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
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Allen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Powell, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Allen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Powell, J. D.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH
The Journal of Immunology, 2004, 172: 4797-4803.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Association of Immunologists

The Novel Cyclophilin Binding Compound, Sanglifehrin A, Disassociates G1 Cell Cycle Arrest from Tolerance Induction1

Amy Allen*, Yan Zheng*, Lawrence Gardner{dagger}, Meredith Safford*, Maureen R. Horton{ddagger} and Jonathan D. Powell2,*

* Division of Immunology and Hematopoeisis, Department of Oncology, {dagger} Division of Hematology, and {ddagger} Division of Pulmonary, Department of Medicine, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
T cell anergy has been demonstrated to play a role in maintaining peripheral tolerance to self Ags as well as a means by which tumors can evade immune destruction. Although the precise pathways involved in anergy induction have yet to be elucidated, it has been linked to TCR engagement in the setting of cell cycle arrest. Indeed, rapamycin, which inhibits T cell proliferation in G1, has the ability to promote tolerance even in the presence of costimulation. To better define the role of the cell cycle in regulating anergy induction, we used the novel cyclophilin-binding ligand, sanglifehrin A (SFA). We demonstrate that SFA can inhibit TCR-induced cytokine and chemokine production without preventing TCR-induced anergy. Our data also indicate that despite its ability to induce G1 arrest, SFA does not induce anergy in the presence of costimulation. Furthermore, although SFA blocks proliferation to exogenous IL-2, it does not prevent IL-2-induced reversal of anergy. When we examined the phosphorylation of 4EBP-1, a downstream substrate of the mammalian target of rapamycin, we found that rapamycin, but not SFA, inhibited the mammalian target of rapamycin activity. Based on these data, we propose that the decision as to whether TCR engagement will lead to productive activation or tolerance is dictated by a rapamycin -inhibitable pathway, independent of the G1->S phase cell cycle progression.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
T cell receptor engagement (termed signal 1) leads to genetic programs that both activate and negatively regulate T cells (1, 2). In the setting of costimulation (termed signal 2), TCR engagement leads to the elaboration of cytokines and subsequent T cell proliferation. In contrast, when a T cell is activated in the absence of costimulation not only is there a paucity of effector cytokine release and lack of proliferation, but such T cells are hyporesponsive upon rechallenge; they are rendered anergic. This hyporesponsiveness is characterized by marked inhibition of IL-2, and proliferation and decreased production of IFN, IL-3, and TNF (3). Although the precise mediators/pathways that lead to anergy have yet to be elucidated, it is clear that TCR-induced calcineurin activation and new protein synthesis is required (4).

A simple explanation for this hyporesponsive state is that signal 2 prevents the induction of anergy. However, early experiments by Jenkins (5) suggested that anergy resulted from TCR engagement in the absence of IL-2 production. Consistent with this model is the observation that anergic T cells can be rescued from their anergic state by incubating them with IL-2 (6, 7). In this context, a number of groups have linked the induction of anergy with TCR engagement in the setting of cell cycle arrest (5, 8, 9, 10, 11).

Cyclosporin A (CSA)3 and FK506 are both potent, clinically relevant immunosuppressive agents that complex within the cell to a class of proteins termed immunophilins (12). The immunophilin-drug complex blocks TCR-induced signaling by inhibiting the function of the Ca2+ dependent phosphatase, calcineurin. Calcineurin plays a pivotal role in TCR-induced activation by facilitating the translocation of the transcription factor NF-AT to the nucleus. In as much as NF-AT activation is also critical for the induction of T cell anergy, both CSA and FK506 block tolerance induction as well as T cell activation (13). Rapamycin is another macrolide immunosuppressant that, like FK506, binds to the intracellular immunophilin FK506 binding protein (14). However, unlike FK506 and CSA, rapamycin does not inhibit TCR-induced calcineurin activity. Rather, the rapamycin -FKBP complex serves to block T cell proliferation at G1 by inhibiting the activity of the kinase mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Thus, while FK506 and CSA exert their inhibitory effects by blocking TCR-induced activation, rapamycin blocks distally at the level of the response to cytokines/growth factors. As a result, unlike CSA and FK506, rapamycin does not inhibit TCR-induced anergy. On the contrary, rapamycin has the ability to promote anergy induction even in the presence of costimulation (8).

Recently, a novel immunophilin-binding compound, sanglifehrin A (SFA), has been reported to have immunosuppressive properties (15, 16). The exact biochemical and molecular mechanisms accounting for SFA’s ability to suppress T cell function have yet to be elucidated. As is the case for CSA, SFA forms intracellular complexes with cyclophilin. In fact, SFA was originally isolated using a cyclophillin affinity column (17, 18). However, SFA does not inhibit calcineurin activity. Rather, similar to rapamycin, SFA exerts its immunosuppressive effects by blocking T cell proliferation in G1. In light of the fact that the induction of T cell anergy has been linked to TCR engagement in the absence of cell cycle progression, we were interested in determining the effect of SFA on the induction of T cell tolerance. In this report, we demonstrate that unlike CSA, SFA does not inhibit TCR-induced anergy. In contrast, although like rapamycin it inhibits proliferation at G1, SFA does not promote anergy nor prevent its reversal by IL-2. Thus, the prevention and reversal of anergy are not necessarily linked to the cell cycle but rather to an alternate rapamycin inhibitable pathway of IL-2 signaling.


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

CSA (Calbiochem, Cambridge, MA) and rapamycin (a generous gift of Dr. S. Sehgal, Wyeth-Ayerst, Princeton, NJ) were dissolved in ethanol and then added to the cultures at the indicated doses. Sanglifehrin A (a generous gift of Dr. R. Sedrani, Novartis, Switzerland) was dissolved in DMSO. For all drugs, preliminary studies were performed with vehicle alone to determine that they did not have an effect on cell viability or function.

Cell culture

All experiments were performed using A.E7, a CD4+ Th1 clone specific for the pigeon cytochrome c (PCC) peptide 81-104, which was grown and maintained as previously described (19). In general, cells were stimulated for 48 h with whole PCC and irradiated (3000 rad) B10.A splenocytes as a source of APCs. The cells were next expanded 20:1 in 10 U/ml rIL-2 and after a minimum of 10 days in culture, when the cells were rested, the live cells were isolated from a Ficoll gradient and used. Anergy induction was achieved by overnight incubation of 10 x 106 A.E7 cells in 6-well plate that had previously been coated with anti-CD3 (2C11; BD PharMingen, San Diego, CA) at a concentration of 3 µg/ml. Some cultures were also supplemented with ascitic fluid containing the anti-CD28 mAb 37.51 (20) (a kind gift from Dr. J. Allison, University of California, Berkeley, CA) at a final dilution of 1/1000. In experiments in which anergy was reversed, cells were anergized overnight as described above. Next they were washed and cultured for 7 days in either medium alone or IL-2 (100 U/ml) in the presence of rapamycin (1 µM), SFA (1 µM), or both (1 µM each). The cells were then harvested, washed extensively, and then rechallenged. Note, there were no differences in viability between the culture conditions as assessed by trypan blue exclusion.

Cell cycle analysis

A.E7 T cells were incubated with irradiated APCs, without peptide or with 5 µM in the presence of rapamycin (1 µM) or SFA (5 µM) for 24 h. The cells were then ficolled, washed, pelleted, and frozen at −80°C until analysis. At the time of analysis, pellets were suspended in a buffer containing sucrose and trisodium citrate. Samples were then incubated for 10 min consecutively with trypsin/Nonidet P-40/spermine tetrahydrochloride, trypsin inhibitor/RNase/propidium iodide (PI) as described (21). PI and forward light scattering were detected by using a FACScan flow cytometer.

Functional assays

T cells were assessed for their ability to proliferate to PCC by adding 4 x 104 A.E7 cells to 50 x 104 B10.A-irradiated splenocytes (3000 rad) and increasing doses of PCC in 96-well plates in triplicate. After 48 h of culture, the cells were pulsed with [3H]thymidine and harvested 16 h later. Proliferation was evaluated by thymidine incorporation which was determined using a Betaplate reader. For cytokine production, 200 x 103 A.E7 cells were stimulated overnight in 96-well plates that had been coated with 3 µg/ml anti-CD3 in the presence of 1/1000 soluble anti-CD28. Supernatant fluid was collected and assessed for IL-2 production or MIP-1{alpha} production by ELISA (Endogen, Rockford, IL.). For each sample, multiple dilutions of the supernatant fluid were assayed and the concentration was determined based upon the dilution that best fit the most linear aspect of the standard curve.

Western blot analysis

Cytoplasmic extracts were made by lysing equal numbers of cells in a lysis buffer containing 50 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 0.5% Nonidet P-40, 5 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl, and 1x protease inhibitor mixture (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). PAGE with a 10% gel was performed and the samples were then transferred to nitrocellulose. Western blot analysis was performed using 1 µg/ml anti-cyclin A (Ab-3; Calbiochem) or anti-4EBP-1 (Upstate Biotechnology, Lake Placid, NY). The secondary Ab consisted of an alkaline-phosphatase labeled anti-rabbit Ab (Sigma-Aldrich) (1:5000).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Both rapamycin and SFA inhibit T cell proliferation in G1

The initial studies demonstrating the ability of SFA to inhibit proliferation were performed on immortalized T cell lines (15, 16). As such, we first wanted to confirm that SFA inhibits T cell proliferation in nonimmortalized CD4+ TH1 clones (A.E7 T cell clone). A.E7 T cells were cultured in IL-2 in the presence of increasing amounts of SFA and assayed for proliferation in a thymidine uptake assay. As seen in Fig. 1A, consistent with previously published results, SFA inhibited IL-2-induced proliferation in a dose dependent fashion. Importantly, the ability of SFA to inhibit proliferation was not secondary to nonspecific death as the percent of viable cells was equal in both the treated and untreated cells (data not shown). It has been reported that T cell proliferation induced by Ag receptor engagement can occur via IL-2- dependent and IL-2-independent pathways (22). A.E7 T cells were thus stimulated with plate-bound anti-CD3 and soluble anti-CD28 in the presence of increasing amounts of CSA, rapamycin, and SFA (Fig. 1B). As expected, CSA and rapamycin inhibited T cell proliferation. In addition, SFA inhibited proliferation with equivalent potency. These data suggest that SFA can block proliferation in CD4+ T cells in response to both exogenous IL-2 and direct stimulation through the TCR in the presence of costimulation.



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1. SFA inhibits CD4+ T cell proliferation to both exogenous IL-2 and signal 1 plus 2. A, A.E7 T cell clones were cultured with exogenous IL-2 (50 U/ml) in the presence of increasing amounts of SFA for 48 h. The cells were pulsed with [3H]thymidine for an additional 16 h and then harvested. B, A.E7 T cells were stimulated with plate-bound anti-CD3 plus soluble anti-CD28 (signal 1 plus 2) for 24 h in the presence of increasing amounts of CSA, rapamycin (Rapa), or SFA. The cells were pulsed with [3H]thymidine for an additional 16 h and then harvested. These data are representative of more than three separate experiments.

 
Previous reports have demonstrated the ability of SFA to block T cell proliferation in G1 of the cell cycle (15). To insure that such was the case for nonimmortalized CD4+ T cells, cell cycle analysis was performed on cells activated in the presence of either rapamycin or SFA. As seen in Fig. 2, mock-stimulated cells are 93% in G1 and 0% in S phase, while upon stimulation, only 65% of the cell are in G1 and 18% are in S phase. The addition of rapamycin results in 92% of the cells in G1 with 3% in S phase. Likewise, the addition of SFA results in 91% of the cells in G1 with 4% in S phase. These data demonstrate that, as is the case with rapamycin, SFA inhibits T cell proliferation by promoting G1 arrest.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2. SFA inhibits CD4+ T cell proliferation in G1. A.E7 T cell clones were cultured with irradiated APCs (B10.A splenocytes) without peptide (mock) or with peptide (stimulated) in the presence of rapamycin (Rapa) or SFA for 24 h. The cells were harvested, pelleted, and frozen. Cell cycle was determined by FACS analysis of PI staining of intact nuclei. These data are representative of three separate experiments.

 
SFA inhibits TCR-induced cytokine and chemokine production

Thus far, we have been able to demonstrate that SFA is able to inhibit proliferation of CD4+ T cells both in response to exogenous IL-2 and TCR stimulation in the presence of costimulation. Next we wanted to determine the effect of SFA on TCR-induced cytokine production. A.E7 T cells were stimulated overnight by plate-bound anti-CD3 and soluble anti-CD28 in the presence of CSA, rapamycin, or SFA. As seen in Fig. 3A, cells stimulated with anti-CD3 alone (signal 1) fail to produce IL-2, while the addition of costimulation leads to IL-2 production. Furthermore, CSA is able to completely abolish IL-2 production at a dose as low as 200 nM, while rapamycin demonstrates no inhibitory effects. Interestingly, as seen in Fig. 3A, SFA was able to inhibit IL-2 production. These findings were surprising because previous reports using Jurkat T cells suggested that SFA inhibited proliferation independent of inhibiting TCR-induced cytokine production (15, 16). Because, IL-2 production is dependent on costimulation, it was possible that the ability of SFA to inhibit IL-2 was via the inhibition of anti-CD28 signaling. To address this question we examined the ability of SFA to inhibit MIP-1{alpha} production. In contrast to IL-2, as shown in Fig. 3B, MIP-1{alpha} levels are equivalent in the supernatant fluid derived from cells stimulated with anti-CD3 alone (signal 1) or anti-CD3 + anti CD28 (signal 1 plus 2). Nonetheless, SFA is able to inhibit the production of MIP-1{alpha} in the activated A.E7 cells. These data suggest that SFA is able to inhibit TCR-induced cytokine and chemokine production as well as proliferation.



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3. SFA inhibits TCR-induced IL-2 and MIP-1{alpha} production. A.E7 T cell clones were stimulated overnight with anti-TCR alone (signal 1) or anti-TCR plus soluble anti-CD28 (signal 1 plus 2) in the presence of CSA, rapamycin (Rapa), or SFA. Supernatant fluid was collected and assayed for IL-2 (A) or MIP-1{alpha} (B) by ELISA. These data are representative of more than three separate experiments

 
The effect of SFA on the induction and reversal of anergy

Previously, our group and others have been able to demonstrate the induction of anergy when the TCR is engaged in the absence of cell cycle progression (7, 9, 10, 11). In particular, we have shown that stimulation with signal 1 plus 2 plus rapamycin (which blocks proliferation at G1) induces anergy, while stimulation with signal 1 plus 2 plus hydroxyurea (which blocks proliferation in S phase) does not induce anergy (9). This led us to hypothesize that the biochemical events that occur between G1 and S phase are responsible for anergy induction. To test this hypothesis, a series of experiments were performed examining the effect of SFA (which also blocks proliferation in G1 but by a different mechanism than rapamycin) on the induction of anergy.

Given the fact that both CSA and SFA block TCR-induced activation, we first wanted to determine the effect of SFA on TCR-induced anergy. A.E7 T cells were stimulated overnight with signal 1 plus 2 to induce full activation or signal 1 alone (anergy) to induce anergy in the presence or absence of SFA. The cells were then harvested washed extensively to remove Abs and drugs, and then rested for 7 days in fresh medium. Next, the cells were rechallenged with APC plus peptide and proliferation was measured to determine whether they were anergic. Importantly, SFA is only present during the overnight "induction" period and not during the rest period in fresh medium or rechallenge. As seen in Fig. 4, cells initially stimulated with signal 1 plus 2 proliferate to APC plus peptide upon rechallenge, while cells initially stimulated with signal 1 alone are hypoproliferative upon rechallenge (they are anergic). The addition of SFA to the cells stimulated with signal 1 alone did not prevent the induction of anergy in that they were still hypoproliferative upon rechallenge. These data suggest that even though SFA binds to cyclophilin and can inhibit TCR-induced cytokine production it does not inhibit the TCR-induced pathways necessary for the induction of anergy. Alternatively, the presence of SFA during the initial stimulation with signal 1 plus 2 did not promote anergy. Thus, even though SFA inhibits T cell proliferation at G1 unlike rapamycin it does not promote the induction of anergy when the TCR is engaged in the presence of costimulation.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4. SFA neither inhibits signal 1-induced anergy, nor promotes anergy in the presence of costimulation (signal 1 plus 2). Our in vitro model of tolerance follows the following experimental design: Induction overnight->rest 5–10 days->rechallenge, overnight and assay. For induction, A.E7 T cells were initially stimulated overnight with plate-bound anti-CD3 to induce anergy (An) or anti-CD3 plus anti-CD28 (signal 1 plus 2) in the presence or absence of SFA. Next, the cells were extensively washed and rested in fresh medium for 7 days. The cells were rechallenged with APC and increasing amounts of PCC for 48 h, pulsed with [3H]thymidine for an additional 16 h, and then assayed for proliferation. The figure depicts proliferation upon rechallenge. Note, SFA is only present during the induction period and not during rechallenge. These data are representative of more than three separate experiments.

 
An important property of anergic T cells is the fact that they produce markedly decreased levels of IL-2 upon rechallenge (2). To determine the effect of SFA on the ability of anergic T cells to produce IL-2 upon rechallenge, A.E7 cells were stimulated as in Fig. 4, rested, and this time rechallenged with plate-bound anti-CD3 + soluble anti-CD28. As is shown in Fig. 5A, cells initially stimulated with signal 1 plus 2 produce IL-2 upon rechallenge, while cells initially stimulated with signal 1 alone produce less IL-2 upon rechallenge. Likewise, cells stimulated with signal 1 plus 2 plus rapamycin are also anergic upon rechallenge. However, once again, the presence of SFA during the initial induction period did not promote the induction of anergy when costimulation was present. That is, despite the fact that the TCR was activated and cell cycle progression was blocked at G1, anergy was not induced. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5B, SFA does not inhibit rapamycin -induced anergy. This is not surprising since, unlike CSA, SFA does not block TCR-induced anergy. Nonetheless, the observations in Fig. 5B emphasize the fact that SFA is able to block TCR-induced activation while leaving TCR-induced anergy induction intact.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5. SFA does not inhibit rapamycin-induced anergy. A.E7 T cells were initially stimulated overnight with plate-bound anti-CD3 plus anti-CD28 (signal 1 plus 2) in the presence or absence of SFA or rapamycin (Rapa) (Induction). Next the cells were extensively washed and rested in fresh medium for 7 days. During rechallenge, the cells were stimulated overnight with plate-bound anti-CD3 plus anti-CD28 and supernatant fluid was collected and assayed for IL-2 production by ELISA. A, T cells initially stimulated with signal 1 plus 2 plus SFA produce IL-2 upon rechallenge; they are not anergic. B, T cells stimulated with signal 1 plus 2 plus SFA plus rapamycin fail to produce IL-2 upon rechallenge; they are anergic. Note, the drugs are only present during the induction period and not during rechallenge. These data are representative of more than three separate experiments.

 
When anergic T cells are cultured in IL-2, they proliferate and in fact, their ability to respond to rechallenge progressively returns (6, 7). We have previously shown that rapamycin inhibits IL-2-induced reversal of anergy (8). Thus, we wanted to determine whether SFA (presumably by blocking IL-2-induced proliferation) could also prevent the reversal of anergy. T cells were anergized with overnight stimulation by plate-bound anti-CD3, the cells were rested for 7 days in either fresh medium, IL-2, IL-2 plus rapamycin or IL-2 plus SFA. Next the cells were extensively washed and they were rechallenged with anti-CD3 + anti-CD28. As seen in Fig. 6, the cells that were rested in medium produce minimal amounts of IL-2 upon rechallenge while the cells cultured in IL-2 have begun to regain their ability to respond. As expected, for the cells that were cultured with IL-2 plus rapamycin (in the presence or absence of SFA) anergy was not reversed. In contrast, the cells cultured in IL-2 plus SFA are regaining their ability to produce IL-2. Thus, despite the fact that SFA prevents IL-2-induced proliferation in G1, it does not prevent IL-2-induced anergy reversal.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6. SFA is unable to inhibit the reversal of anergy by IL-2. A.E7 T cells were initially stimulated overnight with plate-bound anti-CD3 (induction), washed, and then rested in medium alone (anergic), or IL-2 in the presence of either SFA, rapamycin (Rapa), or both for 7 days. The figure depicts IL-2 production by T cells stimulated overnight with plate- bound anti-CD3 plus anti-CD28 during rechallenge. Note, the drugs are only present during the 7-day rest period and not during the rechallenge. These data are representative of three separate experiments.

 
Rapamycin but not SFA inhibits mTOR activity

In as much as both rapamycin and SFA inhibit T cell proliferation in G1, it was somewhat surprising that SFA neither promoted anergy in the presence of costimulation nor prevented IL-2-induced reversal of anergy. Thus, we were interested in determining biochemical differences that might account for these observations. IL-2R engagement leads to the activation of mTOR and the subsequent progression of the cell cycle. Rapamycin blocks T cell proliferation in G1 by inhibiting mTOR (23). As such, experiments were initiated to determine whether SFA also inhibits mTOR. T cells were either mock-stimulated or stimulated with anti-CD3 plus anti-CD28 in the presence or absence of either rapamycin or SFA. The cells were next lysed and Western blot analysis was performed on cytoplasmic extracts. Stimulation overnight with signal 1 plus 2 led to the up-regulation of cyclin A (Fig. 7, lane 2). As seen in lanes 3 and 4, both rapamycin and SFA have the ability to block this up-regulation. This was expected because the up-regulation of cyclin A occurs as the cells move from G1 to S phase. Next, we used the same extracts to examine mTOR activity. 4E-BP1 is phosphorylated by mTOR and the phosphorylated protein migrates slower than its unphosphorylated form (24). Thus, the phosphorylation status of 4EBP-1 may be used as an indicator of mTOR activity. As seen in Fig. 7, stimulation with signal 1 plus 2 leads to the hyperphosphorylation of 4EBP-1 indicative of mTOR activation (as seen by an increase in the band denoted by the upper arrow). The presence of rapamycin inhibits 4EBP-1 phosphorylation consistent with the fact that rapamycin inhibits mTOR activity (note the presence of the unphosphorylated band denoted by the lower arrow). However, 4EBP-1 is hyperphosphorylated in the presence of SFA (lane 4, note the upper hyperphosphorylated band is similar to that seen in lane 2). Furthermore, unlike rapamycin, the presence of SFA does not result in the generation of the lower unphosphorylated band. These data support the notion that although both rapamycin and SFA inhibit T cell proliferation in G1 only rapamycin inhibits mTOR activity. In other words, SFA has the ability to inhibit T cell proliferation despite the fact that it does not inhibit mTOR activity.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 7. Both SFA and RAPA inhibit cyclin A up-regulation, but only rapamycin inhibits mTOR activity. Cytoplasmic extracts were derived from A.E7 T cells left unstimulated (lane 1), stimulated overnight with plate-bound anti-CD3 plus soluble anti-CD28 (lane 2), stimulated in the presence of rapamycin (lane 3), or SFA (lane 4). Western blot analysis was performed blotting for cyclin A (A) or 4EBP-1 (B). The upper two arrows highlight phosphorylated forms of 4EBP-1 indicative of mTOR activity and the lower arrow marks the unphosphorylated form indicative of decreased mTOR activity. This blot is representative of four separate experiments showing the same results.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The ultimate outcome of Ag recognition by T cells is determined by the context in which the TCR is engaged. In the inflammatory milieu, in the presence of danger signals, Ag is presented by activated APCs in the context of costimulation resulting in T cell activation (25). In contrast, when the same Ag is presented by a resting APC, tolerance in the form of peripheral T cell deletion or anergy ensues. Several groups have been able to demonstrate anergy to self Ag as a means of maintaining peripheral tolerance in vivo (26, 27, 28, 29) Furthermore, T cell anergy has been shown to be an important mechanism by which tumors can evade immune destruction (30, 31, 32, 33). More recently, there is evidence to suggest that not only are anergic T cells hyporesponsive but in some cases possess T regulatory cell function, thus enabling them to further promote tolerance (34).

The link between cell cycle arrest and anergy induction has been demonstrated both in vitro and in vivo (9, 10, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38). It has been proposed that the up-regulation of the cell cycle inhibitors, p27 and p21, in anergic cells do not merely provide markers for hyporesponsive cells, but actually play an important role in maintaining the anergic state (10, 37). In contrast, our group has proposed that TCR engagement in the absence of cell cycle progression leads to anergy independent of p27 (9). This is based on our findings that T cells anergized in the presence of CSA maintain high levels of p27 even though anergy induction is blocked and the observation that T cells from p27, p21 and double knockout mice are readily anergized (Ref. 9 ; J. D. Powell, unpublished observations). We hypothesized that the biochemical events which account for the G1->S phase transition are also responsible for promoting full T cell activation.

Surprisingly, despite the fact that SFA blocks T cell proliferation in G1, cells stimulated in the presence of SFA were not rendered anergic. In contrast, rapamycin, which also blocks proliferation in G1, has the ability to both promote anergy in the presence of costimulation and prevent the reversal of anergy by exogenous IL-2. To reconcile these differences, we propose that the decision as to whether TCR engagement will lead to productive activation or tolerance is dictated by a rapamycin -inhibitable pathway, independent of the G1->S phase cell cycle progression. Such a model is consistent with the recent observations of Colombetti et al. (39). Although our data demonstrate that T cells blocked in G1 can still fully respond upon rechallenge, this group has demonstrated that T cell anergy can be maintained even in proliferating cells. They conclude that the reversal of anergy requires an IL-2 dependent, rapamycin -sensitive pathway that is independent of cell cycle progression (39). Indeed, we would propose that the PI-3-like kinase mTOR itself plays a central role in determining the decision between activation and tolerance. In many cell types, mTOR regulates cell size and proliferation by integrating cues from the environment in terms of the availability of nutrients (40). Similarly, in T cells, mTOR kinase might regulate T cell activation by integrating cues from the environment in terms of the presence or absence of danger.

Our data demonstrate the ability of SFA to block T cell proliferation in nonimmortalized CD4+ T cells. In addition, we demonstrate that SFA also has the ability to inhibit TCR-induced cytokine and chemokine production. These latter observations are in contrast to two other studies that concluded that SFA blocks proliferation independent of cytokine production (15, 16). Importantly, these other reports based their conclusions on experiments involving the immortalized Jurkat T cell line. In addition, PMA was used as a stimulus that is able to activate T cells in a manner that bypasses the necessity for TCR engagement. In contrast, our studies were performed using nonimmortalized, Ag-specific CD4+ T cell clones stimulated through the TCR in the presence of costimulation. The precise mechanism by which SFA mediates this effect is not clear. Importantly, this does not appear to be a nonspecific effect in that although SFA inhibited TCR-induced IL-2 and MIP-1{alpha} production, TCR-induced anergy remained intact. This is consistent with the findings that although SFA was originally defined as a ligand for cyclophilin, it does not block calcineurin activity (18). Recently, Zhang et al. (41) have shown that SFA is able to activate p53 at the level of transcription. In this regard, p53 has been shown to have the ability to repress IL-2 production in activated T cells (42). Thus, it is possible that SFA-mediated inhibition of IL-2 production is by a p53-dependent mechanism.

In addition to blocking T cell activation, SFA has recently been shown to potently inhibit the production of IL-12 by dendritic cells (43). In as much as dendritic cells are the most potent APCs, such observations make SFA a potentially useful immunosuppressive agent. Our observations concerning the effects of SFA on T cell activation and tolerance also have important implications for the potential use of this novel agent clinically. The fact that unlike CSA and FK506, SFA has the ability to block cytokine production without preventing the induction of tolerance suggests a potential role for SFA in post transplant immunosuppressive regimens. Also, the fact that SFA and rapamycin work by different mechanisms and SFA does not inhibit rapamycin -induced tolerance suggests that the combination of these two drugs might be effective. In this regard, in addition to preventing acute rejection the combination of SFA plus rapamycin might serve to promote long-term tolerance in the absence of long-term immunosuppression.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Dr. Jun Lui and Dr. Gerhardt Zenke for reading this manuscript and their insightful suggestions.


   Footnotes
 
1 This work was supported by 1R01CA098109-1 and a V Foundation Grant. Back

2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Jonathan D. Powell, Division of Immunology and Hematopoiesis, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The Bunting-Blaustein Cancer Research Building, Room 443, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD 21231. E-mail address: poweljo{at}jhmi.edu Back

3 Abbreviations used in this paper: CSA, cyclosporin A; SFA, sanglifehrin A; PCC, pigeon cytochrome c; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; PI, propidium iodide. Back

Received for publication November 5, 2003. Accepted for publication February 5, 2004.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Mueller, D. L., M. K. Jenkins. 1995. Molecular mechanisms underlying functional T-cell unresponsiveness. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 7:375.[Medline]
  2. Powell, J. D., J. A. Ragheb, S. Kitagawa-Sakakida, R. H. Schwartz. 1998. Molecular regulation of interleukin-2 expression by CD28 co-stimulation and anergy. Immunol. Rev. 165:287.[Medline]
  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. 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]
  5. Jenkins, M. K.. 1992. The role of cell division in the induction of clonal anergy. Immunol. Today. 13:69.[Medline]
  6. Beverly, B., S. M. Kang, M. J. Lenardo, R. H. Schwartz. 1992. Reversal of in vitro T cell clonal anergy by IL-2 stimulation. Int. Immunol. 4:661.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. DeSilva, D. R., K. B. Urdahl, M. K. Jenkins. 1991. Clonal anergy is induced in vitro by T cell receptor occupancy in the absence of proliferation. J. Immunol. 147:3261.[Abstract]
  8. Powell, J. D., C. G. Lerner, R. H. Schwartz. 1999. Inhibition of cell cycle progression by rapamycin induces T cell clonal anergy even in the presence of costimulation. J. Immunol. 162:2775.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Powell, J. D., D. Bruniquel, R. H. Schwartz. 2001. TCR engagement in the absence of cell cycle progression leads to T cell anergy independent of p27Kip1. Eur. J. Immunol. 31:3737.[Medline]
  10. Boussiotis, V. A., G. J. Freeman, P. A. Taylor, A. Berezovskaya, I. Grass, B. R. Blazar, L. M. Nadler. 2000. p27kip1 functions as an anergy factor inhibiting interleukin 2 transcription and clonal expansion of alloreactive human and mouse helper T lymphocytes. Nat. Med. 6:290.[Medline]
  11. Gilbert, K. M., W. O. Weigle. 1993. Th1 cell anergy and blockade in G1a phase of the cell cycle. J. Immunol. 151:1245.[Abstract]
  12. Bierer, B. E., G. Hollander, D. Fruman, S. J. Burakoff. 1993. Cyclosporin A and FK506: molecular mechanisms of immunosuppression and probes for transplantation biology. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 5:763.[Medline]
  13. Macian, F., F. Garcia-Cozar, S. H. Im, H. F. Horton, M. C. Byrne, A. Rao. 2002. Transcriptional mechanisms underlying lymphocyte tolerance. Cell 109:719.[Medline]
  14. Abraham, R. T., G. J. Wiederrecht. 1996. Immunopharmacology of rapamycin. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 14:483.[Medline]
  15. Zhang, L. H., J. O. Liu. 2001. Sanglifehrin A, a novel cyclophilin-binding immunosuppressant, inhibits IL-2-dependent T cell proliferation at the G1 phase of the cell cycle. J. Immunol. 166:5611.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Zenke, G., U. Strittmatter, S. Fuchs, V. F. Quesniaux, V. Brinkmann, W. Schuler, M. Zurini, A. Enz, A. Billich, J. J. Sanglier, T. Fehr. 2001. Sanglifehrin A, a novel cyclophilin-binding compound showing immunosuppressive activity with a new mechanism of action. J. Immunol. 166:7165.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Sanglier, J. J., V. Quesniaux, T. Fehr, H. Hofmann, M. Mahnke, K. Memmert, W. Schuler, G. Zenke, L. Gschwind, C. Maurer, W. Schilling. 1999. Sanglifehrins A, B, C, and D, novel cyclophilin-binding compounds isolated from Streptomyces sp. A92-308110. I. Taxonomy, fermentation, isolation and biological activity. J. Antibiot. 52:466.[Medline]
  18. Fehr, T., J. Kallen, L. Oberer, J. J. Sanglier, W. Schilling. 1999. Sanglifehrins A, B, C and D, novel cyclophilin-binding compounds isolated from Streptomyces sp. A92-308110. II. Structure elucidation, stereochemistry and physico-chemical properties. J. Antibiot. 52:474.[Medline]
  19. Beverly, B., K. Brorson, S. Umlauf, R. H. Schwartz. 1993. Technology to study gene transcription in normal T lymphocyte clones. K. Adolph, ed. Methods in Molecular Genetics 331. Academic Press, Orlando.
  20. Gross, J. A., T. St. John, J. P. Allison. 1990. The murine homologue of the T lymphocyte antigen CD28: molecular cloning and cell surface expression. J. Immunol. 144:3201.[Abstract]
  21. Gardner, L. B., Q. Li, M. S. Park, W. M. Flanagan, G. L. Semenza, C. V. Dang. 2001. Hypoxia inhibits G1/S transition through regulation of p27 expression. J. Biol. Chem. 276:7919.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Appleman, L. J., A. Berezovskaya, I. Grass, V. A. Boussiotis. 2000. CD28 costimulation mediates T cell expansion via IL-2-independent and IL-2-dependent regulation of cell cycle progression. J. Immunol. 164:144.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Abraham, R. T.. 1998. Mammalian target of rapamycin: immunosuppressive drugs uncover a novel pathway of cytokine receptor signaling. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 10:330.[Medline]
  24. Peterson, R. T., P. A. Beal, M. J. Comb, S. L. Schreiber. 2000. FKBP12-rapamycin-associated protein (FRAP) autophosphorylates at serine 2481 under translationally repressive conditions. J. Biol. Chem. 275:7416.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Matzinger, P.. 2002. The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science 296:301.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. 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]
  27. Adler, A. J., C. T. Huang, G. S. Yochum, D. W. Marsh, D. M. Pardoll. 2000. In vivo CD4+ T cell tolerance induction versus priming is independent of the rate and number of cell divisions. J. Immunol. 164:649.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Rocha, B., A. Grandien, A. A. Freitas. 1995. Anergy and exhaustion are independent mechanisms of peripheral T cell tolerance. J. Exp. Med. 181:993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Hammerling, G. J., G. Schonrich, F. Momburg, N. Auphan, M. Malissen, B. Malissen, A. M. Schmitt-Verhulst, B. Arnold. 1991. Non-deletional mechanisms of peripheral and central tolerance: studies with transgenic mice with tissue-specific expression of a foreign MHC class I antigen. Immunol. Rev. 122:47.[Medline]
  30. Staveley-O’Carroll, K., E. Sotomayor, J. Montgomery, I. Borrello, L. Hwang, S. Fein, D. Pardoll, H. Levitsky. 1998. Induction of antigen-specific T cell anergy: an early event in the course of tumor progression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:1178.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. 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]
  32. Reilly, R. T., M. B. Gottlieb, A. M. Ercolini, J. P. Machiels, C. E. Kane, F. I. Okoye, W. J. Muller, K. H. Dixon, E. M. Jaffee. 2000. HER-2/neu is a tumor rejection target in tolerized HER-2/neu transgenic mice. Cancer Res. 60:3569.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Ye, X., J. McCarrick, L. Jewett, B. B. Knowles. 1994. Timely immunization subverts the development of peripheral nonresponsiveness and suppresses tumor development in simian virus 40 tumor antigen-transgenic mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:3916.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Chai, J. G., J. Y. Tsang, R. Lechler, E. Simpson, J. Dyson, D. Scott. 2002. CD4+CD25+ T cells as immunoregulatory T cells in vitro. Eur. J. Immunol. 32:2365.[Medline]
  35. 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]
  36. Wells, A. D., M. C. Walsh, J. A. Bluestone, L. A. Turka. 2001. Signaling through CD28 and CTLA-4 controls two distinct forms of T cell anergy. J. Clin. Invest. 108:895.[Medline]
  37. Jackson, S. K., A. DeLoose, K. M. Gilbert. 2001. Induction of anergy in Th1 cells associated with increased levels of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors p21Cip1 and p27Kip1. J. Immunol. 166:952.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Vanasek, T. L., A. Khoruts, T. Zell, D. L. Mueller. 2001. Antagonistic roles for CTLA-4 and the mammalian target of rapamycin in the regulation of clonal anergy: enhanced cell cycle progression promotes recall antigen responsiveness. J. Immunol. 167:5636.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Colombetti, S., F. Benigni, V. Basso, A. Mondino. 2002. Clonal anergy is maintained independently of T cell proliferation. J. Immunol. 169:6178.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Kim, D. H., D. D. Sarbassov, S. M. Ali, J. E. King, R. R. Latek, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, D. M. Sabatini. 2002. mTOR interacts with raptor to form a nutrient-sensitive complex that signals to the cell growth machinery. Cell 110:163.[Medline]
  41. Zhang, L. H., H. D. Youn, J. O. Liu. 2001. Inhibition of cell cycle progression by the novel cyclophilin ligand sanglifehrin A is mediated through the NF-{kappa}B-dependent activation of p53. J. Biol. Chem. 276:43534.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Chaudhry, S., W. J. Freebern, J. L. Smith, W. G. Butscher, C. M. Haggerty, K. Gardner. 2002. Cross-regulation of T cell growth factor expression by p53 and the Tax oncogene. J. Immunol. 169:6767.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Steinschulte, C., T. Taner, A. W. Thomson, G. Bein, H. Hackstein. 2003. Sanglifehrin A, a novel cyclophilin-binding immunosuppressant blocks bioactive IL-12 production by human dendritic cells. J. Immunol. 171:542.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
Y. Zheng, G. M. Delgoffe, C. F. Meyer, W. Chan, and J. D. Powell
Anergic T Cells Are Metabolically Anergic
J. Immunol., November 15, 2009; 183(10): 6095 - 6101.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
Y. Zheng, S. L. Collins, M. A. Lutz, A. N. Allen, T. P. Kole, P. E. Zarek, and J. D. Powell
A Role for Mammalian Target of Rapamycin in Regulating T Cell Activation versus Anergy
J. Immunol., February 15, 2007; 178(4): 2163 - 2170.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J. Kallen, R. Sedrani, G. Zenke, and J. Wagner
Structure of Human Cyclophilin A in Complex with the Novel Immunosuppressant Sanglifehrin A at 1.6 A Resolution
J. Biol. Chem., June 10, 2005; 280(23): 21965 - 21971.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
D. W. Smith and C. Nagler-Anderson
Preventing Intolerance: The Induction of Nonresponsiveness to Dietary and Microbial Antigens in the Intestinal Mucosa
J. Immunol., April 1, 2005; 174(7): 3851 - 3857.
[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
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Allen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Powell, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Allen, A.
Right arrow Articles by Powell, J. D.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS