4.2 Review

Clinical and diagnostic potential of regulatory T cell markers: From bench to bedside

Journal

TRANSPLANT IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.trim.2021.101518

Keywords

Regulator T cell; FOXP3; CTLA-4; Immuno-tolerance; Transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regulatory T (Treg) cells are heterogeneous immune cell populations essential for maintaining immune tolerance. Phenotypic heterogeneity caused by different pathological conditions makes identification and differentiation challenging. Utilizing suitable isolation panels designed for different purposes is crucial for addressing the issue of Treg purification.
Regulatory T (Treg) cells are heterogeneous immune cell populations residing in the thymus and peripheral lymphatic tissues. This immune cell plays a central and critical role in maintaining immune tolerance against undesirable immune responses. Treg cells' phenotypic heterogeneity caused by different pathological conditions makes their identification and differentiation from non-suppressive T cells difficult. On the other hand, using nonspecific markers and variable isolation panels leads to undesirable outcomes. There are a variety of markers to identify functional Treg cells, including CD25, FOXP3, and CTLA-4, as well as the epigenetic signature of forkhead box P3 (FOXP3), which can be used for both natural and induced Treg cells. Phenotypic heterogeneity is a major concern in Treg purification when using nonspecific markers, which can be addressed by utilizing suitable isolation panels designed for different purposes. This review presents a clinical framework for Treg detection and isolation, focusing on Treg markers such as CD25, FOXP3, CTLA-4, CD127, GPA-33, and TSDR demethylation to design Treg isolation panels suitable for different Treg therapy purposes. The current review also highlights new reliable Treg markers applicable for different purposes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available