthermore, the primary CD8 response was comparable among all three strains of mice, with the CD4-/- mice showing somewhat reduced CD8 T cell numbers compared with wild-type mice (Fig. 3A). We have evidence that the reduction in the MHC class I-restricted response in CD4-/- mice can be accounted for by the presence of a large pool of MHC class II-restricted T cells in the CD8 population, which dilutes the conventional response (10). We challenged the mice 60 days PI and, as previously described (1, 2), CD4-/- mice showed severely diminished protection compared with wild-type mice (Fig. 3B). However, CD40-/- mice were able to completely clear the challenge dose of bacteria within 3 days (Fig. 3B). In line with this, secondary CD8 T cell responses were diminished in CD4-/- mice, but comparable between wild-type and CD40-/- mice (Fig. 3A).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3. CD40-/- mice generate protective immunity and recall CD8 T cell responses. Wild-type, CD4-/-, and CD40-/- mice were immunized with rLmOva and challenged 60 days later. A, Primary CD8 T cell responses were measured at day 7 postimmunization and secondary responses were measured at day 3 postchallenge. B, Bacterial CFU per spleen were measured 7 days following primary immunization and 3 days after secondary challenge. The values represent the mean CFU ± SE. The data are representative of two independent studies, with two to three mice per group at each time point.

 
We went on to measure the primary and secondary memory CD8 T cell responses in CD40L-deficient mice. We immunized wild-type and CD40L-/- mice with a recombinant Listeria that secretes a portion of the LCMV glycoprotein (rLmGP). Both strains cleared the infection within 7 days and generated comparable primary CD8 responses (Fig. 4). All mice challenged at 60 days PI were able to clear the infection within 3 days (data not shown) and generated comparable secondary CD8 responses (Fig. 4). Thus, ablating CD40-CD40L interactions in CD40-/- and CD40L-/- mice does not result in defective CD8 T cell immunity against acute bacterial infection.



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4. Protective immunity and rapid recall CD8 T cell response in CD40L-/- mice. Wild-type, CD40-/-, and CD40L-/- mice were immunized with rLmGP and challenged 60 days later. Primary CD8 T cell responses were measured at day 7 postimmunization and secondary responses were measured at day 3 postchallenge. All three groups contained <50 CFU/spleen at day 3 postchallenge (data not shown). The data shown are representative of two independent studies, with two to three mice per group at each time point.

 
Studies in mixed radiation chimeras

In mAb treatment and knockout studies, we cannot rule out global effects that may influence cells other than CD8 T cells. Nor can we be certain that blocking one receptor-ligand interaction is not compensated by other factors. To examine directly the effects of CD40 expression on CD8 T cells, we generated radiation bone marrow chimeric mice in which wild-type B6 (Ly5.1) and CD40-/- (Ly5.2) CD8 T cells develop together in irradiated F1(Ly5.1 x Ly5.2) B6 hosts. In these chimeric mice, we can distinguish both donor T cell populations from each other (Ly5.1 or Ly5.2 only) and from the host (Fig. 5A). Within the same host, we compared the frequency of donor-derived GP-specific wild-type and CD40-/- CD8 T cells at day 8 following immunization with LCMV. The primary CD8 response in the spleen was similar in the CD40-/- population compared with wild type (Fig. 5B). This pattern was recapitulated in the CD8 response in the liver. We measured GP-specific CD8 memory levels at 60 days PI, and found similar levels between mutant and wild-type cells (Fig. 5B). Thus, we conclude that CD40 expression on CD8 T cells does not confer any advantage in terms of contributing to the long-lived memory pool.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5. CD40 expression on CD8 T cells does not confer a survival advantage in bone marrow chimeric mice. A, Host mice (Ly5.1 x Ly5.2) containing wild-type (WT, Ly5.1) and CD40-/- (Ly5.2) cells were analyzed for CD40 expression on total splenocytes. B, Bone marrow chimeric mice were infected with LCMV and GP-specific CD8 T cell responses were measured by IFN-{gamma} staining at day 8 postimmunization. Plots show cells gated on donor CD8 T cells only. GP-specific memory levels were also measured on day 60 postimmunization. The values shown are the percentage of donor Ly5.1 or Ly5.2 CD8 T cells that are Ag specific. The data shown are representative of three independent studies, with three mice per group at each time point.

 
To examine the effect of CD40 expression on CD8 T cells during primary and secondary expansion, we generated another set of bone marrow chimeric mice in which wild-type B6 (Thy1.1) and CD40-/- (Thy1.2) CD8 T cells develop in irradiated Ly5.1 B6 hosts. As in the previous experiment, we can distinguish both donor T cell populations from each other and from the host. Within the same host, we compared the frequency of GP-specific wild-type and CD40-/- CD8 T cells at day 7 following primary immunization with rLmGP. The primary response measured by IFN-{gamma} secretion was similar for wild-type and CD40-/- CD8 T cells (Fig. 6). Again, this pattern was recapitulated in the CD8 response in the liver. When these chimeric mice were challenged at 60 days PI with either rLmGP or LCMV, we observed similar secondary GP-specific CTL responses 3–6 days following challenge in the CD40+/+ and CD40-/- cells (Fig. 6). There was no reproducible difference in the recall response in any tissue examined. These data strongly suggest that in the context of an acute infection, CD40 on the surface of CD8 T cells is neither required nor contributes to the generation of functional, long-term CD8 memory.



View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6. CD40-deficient CD8 T cells proliferate equally well compared with wild-type (WT) CD8 T cells during primary and secondary infection in chimeric mice. Host mice (Ly5.1) containing wild-type (Thy1.1) and CD40-/- (Thy1.2) CD8 T cells were immunized with rLmGP and challenged 60 days later with rLmGP or LCMV. Primary CD8 T cell responses in spleen and liver were measured at day 7 postimmunization. Secondary responses to rLmGP and LCMV were measured at days 3 and 6 postchallenge, respectively. The values shown are the percentage of donor Thy1.1 or Thy1.2 CD8 T cells that are GP-specific. The data shown are representative of three independent studies, with three mice per group at each time point.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In this report, we demonstrate that protective immunity against acute bacterial infection is maintained in the absence of CD40 on CD8 T cells. Both generation of primary effector CTL and secondary responses against bacterial challenge were unhindered by the lack of CD40 signals. Similarly, we show that the number of memory CD8 T cells generated in response to LCMV infection is not affected by the lack of CD40 expression on the CD8 T cells themselves.

Although experiments using activating mAbs to CD40 can also activate APCs such as dendritic cells, macrophages, and B cells, this Ab did not have adverse affects on protective immunity or the formation of secondary effector CTL during a bacterial challenge in wild-type mice. However, in mice lacking CD4 T cells, treatment with anti-CD40 during primary immunization did not enhance protective immunity or CD8 T cell responses against secondary challenge. Therefore, triggering CD40 cannot replace CD4 help in the generation of protective immunity and rapidly responding memory CD8 T cells.

In addition to disrupting cross-talk between CD4 and CD8 T cells, blocking mAbs that bind to CD40L will also hinder CD40L-CD40 interactions between CD4 T cells and APCs. This block in the CD40L-CD40 interaction between CD4s and APCs may be manifested in our experiments by the slightly diminished primary CD8 T cell responses seen in anti-CD40L-treated relative to untreated mice. Our data confirm previous findings showing that although Listeria infection can overcome CD40L blockade, the primary CD8 T cell response is reduced compared with control mice (9). However, slightly reduced primary responses did not result in defects in secondary expansion of CTL, suggesting that CD40L does not contribute to CD8 T cell programming during immunization with L. monocytogenes.

Previous studies have examined the requirement for CD40L-CD40 interaction between CD4 T cells and APCs in the generation of CD8 T cell responses to viral and bacterial infection in CD40-/- and CD40L-/- mice (11, 12, 13, 14, 15). These analyses demonstrated that signals other than those mediated through CD40 ligation could lead to the efficient priming of CD8 T cell responses. Our current study corroborates the earlier findings and now extends the sum of these findings by demonstrating the lack of requirement for CD40L-CD40 interactions in the generation of protective immunity and CD8 T cell memory. We show in CD40-/- mice that protective memory and CD8 T cell secondary responses are the same whether or not CD40 is present on either APCs or CD8 T cells during acute bacterial infection. We further show in CD40L-/- mice that whether or not CD4 interacts directly with APCs or CD8s via CD40L during immunization, protective memory and CD8 T cell secondary responses remain unchanged.

Our most stringent test of a role for CD40 expression on CD8 T cells was done in bone marrow chimeric mice, in which wild-type and CD40-deficient CD8 T cells develop and encounter Ag in the same environment. In this study, in a direct comparison of CD8 T cells from the two different sources, we found that expression of CD40 on the surface of CD8 T cells afforded no marked advantage or disadvantage in their response to Listeria or LCMV. CD40 expression by T cells themselves did not affect trafficking or expansion in nonlymphoid tissues. We conclude that CD40 on the surface of CD8 T cells plays no role in the generation of functional memory or recall CD8 responses following priming with an acute bacterial or viral infection. A recent article by Lee et al. (16) similarly concluded that CD40 signaling directly to CD8 T cells is not relevant in the primary or secondary response to influenza virus.

Our conclusions are in sharp contrast to those of a previous study (4) showing a role for CD40 expression on CD8 T cells during immunization against a cell-associated Ag (male cells expressing the HY Ag). Several differences in the two systems could account for the discrepancies between the findings. In a helper-dependent system, CD40 on CD8 T cells could be playing a role that is bypassed in our immunization schemes. Inflammation during priming could play a critical role in determining whether or not CD8 T cells require direct CD40 signaling for robust memory generation. Furthermore, immunization of adoptively transferred TCR-transgenic T cells in a lymphopenic host, as performed in the HY studies, contrasts with our studies looking at a polyclonal T cell population in a normal environment.

Our current findings suggest that CD40L-CD40 interactions between CD4 and CD8 T cells are not important for the generation of a protective memory CD8 T cell response in the context of acute infection. Cases in which this receptor-ligand interaction have been reported to be essential for antiviral protection may be explained either by its impact on the Ab response or effects on APC activation. Future studies will examine the precise role CD4 T cells provide in the generation of protective CD8 T cell memory. Determining the signals given by CD4 T cells, whether via a direct or indirect mechanism, will aid vaccine development.


   Footnotes
 
1 This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants AI19335 and CA09537 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Back

2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Michael J. Bevan, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Box 357370, Seattle, WA 98195-7370. E-mail address: mbevan{at}u.washington.edu Back

3 Abbreviations used in this paper: CD40L, CD40 ligand; PI, postinfection; LCMV, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus; rLmOva, recombinant L. monocytogenes Ova; rLmGP, recombinant L. monocytogenes GP. Back

Received for publication December 1, 2003. Accepted for publication January 21, 2004.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Sun, J. C., M. J. Bevan. 2003. Defective CD8 T cell memory following acute infection without CD4 T cell help. Science 300:339.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Shedlock, D. J., H. Shen. 2003. Requirement for CD4 T cell help in generating functional CD8 T cell memory. Science 300:337.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Janssen, E. M., E. E. Lemmens, T. Wolfe, U. Christen, M. G. von Herrath, S. P. Schoenberger. 2003. CD4+ T cells are required for secondary expansion and memory in CD8+ T lymphocytes. Nature 421:852.[Medline]
  4. Bourgeois, C., B. Rocha, C. Tanchot. 2002. A role for CD40 expression on CD8+ T cells in the generation of CD8+ T cell memory. Science 297:2060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Tanchot, C., B. Rocha. 2003. CD8 and B cell memory: same strategy, same signals. Nat. Immunol. 4:431.[Medline]
  6. Ridge, J. P., F. Di Rosa, P. Matzinger. 1998. A conditioned dendritic cell can be a temporal bridge between a CD4+ T-helper and a T-killer cell. Nature 393:474.[Medline]
  7. Bennett, S. R., F. R. Carbone, F. Karamalis, R. A. Flavell, J. F. Miller, W. R. Heath. 1998. Help for cytotoxic-T-cell responses is mediated by CD40 signalling. Nature 393:478.[Medline]
  8. Schoenberger, S. P., R. E. Toes, E. I. van der Voort, R. Offringa, C. J. Melief. 1998. T-cell help for cytotoxic T lymphocytes is mediated by CD40-CD40L interactions. Nature 393:480.[Medline]
  9. Hamilton, S. E., A. R. Tvinnereim, J. T. Harty. 2001. Listeria monocytogenes infection overcomes the requirement for CD40 ligand in exogenous antigen presentation to CD8+ T cells. J. Immunol. 167:5603.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Tyznik, A. J., J. C. Sun, and M. J. Bevan. 2004. The CD8 population in CD4-deficient mice is heavily contaminated with MHC class II-restricted T cells. J. Exp. Med. In press.
  11. Thomsen, A. R., A. Nansen, J. P. Christensen, S. O. Andreasen, O. Marker. 1998. CD40 ligand is pivotal to efficient control of virus replication in mice infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus. J. Immunol. 161:4583.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Whitmire, J. K., R. A. Flavell, I. S. Grewal, C. P. Larsen, T. C. Pearson, R. Ahmed. 1999. CD40-CD40 ligand costimulation is required for generating antiviral CD4 T cell responses but is dispensable for CD8 T cell responses. J. Immunol. 163:3194.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Masopust, D., J. Jiang, H. Shen, L. Lefrancois. 2001. Direct analysis of the dynamics of the intestinal mucosa CD8 T cell response to systemic virus infection. J. Immunol. 166:2348.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Pope, C., S. K. Kim, A. Marzo, D. Masopust, K. Williams, J. Jiang, H. Shen, L. Lefrancois. 2001. Organ-specific regulation of the CD8 T cell response to Listeria monocytogenes infection. J. Immunol. 166:3402.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Shedlock, D. J., J. K. Whitmire, J. Tan, A. S. MacDonald, R. Ahmed, H. Shen. 2003. Role of CD4 T cell help and costimulation in CD8 T cell responses during Listeria monocytogenes infection. J. Immunol. 170:2053.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Lee, B. O., L. Hartson, T. D. Randall. 2003. CD40-deficient, influenza-specific CD8 memory T cells develop and function normally in a CD40-sufficient environment. J. Exp. Med. 198:1759.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
L. Rapetti, S. Meunier, C. Pontoux, and C. Tanchot
CD4 Help Regulates Expression of Crucial Genes Involved in CD8 T Cell Memory and Sensitivity to Regulatory Elements
J. Immunol., July 1, 2008; 181(1): 299 - 308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
M. G. H. Hernandez, L. Shen, and K. L. Rock
CD40 on APCs Is Needed for Optimal Programming, Maintenance, and Recall of CD8+ T Cell Memory Even in the Absence of CD4+ T Cell Help
J. Immunol., April 1, 2008; 180(7): 4382 - 4390.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
P. Agnellini, M. Wiesel, K. Schwarz, P. Wolint, M. F. Bachmann, and A. Oxenius
Kinetic and Mechanistic Requirements for Helping CD8 T Cells
J. Immunol., February 1, 2008; 180(3): 1517 - 1525.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
P. Novy, M. Quigley, X. Huang, and Y. Yang
CD4 T Cells Are Required for CD8 T Cell Survival during Both Primary and Memory Recall Responses
J. Immunol., December 15, 2007; 179(12): 8243 - 8251.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Virol.Home page
E. Sitati, E. E. McCandless, R. S. Klein, and M. S. Diamond
CD40-CD40 Ligand Interactions Promote Trafficking of CD8+ T Cells into the Brain and Protection against West Nile Virus Encephalitis
J. Virol., September 15, 2007; 81(18): 9801 - 9811.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
M. E. Munroe and G. A. Bishop
A Costimulatory Function for T Cell CD40
J. Immunol., January 15, 2007; 178(2): 671 - 682.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Leukoc. Biol.Home page
M. Shi, S. Hao, T. Chan, and J. Xiang
CD4+ T cells stimulate memory CD8+ T cell expansion via acquired pMHC I complexes and costimulatory molecules, and IL-2 secretion
J. Leukoc. Biol., December 1, 2006; 80(6): 1354 - 1363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
N. D. Jones, M. Carvalho-Gaspar, S. Luo, M. O. Brook, L. Martin, and K. J. Wood
Effector and Memory CD8+ T Cells Can Be Generated in Response to Alloantigen Independently of CD4+ T Cell Help
J. Immunol., February 15, 2006; 176(4): 2316 - 2323.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
M. Fang and L. J. Sigal
Antibodies and CD8+ T Cells Are Complementary and Essential for Natural Resistance to a Highly Lethal Cytopathic Virus
J. Immunol., November 15, 2005; 175(10): 6829 - 6836.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
R. Kennedy, A. H. Undale, W. C. Kieper, M. S. Block, L. R. Pease, and E. Celis
Direct Cross-Priming by Th Lymphocytes Generates Memory Cytotoxic T Cell Responses
J. Immunol., April 1, 2005; 174(7): 3967 - 3977.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
S. Sabbaj, M. K. Ghosh, B. H. Edwards, R. Leeth, W. D. Decker, P. A. Goepfert, and G. M. Aldrovandi
Breast Milk-Derived Antigen-Specific CD8+ T Cells: An Extralymphoid Effector Memory Cell Population in Humans
J. Immunol., March 1, 2005; 174(5): 2951 - 2956.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Med.Home page
A. M. Gallegos and M. J. Bevan
Central Tolerance to Tissue-specific Antigens Mediated by Direct and Indirect Antigen Presentation
J. Exp. Med., October 18, 2004; 200(8): 1039 - 1049.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
M. J. Montfort, H. G. A. Bouwer, C. R. Wagner, and D. J. Hinrichs
The Development of Functional CD8 T Cell Memory after Listeria monocytogenes Infection Is Not Dependent on CD40
J. Immunol., September 15, 2004; 173(6): 4084 - 4090.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
S.-J. Lee, L. Myers, G. Muralimohan, J. Dai, Y. Qiao, Z. Li, R. S. Mittler, and A. T. Vella
4-1BB and OX40 Dual Costimulation Synergistically Stimulate Primary Specific CD8 T Cells for Robust Effector Function
J. Immunol., September 1, 2004; 173(5): 3002 - 3012.
[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 Sun, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Bevan, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sun, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Bevan, M. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS