|
|
||||||||
CUTTING EDGE |
,
,

* Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology,
Department of Microbiology, and
Environmental Health Sciences Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331; and
AVI Biopharma, Corvallis, OR 97333
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Extensive studies in laboratory rodents have shown that a single treatment with TCDD in the low microgram per kilogram range induces profound suppression of Ab- and cell-mediated immune responses and alters host resistance to many diseases (6). Human exposure to TCDD and other dioxin-like compounds has also been linked to altered immune function, particularly when exposure occurs during fetal/neonatal development (7, 8). Although most cells of the immune system express AhR, adult AhR/ mice have no reported defects in immune development or immune responsiveness (9). In contrast, AhR/ mice are highly resistant to the immune suppression associated with exposure to TCDD.
The underlying cellular mechanisms that drive AhR-dependent immune suppression have not been elucidated. Recent studies from our laboratory have shown that expression of AhR in both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells is required for TCDD to fully suppress an allospecific CTL response generated in an acute graft-vs-host (GVH) model (10). In this study, we used the same model to determine whether TCDD alters the activation of donor CD4+ cells and to assess the dependence of the effects observed on the presence of AhR in the donor T cells. Treatment of F1 hosts with TCDD resulted in a significant increase in the percentage of donor CD4+ cells that expressed high levels of CD25, low levels of CD62L as well as glucocorticoid-induced TNFR (GITR) and CTLA-4, a phenotype associated with some types of regulatory T cells (Treg) (11). Donor CD4+CD25+ cells purified from the spleen of F1 mice expressed functional characteristics associated with Treg, namely, unresponsiveness to stimulation with anti-CD3 unless exogenous IL-2 was also provided and a potent ability to suppress the proliferation of CD4+CD25 cells. The development of the CD4+CD25+ population was dependent on the presence of AhR in the donor T cells, but not on the presence of preexisting CD4+CD25+ cells. Taken together, these results suggest a novel role for AhR in the generation of Treg and provide a new perspective on the mechanisms that underlie the profound immune suppression induced by exposure to TCDD.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
C57BL/6J (B6) mice (H-2b, Thy1.2) and B6D2F1/J (F1) mice (H-2b/d, Thy1.2) were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. B6.PL-Thy1a/CyJ (Thy1.1) mice and B6.129-AhRtm1Bra/J (AhR/) mice (originally purchased from The Jackson Laboratory) were bred and maintained in our specific pathogen-free animal facility at Oregon State University. B6 mice purchased from The Jackson Laboratory were used as wild-type controls for AhR/ mice. All animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. F1 mice were dosed orally with vehicle or 15 µg TCDD/kg body weight 1 day before the injection of donor B6 T cells as previously described (10). This dose of TCDD is not overtly toxic but effectively suppresses the GVH CTL response.
Preparation of donor T cells
T cells were purified from pooled B6 spleens by magnetic bead sorting (Pan T isolation kit; Miltenyi Biotec). The purity of the T cells was
90% and viability was >95%. F1 host mice were injected i.v. with 2 x 107 donor T cells. In some experiments, cell division was assessed by labeling the donor T cells with 5 µM CFSE (Molecular Probes) before injection into F1 hosts (12).
Flow cytometry
Spleen cells were stained with anti-H-2Dd and anti-CD4 Ab to identify the donor CD4+ T cells (Fig. 1A) along with Ab to the following markers: CD62L, CD25, CD28, (BD Pharmingen), and GITR (R&D Systems). Following surface staining, the cells were fixed and permeabilized (Cytofix/Cytoperm Plus kit; BD Pharmingen) and stained with anti-CTLA-4 (BD Pharmingen). Isotype-matched fluorochrome-conjugated Ab were used as controls for nonspecific fluorescence. After gating on live spleen cells, listmode data on 5,00010,000 donor CD4+ T cells were collected using either a Coulter XL or FC500 flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter). All data analyses, including software compensation, were performed using WinList software (Verity Software House).
|
The ability of donor-derived or naive CD4+CD25+ cells to proliferate and to suppress the proliferation of CFSE-labeled naive CD4+CD25 cells was assessed as described previously (13). Donor Thy1.1+ cells were enriched from pooled spleens of six to seven TCDD-treated F1 mice on day 2 by magnetic bead sorting; the CD4+CD25+ fraction was further enriched using a MoFlo high-speed cell sorter (DakoCytomation). Pooled spleen cells from three naive B6 mice were sorted into CD4, CD4+CD25, and CD4+CD25+ fractions using a CD4+CD25+ Treg isolation kit (Miltenyi Biotec). The CD4 cells were irradiated (3000 rad) and used as accessory cells. The CD4+CD25 cells were labeled with 2 µM CFSE before culturing with anti-CD3 (BD Pharmingen) and accessory cells; donor-derived or naive CD4+CD25+ cells were added to some wells. After 72 h, CFSE dilution was measured by flow cytometry.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (SAS Institute). Comparisons between means were made using the least-significance difference multiple comparison t test, with p < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Previous studies have shown that treatment with TCDD does not alter the initial expansion of activated CD4+ T cells in the spleen of Ag-challenged mice but promotes a premature decline in their number before effector cell development (12, 14, 15). TCDD produced a similar effect on the expansion and contraction of donor CD4+ cells following their transfer into F1 mice (Fig. 1D). When the phenotype of donor CD4+ cells was examined, treatment with TCDD was associated with a significant increase in the percentage of CD62Llow cells (Fig. 1B). By day 2, 80% of the donor CD4+ cells were CD62Llow, and this phenotype was maintained through day 5 (Fig. 1E). At the same time, treatment with TCDD led to a transient increase in the percentage of donor CD4+ cells that expressed CD25 (Fig. 1, C and F). On day 2, the percentage of donor CD4+CD25+ cells in TCDD-treated mice was consistently 2-fold greater than the percentage in vehicle-treated mice. The percentage of CD4+CD25+ cells declined on day 3 and thereafter in both treatment groups.
Division-dependent changes in expression of CD62L and CD25 are enhanced by TCDD
The expression levels of CD62L and CD25 on newly activated CD4+ T cells decreases and increases, respectively, with progressive rounds of cell division (16, 17). We injected CFSE-labeled donor T cells to determine whether treatment with TCDD altered this relationship. As previously observed, on day 2, TCDD induced a significant increase in the percentage of donor CD4+ cells that were CD62Llow (vehicle, 32.3 ± 1.3%; TCDD, 56.5 ± 1.6%; p < 0.0001) and CD25+ (vehicle, 16.6 ± 0.9%; TCDD, 45.7 ± 1.1%; p < 0.0001). Based on dilution of CFSE, no division of the donor CD4+ cells was apparent 1 day after transfer into vehicle- or TCDD-treated F1 mice (data not shown). On day 2, >80% of the donor CD4+ cells from both treatment groups had undergone one to four cell divisions, with no observable effect of TCDD (Fig. 2A). Fig. 2, B and C, show the expression of CD62Llow and CD25+ on donor CD4+ cells in relation to the number of cell divisions. For both treatment groups, at least two rounds of cell division were required before changes in expression level of CD62L or CD25 were observed. TCDD did not influence the overall kinetics, but augmented the degree of down-regulation of CD62L and up-regulation of CD25 within each cell division. As early as the second cell division, the mean channel fluorescence (MCF) of CD62Llow was significantly lower on donor CD4+ cells from TCDD-treated mice as compared with vehicle-treated mice (Fig. 2B, right panel). Likewise, after three divisions, the MCF of CD25+ on donor CD4+ cells from TCDD-treated mice was severalfold higher (Fig. 2C, right panel). Similar to the findings of Maury et al. (18), the expression of CD4 increased on donor T cells with progressive rounds of cell division; however, this increase was unaffected by TCDD (Fig. 2D).
|
In the GVH model, both the donor T cells and many types of F1 host cells express AhR. To determine whether AhR expression in the donor T cells was required for the altered phenotype induced by TCDD, T cells from AhR/ mice were examined. Fig. 3A shows the coexpression of CD25 and CD62L on AhR+/+ or AhR/ donor CD4+ cells. As expected, when donor T cells expressed AhR, TCDD induced a significant increase in the percentage of donor CD4+ cells expressing CD25+CD62Llow (vehicle = 16.9 ± 1.6; TCDD = 33.0 ± 1.3, p = 0.0001; Fig. 3A, left panels). A concomitant decrease occurred in the CD25CD62Lhigh population, while the CD25CD62Llow population was unchanged. When the donor T cells did not express AhR, TCDD did not alter the coexpression of CD62L and CD25 (Fig. 3A, right panels).
|
The CD25+CD62Llow phenotype has generally been attributed to activated CD4+ T cells, suggesting that ligation of AhR by TCDD could be promoting CD25-mediated activation-induced cell death (19, 20). However, the same phenotype defines some CD4+CD25+ Treg that have a potent ability to suppress allograft responses (21, 22). Therefore, we examined additional markers of activated T cells and Treg to characterize the donor CD4+ cells. The histograms in Fig. 3, BD, show the coexpression of CD25 and CD28, GITR, or CTLA-4 on donor CD4+ cells from AhR+/+ or AhR/ mice. Treatment with TCDD led to a 2-fold increase in the percentage of double-positive cells for all three markers. For CD28, a concomitant decrease occurred in the CD25CD28+ cells (Fig. 3B). For GITR and CTLA-4, a concomitant decrease occurred in the double-negative population (Fig. 3, C and D). These changes in donor T cell phenotype occurred only if the donor T cells expressed AhR. Fig. 3E shows that AhR activation doubled the population of CD4+CD25+ cells that expressed GITR and CTLA-4 from 31.6 ± 1.7% in vehicle-treated mice to 58.0 ± 2.0% in TCDD-treated mice (p < 0.0001). This doubling was dependent on AhR in the donor T cells since no increase was observed following treatment with TCDD if they did not express AhR. Taken together, these results suggest that activation of AhR in T cells may be promoting the development of CD4+CD25+ Treg from unactivated donor CD4+ cells (CD25CD62LhighCD28+GITRCTLA-4).
Depletion of CD25+ cells from the donor T cell inoculum does not influence the TCDD-dependent increase of donor CD4+CD25+ cells in F1 mice
The increase in donor CD4+CD25+ cells in TCDD-treated mice could reflect the expansion of natural CD4+CD25+ Treg, which are present in the donor T cell inoculum at a frequency of
10%. We used magnetic beads to deplete the CD25+ cells from the purified donor T cells before injection into F1 hosts. Fig. 4A shows the TCDD-induced increase in donor CD4+CD25+ cells on day 2 when undepleted donor T cells were injected (vehicle, 10.7 ± 0.6%; TCDD, 36.8 ± 1.2%; p < 0.0001). Fig. 4B shows that depletion of CD4+CD25+ cells from the donor inoculum did not impair the TCDD-induced increase in CD25+ cells (vehicle, 10.5 ± 0.6%; TCDD, 33.4 ± 1.3%; p < 0.0001). In addition, depletion of CD25+ cells did not affect the TCDD-dependent increase in the expression of CD62Llow, GITR, and CTLA-4 on the donor CD4+CD25+ cells (data not shown).
|
Treg are characterized by two functional attributes in in vitro assays: 1) anergy to stimulation with anti-CD3 and accessory cells that can be overcome by addition of exogenous IL-2 and 2) the ability to suppress the proliferative response of non-Treg stimulated with anti-CD3 and accessory cells (23). Donor CD4+CD25+ cells isolated from TCDD-treated F1 host mice on day 2 after injection failed to proliferate in response to stimulation with anti-CD3 and accessory cells (Fig. 5A). Likewise, CD4+CD25+ cells from naive mice (a natural Treg population) failed to proliferate, whereas CD4+CD25 cells from the same naive mice proliferated extensively. Addition of IL-2 led to increased proliferation in all of the cultures. As shown in Fig. 5B, donor CD4+CD25+ cells isolated from TCDD-treated F1 mice inhibited the division of CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25 cells stimulated with anti-CD3 and accessory cells. The suppressive ability of the CD4+CD25+ cells from TCDD-treated F1 mice was greater than equivalent numbers of CD4+CD25+ cells from naive mice.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
AhR-dependent generation of CD4+CD25+ Treg early in the immune response is consistent with the potent immunosuppressive effects of TCDD. Previous studies have shown that TCDD suppresses the development of allospecific CD8+ CTL activity to P815 tumor cells by reducing the number of CTL precursors that are activated early in the response (24, 25). This effect on CTL activation was lost if treatment with TCDD was delayed >3 days after the injection of P815 cells (26) and required the presence of CD4+ T cells (27). Furthermore, in an acute GVH response, suppression of allospecific CD8+ CTL activity by TCDD was dependent on the presence of AhR+/+ donor CD4+ T cells (10). This CD4-dependent suppression could reflect the development of Treg, since several studies have shown that CD4+CD25+ Treg suppress pathogenic T cell responses in GVH disease (21, 22, 28).
In recent years, several different types of Treg have been described that fall broadly into natural and adaptive categories (11). Natural Treg that derive from the thymus constitutively express CD25, CTLA-4, GITR, and CD62L, as well as the transcription factor Foxp3. In our model, depletion of the CD25+ cells from the donor inoculum before injection into TCDD-treated F1 hosts did not alter the development of the CD4+CD25+ subpopulation, suggesting that ligation of the AhR is not simply expanding the population of natural Treg. Furthermore, the level of Foxp3 mRNA was lower in donor T cells isolated from TCDD- vs vehicle-treated F1 mice on day 2, despite the fact that there were twice as many cells expressing the Treg phenotype in the TCDD group (W. R. Vorachek, N. B. Marshall, N. I. Kerkvliet, unpublished observations). Consistent with the low expression of CD62L on the CD4+CD25+ cells, it is likely that activation of the AhR is inducing an adaptive Treg population that may not depend on expression of Foxp3 (11, 29). In addition, the transient nature of the increase in expression of CD25 is not contradictory with a Treg hypothesis, since studies have shown that Treg can down-regulate CD25 while still retaining their suppressive activity (30).
One mechanism by which activation of the AhR could promote the development of Treg is by enhancing expression of the IL-2 gene. The generation and expansion of CD4+CD25+ Treg have been shown to depend on IL-2 (31, 32). Interestingly, Jeon and Esser (33) reported that the mouse IL-2 promoter contains three AhR/ARNT response elements that bind the ligand-activated AhR and induce reporter gene expression. Increased expression of the IL-2 gene was also observed in thymocytes after in vivo exposure to TCDD and in mitogen-activated spleen cells. Studies are underway to delineate the potential role of AhR-induced production of IL-2 in the development of Treg.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Disclosures |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
1 This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants P01ES00040, P30ES00210, and T32ES07060. ![]()
2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Nancy I. Kerkvliet, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, 1007 Ag and Life Science Building, Corvallis, OR 97331. E-mail address: nancy.kerkvliet{at}oregonstate.edu ![]()
3 Abbreviations used in this paper: AhR, aryl hydrocarbon receptor; TCDD, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; GVH, graft-vs-host; GITR, glucocorticoid-induced TNFR; Treg, regulatory T cell; MCF, mean channel fluorescence. ![]()
Received for publication April 26, 2005. Accepted for publication July 14, 2005.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-chain signals, and the alloimmune response. J. Immunol. 168:4382.-4390. This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. P. Hogaboam, A. J. Moore, and B. P. Lawrence The Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Affects Distinct Tissue Compartments during Ontogeny of the Immune System Toxicol. Sci., March 1, 2008; 102(1): 160 - 170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Z. Shi, N. G. Faith, Y. Nakayama, M. Suresh, H. Steinberg, and C. J. Czuprynski The Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Is Required for Optimal Resistance to Listeria monocytogenes Infection in Mice J. Immunol., November 15, 2007; 179(10): 6952 - 6962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. S. Andrew, V. Bernardo, L. A. Warnke, J. C. Davey, T. Hampton, R. A. Mason, J. E. Thorpe, M. A. Ihnat, and J. W. Hamilton Exposure to Arsenic at Levels Found in U.S. Drinking Water Modifies Expression in the Mouse Lung Toxicol. Sci., November 1, 2007; 100(1): 75 - 87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. P. Lawrence, A. D. Roberts, J. J. Neumiller, J. A. Cundiff, and D. L. Woodland Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Activation Impairs the Priming but Not the Recall of Influenza Virus-Specific CD8+ T Cells in the Lung J. Immunol., November 1, 2006; 177(9): 5819 - 5828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |