Developmentally Regulated Availability of RANKL and CD40 Ligand Reveals Distinct Mechanisms of Fetal and Adult Cross-Talk in the Thymus Medulla

Guillaume E. Desanti, Jennifer E. Cowan, Song Baik, Sonia M. Parnell, Andrea J. White, Josef M. Penninger, Peter J. L. Lane, Eric J. Jenkinson, William E. Jenkinson and Graham Anderson
J Immunol December 15, 2012, 189 (12) 5519-5526; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1201815

Abstract

T cell tolerance in the thymus is a key step in shaping the developing T cell repertoire. Thymic medullary epithelial cells play multiple roles in this process, including negative selection of autoreactive thymocytes, influencing thymic dendritic cell positioning, and the generation of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. Previous studies show that medullary thymic epithelial cell (mTEC) development involves hemopoietic cross-talk, and numerous TNFR superfamily members have been implicated in this process. Whereas CD40 and RANK represent key examples, interplay between these receptors, and the individual cell types providing their ligands at both fetal and adult stages of thymus development, remain unclear. In this study, by analysis of the cellular sources of receptor activator for NF-κB ligand (RANKL) and CD40L during fetal and adult cross-talk in the mouse, we show that the innate immune cell system drives initial fetal mTEC development via expression of RANKL, but not CD40L. In contrast, cross-talk involving the adaptive immune system involves both RANKL and CD40L, with analysis of distinct subsets of intrathymic CD4+ T cells revealing a differential contribution of CD40L by conventional, but not Foxp3+ regulatory, T cells. We also provide evidence for a stepwise involvement of TNFRs in mTEC development, with CD40 upregulation induced by initial RANK signaling subsequently controlling proliferation within the mTEC compartment. Collectively, our findings show how multiple hemopoietic cell types regulate mTEC development through differential provision of RANKL/CD40L during ontogeny, revealing molecular differences in fetal and adult hemopoietic cross-talk. They also suggest a stepwise process of mTEC development, in which RANK is a master player in controlling the availability of other TNFR family members.

Introduction

The thymus provides a specialized microenvironment for the generation and selection of self-tolerant T cells. During their intrathymic development, T cell progenitors migrate through distinct cortical and medullary microenvironments that contain phenotypically and functionally distinct epithelial cell types (1). Initial stages in T cell development occur in the cortex, and include the transition of immature CD4−8− thymocytes to the CD4+8+ stage, a process that involves the generation of, and signaling through, the pre-TCR complex (2). T cell progenitor development is also dependent upon interactions between Notch and DL4 (3, 4), the latter being expressed by cortical thymic epithelial cells that can be further defined by their expression of MHC class II and CD205 (5, 6). Positive selection of CD4+8+ thymocytes also occurs within the cortex (7), with cortical thymic epithelial cell-specific expression of the thymoproteasomal subunit β5t (8) and the protease prss16 (9) enabling expression of peptide/MHC complexes to drive a process of thymocyte differentiation that includes the generation and migration of newly generated CD4+ and CD8+ cells into the thymic medulla (1).

Within thymic medullary regions, medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTEC), including those expressing the autoimmune regulator (Aire) gene, play a key role in imposing tolerance on positively selected CD4+ and CD8+ thymocytes (7, 10, 11). For example, mTEC expression of self-Ags can trigger negative selection of thymocytes bearing TCRs with potentially autoreactive specificities (12–14), a process that can also include transfer of mTEC-derived Ags to dendritic cells (15–17). In addition, mTEC are involved in the intrathymic emergence of CD4+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (T-Reg), which play an important role in peripheral tolerance mechanisms (18, 19). Most recently, the Aire+ subset of mTEC has been shown to play a role in the intrathymic positioning of dendritic cells, which themselves are potent mediators of tolerance induction in the thymus (19).

Given the importance of Aire+ mTEC in multiple aspects of intrathymic tolerance induction, several studies have examined the cellular and molecular requirements for their maturation. Importantly, early stages in mTEC development were shown to involve the formation of clonal islets from individual mTEC progenitors within medullary areas (20). Whereas further studies have shown that progenitors for Aire+CD80+ mTEC reside within the CD80−MHCIIlow (mTEClow) fraction (21, 22) that are also defined by claudin-3/4 expression (23), earlier experiments demonstrated a role for signals from hemopoietic cells for thymus medulla development (24, 25), a process termed thymus cross-talk. Although our own studies have revealed a role for innate immune cells, namely lymphoid tissue inducer (LTi) and invariant Vγ5+ dendritic epidermal T cell (DETC) progenitors, in the generation of the first cohorts of Aire+ mTEC in the fetal thymus (22, 26, 27), other studies demonstrated the importance of αβTCR+ CD4+ thymocytes during postnatal and adult stages (28, 29). Importantly, these studies also collectively helped to identify a role for multiple members of the TNFR superfamily in the cross-talk mechanisms that control the development of mTEC. Thus, whereas deficiency in LTβR signaling resulted in an overall disruption of medullary organization (30), the TNFRs RANK and CD40 were shown to be particularly important for the development of the Aire+ mTEC subset (22, 28, 29, 31). Of importance, studies have also demonstrated a breakdown in T cell tolerance in mice lacking RANK and CD40, either individually or in combination (22, 31), further highlighting the relevance of these TNFRs in thymus medulla development and αβTCR repertoire selection. Importantly, Aire+ mTEC are absent from the embryonic thymus of RANK-deficient mice, and reduced in the adult (22, 28, 31), consistent with the finding that RANK signaling is a potent trigger of Aire+ mTEC differentiation (22, 28, 31). In contrast, deficiency in CD40–CD40L interactions has a lesser impact on Aire+ mTEC development (26, 31), and in vitro ligation of CD40 appears less effective than ligation of RANK in inducing Aire+ mTEC development (31). Thus, whereas CD40L- and CD40-deficient mice have a reduction in overall mTEC numbers (26, 29, 31, 32), the precise role of CD40–CD40L interactions during mTEC development is unclear.

Whereas these studies explain some aspects of the mechanisms controlling mTEC development, others remain poorly understood, including the timing of availability of the cellular sources of receptor activator for NF-κB ligand (RANKL) and CD40L during mTEC/hemopoietic cross-talk. For example, much of the data on thymic RANKL and CD40L expression comes from either PCR analysis of cell populations to measure mRNA expression, or flow cytometric analysis in which CD40L/RANKL have been analyzed individually but never simultaneously, and sometimes following pharmacological stimulation (28, 29, 31, 33, 34). As a result, potential heterogeneity in physiological levels of RANKL and CD40L expression within LTi, DETC progenitors, and mature αβTCR+ thymocytes has not been fully addressed, meaning that their ability to provide these signals either singularly or in combination is not known. Moreover, the requirement for both RANK and CD40 signaling, and the possible interplay between these molecules in mTEC development, has not been fully explored.

In this study, we define, at a per cell level, the provision of RANKL and CD40L during fetal and adult stages of mTEC development. We find that hemopoietic cross-talk from innate LTi and invariant DETC progenitors that control Aire+ mTEC development in fetal stages involves RANKL, but not CD40L, whereas postnatal control of mTEC development by αβTCRhigh CD4+ thymocytes involves both RANKL and CD40L. Separation of thymic resident CD4+ T cells into distinct subsets based on their activation status (CD69), lineage (CD25), and maturational stage (Rag2-GFP) shows that positive selection of conventional CD4+ T cells involves the sequential acquisition of first RANKL and then CD40L, whereas CD25+ T-Reg provide RANKL, but not CD40L, regardless of their maturational stage. Finally, we show that initial RANK signaling is required to upregulate CD40 expression on developing mTEC at a stage that occurs prior to the induction of functionally relevant mTEC molecules, including Aire and CD80, and provide evidence that CD40–CD40L signaling controls proliferation, but not the rate of apoptosis, within the mTEC compartment. From our data, we propose that mTEC development in the adult is controlled by a sequence of events initially involving RANK and then CD40, with both stages being influenced by distinct CD4 thymocyte subsets.

Materials and Methods

Mice

BALB/c, C57BL/6, BoyJ, RANK-deficient (22) (Tnfrsf11a−/−), CD40L-deficient (35) (Cd40lg−/−), and FVB/N RAG2-GFP transgenic mice (36) were housed at the Biomedical Services Unit, University of Birmingham, under United Kingdom Home Office guidelines. For the generation of timed BALB/c embryos, the day of detection of the vaginal plug was designated as day 0.

Cell isolation

Thymocyte suspensions were obtained from adult thymus or fetal thymus organ cultures (FTOC) by mechanical dissociation. Stromal cells from 2-deoxyguanosine (2dGuo)–treated FTOC were obtained by disaggregation in 0.25% trypsin/0.02% EDTA (Sigma-Aldrich) solution at 37°C for 5–10 min, with a single-cell suspension made by gentle repetitive pipetting (37). Trypsin was removed by washing prior to FACS staining. Stromal cells from postnatal thymuses were isolated, as previously described (38). In brief, thymus lobes were cut into 1-mm3 pieces, washed, and digested with R-5 medium (HEPES and l-glutamine–supplemented RPMI 1640 [Sigma-Aldrich], 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 100 U/ml−1 penicillin, 100 mg/ml−1 streptomycin, 10 mM HEPES [all from Life Technologies-Invitrogen], 5% FCS) containing 0.32 Wunsch U/ml−1 liberase/thermolysin (Roche) and 50 Kunitz U/ml−1 DNase I (Sigma-Aldrich) at 37°C for 35 min using an orbital shaker (180 rpm; New Brunswick Scientific). Enzymatic treatment was repeated for an additional 20 min, followed by incubation with 5 mM EDTA on ice for 5–10 min. Remaining tissue fragments were mechanically dispersed by careful pipetting. Cell suspensions from each digestion were pooled and washed in ice-cold PBS containing 2% FCS and 2 mM EDTA to prevent aggregate formation. Stromal cells were enriched by MACS immunomagnetic depletion of CD45+ cells (Miltenyi Biotec), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Cell surface FACS staining was performed in 2% FCS and 2 mM EDTA to prevent aggregate formation.

Cell suspension culture and RANKL/CD40L flow cytometry staining

Hematopoietic cells from adult thymus and FTOC were isolated by mechanical dissociation. Cells were counted, and 2 ml vol of DMEM plus 10% FCS containing 4 × 106 cells were cultured in each well of a polystyrene 6-well plate (Falcon) at 37°C, 5% CO2, for 4.5 h. After culture, cell suspensions were harvested and washed before being stained with the Abs below. DAPI (Invitrogen) was used to exclude dead cells.

Abs and flow cytometry

The following Abs were used for flow cytometric analysis (all obtained from eBioscience, unless stated otherwise): anti-B220 FITC (RA3-6B2), anti-CD3ε Alexa700 (17A2), anti-CD4 Alexa700 or PEcy7 (GK1.5), anti-CD4 V500 (RM4-5; BD Biosciences), anti-CD8α FITC, allophycocyanin, or V500 (53-6.7; BD Biosciences), anti-CD11c FITC (N418), anti-CD25 allophycocyanin (PC61; BioLegend), anti-CD40 PE (3/23; BD Biosciences), anti-CD40L PE (MR1; BD Biosciences), anti-CD45 allophycocyanin 780 (30-F11), anti-CD69 PerCPcy5.5 (H1.2F3), anti-CD80 V421 (16-10A1; BioLegend), anti-CD127 Alexa647 (A7R34), anti-Aire Alexa488 (clone H512; gift of H. Scott, Adelaide University), anti-EpCAM1 Alexa647 (G8.8; gift of A. Farr, University of Washington), anti-Foxp3PE (FJK-16s), anti-IAb FITC, or biotin (AF6-120.1; BD Biosciences), anti-Ki67 PEcy7 (B56; BD Biosciences), and anti-Ly51 biotin or PE (6C3), anti-RANKL biotin (IK22.5), anti-TCRβ allophycocyanin 780 (H57-597), anti-TCRδ FITC (GL3), anti-Vγ5 FITC (536; BD Biosciences), isotype mouse IgG1 PEcy7 (BD Biosciences), isotype rat IgG1 PE (eBRG1), isotype rat IgG2a biotin (eBR2a), and annexin V-FITC (BD Biosciences). Biotinylated Abs were revealed with streptavidin PEcy7 or PerCPcy5.5. Surface staining of cell suspensions was performed in PBS/3% FCS solution at 4°C. Annexin V staining was performed in binding buffer (BD Biosciences) for 20 min at room temperature, and staining was stopped by adding an excess of binding buffer containing DAPI (Invitrogen). Intracellular staining for Foxp3 was performed using fixation buffer (eBioscience) and permeabilization buffer (eBioscience), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Intracellular staining for Aire was performed, as described (27). Intracellular staining for Ki67 was performed following the same protocol. Flow cytometric acquisition was performed on a BD-LSR Fortessa machine using FACSDiva 6.2 software (BD Biosciences), and data were analyzed with FlowJo 8.7 software (Tree Star).

RANK stimulation of 2dGuo-treated FTOC

The 2dGuo-treated FTOC were established from freshly isolated E15 thymus lobes, as previously described (39). After 7-d organ culture in 1.35 mM 2dGuo, thymic lobes were transferred in center-well organ culture dishes (Falcon) containing fresh DMEM plus 10% FCS. A total of 5 mg/ml agonist anti-RANK Ab (R&D Systems) was added where indicated to induce mTEC maturation (22), and lobes were harvested over an additional 4 d at the indicated time points.

Real-time quantitative PCR

Expression of the tissue-restricted Ags casein-α (Csna) and salivary protein 1 (Spt1) was analyzed before and after RANK stimulation of 2dGuo-treated FTOC. The generation of cDNA and quantitative PCR was performed exactly as described (27). Expression values for each sample were normalized to β-actin, and fold levels of the indicated genes represent the mean (±SEM) of replicate reactions. Primer sequences are as follows: b-actin (Actb), QuantiTect Mm Actb 1 SG Primer Assay (Qiagen QT00095242); casein α (Csna), forward, 5′-CATCATCCAAGACTGAGCCAG-3′, and reverse, 5′-CCTGTGGAAAGTAAGCCCAAAG-3′; salivary protein 1 (Spt1), forward, 5′-GGCTCTGAAACTCAGGCAGA-3′, and reverse, 5′-TGCAAACTCATCCACGTTGT-3′.

Results

Differential expression of RANKL and CD40L in cells regulating fetal and adult hemopoietic cross-talk during Aire+ mTEC development

To compare the way in which fetal innate and adult adaptive immune cells influence mTEC development, we first investigated expression of RANKL and CD40L protein simultaneously by flow cytometry on defined cell types, to provide a detailed analysis of the provision of these molecules at the single cell level. Note that isotype control Abs were used to set flow cytometric gates for levels of RANKL expression, whereas for CD40L staining, both isotype controls and cells from CD40lg−/− mice were used.

Flow cytometric analysis of Vγ5+TCR DETC progenitors and CD4+3−IL7Rα+ LTi isolated from E15 thymus, explanted for 7 d in organ culture, showed that both populations expressed readily detectable cell surface levels of RANKL (Fig. 1A), with higher levels detectable on LTi cells, a finding consistent with quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis (27). In contrast to RANKL, both LTi and DETC progenitors were found to lack detectable expression of CD40L (Fig. 1A), whereas both RANKL and CD40L were expressed at the cell surface of adult thymocytes (Fig. 1B), most notably CD4+TCRβhigh mature thymocytes. In addition, clear heterogeneity with regard to RANKL/CD40L expression was observed within this subset (Fig. 1B), with some cells expressing either RANKL or CD40L, or both (Fig. 1C). Collectively, these data suggest that whereas RANKL expression is common to both fetal and adult hemopoietic cells that are involved in Aire+ mTEC development, the capacity to regulate mTEC development through CD40–CD40L interactions is limited to a subset of mature CD4+TCRβhigh thymocytes.

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.

RANKL and CD40L are differentially expressed in innate cells and αβTCR+ thymocytes. LTi cells (CD4+IL-7Rα+CD8α−B220−CD11c−TcRγδ−CD3ε−TCRβ−) and Vγ5+TCR (Vγ5+CD3ε+CD4−CD8α−) thymocytes from 7-d FTOC (A), together with adult thymocyte subsets defined by expression of CD4, CD8, CD69, and TCRβ (B) were analyzed for expression of RANKL and CD40L by flow cytometry. Note that gates are set using isotype control Abs for RANKL, and cells obtained from Cd40lg−/− mice for CD40L expression. (C) Shows frequencies of CD40L+ and RANKL+ cells in adult thymocytes. Error bars represent SEM. Open bars, RANKL+CD40L− cells; hatched bars, RANKL+CD40L+ cells; black bars, RANKL−CD40L+ cells. Analysis of Vγ5+TCR and LTi cells was performed on pooled batches of ∼60 and 100 FTOC, respectively. The dot plots shown are representative of two independent experiments. Dot plots and histograms representing RANKL and CD40L expression on adult RAG2-GFP thymocytes are representative of two independent experiments with four mice analyzed in each of these experiments.

RANKL and CD40L are expressed at defined stages of αβTCR thymocyte maturation

CD4+8−TCRβhigh cells within the adult thymus are known to consist of a heterogeneous mixture of cell types, including mature medullary-resident thymocytes, giving rise to both Foxp3− conventional T cells and Foxp3+ T-Reg as result of intrathymic positive selection, as well as recirculating CD4+ T cells that have re-entered the thymus from the periphery (40). To explore further the heterogeneity in RANKL/CD40L expression seen in total CD4+8−TCRβhigh cells, we took advantage of Rag2GFP mice in which decreasing levels of GFP expression are directly linked to increasing thymocyte maturity (41, 42). We also analyzed RANKL/CD40L expression in Rag2GFP mice in conjunction with the activation marker CD69, and CD25 as a marker of T-Reg. As in our hands, nuclear staining of Foxp3 using Abs impacts on detection of GFP (data not shown), we used CD25 expression as a surrogate T-Reg marker (43), as it largely overlaps with Foxp3 in thymic CD4+TCRβhigh cells (Fig. 2A), thereby enabling identification of CD25− conventional, and CD25+ regulatory, CD4+8− thymocyte subsets (Fig. 2A).

FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.

RANKL and CD40L define early and late stages of αβ T cell maturation. (A) Shows CD25 expression and intracellular Foxp3 expression in total CD4+8−TCRβhigh adult thymocytes. (B) CD4+8−TCRβhigh adult thymocytes from adult Rag2GFP mice were divided into CD25− and CD25+ subsets shown in the right dot plot of (A), and subsequently analyzed for Rag2GFP in conjunction with CD69 expression. (C–F) Show frequencies of RANKL- and CD40L-expressing cells in the indicated CD25/RagGFP/CD69 subsets of CD4+8−TCRβhigh thymocytes. Error bars represent SEM. Open bars, RANKL+CD40L− cells; hatched bars, RANKL+CD40L+ cells; black bars, RANKL−CD40L+ cells. The dot plot showing Foxp3 expression is representative of four independent experiments, with one mouse analyzed in each of these experiments. Dot plots and histograms showing RANKL and CD40L expression alongside CD25, GFP, and CD69 on adult RAG2-GFP thymocytes are representative of two independent experiments, with four mice analyzed in each of these experiments.

Fig. 2B shows that within the CD25− subset of CD4+TCRβhigh cells, a dominant Rag2GFP+CD69+ population is present, representing newly positively selected thymocytes, and a smaller subset of Rag2GFP+CD69− cells, representing later stage mature CD4+ thymocytes (41, 42, 44). Analysis of RANKL/CD40L expression within the Rag2-GFP+ subset of CD25−CD4+TCRβhigh cells shows that newly selected Rag2GFP+CD69+ cells are enriched for RANKL+, but not CD40L+ cells (Fig. 2C). In contrast, Rag2GFP+CD69− cells contain few RANKL+ cells, whereas CD40L+ cells are readily detectable (Fig. 2C), suggesting that RANKL and CD40L expression differentially map to early and late stages of CD4 thymocyte selection. Interestingly, whereas analysis of the CD25+ subset of Rag2GFP+ CD4+TCRβhigh thymocytes also revealed RANKL expression within the CD69+ subset (Fig. 2E), Rag2GFP+CD69− cells within the CD25+ subset were CD40L− (Fig. 2E). Thus, these data suggest that although RANKL expression is a shared feature of both recently produced CD25+ T-Reg and CD25− conventional T cells, CD40L expression is limited to the latter.

In agreement with an earlier study (42), within CD4+TCRβhigh cells, a Rag2GFP− population is detectable within both CD25− and CD25+ subsets, and most predominantly in the latter (Fig. 2B). As previously discussed (42), we cannot currently determine what proportions of these Rag2GFP− cells represent either peripheral T cells that have re-entered the thymus, or thymocytes that have lost GFP expression intrathymically. However, it is interesting to note that CD25−Rag2GFP− cells within the CD4+TCRβhigh subset are enriched for CD40L+ cells (Fig. 2D). In marked contrast, CD25+Rag2GFP− cells within the CD4+TCRβhigh subset (Fig. 2F) are predominantly CD40L−RANKL+, irrespective of their CD69 expression. Thus, regardless of whether Rag2GFP−CD4+TCRβhigh cells represent recirculating or longer-term thymus resident cells, expression of RANKL but not CD40L within the CD25+ subset suggests that these cells are able to stimulate RANK-mediated but not CD40-mediated mTEC cross-talk.

Evidence for a sequential involvement of RANK and CD40 in mTEC differentiation and proliferation

As the data above suggest that, in conventional CD4 thymocyte positive selection, RANKL expression appears to map to earlier CD69+ stages, whereas CD40L appears at later CD69− stages, we investigated the possibility that RANK, and then CD40 signals, are sequentially involved in mTEC maturation. Thus, thymuses from 3- to 6-wk-old wild-type (WT) and Tnfrsf11a−/− (RANK−/−) littermate controls were enzymatically digested, and the CD45−EpCAM+Ly51− mTEC compartment was analyzed. Consistent with previous studies (22, 28, 31), a reduced proportion of mature CD80+MHChigh mTEC was detected in adult Tnfrsf11a−/− mice (Fig. 3A). Interestingly, comparison of the levels of CD40 expression in both CD80−MHCIIlow mTEClow and CD80+MHCIIhigh mTEChigh cells revealed a slightly lower level of expression of CD40 in mTEChigh cells from Tnfrsf11a−/− mice compared with WT controls (Fig. 3B, 3C), suggesting that in vivo levels of CD40 expression within mTEC may be RANK dependent.

FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.

CD40 expression by mTEC is reduced in the absence of the TNFR superfamily member RANK. (A) Shows expression of MHC class II and CD80, used to define mTEClow and mTEChigh compartments, in total CD45−EpCAM+Ly51low mTEC within freshly digested thymuses from 3- to 4-wk-old WT and Tnfrsf11a−/− mice. mTEClow and mTEChigh fractions in WT and Tnfrsf11a−/− mice were compared for expression of CD40 (B), and (C) shows mean fluorescence intensity analysis of CD40 expression on the indicated mTEC subsets. Dot plots are representative of two independent experiments on 3- to 6-wk-old mice. In total, five mice of each group were studied. Statistical analysis performed used a Mann–Whitney U test (unpaired, two tailed, 95% of confidence); *p < 0.05 and N.S., nonsignificant.

To explore this possibility further, we stimulated 2dGuo-treated FTOC, deprived of hemopoietic cross-talk and devoid of mature mTEC (22), with agonistic RANK Abs, and analyzed expression of a panel of mTEC markers, namely CD40, Aire, and the tissue-restricted Ags casein-α (Csna) and salivary protein 1 (Spt1), over a time course of 1–4 d. At the indicated time points, lobes were disaggregated and analyzed by flow cytometry in the case of Aire and CD40, and qPCR for Csna and Spt1. Interestingly, analysis of mTEC expression of CD40 prior to RANK stimulation shows that these cells are CD40− (Fig. 4A), suggesting that CD40 expression is cross-talk dependent. Moreover, in line with the in vivo analysis shown in Fig. 3, upregulation of CD40 by mTEC occurred as a consequence of RANK signaling (Fig. 4B), with RANK-mediated CD40 upregulation occurring prior to the expression of Aire and CD80 (Fig. 4B) and the tissue-restricted Ags Csna and Spt1 (Fig. 4C). Thus, anti-RANK stimulation of mTEC progenitors rapidly promotes the upregulation of CD40, consistent with the idea that RANK and CD40 are sequentially involved in mTEC development.

FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4.

RANK stimulation of mTEC induces CD40 expression prior to Aire. The 2dGuo-treated FTOC were cultured in either the absence (A) or presence (B, C) of 5 mg/ml agonistic anti-RANK Ab for the indicated time. (B) Shows FACS analysis of disaggregated lobes for CD40/CD80 (upper panels) and CD40/Aire expression (lower panels), after gating on CD45−EpCAM+Ly51− mTEC. Note the early induction of CD40 expression. (C) Shows qPCR analysis of Csna and Spt1 mRNA expression during the time course of RANK stimulation. Dot plots and qPCR are representative of two independent experiments, with PCRs performed in replicate. Three to four pooled 2dGuo-treated FTOC were required for each condition.

Although several studies have examined the mTEC compartment in CD40- and/or CD40L-deficient mice, the role played by CD40–CD40L-mediated cross-talk on mTEC development and/or homeostasis, and the timing of its involvement at particular stages of mTEC development, remain unclear (29, 31, 32). To investigate further the role of CD40–CD40L interactions in mTEC development, we investigated whether this signaling axis may play a role in regulating cellular proliferation within the mTEC compartment. To this end, thymuses from adult WT and Cd40lg−/− mice were disaggregated, and the proliferative status of mTEC subsets was analyzed using anti-Ki67 Abs. Fig. 5A shows that the proportion of cells expressing Ki67 within the total mTEC population is similar in WT and Cd40lg−/− mice. Interestingly, however, by subdividing total mTEC into mTEClow and mTEChigh compartments, we saw a significant disruption of the proliferative status of mTEC from Cd40lg−/− mice, with a reduction in the frequency of Ki67+ cells in the mTEClow subset (Fig. 5B, 5C), and an increase in the frequency of Ki67+ cells within the mTEChigh population (Fig. 5B, 5C), suggesting that CD40–CD40L-mediated cross-talk may play a key role in controlling mTEC proliferation. Finally, given the observed perturbations in mTEC proliferation in Cd40lg−/− mice reported in this study, together with the relatively rapid turnover time of mature mTEC (21, 45) and the possible link between Aire expression by mTEC and the induction of apoptosis (45, 46), we next investigated the frequency of apoptotic cells within distinct subsets of mTEC. Freshly digested thymic stromal preparations were analyzed by flow cytometry for the presence of apoptotic cells within subsets of mTEC distinguished on the basis of their levels of MHC class II expression, using a combination of annexin V and DAPI. Interestingly, however, despite an increase in the frequency of Ki67+ mTEChigh cells in CD40lg−/− mice, we did not see a significant difference in the levels of apoptosis in WT and CD40lg−/− mTEClow and mTEChigh compartments (Fig. 6), suggesting that different mechanisms regulate proliferation and apoptosis within the mTEC compartment (Fig. 7).

FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 5.

CD40–CD40L interactions control the balance of proliferation within the mTEC compartment. (A) Shows quantatitive analysis of Ki67+ cells within the total mTEC population, obtained by flow cytometry analysis, in WT and Cd40lg−/− mice. (B) Shows flow cytometric analysis of digested thymuses from 7- to 8-wk-old WT (upper panels) and Cd40lg−/− (lower panels) mice, gated on CD80− MHCIIlow and CD80+ MHCIIhigh subsets of CD45−EpCAM1+Ly51low mTEC. Staining is shown for levels for MHC class II and the proliferation marker Ki67. (C) Shows quantitative analysis of Ki67+ cells within the mTEClow and mTEChigh subsets in WT and Cd40lg−/− mice. The histogram in (A) is a summary of two independent experiments. In total, a minimum of four mice of each group were studied. The dot plots are representative of three independent experiments on 6- to 9-wk-old male mice. In total, seven WT and six Cd40lg−/− mice were studied. Statistical analysis performed used a Mann–Whitney U test (unpaired, two-tailed, 95% of confidence); **p < 0.005 and N.S., nonsignificant.

FIGURE 6.
FIGURE 6.

CD40–CD40L interactions do not control the rate of apoptosis within the mTEC compartment. (A) Shows flow cytometric analysis of DAPI/annexin V staining in digested thymuses from 11- to 15-wk-old WT (upper panels) and Cd40lg−/− (lower panels) mice, gated on MHC-IIlow and MHC-IIhigh subsets of CD45−EpCAM1+Ly51low mTEC. (B) Shows quantitative analysis of annexin V+ DAPI−/Int. cells within mTEClow and mTEChigh subsets in WT and Cd40lg−/− mice. (C) Shows quantitative analysis of annexin V+ DAPIhigh cells within mTEClow and mTEChigh subsets in WT and Cd40lg−/− mice. The dot plots are representative of two independent experiments. The histograms are the summary of these two independent experiments. Three WT and three Cd40lg−/− mice were studied in each experiment. Statistical analysis performed used a Mann–Whitney U test (unpaired, two-tailed, 95% of confidence); ns, nonsignificant.

FIGURE 7.
FIGURE 7.

The involvement of RANK and CD40 during fetal and adult mTEC development. A model of mTEC development involving the TNFR superfamily members RANK and CD40 is presented. During the fetal program of thymus development, the generation of the first cohorts of Aire+ mTEC involves RANK, but not CD40 signaling, via interactions with RANKL+CD40L− innate-like cells. In contrast, in an adult program of mTEC development, RANK signaling is followed by CD40 upregulation and signaling, a two-step process involving interactions with distinct CD4 thymocyte subsets.

Discussion

The thymic medulla represents a key site for T cell tolerance induction, a process that is mediated by several cell types, including Aire+ medullary epithelial cells (7). Exploring the mechanisms by which mTEC microenvironments are induced to develop represents an important aspect in determining how central tolerance mechanisms are controlled. In this study, we have investigated a panel of cell types linked to Aire+ mTEC development, with regard to their ability to provide RANKL and CD40L during cross-talk for thymus medulla development at distinct developmental stages. Importantly, our experiments involved simultaneous analysis of cell surface RANKL and CD40L expression in cells without the need for exogenous stimulation.

Detailed flow cytometric analysis revealed that LTi cells and Vγ5 dendritic epidermal T cell progenitors, both of which are involved in development of the first cohorts of Aire+ mTEC at stages prior to αβ T cell selection (27), express RANKL, but not CD40L. Thus, despite expression of CD40 and RANK by fetal mTEC (6, 22), the cells of the innate immune system that drive initial medulla formation do so through provision of RANKL, but not CD40L, a finding that fits well with the absence of Aire+ mTEC in the fetal period of RANK-deficient mice (22), as well as PCR (31) and histological analysis (33), demonstrating the absence of CD40L expression in total embryonic thymus. Interestingly, a more complex RANKL and CD40L expression pattern was observed when subsets of cells within the αβT cell lineage of the adult thymus were analyzed (Fig. 7). In agreement with earlier findings, CD4+8−TCRβhigh, but not CD4−8+TCRβhigh thymocytes, were found to be the major source of RANKL and CD40L (28, 29). Importantly, however, in the experiments described in this study, use of Rag2GFP mice together with expression of the activation marker CD69 as well as CD25 expression allowed us to reveal marked heterogeneity within CD4+8−TCRβhigh thymocytes with regard to cell surface expression of RANKL and CD40L. Thus, RANKL+ cells were abundant within recently positively selected CD69+Rag2GFP+ cells, whereas CD40L+ cells mapped to later CD69− stages. Interestingly, analysis of the CD25+ subset of CD4+ thymocytes, the majority of which are Foxp3+ T-Reg, showed this population to express RANKL, but not CD40L, regardless of their Rag2GFP and CD69 status. Thus, conventional and regulatory subsets of CD4+ thymocytes appear differentially equipped with regard to RANKL/CD40L expression to stimulate mTEC development.

That positive selection and maturation of CD4+ thymocytes appear to first enable RANKL- and then CD40L-mediated mTEC cross-talk led us to explore the idea that mTEC development involves RANK and CD40 acting in sequence during mTEC development. In support of this idea, mTEC from Tnfrsf11a−/−-deficient mice expressed lower levels of CD40 in vivo, and in vitro RANK stimulation of mTEC induced the rapid upregulation of CD40, prior to expression of Aire, tissue-restricted Ags Csna and Spt1, and CD80. Whereas our data show that RANK signaling in mTEC precursors involves the rapid upregulation of CD40 expression, a recent study showed that RANK expression by mTEC is controlled by LTβR signaling (47). Collectively, these observations further support the idea that signaling through individual TNFRs controls the availability of other family members during mTEC development. Moreover, whereas proliferation within the total mTEC population was not perturbed in Cd40lg−/− mice, analysis of mTEClow and mTEChigh compartments revealed significant alterations. Indeed, reduced proliferation within the mTEClow compartment was observed, together with enhanced proliferation within mTEChigh cells. Given that proliferation within total mTEC was unaltered, these findings suggest that, rather than triggering proliferation directly, CD40 may play a role in controlling its timing during mTEC development, with a delay in proliferation occurring in the absence of CD40 signaling. Interestingly, however, no significant difference in the frequency of apoptotic mTEC was found in CD40lg−/− mice, suggesting that whereas CD40–CD40L interactions impact upon proliferative control of the mTEC compartment, a different mechanism regulates the rate of mTEC apoptosis. Of note, our findings that CD40 influences proliferation within mTEC are of interest in relation to studies linking it to the regulation of epithelial cells of other tissues such as the skin, where it plays a role in the homeostatic control of keratinocyte proliferation (48, 49). Given other studies have shown that epithelial cells within skin and thymus can share certain molecular characteristics (50, 51), including FoxN1 (52) and RANK expression (53), these findings suggest that CD40 represents an additional example of molecules that are involved in the regulation of epithelial compartments within both these tissues.

Taken together, our data reveal complexity in the intrathymic availability of key TNFR ligands that control mTEC development, and show that whereas embryonic and adult stages of mTEC development share a common requirement for RANK signaling, provision of CD40L signaling occurs only in the postnatal thymus from interactions with discrete subsets of CD4 thymocytes (Fig. 7). Finally, the control of CD40 expression, shown in this work to be a regulator of mTEC proliferation, by RANK stimulation supports a stepwise involvement for these molecules in mTEC development, in which upregulation of CD40 is an early event, occurring prior to the induction of CD80, Aire, and genes encoding tissue-restricted Ags.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Biomedical Services Unit staff at the University of Birmingham for animal husbandry.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by a Medical Research Council Programme Grant (to G.A., P.J.L.L., and E.J.J.) and core facilities of the Medical Research Council Centre for Immune Regulation. J.E.C. is supported by a Ph.D. Studentship from the Medical Research Council Centre for Immune Regulation; S.B. is supported by a European Union Ph.D. Studentship from the Integrated Training Network Neuroendrocrine Immune Networks in Ageing.

  • Abbreviations used in this article:

    DETC
    dendritic epidermal T cell
    2dGuo
    2-deoxyguanosine
    FTOC
    fetal thymus organ culture
    LTi
    lymphoid tissue inducer
    mTEC
    medullary thymic epithelial cell
    qPCR
    quantitative PCR
    RANKL
    receptor activator for NF-κB ligand
    T-Reg
    regulatory T cell
    WT
    wild type.

  • Received June 29, 2012.
  • Accepted October 5, 2012.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Takahama Y.
    2006. Journey through the thymus: stromal guides for T-cell development and selection. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 6: 127–135.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ciofani M.,
    2. J. C. Zúñiga-Pflücker
    . 2007. The thymus as an inductive site for T lymphopoiesis. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 23: 463–493.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Hozumi K.,
    2. C. Mailhos,
    3. N. Negishi,
    4. K. Hirano,
    5. T. Yahata,
    6. K. Ando,
    7. S. Zuklys,
    8. G. A. Holländer,
    9. D. T. Shima,
    10. S. Habu
    . 2008. Delta-like 4 is indispensable in thymic environment specific for T cell development. J. Exp. Med. 205: 2507–2513.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Koch U.,
    2. E. Fiorini,
    3. R. Benedito,
    4. V. Besseyrias,
    5. K. Schuster-Gossler,
    6. M. Pierres,
    7. N. R. Manley,
    8. A. Duarte,
    9. H. R. MacDonald,
    10. F. Radtke
    . 2008. Delta-like 4 is the essential, nonredundant ligand for Notch1 during thymic T cell lineage commitment. J. Exp. Med. 205: 2515–2523.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Fiorini E.,
    2. I. Ferrero,
    3. E. Merck,
    4. S. Favre,
    5. M. Pierres,
    6. S. A. Luther,
    7. H. R. MacDonald
    . 2008. Cutting edge: thymic crosstalk regulates delta-like 4 expression on cortical epithelial cells. J. Immunol. 181: 8199–8203.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Shakib S.,
    2. G. E. Desanti,
    3. W. E. Jenkinson,
    4. S. M. Parnell,
    5. E. J. Jenkinson,
    6. G. Anderson
    . 2009. Checkpoints in the development of thymic cortical epithelial cells. J. Immunol. 182: 130–137.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Anderson G.,
    2. Y. Takahama
    . 2012. Thymic epithelial cells: working class heroes for T cell development and repertoire selection. Trends Immunol. 33: 256–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Murata S.,
    2. K. Sasaki,
    3. T. Kishimoto,
    4. S. Niwa,
    5. H. Hayashi,
    6. Y. Takahama,
    7. K. Tanaka
    . 2007. Regulation of CD8+ T cell development by thymus-specific proteasomes. Science 316: 1349–1353.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Gommeaux J.,
    2. C. Grégoire,
    3. P. Nguessan,
    4. M. Richelme,
    5. M. Malissen,
    6. S. Guerder,
    7. B. Malissen,
    8. A. Carrier
    . 2009. Thymus-specific serine protease regulates positive selection of a subset of CD4+ thymocytes. Eur. J. Immunol. 39: 956–964.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Irla M.,
    2. G. Hollander,
    3. W. Reith
    . 2010. Control of central self-tolerance induction by autoreactive CD4+ thymocytes. Trends Immunol. 31: 71–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Anderson M. S.,
    2. E. S. Venanzi,
    3. L. Klein,
    4. Z. Chen,
    5. S. P. Berzins,
    6. S. J. Turley,
    7. H. von Boehmer,
    8. R. Bronson,
    9. A. Dierich,
    10. C. Benoist,
    11. D. Mathis
    . 2002. Projection of an immunological self shadow within the thymus by the aire protein. Science 298: 1395–1401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Liston A.,
    2. D. H. Gray,
    3. S. Lesage,
    4. A. L. Fletcher,
    5. J. Wilson,
    6. K. E. Webster,
    7. H. S. Scott,
    8. R. L. Boyd,
    9. L. Peltonen,
    10. C. C. Goodnow
    . 2004. Gene dosage: limiting role of Aire in thymic expression, clonal deletion, and organ-specific autoimmunity. J. Exp. Med. 200: 1015–1026.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hinterberger M.,
    2. M. Aichinger,
    3. O. Prazeres da Costa,
    4. D. Voehringer,
    5. R. Hoffmann,
    6. L. Klein
    . 2010. Autonomous role of medullary thymic epithelial cells in central CD4(+) T cell tolerance. Nat. Immunol. 11: 512–519.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. DeVoss J.,
    2. Y. Hou,
    3. K. Johannes,
    4. W. Lu,
    5. G. I. Liou,
    6. J. Rinn,
    7. H. Chang,
    8. R. R. Caspi,
    9. L. Fong,
    10. M. S. Anderson
    . 2006. Spontaneous autoimmunity prevented by thymic expression of a single self-antigen. J. Exp. Med. 203: 2727–2735.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Gallegos A. M.,
    2. M. J. Bevan
    . 2004. Central tolerance to tissue-specific antigens mediated by direct and indirect antigen presentation. J. Exp. Med. 200: 1039–1049.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Koble C.,
    2. B. Kyewski
    . 2009. The thymic medulla: a unique microenvironment for intercellular self-antigen transfer. J. Exp. Med. 206: 1505–1513.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Hubert F. X.,
    2. S. A. Kinkel,
    3. G. M. Davey,
    4. B. Phipson,
    5. S. N. Mueller,
    6. A. Liston,
    7. A. I. Proietto,
    8. P. Z. Cannon,
    9. S. Forehan,
    10. G. K. Smyth,
    11. et al
    . 2011. Aire regulates the transfer of antigen from mTECs to dendritic cells for induction of thymic tolerance. Blood 118: 2462–2472.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Aschenbrenner K.,
    2. L. M. D’Cruz,
    3. E. H. Vollmann,
    4. M. Hinterberger,
    5. J. Emmerich,
    6. L. K. Swee,
    7. A. Rolink,
    8. L. Klein
    . 2007. Selection of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells specific for self antigen expressed and presented by Aire+ medullary thymic epithelial cells. Nat. Immunol. 8: 351–358.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Lei Y.,
    2. A. M. Ripen,
    3. N. Ishimaru,
    4. I. Ohigashi,
    5. T. Nagasawa,
    6. L. T. Jeker,
    7. M. R. Bösl,
    8. G. A. Holländer,
    9. Y. Hayashi,
    10. Rde. W. Malefyt,
    11. et al
    . 2011. Aire-dependent production of XCL1 mediates medullary accumulation of thymic dendritic cells and contributes to regulatory T cell development. J. Exp. Med. 208: 383–394.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Rodewald H. R.,
    2. S. Paul,
    3. C. Haller,
    4. H. Bluethmann,
    5. C. Blum
    . 2001. Thymus medulla consisting of epithelial islets each derived from a single progenitor. Nature 414: 763–768.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Gäbler J.,
    2. J. Arnold,
    3. B. Kyewski
    . 2007. Promiscuous gene expression and the developmental dynamics of medullary thymic epithelial cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 37: 3363–3372.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Rossi S. W.,
    2. M. Y. Kim,
    3. A. Leibbrandt,
    4. S. M. Parnell,
    5. W. E. Jenkinson,
    6. S. H. Glanville,
    7. F. M. McConnell,
    8. H. S. Scott,
    9. J. M. Penninger,
    10. E. J. Jenkinson,
    11. et al
    . 2007. RANK signals from CD4(+)3(−) inducer cells regulate development of Aire-expressing epithelial cells in the thymic medulla. J. Exp. Med. 204: 1267–1272.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Hamazaki Y.,
    2. H. Fujita,
    3. T. Kobayashi,
    4. Y. Choi,
    5. H. S. Scott,
    6. M. Matsumoto,
    7. N. Minato
    . 2007. Medullary thymic epithelial cells expressing Aire represent a unique lineage derived from cells expressing claudin. Nat. Immunol. 8: 304–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Shores E. W.,
    2. W. Van Ewijk,
    3. A. Singer
    . 1991. Disorganization and restoration of thymic medullary epithelial cells in T cell receptor-negative scid mice: evidence that receptor-bearing lymphocytes influence maturation of the thymic microenvironment. Eur. J. Immunol. 21: 1657–1661.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Surh C. D.,
    2. B. Ernst,
    3. J. Sprent
    . 1992. Growth of epithelial cells in the thymic medulla is under the control of mature T cells. J. Exp. Med. 176: 611–616.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. White A. J.,
    2. D. R. Withers,
    3. S. M. Parnell,
    4. H. S. Scott,
    5. D. Finke,
    6. P. J. Lane,
    7. E. J. Jenkinson,
    8. G. Anderson
    . 2008. Sequential phases in the development of Aire-expressing medullary thymic epithelial cells involve distinct cellular input. Eur. J. Immunol. 38: 942–947.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Roberts N. A.,
    2. A. J. White,
    3. W. E. Jenkinson,
    4. G. Turchinovich,
    5. K. Nakamura,
    6. D. R. Withers,
    7. F. M. McConnell,
    8. G. E. Desanti,
    9. C. Benezech,
    10. S. M. Parnell,
    11. et al
    . 2012. Rank signaling links the development of invariant γδ T cell progenitors and Aire(+) medullary epithelium. Immunity 36: 427–437.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Hikosaka Y.,
    2. T. Nitta,
    3. I. Ohigashi,
    4. K. Yano,
    5. N. Ishimaru,
    6. Y. Hayashi,
    7. M. Matsumoto,
    8. K. Matsuo,
    9. J. M. Penninger,
    10. H. Takayanagi,
    11. et al
    . 2008. The cytokine RANKL produced by positively selected thymocytes fosters medullary thymic epithelial cells that express autoimmune regulator. Immunity 29: 438–450.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Irla M.,
    2. S. Hugues,
    3. J. Gill,
    4. T. Nitta,
    5. Y. Hikosaka,
    6. I. R. Williams,
    7. F. X. Hubert,
    8. H. S. Scott,
    9. Y. Takahama,
    10. G. A. Holländer,
    11. W. Reith
    . 2008. Autoantigen-specific interactions with CD4+ thymocytes control mature medullary thymic epithelial cell cellularity. Immunity 29: 451–463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Boehm T.,
    2. S. Scheu,
    3. K. Pfeffer,
    4. C. C. Bleul
    . 2003. Thymic medullary epithelial cell differentiation, thymocyte emigration, and the control of autoimmunity require lympho-epithelial cross talk via LTbetaR. J. Exp. Med. 198: 757–769.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Akiyama T.,
    2. Y. Shimo,
    3. H. Yanai,
    4. J. Qin,
    5. D. Ohshima,
    6. Y. Maruyama,
    7. Y. Asaumi,
    8. J. Kitazawa,
    9. H. Takayanagi,
    10. J. M. Penninger,
    11. et al
    . 2008. The tumor necrosis factor family receptors RANK and CD40 cooperatively establish the thymic medullary microenvironment and self-tolerance. Immunity 29: 423–437.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Gray D. H.,
    2. N. Seach,
    3. T. Ueno,
    4. M. K. Milton,
    5. A. Liston,
    6. A. M. Lew,
    7. C. C. Goodnow,
    8. R. L. Boyd
    . 2006. Developmental kinetics, turnover, and stimulatory capacity of thymic epithelial cells. Blood 108: 3777–3785.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Dunn R. J.,
    2. C. J. Luedecker,
    3. H. S. Haugen,
    4. C. H. Clegg,
    5. A. G. Farr
    . 1997. Thymic overexpression of CD40 ligand disrupts normal thymic epithelial organization. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 45: 129–141.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Spence P. J.,
    2. E. A. Green
    . 2008. Foxp3+ regulatory T cells promiscuously accept thymic signals critical for their development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 973–978.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Renshaw B. R.,
    2. W. C. Fanslow III.,
    3. R. J. Armitage,
    4. K. A. Campbell,
    5. D. Liggitt,
    6. B. Wright,
    7. B. L. Davison,
    8. C. R. Maliszewski
    . 1994. Humoral immune responses in CD40 ligand-deficient mice. J. Exp. Med. 180: 1889–1900.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Yu W.,
    2. H. Nagaoka,
    3. M. Jankovic,
    4. Z. Misulovin,
    5. H. Suh,
    6. A. Rolink,
    7. F. Melchers,
    8. E. Meffre,
    9. M. C. Nussenzweig
    . 1999. Continued RAG expression in late stages of B cell development and no apparent re-induction after immunization. Nature 400: 682–687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. White A.,
    2. E. Jenkinson,
    3. G. Anderson
    . 2008. Reaggregate thymus cultures. J. Vis. Exp. 18: 905.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Sitnik K. M.,
    2. K. Kotarsky,
    3. A. J. White,
    4. W. E. Jenkinson,
    5. G. Anderson,
    6. W. W. Agace
    . 2012. Mesenchymal cells regulate retinoic acid receptor-dependent cortical thymic epithelial cell homeostasis. J. Immunol. 188: 4801–4809.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Jenkinson W.,
    2. E. Jenkinson,
    3. G. Anderson
    . 2008. Preparation of 2-dGuo-treated thymus organ cultures. J. Vis. Exp. 18: 906.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Ceredig R.
    2009. The impact of cell re-entry into the primary lymphoid organs on lymphocyte repertoire and functionality. Immunol. Cell Biol. 87: 13–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Boursalian T. E.,
    2. J. Golob,
    3. D. M. Soper,
    4. C. J. Cooper,
    5. P. J. Fink
    . 2004. Continued maturation of thymic emigrants in the periphery. Nat. Immunol. 5: 418–425.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. McCaughtry T. M.,
    2. M. S. Wilken,
    3. K. A. Hogquist
    . 2007. Thymic emigration revisited. J. Exp. Med. 204: 2513–2520.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Sakaguchi S.,
    2. N. Sakaguchi,
    3. M. Asano,
    4. M. Itoh,
    5. M. Toda
    . 1995. Immunologic self-tolerance maintained by activated T cells expressing IL-2 receptor alpha-chains (CD25): breakdown of a single mechanism of self-tolerance causes various autoimmune diseases. J. Immunol. 155: 1151–1164.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Brändle D.,
    2. S. Müller,
    3. C. Müller,
    4. H. Hengartner,
    5. H. Pircher
    . 1994. Regulation of RAG-1 and CD69 expression in the thymus during positive and negative selection. Eur. J. Immunol. 24: 145–151.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Gray D.,
    2. J. Abramson,
    3. C. Benoist,
    4. D. Mathis
    . 2007. Proliferative arrest and rapid turnover of thymic epithelial cells expressing Aire. J. Exp. Med. 204: 2521–2528.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Liiv I.,
    2. U. Haljasorg,
    3. K. Kisand,
    4. J. Maslovskaja,
    5. M. Laan,
    6. P. Peterson
    . 2012. AIRE-induced apoptosis is associated with nuclear translocation of stress sensor protein GAPDH. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 423: 32–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Mouri Y.,
    2. M. Yano,
    3. M. Shinzawa,
    4. Y. Shimo,
    5. F. Hirota,
    6. Y. Nishikawa,
    7. T. Nii,
    8. H. Kiyonari,
    9. T. Abe,
    10. H. Uehara,
    11. et al
    . 2011. Lymphotoxin signal promotes thymic organogenesis by eliciting RANK expression in the embryonic thymic stroma. J. Immunol. 186: 5047–5057.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Grousson J.,
    2. M. Ffrench,
    3. M. Concha,
    4. D. Schmitt,
    5. J. Péguet-Navarro
    . 2000. CD40 ligation alters the cell cycle of differentiating keratinocytes. J. Invest. Dermatol. 114: 581–586.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Villarroel Dorrego M.,
    2. S. A. Whawell,
    3. P. M. Speight,
    4. A. W. Barrett
    . 2006. Transfection and ligation of CD40 in human oral keratinocytes affect proliferation, adhesion and migration but not apoptosis in vitro. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 31: 266–271.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Yano M.,
    2. N. Kuroda,
    3. H. Han,
    4. M. Meguro-Horike,
    5. Y. Nishikawa,
    6. H. Kiyonari,
    7. K. Maemura,
    8. Y. Yanagawa,
    9. K. Obata,
    10. S. Takahashi,
    11. et al
    . 2008. Aire controls the differentiation program of thymic epithelial cells in the medulla for the establishment of self-tolerance. J. Exp. Med. 205: 2827–2838.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. White A. J.,
    2. K. Nakamura,
    3. W. E. Jenkinson,
    4. M. Saini,
    5. C. Sinclair,
    6. B. Seddon,
    7. P. Narendran,
    8. K. Pfeffer,
    9. T. Nitta,
    10. Y. Takahama,
    11. et al
    . 2010. Lymphotoxin signals from positively selected thymocytes regulate the terminal differentiation of medullary thymic epithelial cells. J. Immunol. 185: 4769–4776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Nehls M.,
    2. D. Pfeifer,
    3. M. Schorpp,
    4. H. Hedrich,
    5. T. Boehm
    . 1994. New member of the winged-helix protein family disrupted in mouse and rat nude mutations. Nature 372: 103–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Duheron V.,
    2. E. Hess,
    3. M. Duval,
    4. M. Decossas,
    5. B. Castaneda,
    6. J. E. Klöpper,
    7. L. Amoasii,
    8. J. B. Barbaroux,
    9. I. R. Williams,
    10. H. Yagita,
    11. et al
    . 2011. Receptor activator of NF-kappaB (RANK) stimulates the proliferation of epithelial cells of the epidermo-pilosebaceous unit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 5342–5347.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section