Skip to main content

Main menu

  • 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
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

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

Cutting Edge: CD4 and CD8 T Cells Are Intrinsically Different in Their Proliferative Responses

Kathryn E. Foulds, Lauren A. Zenewicz, Devon J. Shedlock, Jiu Jiang, Amy E. Troy and Hao Shen
J Immunol February 15, 2002, 168 (4) 1528-1532; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.168.4.1528
Kathryn E. Foulds
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren A. Zenewicz
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Devon J. Shedlock
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jiu Jiang
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy E. Troy
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hao Shen
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  •            FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    rLM-OVA induces an OVA-specific CD4 T cell response. A, Schematic diagram of the Ag cassette in rLM-OVA. The cassette is integrated into the genome between two convergent transcriptional units, the lecithinase and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) operons. It contains truncated OVA (aa 134–387) fused to the ha mAb epitope, the signal sequence (SS) and promoter (Phly) of the hly gene, and an erythromycin-resistance gene (Emr). B, Western blot analysis of supernatants from rLM-OVA and wtLM cultures. The OVA fusion protein (35 kDa) was detected using mAb to the ha epitope. C, Proliferation of OVA-specific CD4 T cells in rLM-OVA-infected mice. CFSE-labeled splenocytes from DO11.10 mice were adoptively transferred into BALB/c-Thy1.1 recipients, which were then infected with 5 × 104 CFU (0.1 LD50) of rLM-OVA or 5 × 103 CFU (0.1 LD50) of wtLM, or mock-infected with PBS. On day 8 postinfection, splenocytes were harvested and stained with mAb to Thy1.2, CD4, and KJ1-26. DO11.10 cells were identified by gating on Thy1.2+CD4+ cells and analyzed for CFSE fluorescence intensity. Data are representative of three experiments with at least two mice per group.

  •            FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    CD4 T cells undergo limited division and clonal expansion in comparison to CD8 T cells. CFSE-labeled splenocytes from DO11.10 and P14 mice were adoptively transferred into congenic Thy1.1 recipients, which were then infected with 5 × 104 CFU (0.1 LD50) of rLM-OVA or 5 × 105 CFU (0.1 LD50) of rLM-gp33, respectively. On days 0, 3, and 8 postinfection, splenocytes were harvested and stained with Thy1.2, CD4, and KJ1-26 mAb to identify DO11.10 cells or with Thy1.2, CD8 mAb, and/or Dbgp33 tetramer to identify P14 cells. A, Proliferation of OVA-specific CD4 T cells and gp33-specific CD8 T cells was analyzed by measuring their CFSE fluorescence intensity (nonrecruited cells are separated from recruited cells by a dashed line). B, IFN-γ production by responding OVA-specific CD4 T cells and gp33-specific CD8 T cells on day 8 postinfection was measured by intracellular cytokine staining (dotted lines, nonrecruited cells; solid lines, recruited cells). Data are representative of three experiments with at least two mice per group.

  •            FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Responding CD4 T cells exhibit proliferative arrest in early divisions. A, CFSE profiles of OVA-specific cells following rLM-OVA infection. Experiments were performed as described in Fig. 1. A, On days 1, 14, and 21 postinfection, CFSE profiles of DO11.10 cells were analyzed. B, On days 3 and 8 postinfection, the forward scatters of DO11.10 cells were analyzed (dotted lines, recruited cells; solid lines, naive cells).

  •            FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Infectious dose has little effect on the proliferative patterns of CD4 and CD8 T cells. Experiments were conducted as described in Fig. 2. CFSE profiles of DO11.10 and P14 cells were analyzed on day 8 postinfection with 0, 5 × 102, 5 × 103, or 5 × 104 CFU of rLM-OVA or rLM-gp33.

  •            FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    CD4 and CD8 T cells are inherently different in their proliferative responses. A, CFSE-labeled splenocytes from OT-II and OT-I mice were adoptively transferred into congenic Thy1.2 recipients, which were then infected with 5 × 105 CFU (0.1 LD50) of rLM-OVA. On days 0, 3, and 8 postinfection, proliferation of OVA-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells was analyzed by measuring their CFSE fluorescence intensity. B, Same as in A, except that enriched T cells from OT-II and OT-I mice were pooled, CFSE-labeled, and adoptively transferred into the same congenic Thy1.2 recipients. OT-I and OT-II cells were identified by first gating on the Thy1.1+Vα2+ subset and then separated by CD8+ staining. C, CFSE-labeled splenocytes from C57BL/6 mice were stimulated with anti-CD3 mAb and CFSE profiles of CD4 and CD8 T cells were analyzed at different time points to measure their proliferation. Similar results were obtained when splenocytes from BALB/c mice were used.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 168 (4)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 168, Issue 4
15 Feb 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
Print
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.
Cutting Edge: CD4 and CD8 T Cells Are Intrinsically Different in Their Proliferative Responses
(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
Cutting Edge: CD4 and CD8 T Cells Are Intrinsically Different in Their Proliferative Responses
Kathryn E. Foulds, Lauren A. Zenewicz, Devon J. Shedlock, Jiu Jiang, Amy E. Troy, Hao Shen
The Journal of Immunology February 15, 2002, 168 (4) 1528-1532; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.4.1528

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Cutting Edge: CD4 and CD8 T Cells Are Intrinsically Different in Their Proliferative Responses
Kathryn E. Foulds, Lauren A. Zenewicz, Devon J. Shedlock, Jiu Jiang, Amy E. Troy, Hao Shen
The Journal of Immunology February 15, 2002, 168 (4) 1528-1532; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.4.1528
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Cutting Edge: T Cell Responses to B.1.1.529 (Omicron) SARS-CoV-2 Variant Induced by COVID-19 Infection and/or mRNA Vaccination Are Largely Preserved
  • Cutting Edge: SARS-CoV-2 Infection Induces Robust Germinal Center Activity in the Human Tonsil
  • Cutting Edge: Enhanced Antitumor Immunity in ST8Sia6 Knockout Mice
Show more CUTTING EDGE

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 © 2022 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606