4.5 Article

CD8+ dendritic cell-mediated tolerance of autoreactive CD4+ T cells is deficient in NOD mice and can be corrected by blocking CD40L

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 325-336

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.0113013

关键词

type 1 diabetes; DEC-205; CD40; peripheral tolerance

资金

  1. Intramural Research Programs of the NIDDK
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NOD CD8(+) DCs express increased CD40; targeting of autoantigen to these cells induces Th1 responses, not tolerance, unless CD40/CD40L interactions are blocked. DCs are important mediators of peripheral tolerance for the prevention of autoimmunity. Chimeric DEC-205 antibodies with attached antigens allow in vivo antigen-specific stimulation of T cells by CD8(+) DCs, resulting in tolerance in nonautoimmune mice. However, it is not clear whether DC-mediated tolerance induction occurs in the context of ongoing autoimmunity. We assessed the role of CD8(+) DCs in stimulation of autoreactive CD4(+) T cells in the NOD mouse model of type 1 diabetes. Targeting of antigen to CD8(+) DCs via DEC-205 led to proliferation and expansion of -cell specific BDC2.5 T cells. These T cells also produced IL-2 and IFN- and did not up-regulate FoxP3, consistent with an activated rather than tolerant phenotype. Similarly, endogenous BDC peptide-reactive T cells, identified with I-A(g7) tetramers, did not become tolerant after antigen delivery via DEC-205: no deletion or Treg induction was observed. We observed that CD8(+) DCs from NOD mice expressed higher surface levels of CD40 than CD8(+) DCs from C57BL/6 mice. Blockade of CD40-CD40L interactions reduced the number of BDC2.5 T cells remaining in mice, 10 days after antigen targeting to CD8 DCs, and blocked IFN- production by BDC2.5 T cells. These data indicate that the ability of autoreactive CD4(+) T cells to undergo tolerance mediated by CD8(+) DCs is defective in NOD mice and that blocking CD40-CD40L interactions can restore tolerance induction.

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

4.5
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