4.6 Article

The Programmed Death-1 Ligand 1:B7-1 Pathway Restrains Diabetogenic Effector T Cells In Vivo

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 187, 期 3, 页码 1097-U75

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1003496

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [FG 1805-A-1]
  2. National Institutes of Health [PO1 AI56299, R01 AI051559, PO1 AI39671, R37 A1038310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Programmed death-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) is a coinhibitory molecule that negatively regulates multiple tolerance checkpoints. In the NOD mouse model, PD-L1 regulates the development of diabetes. PD-L1 has two binding partners, programmed death-1 and B7-1, but the significance of the PD-L1:B7-1 interaction in regulating self-reactive T cell responses is not yet clear. To investigate this issue in NOD mice, we have compared the effects of two anti-PD-L1 Abs that have different blocking activities. Anti-PD-L1 mAb 10F.2H11 sterically and functionally blocks only PD-L1: B7-1 interactions, whereas anti-PD-L1 mAb 10F.9G2 blocks both PD-L1: B7-1 and PD-L1: programmed death-1 interactions. Both Abs had potent, yet distinct effects in accelerating diabetes in NOD mice: the single-blocker 10F.2H11 mAb was more effective at precipitating diabetes in older (13-wk-old) than in younger (6- to 7-wk-old) mice, whereas the dual-blocker 10F.9G2 mAb rapidly induced diabetes in NOD mice of both ages. Similarly, 10F.2H11 accelerated diabetes in recipients of T cells from diabetic, but not prediabetic mice, whereas 10F.9G2 was effective in both settings. Both anti-PD-L1 mAbs precipitated diabetes in adoptive transfer models of CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell-driven diabetes. Taken together, these data demonstrate that the PD-L1: B7-1 pathway inhibits potentially pathogenic self-reactive effector CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell responses in vivo, and suggest that the immunoinhibitory functions of this pathway may be particularly important during the later phases of diabetogenesis. The Journal of Immunology, 2011, 187: 1097-1105.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据