4.6 Article

Transplant acceptance following anti-CD4 versus anti-CD40L therapy: Evidence for differential maintenance of graft-reactive T cells

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages 2037-2048

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02372.x

Keywords

basic immunology; cardiac allograft tolerance; CD4+T cells; costimulation blockade

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI061469, R01 HL070613]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inductive therapy with anti-CD4 or anti-CD40L monoclonal antibodies (mAb) leads to long-term allograft acceptance but the immune parameters responsible for graft maintenance are not well understood. This study employed an adoptive transfer system in which cells from mice bearing long-term cardiac allografts following inductive anti-CD4 or anti-CD40L therapy were transferred into severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) allograft recipients. SCID recipients of cells from anti-CD4-treated mice (anti-CD4 cells) did not reject allografts while those receiving cells from anti-CD40L-treated mice (anti-CD40L cells) did reject allografts. Carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester (CFSE) labeling of transferred cells revealed that this difference was not associated with differential proliferative capacities of these cells in SCID recipients. Like cells from naive mice, anti-CD40L cells mounted a Th1 response following transfer while anti-CD4 cells mounted a dominant Th2 response. Early (day 10) T-cell priming was detectable in both groups of primary allograft recipients but persisted to day 30 only in recipients treated with anti-CD4 mAb. Thus, anti-CD40L therapy appears to result in graft-reactive T cells with a naive phenotype while anti-CD4 therapy allows progression to an altered state of differentiation. Additional data herein support the notion that anti-CD40L mAb targets activated, but not memory, cells for removal or functional silencing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available