4.8 Article

Antigen-stimulated CD4 T-cell expansion is inversely and log-linearly related to precursor number

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018525108

Keywords

cytokine; T-cell cluster

Funding

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  2. National Institutes of Health
  3. US Civilian Research and Development Foundation [RUX1-2710-MO-06]
  4. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [08-01-00141a]
  5. Russian Academy of Sciences Basic Research for Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Antigen-driven expansion of specific CD4 T cells diminishes, on a per cell basis, as infused cell number increases. There is a linear relation between log precursor number and log factor of expansion (FE), with a slope of similar to-0.5 over a range from 3 to 30,000 precursors. Cell number dependence of FE is observed at low precursor number, implying that the underlying process physiologically regulates antigen-driven T-cell expansion. FE of small numbers of transgenic precursors is not significantly affected by concomitant responses of large numbers of cells specific for different antigens. Increasing antigen amount or exogenous IL-2, IL-7, or IL-15 does not significantly affect FE, nor does FE depend on Fas, TNF-alpha receptor, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, IL-2, or IFN-gamma. Small numbers of Foxp3-deficient T-cell receptor transgenic cells expand to a greater extent than do large numbers, implying that this effect is not mediated by regulatory T cells. Increasing dendritic cell number does result in larger FE, but the quantitative relation between FE and precursor number is not abrogated. Although not excluding competition for peptide/MHC complexes as an explanation, fall in FE with increasing precursor number could be explained by a negative feedback in which increasing numbers of responding cells in a cluster inhibit the expansion of cells of the same specificity within that cluster.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available