4.6 Article

Cbl-b-/- T Cells Demonstrate In Vivo Resistance to Regulatory T Cells but a Context-Dependent Resistance to TGF-β

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 185, 期 4, 页码 2051-2058

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1001171

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cbl-b is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that negatively regulates T cell activation. Cbl-b(-/-) mice develop spontaneous autoimmunity, and Cbl-b dysregulation has been described in both murine and human autoimmune diseases. Although the mechanisms underlying the development of autoimmunity in Cbl-b(-/-) mice are not yet clear, we have reported that Cbl-b(-/-) CD4(+)CD25(-) effector T cells (Teffs) are resistant to CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cell (Treg)-mediated suppression in vitro and have suggested that this maybe an important mechanism in the development of autoimmunity. To confirm the relevance of this resistance to autoimmune disease, we now show that Cbl-b(-/-) Teffs are resistant to suppressionby Tregs in vivo and that this involves a resistance of truly naive Cbl-b(-/-) Teffs. Additionally, we show that Cbl-b(-/-) Tregs are fully functional in vivo, further suggesting that the regulatory abnormalities in Cbl-b(-/-) mice are related to defects in Teff, not Treg, function. To characterize the relevance of TGF-beta sensitivity in Treg resistance, we examined in vivo Th17 generation and report that Cbl-b(-/-) mice are able to mount a normal Th17 response in vivo. As Cbl-b(-/-) Teffs have been shown to be insensitive to the suppressive effects of TGF-b in other in vivo models, the present results suggest that Cbl-b(-/-) Teffs demonstrate a context-dependent sensitivity to TGF-b in vivo. Overall, our results suggest that resistance to Tregs maybe a bona fide mechanism underlying autoimmunity and that Cbl-b(-/-) mice offer unique approaches for studying the interrelationships between Treg function, TGF-beta-mediated responses, and the development of autoimmunity. The Journal of Immunology, 2010, 185: 2051-2058.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据