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

The Old One–Two: Solving the Mystery of Cognate Help

Michael P. Cancro
J Immunol December 1, 2016, 197 (11) 4193-4194; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1601759
Michael P. Cancro
Perelman School of Medicine at the 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

The pivotal findings reported by Noelle et al. (1) in 1992 resolved a puzzle that had been 40 years in the making. In the mid-20th century, seminal studies from Owen (2), Medawar and colleagues (3, 4) and Burnet (5) established the concept of an immunological self, forcing re-evaluation of the paradigms driving the field. Indeed, the instructional models that had been forwarded to explain specificity and affinity maturation in humoral responses, already under duress as the rules of molecular biology and protein chemistry advanced, lacked the means to accommodate a mechanism for self versus nonself discrimination, producing an intractable conundrum. The key, of course, was to address this problem at a cellular level. Although Ehrlich had enunciated a cell-centric approach to explaining immune responses half a century earlier (discussed in Ref. 6), his side-chain hypothesis had long been abandoned, and it also lacked a tractable means of dealing with this new but fundamental concept. Within this context, Jerne (7), Talmage (8), and Burnet (9, 10) collectively advanced a paradigm, now termed the clonal selection hypothesis, that would assume prominence during the next 50 years. By positing a clonal distribution of Ag receptor specificities, this model provided a means through which immune repertoires could be purged of unwanted specificities in a quantized manner, thus eliminating self-reactive clones but sparing beneficial specificities. By the mid-1980s, most of the potential stumbling blocks for the clonal selection hypothesis had been cleared: the concept of clonally distributed receptors had been definitively established (11) (reviewed in Ref. 12), and the genetic impasse posed by the need for vast receptor diversity had been overcome once the process of somatic recombination involving multiple gene segments had been revealed (13–15).

Despite these advances, an ironic caveat to the clonal selection hypothesis nonetheless endured: the Ag receptor was required to play both an immunogenic and tolerogenic role, prompting the question of how signals through the same receptor could drive diametrically opposite outcomes. This apparent logical contradiction was recognized early on, and various models were forwarded to deal with it. Among these, the two signal hypothesis advanced by Bretscher and Cohn (16) has proven durable. According to this model, a signal through the Ag receptor, termed signal 1, culminated in cell death unless superseded by a second, Ag receptor–independent, signal. These overarching ideas laid the conceptual groundwork for the studies that were reported in this issue’s Pillars of Immunology article.

Observations during the two decades preceding the highlighted article painted an increasingly complex picture of how such second signals were delivered. For example, classic hapten-conjugate immunization strategies showed that there were multiple ways in which signal 2 could be delivered to B cells. Thus, haptens coupled to mitogens such as bacterial LPS could directly activate hapten-specific B cells. In contrast, when haptens were coupled to protein carriers, signal 2 required and emanated from Th cells. Moreover, this T-dependent form of signal 2 was most effective when the epitope recognized by the B cell (the hapten) was physically attached to the protein portion of the Ags recognized by the T cell (the carrier). This so-called “linked recognition” was further refined with the discovery of MHC restriction of Ag recognition by T cells, yielding the realization that it reflected a cognate event: the presentation of processed carrier peptides to the T cell in the context of MHC class II molecules on the B cell. However, in this and other studies it was evident that the TCR–MHC class II interactions per se did not constitute the elusive signal 2 delivered to the B cell by activated Th cells. Within this milieu of increasing conceptual complexity, Noelle and colleagues (17–21) had already invested considerable effort in generating the tools and insights necessary to dissect the requirements and molecular basis for these interactions. These, together with a combination of cellular, biochemical, and molecular approaches, converged to reveal the basis for signal 2 in T-dependent B cell responses, thus resolving the molecular basis of cognate help.

Noelle et al. (17) had already shown that membrane preparations from activated CD4+ T cells could promote activation of B cells, as indicated by an uptick in RNA synthesis measured by the incorporation of radiolabeled uridine. Importantly, this was only true for activated T cell membrane preparations, suggesting that T cell activation itself was a requisite step toward acquiring the capacity for signal 2 delivery. Additionally, prior studies from others had suggested that Abs to CD40 had stimulatory effects on B cells, implicating this molecule as a candidate signal 2 target. Armed with this knowledge, and coupled with the emerging technologies that allowed generation of fusion proteins and mAbs, their search ensued for a molecule on these membranes that might be responsible. They reasoned that if CD40 was indeed the target of the elusive signal 2, then the matching ligand on activated T cell membranes should be both blocked by and detected with a fusion protein that incorporated CD40 on one end and an Ig constant domain on the other end.

Accordingly, using the RNA synthesis assay as a surrogate for receipt of signal 2 from activated T cell membranes, several mAbs and fusion proteins—each directed against various candidate T cell surface molecules—were assessed for their ability to block the interactions between activated T cell membranes and B cells that were responsible. Abs specific for several adhesion and coreceptor molecules, including LFA, ICAM, and CD4, had no apparent effect. This result tended to rule out a role for these molecules, arguing against adhesive interactions per se or some form of MHC class II reverse signaling, although these had been forwarded as signal 2 candidates in the existing literature. These also served as controls, demonstrating that simply adding Abs to surface molecules present on the activated T cell membranes would not block the transcription-promoting effects. Because Abs to a litany of known molecules could not block the activation of B cells by T cell membranes, mAbs were raised that recognized molecules on activated, but not resting, T cells. The Abs that fit these initial criteria were screened for their ability to block the activation of B cells by activated T cells. MR1, the only Ab with this characteristic to be found in multiple fusions, blocked T cell–dependent B cell activation in vitro. In parallel, the functional activities of CD40-Ig proved that it, similar to MR1, could reduce transcriptional activity to background levels in a dose-dependent manner. Importantly, the CD40-Ig fusion protein, as well as MR1, did not interfere with RNA synthesis increases associated with LPS-driven B cell activation, giving confidence that this inhibition was interfering with signals delivered by activated T cell membranes, but not other classes of molecules capable of providing a second signal. Moreover, CD40-Ig or MR1 had to be added within the first 24 h of coculture; otherwise, the effect was lost, suggesting that once the signal had been delivered, the cascade of downstream events had already been triggered. Finally, in keeping with the observation that only activated T cell membranes could engender these downstream activation measures, a fluorescently labeled CD40-Ig construct and MR1 detected their target on activated, but not resting, T cells. Importantly, CD40-Ig blocked the staining of activated T cells by MR1 and vice versa, providing a critical piece of evidence that MR1 was recognizing a ligand for CD40.

Confident that the CD40-Ig fusion protein was indeed interacting with a T cell–derived, CD40-interacting ligand, the team turned to immunoprecipitation to identify and isolate the molecule responsible. The results were clear: the fusion protein as well as MR1 precipitated a 39-kDa band from activated CD4+ T cell lysates. With that, the ligand for CD40, now termed CD154, was discovered and characterized.

The findings reported in this seminal paper not only provided a molecular mechanism of linked recognition and cognate T cell help, but they also set the stage for the subsequent 25 y of basic and translational research focused on these molecules and their interaction. These areas of research include the now well-established roles of CD40 and CD154 in germinal center initiation and selection that are crucial for affinity maturation and effective humoral immunity (22; reviewed in Refs. 23, 24), as well as more recently appreciated roles both within and outside of the immune system (25, 26).

Disclosures

The author has no financial conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2016 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Noelle R. J.,
    2. M. Roy,
    3. D. M. Shepherd,
    4. I. Stamenkovic,
    5. J. A. Ledbetter,
    6. A. Aruffo
    . 1992. A 39-kDa protein on activated helper T cells binds CD40 and transduces the signal for cognate activation of B cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89: 6550–6554.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Owen R. D.
    1945. Immunogenetic consequences of vascular anastomoses between bovine twins. Science 102: 400–401.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Billingham R. E.,
    2. L. Brent,
    3. P. B. Medawar
    . 1953. Actively acquired tolerance of foreign cells. Nature 172: 603–606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Medawar P. B.
    1991. The Nobel lectures in immunology. The Nobel prize for physiology or medicine, 1960. Immunological tolerance. Scand. J. Immunol. 33: 337–344.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Burnet F. M.
    1991. The Nobel lectures in immunology. The Nobel prize for physiology or medicine, 1960. Immunologic recognition of self. Scand. J. Immunol. 33: 3–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Silverstein A. M.
    1999. Paul Ehrlich’s passion: the origins of his receptor immunology. Cell. Immunol. 194: 213–221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Jerne N. K.
    1955. The natural-selection theory of antibody formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 41: 849–857.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Talmage D. W.
    1957. Diversity of antibodies. J. Cell. Physiol. Suppl. 50(Suppl. 1): 229–246.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Burnet F. M.
    1962. The immunological significance of the thymus: an extension of the clonal selection theory of immunity. Australas. Ann. Med. 11: 79–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Burnet F. M.
    1976. A modification of Jerne’s theory of antibody production using the concept of clonal selection. CA Cancer J. Clin. 26: 119–121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Nossal G. J.,
    2. J. Lederberg
    . 1958. Antibody production by single cells. Nature 181: 1419–1420.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Sigal N. H.,
    2. N. R. Klinman
    . 1978. The B-cell clonotype repertoire. Adv. Immunol. 26: 255–337.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brack C.,
    2. M. Hirama,
    3. R. Lenhard-Schuller,
    4. S. Tonegawa
    . 1978. A complete immunoglobulin gene is created by somatic recombination. Cell 15: 1–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Brack C.,
    2. S. Tonegawa
    . 1977. Variable and constant parts of the immunoglobulin light chain gene of a mouse myeloma cell are 1250 nontranslated bases apart. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74: 5652–5656.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Bennett J. C.,
    2. L. E. Hood,
    3. W. J. Dreyer,
    4. M. Potter
    . 1965. Evidence for amino acid sequence differences among proteins resembling the L-chain subunits of immunoglobulins. J. Mol. Biol. 12: 81–87.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Bretscher P.,
    2. M. Cohn
    . 1970. A theory of self-nonself discrimination. Science 169: 1042–1049.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Noelle R. J.,
    2. J. Daum,
    3. W. C. Bartlett,
    4. J. McCann,
    5. D. M. Shepherd
    . 1991. Cognate interactions between helper T cells and B cells. V. Reconstitution of T helper cell function using purified plasma membranes from activated Th1 and Th2 T helper cells and lymphokines. J. Immunol. 146: 1118–1124.
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Bartlett W. C.,
    2. J. McCann,
    3. D. M. Shepherd,
    4. M. Roy,
    5. R. J. Noelle
    . 1990. Cognate interactions between helper T cells and B cells. IV. Requirements for the expression of effector phase activity by helper T cells. J. Immunol. 145: 3956–3962.
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Noelle R. J.,
    2. J. McCann,
    3. L. Marshall,
    4. W. C. Bartlett
    . 1989. Cognate interactions between helper T cells and B cells. III. Contact-dependent, lymphokine-independent induction of B cell cycle entry by activated helper T cells. J. Immunol. 143: 1807–1814.
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Noelle R. J.,
    2. J. McCann
    . 1989. Cognate interactions between helper T cells and B cells. I. Cloning and helper activity of a lymphokine-dependent helper T cell clone (Th-3). J. Mol. Cell Immunol. 4: 161–173; discussion 173–175.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Bartlett W. C.,
    2. A. Michael,
    3. J. McCann,
    4. D. Yuan,
    5. E. Claassen,
    6. R. J. Noelle
    . 1989. Cognate interactions between helper T cells and B cells. II. Dissection of cognate help by using a class II-restricted, antigen-specific, IL-2-dependent helper T cell clone. J. Immunol. 143: 1745–1754.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  18. ↵
    1. Foy T. M.,
    2. J. D. Laman,
    3. J. A. Ledbetter,
    4. A. Aruffo,
    5. E. Claassen,
    6. R. J. Noelle
    . 1994. gp39-CD40 interactions are essential for germinal center formation and the development of B cell memory. J. Exp. Med. 180: 157–163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Hollenbaugh D.,
    2. H. D. Ochs,
    3. R. J. Noelle,
    4. J. A. Ledbetter,
    5. A. Aruffo
    . 1994. The role of CD40 and its ligand in the regulation of the immune response. Immunol. Rev. 138: 23–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Noelle R. J.
    1996. CD40 and its ligand in host defense. Immunity 4: 415–419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Lievens D.,
    2. A. Zernecke,
    3. T. Seijkens,
    4. O. Soehnlein,
    5. L. Beckers,
    6. I. C. Munnix,
    7. E. Wijnands,
    8. P. Goossens,
    9. R. van Kruchten,
    10. L. Thevissen,
    11. et al
    . 2010. Platelet CD40L mediates thrombotic and inflammatory processes in atherosclerosis. Blood 116: 4317–4327.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Chatzigeorgiou A.,
    2. T. Seijkens,
    3. B. Zarzycka,
    4. D. Engel,
    5. M. Poggi,
    6. S. van den Berg,
    7. S. van den Berg,
    8. O. Soehnlein,
    9. H. Winkels,
    10. L. Beckers,
    11. et al
    . 2014. Blocking CD40-TRAF6 signaling is a therapeutic target in obesity-associated insulin resistance. [Published erratum appears in 2014 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 4644.] Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 2686–2691.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 197 (11)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 197, Issue 11
1 Dec 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
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.
The Old One–Two: Solving the Mystery of Cognate Help
(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
The Old One–Two: Solving the Mystery of Cognate Help
Michael P. Cancro
The Journal of Immunology December 1, 2016, 197 (11) 4193-4194; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601759

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Old One–Two: Solving the Mystery of Cognate Help
Michael P. Cancro
The Journal of Immunology December 1, 2016, 197 (11) 4193-4194; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601759
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • CCR5: The Receptor That Unlocks the Door for HIV Entry into Cells
  • The Legend of Delta: Finding a New TCR Gene
  • Unraveling the Arthus Mystery: Fc Receptors and the Holy Grail of Inflammation
Show more PILLARS OF IMMUNOLOGY

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