4.6 Article

Low CD86 expression in the nonobese diabetic mouse results in the impairment of both T cell activation and CTLA-4 up-regulation

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 164, Issue 5, Pages 2444-2456

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.5.2444

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The nonobese diabetic (NOD) mouse spontaneously develops autoimmune insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and serves as a model for human type I diabetes. NOD spleen cells proliferate to a lesser extent than those from C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice in response to anti-CD3. To investigate the cause of this reduced T cell proliferation, costimulatory molecule expression was investigated, It was found that NOD macrophages, dendritic cells, and T cells, but not B cells, expressed lower basal levels of CD86, but not CD80, CD28, or CD40, compared with C57BL/6 and BALB/c. This low CD86 expression was not dependent on the MHC haplotype or on diabetes development since the NOD-related, diabetes-free mouse strains NON (H-2(nb1)) and NOR (H-2(g7)) exhibited similar low levels of CD86 expression and proliferation. Furthermore, following activation, the relative up-regulation of CTLA-4, as compared with CD28, was more pronounced on C57BL/6 and BALB/c T cells as shown by an increased CTLA-4/CD28 ratio. This activation-induced increase in the CTLA-4/CD28 ratio was markedly reduced on NOD T cells compared with the other two strains. The low CD86 expression in NOD mice may account for the reduced increase in both proliferation and the CTLA-4/CD28 ratio, since reducing CD86 expression in C57BL/6 and BALB/c cultures to NOD levels significantly reduces the proliferation and the CTLA-4/CD28 ratio. Therefore, me propose that a low level of CD86 expression in the NOD mouse contributes to a defective regulation of autoreactive T cells by preventing the full activation of T cells and therefore the up-regulation of CTLA-4.

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