Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
      • Neuroimmunology: To Sense and Protect
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Immunology
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
The Journal of Immunology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on Twitter
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on RSS

Naive versus memory CD4 T cell response to antigen. Memory cells are less dependent on accessory cell costimulation and can respond to many antigen-presenting cell types including resting B cells.

M Croft, L M Bradley and S L Swain
J Immunol March 15, 1994, 152 (6) 2675-2685;
M Croft
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L M Bradley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S L Swain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Secondary responses to Ag in vivo are characterized by more rapid kinetics and greatly enhanced magnitude compared with primary responses. For CD4+ T cells, this is in part due to a greater frequency of Ag-specific memory cells, and may also reflect differences in responsiveness of memory vs naive cells to stimulation. To compare activation requirements and the role of accessory cells, naive and memory cells were stimulated with immobilized anti-CD3 in the presence or absence of APC. With anti-CD3 alone, naive cells proliferated slightly but produced no detectable IL-2, whereas memory cells proliferated well with significant IL-2 production. Increasing numbers of T-depleted APC greatly enhanced responses of naive cells to levels equivalent to those of memory cells, whereas for memory cells only IL-2 production increased slightly. The response of naive cells was equivalent in magnitude and kinetics to that of memory cells when low density APC, enriched in dendritic cells and depleted of resting B cells, were used with anti-CD3. To directly compare naive and memory responses in an Ag-specific model, we examined CD4+ cells specific for a peptide of pigeon cytochrome c fragment isolated from TCR-alpha beta transgenic mice. Naive cells were compared with 4-day activated blasts (effectors) and memory cells generated by adoptive transfer of effectors to adult thymectomized bone marrow reconstituted mice, in which the cells return to a resting state but still respond to recall Ag. Naive cells responded to Ag on dendritic cells and activated B cells but not on resting B cells or macrophages. In contrast, both memory cells and effectors were stimulated by all APCs, including resting B cells and macrophage to a limited extent. The ability of memory cells to respond to all APC types was confirmed using Ag-specific cells generated by in vivo priming with keyhole limpet hemocyanin. These results suggest that memory cells are considerably less dependent on accessory cell costimulation than naive cells, but that naive cells can respond equivalently in both magnitude and kinetics if Ag is presented on costimulatory APCs such as dendritic cells. In addition, these studies suggest that the enhanced secondary T cell response is due to a combination of the increased frequency of Ag-specific cells and their ability to react to Ag presented on a wider range of APC types, rather than an inherent capacity of memory T cells to respond better and faster.

  • Copyright © 1994 by American Association of Immunologists
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 152, Issue 6
15 Mar 1994
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Immunology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Naive versus memory CD4 T cell response to antigen. Memory cells are less dependent on accessory cell costimulation and can respond to many antigen-presenting cell types including resting B cells.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Immunology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Immunology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Naive versus memory CD4 T cell response to antigen. Memory cells are less dependent on accessory cell costimulation and can respond to many antigen-presenting cell types including resting B cells.
M Croft, L M Bradley, S L Swain
The Journal of Immunology March 15, 1994, 152 (6) 2675-2685;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Naive versus memory CD4 T cell response to antigen. Memory cells are less dependent on accessory cell costimulation and can respond to many antigen-presenting cell types including resting B cells.
M Croft, L M Bradley, S L Swain
The Journal of Immunology March 15, 1994, 152 (6) 2675-2685;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Next in The JI
  • Archive
  • Brief Reviews
  • Pillars of Immunology
  • Translating Immunology

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Journal Policies
  • Editors

General Information

  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Rights and Permissions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • FAR 889
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • ImmunoCasts
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2021 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606