4.6 Article

Thymic Medullary Epithelium and Thymocyte Self-Tolerance Require Cooperation between CD28-CD80/86 and CD40-CD40L Costimulatory Pathways

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 192, 期 2, 页码 630-640

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1302550

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA BC009281-23, ZIA BC009281-27, ZIA BC009281-25, Z01 BC009281-21, ZIA BC009281-24, Z01 BC009281-22, ZIA BC009281-26, Z01 BC009281] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24111004, 24111001, 23249025, 25860361, 25111516] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A critical process during thymic development of the T cell repertoire is the induction of self-tolerance. Tolerance in developing T cells is highly dependent on medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTEC), and mTEC development in turn requires signals from mature single-positive thymocytes, a bidirectional relationship termed thymus crosstalk. We show that CD28-CD80/86 and CD40-CD40L costimulatory interactions, which mediate negative selection and self-tolerance, upregulate expression of LT alpha, LT beta, and receptor activator for NF-kappa B in the thymus and are necessary for medullary development. Combined absence of CD28-CD80/86 and CD40-CD40L results in profound deficiency in mTEC development comparable to that observed in the absence of single-positive thymocytes. This requirement for costimulatory signaling is maintained even in a TCR transgenic model of high-affinity TCR-ligand interactions. CD4 thymocytes maturing in the altered thymic epithelial environment of CD40/CD80/86 knockout mice are highly autoreactive in vitro and are lethal in congenic adoptive transfer in vivo, demonstrating a critical role for these costimulatory pathways in self-tolerance as well as thymic epithelial development. These findings demonstrate that cooperativity between CD28-CD80/86 and CD40-CD40L pathways is required for normal medullary epithelium and for maintenance of self-tolerance in thymocyte development.

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