4.6 Article

Plasticity of Human Regulatory T Cells in Healthy Subjects and Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 186, Issue 7, Pages 3918-3926

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1003099

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Collaborative Center
  2. Noel Warner and BD Biosciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) constitute an attractive therapeutic target given their essential role in controlling autoimmunity. However, recent animal studies provide evidence for functional heterogeneity and lineage plasticity within the Treg compartment. To understand better the plasticity of human Tregs in the context of type 1 diabetes, we characterized an IFN-gamma-competent subset of human CD4(+)CD127(1o/-)2CD25(+) Tregs. We measured the frequency of Tregs in the peripheral blood of patients with type 1 diabetes by epigenetic analysis of the Treg-specific demethylated region (TSDR) and the frequency of the IFN-gamma(+) subset by flow cytometry. Purified IFN-gamma(+) Tregs were assessed for suppressive function, degree of TSDR demethylation, and expression of Treg lineage markers FOXP3 and Helios. The frequency of Tregs in peripheral blood was comparable but the FOXP3(+)IFN-gamma(+) fraction was significantly increased in patients with type 1 diabetes compared to healthy controls. Purified IFN-gamma(+) Tregs expressed FOXP3 and possessed suppressive activity but lacked Helios expression and were predominately methylated at the TSDR, characteristics of an adaptive Treg. Naive Tregs were capable of upregulating expression of Th1-associated T-bet, CXCR3, and IFN-gamma in response to IL-12. Notably, naive, thymic-derived natural Tregs also demonstrated the capacity for Th1 differentiation without concomitant loss of Helios expression or TSDR demethylation. The Journal of Immunology, 2011, 186: 3918-3926.

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