4.8 Article

The dominant role of CD8+ dendritic cells in cross-presentation is not dictated by antigen capture

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0601956103

Keywords

antigen presentation; mice; endocytosis; ovalbumin; vaccines

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mouse spleens contain three populations of conventional (CD11c(high)) dendritic cells (DCs) that play distinct functions. The CID8(+) DC are unique in that they can present exogenous antigens on their MIHC class I molecules, a process known as cross-presentation. It is unclear whether this special ability is because only the CD8(+) DC can capture the antigens used in cross-presentation assays, or because this is the only DC population that possesses specialized machinery for cross-presentation. To solve this important question we examined the splenic DC subsets for their ability to both present via MHC class II molecules and cross-present via MHC class I using four different forms of the model antigen ovalbumin (OVA). These forms include a cell-associated form, a soluble form, OVA expressed in bacteria, or OVA bound to latex beads. With the exception of bacterial antigen, which was poorly cross-presented by all DC, all antigenic forms were cross-presented much more efficiently by the CD8+ DC. This pattern could not be attributed simply to a difference in antigen capture because all DC subsets presented the antigen via MIHC class II. Indeed, direct assessments of endocytosis showed that CD8(+) and CD8(-) DC captured comparable amounts of soluble and bead-associated antigen, yet only the CD8+ DC cross-presented these antigenic forms. Our results indicate that cross-presentation requires specialized machinery that is expressed by CD8+ DC but largely absent from CD8(-) DC. This conclusion has important implications for the design of vaccination strategies based on antigen targeting to DC.

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