4.7 Article

Genetic-induced Variations in the GAD65 T-cell Repertoire Governs Efficacy of Anti-CD3/GAD65 Combination Therapy in New-onset Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 307-316

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/mt.2009.197

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK69872, DK51091, AI51973]
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship
  3. European Marie-Curie Outgoing fellowship
  4. ALFEDIAM Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To enhance efficacy of forthcoming type 1 diabetes (T1D) clinical trials, combination therapies (CTs) are envisaged. In this study, we showed that efficacy of a CT, using anti-CD3 antibody and glutamic acid decarboxylase of 65 kd (GAD65)-expressing plasmid, to reverse new-onset T1D was dependent upon the genetic background. Synergism between both treatments was only observed in the RIP-LCMV-GP but not in the nonobese diabetic (NOD) or RIP-LCMV-NOD models. Efficacy was associated with an expansion of bystander suppressor regulatory T cells (Tregs) recognizing the C-terminal region of GAD65 and secreting interleukin-10 (IL-10), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), and interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma). In addition, we found that frequency and epitope specificity of GAD65-reactive CD4(+) T cells during antigen priming at diabetes onset and Tregs detected after CT correlated. Consequently, NOD mice harbored significantly lower levels of GAD65-reactive CD4(+) T cells than RIP-LCMV-GP before and after treatment. Our results demonstrate that antigen-specific T cells available at treatment may differ between various major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and genetic backgrounds. These cells play a major role in shaping T-cell responses following antigen-specific immune intervention and determine whether a beneficial Tregs response is generated. Our findings hold important implications to understand and predict the success of antigen-based clinical trials, where responsiveness to immunotherapy might vary from patient to patient.

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

4.7
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