|
|
||||||||
,

* Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115;
Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115;
Department of Functional Anatomy and Neuroscience, Asahikawa Medical College, Asahikawa, Japan; and
Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-chain (CD25), and their development and function depend on the expression of transcription factor forkhead box P3 (Foxp3) (1, 4, 5). A variety of mechanisms have been reported concerning how CD4+CD25+ Tregs suppress immune responses at the molecular level. However, no single mechanism appears to account for all features of suppression, and it is likely that CD4+CD25+ Tregs may regulate immunity by more than one mechanism. In rodents and humans, suppression mediated by CD4+CD25+ Tregs in vitro is dependent on a cell-to-cell contact, but cytokine-independent mechanism (6, 7, 8). However, several in vivo studies support the role of IL-10 in Treg suppression. It has been demonstrated that IL-10 is required for the homeostatic maintenance of the T cell number by Tregs (9) and is involved in Treg-mediated suppression in murine models of transplantation, graft-vs-host disease, chronic parasite infection, colitis, and a rat model of type 1 diabetes (10). The function of TGFβ in Treg suppression is controversial (3). Failure of anti-TGFβ to abrogate in vitro suppression as well as the fact that Tregs isolated from neonatal TGFβ knockout mice exhibit normal suppressive activity indicated that the in vitro suppressive capacity of CD4+CD25+ Tregs does not require TGFβ (1, 8). Nevertheless, several lines of evidence suggested that TGFβ may not necessarily act as a soluble factor but is expressed on the surface of activated Tregs and therefore functions in a membrane-proximal manner (11, 12). In vivo, anti-TGFβ treatment abrogated Treg suppression in a mouse model of colitis (13). Furthermore, expression of a T cell-specific dominant negative form of the TGFβ receptor II elicited inflammatory bowel disease in mice (14), and the suppression of CD8+ T cells that mediate autoimmunity (15) or tumor rejection (16) by CD4+CD25+ Tregs required an intact TGFβ receptor II on the CD8+ T cells. Nonetheless, others reported that CD4+CD25+ Tregs isolated from TGFβ– mice could prevent inflammatory bowel disease in vivo (8). One possible explanation for the conflicting results regarding the contribution of TGFβ to CD4+CD25+ Treg-mediated suppression is that different subpopulations of CD4+CD25+ Tregs exist so that some can produce distinct immunosuppressive cytokines, and others can suppress solely by cell contact-dependent mechanisms.
Various T cell subpopulations, which are developmentally, phenotypically, or functionally different, have been purported to possess regulatory activity (17, 18). We have previously identified Th3 cells as TGFβ-secreting Tregs, which are preferentially generated via oral administration of autoantigens and are functionally mediated by TGFβ (19, 20). More recently, we and others have further identified TGFβ-dependent Tregs characterized by surface expression of latency-associated peptide (LAP; Refs. 21 and 22), which is the N-terminal propeptide of TGFβ precursor peptide. LAP remains noncovalently associated with TGFβ after cleavage from TGFβ precursor peptide by specific protease and forms the inactive latent TGFβ complex; it therefore contributes to the prevention of uncontrolled activation of the cognate TGFβ receptors (23, 24). CD4+LAP+ cells are active in the animal model of colitis (21, 22). Furthermore, oral administration of CD3-specific Ab suppresses experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE, an animal model for multiple sclerosis; see Ref. 25) and acts by inducing TGFβ-dependent CD4+CD25–LAP+ T cells (26). In this study, we identified and characterized a subpopulation of CD4+CD25+ Tregs that express LAP on the surface and are potent regulators of EAE (CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells). LAP-expressing CD4+CD25+ Tregs are endowed with more potent suppressive activity and function in a TGFβ-dependent manner.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Female SJL and C57BL/6 (B6) mice at 6–8 wk of age were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) TCR-transgenic (Tg; 2D2) mice were kindly provided by Dr. V. K. Kuchroo (Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) and have been described (27). Mice were kept in a conventional, specific pathogen-free facility at the Harvard Institutes of Medicine according to the animal protocol guidelines of the Committee on Animals of Harvard Medical School (Boston, MA).
Induction and assessment of EAE
Female SJL mice were immunized s.c. in the flanks with 50 µg of proteolipid protein (PLP)139–151 (HSLGKWLGHPDKF) in CFA containing 250 µg of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37RA (Difco), followed by i.p. injection of 100 ng of pertussis toxin (List Biological Laboratories). Clinical assessment of EAE was performed according to the following criteria: 0, no signs of disease; 1, loss of tone in the tail; 2, hind limb weakness or partial paralysis; 3, complete hind limb paralysis; 4, front and hind limb paralysis; 5, moribund state. In some experiments, the indicated number and sorted populations of cells were adoptively transferred i.v. 2 days before immunization. All experiments were conducted in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Harvard Medical School.
Abs and FACS analysis
CD16-CD32-specific Ab (FcBlock), fluorescein-conjugated mAbs to CD4 (GK1.5), PE-conjugated mAbs to CD4 (GK1.5), CD25 (PC61), IL-2 (JES6-5H4), IFN-
(XMG.1.2), CTLA4 (UC10-4F10-11), CD103 (M290), CD45RB (16A), CD90.1 (OX-7), CD28 (37.51), rat IgG1 isotype control (R3-34), rat IgG2b isotype control (A95-1), Armenian hamster IgG isotype control and Syrian hamster IgG isotype control, streptavidin-PE (Sav-PE), PerCP-conjugated mAbs to CD4 (RM4-5), CD90.1 (OX-7), PerCP-Cy5.5-conjugated mAbs CD25 (PC61), allophycocyanin-conjugated mAbs to CD4 (RM4-5), CD25 (PC61), streptavidin-allophycocyanin (Sav-APC), and normal mouse IgG were purchased from BD Biosciences. PE-conjugated anti-mouse glucocorticoid-induced TNFR-related gene (GITR)/TNFRSF18, affinity-purified biotinylated goat anti-LAP polyclonal Ab, recombinant human LAP, anti-TGFβ1, -2, and -3 mAbs (1D11), biotinylated anti-TGFβRI, anti-TGFβRII, biotinylated chicken anti-TGFβ Ab (a polyclonal Ab recognizes epitopes that reside in active TGFβ1), mouse anti-LAP mAb 27232.11, biotinylated normal goat IgG, and normal goat IgG were purchased from R&D Systems. Biotinylated chicken IgY, peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin, and peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H + L) were purchased from Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories. PE-conjugated anti-mouse Foxp3 (clone FJK-16s), mAbs to ICOS (C398.4A), OX40 (OX-86), PD1 (J43), Tim3 (8B.2C12), and rat IgG2a isotype control were purchased from eBioscience. Anti-actin mAb (AC-40) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Surface stainings were performed according to standard procedures at a density of 1–2 x 106 cells per 50 µl, and volumes were scaled up accordingly. Flow cytometric analysis was performed on a FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences) with the use of FlowJo software (BD Biosciences). Foxp3 staining and analysis were performed by flow cytometry using the Foxp3 staining set (clone FJK-16s; eBioscience) according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Immunization
Mice were immunized s.c. with 50 µg of peptide MOG35–55 (MEVGWYRSPFSRVVHLYRNGK) emulsified in CFA (Difco Bacto) containing 200 µg of M. tuberculosis H37RA (Difco). At the indicated time points, the animals were sacrificed, and draining lymph nodes were harvested for analysis.
Cytokine assay
All cytokines except TGFβ1 were measured by a multiplex Luminex assay (Upstate) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, cell culture supernatants were incubated with a suspension of analyte capture Ab-conjugated microspheres. After further incubation with biotinylated detection Abs and PE-conjugated streptavidin, fluorescent signal was read on a Luminex 100 system (Applied Cytometry Systems). TGFβ1 was measured by the Quantikine ELISA Kit (R&D Systems) with acidification according to the manufacturer's instruction.
Transwell assay
Transwell experiments were conducted to investigate the role of cell contact in the mechanism of suppression. Once sorted, indicated regulatory populations were cultured either in the lower chambers directly in contact with the responder CD4+CD25–LAP–cells or in the upper chambers separated from the responder cells by a 0.4-µm pore size membrane (Corning), which allows diffusion of small molecules, such as cytokines, but not of cells. Cells were stimulated with 1 µg/ml anti-CD3 in the presence of irradiated (3000 rad) syngeneic splenic APCs. The proliferation of cells from the lower chambers was measured by scintillation counting after pulsing with 1 µCi/well [3H]thymidine (1 Ci = 37 GBq) for the last 16 h of a 72-h incubation period.
CFSE labeling
For in vitro suppression assay, sorted CD4+CD25–LAP– (107 cells/ml) were incubated for 10 min at 37°C with 1 µM CFSE (Molecular Probes); for in vivo adoptive cotransfer experiments, CD25-depleted MOG TCR Tg T cells were labeled with CFSE (10 µM) at 37°C for 10 min.
Small interfering RNA (SiRNA) knockdown of TGFβ1
All SiRNA duplexes were obtained from Qiagen-Xeragon. SiRNA transfection was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. RNA from transfected cells was used for real-time PCR to validate knockdown of the target genes.
Real-time PCR
The expression of TGFβ1 was determined using specific primers and probes (Applied Biosystems). TGFβ1 expression was normalized to the expression of the housekeeping gene β-actin.
Intracellular cytokine staining
Culture cells or cells from the draining lymph nodes of immunized animals were stimulated in culture medium containing PMA (20 ng/ml; Sigma-Aldrich), ionomycin (250 ng/ml; Sigma-Aldrich), and monensin (GolgiStop, 1 µl/ml; BD Biosciences), and cultures were incubated at 37°C in a humidified 5% CO2 atmosphere for 4–6 h. Cells were harvested and incubated with 2.4G2 FcR-blocking Ab and then stained for surface markers. After staining of surface markers, cells were fixed and permeabilized using Cytofix/Cytoperm and Perm/Wash buffer (BD Biosciences) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Cells were then incubated at 4°C for 30 min with indicated Abs to cytokines and corresponding isotype controls and washed twice in Perm/Wash buffer before analysis.
Purification and adoptive transfer of cells
Pooled cells from spleens and peripheral lymph nodes (mesenteric, axillary, popliteal, inguinal, and cervical) of female SJL or B6 mice (6–10 wk) were subjected to erythrocyte lysis. After incubation with FcR-blocking Ab 2.4G2, cells were incubated with anti-CD4 microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec), and CD4+ cells were positively selected on LS MACS columns (Miltenyi Biotec), routinely achieving purities of >95%. Purified CD4+ cells then were stained with biotinylated LAP-specific Ab followed by streptavidin-PE, anti-CD25 allophycocyanin, and fluorescein-labeled anti-CD4. CD4+CD25+LAP+, CD4+CD25+LAP–, CD4+CD25–LAP+, and CD4+CD25–LAP–cells were further sorted by using a FACSAria cell sorter (BD Biosciences). The purity of each population was >98% by FACS analysis. To purify CD25-depleted MOG TCR Tg T cells, pooled cells from spleens and lymph nodes of MOG TCR Tg mice were stained with biotinylated anti-CD25 followed by streptavidin microbeads; after depletion of CD25+ cells by LD MACS column (Miltenyi Biotec), CD4+ cells in the CD25– flowthrough fraction were further purified by staining with CD4 microbeads and separated by MS or LS MACS columns (Miltenyi Biotec). Cells were injected into the lateral tail vein in a volume of 200 µl of PBS. Where indicated, cells were labeled with CFSE (Molecular Probes) by incubation for 10 min at 37°C in 10 µM CFSE in PBS, 0.1% BSA at a density of 1 x 107 cells/ml.
Proliferation assays
For suppression assays, 1 x 105 sorted CD4+CD25–LAP+, CD4+CD25+LAP+, CD4+CD25–LAP–, or CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were cultured at a 1:1 ratio with syngeneic CD4+CD25–LAP– cells. Cells were stimulated with anti-CD3 Ab (1 µg/ml) in the presence of irradiated (3000 rad) syngeneic splenic APCs in 200 µl of RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% FCS in 96-well round-bottom plates. Proliferation was measured by scintillation counting after pulsing with 1 µCi per well [3H]thymidine for the last 16 h of a 72-h incubation period.
Similar assays were performed by using CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25–LAP– responder cells, 2 x 104 sorted CD4+CD25–LAP+, CD4+CD25+LAP+, CD4+CD25–LAP–, or CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were cultured at a 1:1 ratio with CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25–LAP– cells and were stimulated with anti-CD3 and APCs. After 3 days, the proliferation of responder cells was analyzed by FACS.
In vivo neutralization of TGFβ
For in vivo neutralization of TGFβ, SJL mice were immunized with 50 µg of PLP139–151 2 days after adoptive transfer. Mice received five i.p. injections of anti-mouse TGFβ (clone 1D11; BioExpress) or isotype control on alternating days beginning 1 day post-adoptive transfer.
Immunofluorescence
Frozen sections (10 µm) were blocked for 1 h followed by incubation overnight with anti-CD4 Ab. Sections were then incubated with goat anti-rat Alexa Fluor 594 for 2 h at room temperature after being washed three times.
Immunoblot analysis
To obtain cell lysates, LAP+ and LAP– T cells sorted from pooled spleens and lymph nodes of naive SJL mice were lysed in lysis buffer supplemented with protease inhibitor mixtures (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) for 10 min on ice and centrifuged at 14,000 x g for 15 min at 4°C; and supernatants were collected. The lysates were mixed with NuPAGE lithium dodecyl sulfate sample buffer (Invitrogen), incubated at 70°C for 10 min, run in 4–12% NuPAGE Bis-Tris gel (Invitrogen), and transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Pierce Biotechnology). The blotted membrane was blocked with 1% BSA, TBS, 0.05% Tween 20; washed; and incubated with 0.2 µg/ml biotin-conjugated anti-TGFβR Abs (R&D Systems) or purified anti-mouse actin Ab (Sigma-Aldrich; clone AC-40). After being washed, the membrane was incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary reagents. Then, the membrane was developed by SuperSignal West Dura Extended Substrate (Pierce Biotechnology) and exposed to an x-ray film after being washed.
Statistical analysis
Statistical significance was assessed by the two-tailed Student t test. For in vivo EAE experiments, differences in clinical scores were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey multiple comparisons. p values of <0.05 were regarded as significant.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We and others have shown that CD4+LAP+ cells actively suppress autoimmune diseases in animal models of colitis and EAE and function in a TGFβ-dependent manner (21, 26, 28). Here we characterize the regulatory function of a small fraction of CD4+ cells that coexpress CD25 and LAP on the cell surface (CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells). Fig. 1A shows that CD4+LAP+ cells comprise two subsets, CD4+CD25–LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. These two subsets consist of
1.2% (CD25–LAP+) and <0.3% (CD25+LAP+) of CD4+ cells pooled from spleen and lymph nodes of naive SJL mice. In contrast, the fraction of CD4+CD25+LAP– cells was substantially higher (5.5%) among CD4+ cells. Because CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed CD25, we first determined whether they expressed signature Treg-associated molecules and exhibit the characteristic phenotype of Tregs.
|
Elevated expression of ICOS, OX40, PD1, and Tim3 on CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells
Costimulatory molecules expressed by Tregs are involved in their function (35) and the Tim3 pathway plays an important role in down-regulating Th1 responses (36) and facilitating the development of immunological tolerance. As shown in Fig. 1C, among the four populations examined, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed the highest levels of costimulatory molecules and Tim3. Furthermore, expression of LAP was associated with up-regulation of ICOS, PD1, and Tim3, given that both CD4+CD25–LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed higher levels of the aforementioned cell surface molecules than LAP– populations. The expression level of CD28 was similar between four populations.
CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells secrete suppressive cytokine TGFβ
To further address the function of CD4+CD25+LAP+cells, cytokine production of the four CD4+ subpopulations aforementioned was compared (Table I). The cytokine profiles for GM-CSF, IFN-
, IL-12, IL-6, and TNF-
were not significantly different between both CD4+CD25+ subpopulations (CD4+CD25+LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP–); however, CD4+CD25+LAP+ produced more IL-2, IL-10, and IL-4 than CD4+CD25+LAP– cells, and distinct from CD4+CD25+LAP– cells, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells produced TGFβ (p = 0.0017). Although the cytokine profiles for GM-CSF, IFN-
, IL-12, IL-6, and TNF-
were not significantly different between the two CD4+CD25– subsets (CD4+CD25–LAP+ and CD4+CD25–LAP–), CD4+CD25–LAP+ cells secreted significantly higher amounts of IL-10 (p = 0.0314), IL-4 (p = 0.0008), IL-5 (p = 0.0465) than CD4+CD25–LAP– cells, and unlike CD4+CD25–LAP– cells, CD4+CD25–LAP+ cells secreted TGFβ (p = 0.0054). Only the subpopulations that express LAP secreted TGFβ.
|
Because CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells had phenotypic hallmarks of Tregs, we next investigated whether they exhibited functional characteristics of Tregs in vitro. CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells were markedly anergic relative to the other three populations (Fig. 2A). Given that the four CD4+ subpopulations had different anergic properties (Fig. 2A), we compared the suppressive capacity of these cell populations in coculture assays using CFSE-labeled responder cells (CD4+CD25–LAP–). As shown in Fig. 2B, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells had the most potent in vitro suppressive activity, and the difference in suppression mediated by CD4+CD25+LAP– cells and CD4+CD25+LAP+ subsets was observed in three replicate experiments (CD4+CD25+LAP– vs CD4+CD25+LAP+: 69.3% vs 85.7%, 69.6% vs 84.7% and 70.3% vs 85.6%, p < 0.000004).
|
by responder cells. As shown in Fig. 2D, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells suppressed IFN-
production by responder cells to a greater extent than did CD4+CD25+LAP– cells (p < 0.0004). The production of IL-17 was undetectable in the in vitro assay (not shown). These results demonstrate that CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells have different in vitro suppressive properties from CD4+CD25+LAP– cells. CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells express TGFβ1 and TGFβR on the cell surface
We next determined whether CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed active TGFβ1 on the cell surface. As shown in Fig. 3A, virtually no CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were cell surface TGFβ1 (mTGFβ) positive; however,
10% of freshly isolated CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed active TGFβ1 on the cell surface. Thus, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed not only latent TGFβ1 but also active TGFβ1 on the cell surface. This observation is consistent with our finding that CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells may mediate suppression via a cell contact-dependent mechanism (Fig. 2C). When we examined whether CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed receptors for TGFβ (TGFβR) by flow cytometry analysis, we found that virtually all CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were negative for both TGFβRI and TGFβRII, whereas a large fraction of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells expressed TGFβRI and TGFβRII (Fig. 3, B and C). We then performed immunoblot analysis to determine whether LAP– cells truly do not express receptors for TGFβ. As shown in Fig. 3D, both LAP+ and LAP– populations expressed TGFβRs although LAP+ cells expressed slightly higher amounts (36%) of TGFβRII than LAP– cells in the immunoblot analysis. These results suggest that there are TGFβ receptors on the surface of LAP– cells, but they are masked and not accessible to measurement by Abs in flow cytometry analysis.
|
To investigate the function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells in vivo, we assessed the capacity of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells to suppress EAE. CD4+CD25+LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were adoptively transferred to SJL mice that were then immunized with PLP139–151 to induce EAE 2 days after adoptive transfer (Fig. 4A). As shown in Fig. 4B and Table II, adoptive transfer of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells suppressed EAE as measured by mean day of onset and mean maximal disease score. There was only a mild suppressive effect on the clinical course when CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were transferred, and the effect was not maintained. These results demonstrate that CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells potently suppress EAE and do so more efficiently than CD4+CD25+LAP– cells (p < 0.001, mean maximal scores 1.2 vs 2.5). In addition, immunofluorescence staining of spinal cords demonstrated that there was significantly reduced infiltration of CD4+ cells in the mouse group receiving CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells compared with control mice (150 vs 937 cells/mm2; p = 0.008, Fig. 4C).
|
|
production and induce Foxp3 expression of MOG TCR Tg T cells in vivo
To further elucidate the mechanism of suppression mediated by CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells in vivo, CD25-depleted, CFSE-labeled MOG TCR Tg Thy1.1+ T cells were adoptively cotransferred with CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells sorted from naive B6 mice or transferred alone into wild-type B6 (Thy1.2+) mice, and the effect of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells on the response of MOG TCR Tg T cells (CD4+Thy1.1+) after immunization with MOG35
55 in CFA was monitored (Fig. 5A). Proliferation of MOG TCR Tg T cells in draining lymph nodes was not significantly affected when mice were cotransferred with CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells (Fig. 5B). In addition, no differences in the frequency and activation (CD25 up-regulation) of MOG TCR Tg T cells in draining lymph nodes were observed between the mice receiving MOG TCR Tg T cells together with CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells and the mice receiving MOG TCR Tg T cells alone (not shown). Thus, the homing/expansion of MOG TCR Tg T cells was barely affected by CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells.
|
. In contrast, the fraction of IFN-
-producing MOG TCR Tg T cells was reduced (6.2%) in mice that had received CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells (Fig. 5C). IL-2 production of MOG TCR Tg T cells was similar between two groups of animals (not shown). It has been shown that TGFβ can convert Foxp3– T cells into Foxp3+ Tregs (37, 38, 39). Because the LAP molecule is closely associated with TGFβ, and CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells produced TGFβ and expressed mTGFβ (Table I and Fig. 3), we asked whether cotransfer of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells could convert MOG TCR Tg T cells to Foxp3+ cells. Although CD4+CD25– cells contain some Foxp3+ cells, virtually no Foxp3+ cells were detected among CD4+CD25– fraction of MOG TCR Tg T cells from naive MOG TCR Tg mice (not shown). In addition, we depleted CD25+ cells from purified MOG TCR Tg T cells before adoptive cotransfer to insure that no Foxp3+ cells were being transferred. As shown in Fig. 5D, there was an increase in percentage of cells expressing Foxp3 among MOG TCR Tg T cells in draining lymph nodes of animals that had received both MOG TCR Tg T cells and CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells than in mice receiving MOG TCR Tg T cells alone (4.8% vs 1.6%; p = 0.039). Thus, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells induce/expand Foxp3+ cells in vivo.
CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells suppress IL-17 production of MOG TCR Tg T cells in vivo
T cells producing IL-17 (Th17 cells) have been reported to be involved in autoimmune diseases such as EAE (40, 41). We thus investigated the effect of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells on IL-17 production of MOG TCR Tg T cells according to the experimental design described above for Fig. 5. As shown in Fig. 6, a large fraction (62%) of MOG TCR Tg T cells in draining lymph nodes of mice receiving MOG TCR Tg T cells alone produced IL-17. Although the fraction of IL-17 producing MOG TCR Tg T cells was decreased by cotransfer of CD4+CD25+LAP– cells (48% vs 62%, p = 0.16), CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells more efficiently suppressed IL-17 production of MOG TCR Tg T cells (30% vs 62%, p = 0.015).
|
To investigate the role of TGFβ in the suppressive function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells, we conducted RNA interference experiments to silence the expression of both secreted form and surface-bound TGFβ1 and studied the effect of TGFβ1 knockdown on the suppressive function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells in vitro. CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells that were mock-transfected or transfected with control SiRNA efficiently suppressed the proliferation of responder cells (Fig. 7A; p = 0.001), whereas TGFβ1 knockdown significantly reversed the suppressive function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells (Fig. 7A; p = 0.04). We then tested CD4+CD25+LAP– cells. Although CD4+CD25+LAP– cells were as suppressive as CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells in mock-transfected or control SiRNA transfected conditions, silencing TGFβ1 expression had no effect on the suppressive function of CD4+CD25+LAP– cells (Fig. 7A).
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The function of immunosuppressive cytokine TGFβ in Treg-mediated suppression remains controversial (3). Among the possible explanations for the discrepancies are that various subsets of Tregs exist and the function of each population is distinct in terms of TGFβ dependency (17, 42). In support of this possibility, we found that three of the four CD4+ subpopulations sorted by CD25 and LAP expression exhibited regulatory function and only the LAP+ subpopulations (CD4+CD25–LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP+) secreted TGFβ. Furthermore, both LAP+ subpopulations function in a TGFβ-dependent manner in an animal model of autoimmune encephalomyelitis as reported previously for CD4+CD25–LAP+ cells (26) and shown in this report for the CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. Thus, our data established that the expression of LAP is associated with TGFβ dependency of Treg function. We have further demonstrated that CD4+CD25+LAP+ but not CD4+CD25+LAP– cells express TGFβ in both cell surface-bound and soluble forms.
Although both CD4+CD25+LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP– cell subsets showed regulatory function in vitro, and the latter makes up 95% of the Treg population, we demonstrated that CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells exhibited far greater suppressive activity in the EAE model compared with CD4+CD25+LAP– cells, which only minimally suppressed EAE (Fig. 4). The fact that the suppression mediated by CD4+CD25+LAP– cells was primarily cell contact dependent whereas the regulatory function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells was only partially dependent on cell contact is one possible explanation for the difference in in vivo suppressive properties between the two cell subsets. Not only can CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells suppress effector T cells in their close vicinity via cell contact, but also they possess soluble factor-dependent suppressive ability that renders this cell subset able to suppress effector T cells across a broader area and thus they are able to regulate autoimmunity more efficiently. Compared with CD4+CD25+LAP– cells, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells secrete immunosuppressive cytokine TGFβ, and this might represent an important mechanism by which CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells regulate effector T cells without cell-to-cell contact. Our finding that the function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells in vivo is TGFβ dependent provides support for this possibility (Fig. 7).
TGFβ plays an important role in the development, maintenance, induction, and expansion of Tregs and has been shown to convert naive T cells to CD4+CD25+ Tregs via the induction of Foxp3 expression (43, 44). The induction of regulatory activities by TGFβ correlates with the increased expression of Foxp3. In addition to secreting soluble TGFβ, CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells express TGFβ and TGFβRs on the cell surface. It is likely that the TGFβ produced/expressed by CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells is able to function in both autocrine and paracrine fashions for these cells. TGFβ secreted/expressed by a CD4+CD25+LAP+ cell can bind to TGFβR on the cell surface and maintain the peripheral homeostasis of the CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells or expand their pool size. In addition, the TGFβ produced or expressed by CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells may enhance their own Foxp3 expression and further promote their regulatory function. It has been shown that decreased Foxp3 expression in Tregs is associated with various immune diseases (45, 46, 47). More recently, Wan and Flavell (48) reported that decreased Foxp3 expression causes immune disorders by subverting the suppressive function of Tregs and converting Tregs into effector cells. Our results, in conjunction with aforementioned findings, suggest that TGFβ expressed by CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells might function via a self-amplifying positive autoregulatory loop in which TGFβ is responsible for the elevated Foxp3 expression observed for CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. Foxp3 then further up-regulates the expression of signature genes for Tregs and down-regulates the expression of Smad7 that is induced by TGFβ and limits the TGFβ signaling (38), thus contributing to the enhanced regulatory function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. Because cell surface-bound TGFβ and TGFβRs are expressed on freshly isolated CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells from naive mice, the TGFβ expressed on CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells is able to maintain or even enhance their regulatory function.
Although TGFβ plays an important role in CD4+CD25+LAP+-mediated suppression, our data cannot exclude the possibility that other molecules are also involved in the regulatory function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. The observation that CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells express substantially higher levels of CTLA4 than CD4+CD25+ cells that are negative for LAP suggests that CTLA4 might be important for the function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. It has been shown that CTLA4 expressed by natural Tregs has a key role in Treg-mediated suppression in vivo and in vitro (1). Moreover, CTLA4 signaling can facilitate the TGFβ-mediated suppression of CD4+CD25+ T cells and is required for TGFβ to induce Foxp3 and generate Tregs (49, 50). Whether CTLA4 is required for the function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells and, if so, whether it acts in synergy with TGFβ or has a distinct function remains to be determined.
In contrast with classical CD4+CD25+ natural Tregs the function of which relies on cell-to-cell contact, the suppressive function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells is dependent on both cell-to-cell contact and soluble factors as shown in a transwell assay. In addition, the regulatory function of CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells is TGFβ dependent; this contrasts with a number of studies suggesting that CD4+CD25+ natural Tregs suppress in a TGFβ-independent manner (2, 8). In our previous work, we have characterized CD4+CD25–LAP+ cells that are induced or expanded after oral administration of CD3-specific Ab and function in a TGFβ-dependent manner (26). Although CD4+CD25–LAP+ T cells produced higher levels of TGFβ than CD4+CD25+LAP+ T cells, the latter exhibited a stronger suppressive activity. We believe that this difference is related to the increased percentage of Foxp3+ cells and enhanced expression of Foxp3 in CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells and because CD4+CD25–LAP+ cells secreted Th1 and Th2 cytokines plus the proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and TNF-
which were not secreted by CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells. It has been shown that TNF-
and IL-6 reverse Treg-mediated suppression (51) and that IL-6 together with TGFβ induced pathogenic Th17 cells (52). In initial experiments, we have found that CD4+CD25–LAP+ cells could be induced to differentiate into CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells in the presence of TGFβ (M.-L. Chen and H. L. Weiner, unpublished observations). Nonetheless, the exact relationship between CD4+CD25+LAP+, CD4+CD25–LAP+ and the Th3 Tregs that appear after oral administration of Ag (20) remains to be determined.
In summary, we have characterized a novel subset of CD4+CD25+ Tregs that express LAP on their surface, and these cells possess enhanced suppressive properties. Our findings further define the characteristics and properties of CD4+CD25+ Tregs. Induction of Tregs is one of the major goals for the immunotherapy of autoimmune diseases. We have previously shown that oral administration of CD3-specific Ab is able to induce or expand CD4+CD25–LAP+ and CD4+CD25+LAP+ populations (26). Thus, it may be possible to target CD4+CD25+LAP+ cells for therapeutic purposes.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Disclosures |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
1 This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants AI435801 and NS38037 (to H.L.W.). ![]()
2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Howard L. Weiner, Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, HIM 730, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail address: hweiner{at}rics.bwh.harvard.edu ![]()
3 Abbreviations used in this paper: Treg, regulatory T cell; Foxp3, forkhead box P3; EAE, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; LAP, latency-associated peptide; GITR, glucocorticoid-induced TNFR-related gene (TNFRSF18); MFI, mean fluorescence intensity; MOG, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein; PLP, proteolipid protein; Tg, transgenic; SiRNA, small interfering RNA; TNFRSF, TNFR superfamily; mTGFβ, cell surface TGFβ1. ![]()
Received for publication December 7, 2007. Accepted for publication March 21, 2008.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Eβ 7 identifies unique subsets of CD25+ as well as CD25– regulatory T cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 13031-13036. Related articles in The JI:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. L. Bollyky, B. A. Falk, S. A. Long, A. Preisinger, K. R. Braun, R. P. Wu, S. P. Evanko, J. H. Buckner, T. N. Wight, and G. T. Nepom CD44 Costimulation Promotes FoxP3+ Regulatory T Cell Persistence and Function via Production of IL-2, IL-10, and TGF-{beta} J. Immunol., August 15, 2009; 183(4): 2232 - 2241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Stavnezer and J. Kang The Surprising Discovery That TGF{beta} Specifically Induces the IgA Class Switch J. Immunol., January 1, 2009; 182(1): 5 - 7. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. W. Taylor Review of the activation of TGF-{beta} in immunity J. Leukoc. Biol., January 1, 2009; 85(1): 29 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-B. Sun, C.-F. Flach, C. Czerkinsky, and J. Holmgren B Lymphocytes Promote Expansion of Regulatory T Cells in Oral Tolerance: Powerful Induction by Antigen Coupled to Cholera Toxin B Subunit J. Immunol., December 15, 2008; 181(12): 8278 - 8287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |