4.8 Article

Beyond Type 1 Regulatory T Cells: Co-expression of LAG3 and CD49b in IL-10-Producing T Cell Lineages

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02625

关键词

IL-10; Foxp3; T cell; parasitic infection; house dust mite; influenza infection; farmer's lung disease; lung inflammation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI120701, AI138570, AI126814, AI129422, AI138497, AI137822]
  2. American Association of Immunologists
  3. Faculty Development Program
  4. Louisiana State University
  5. Center for Experimental Infectious Disease Research - NIH [P30GM110760]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type 1 regulatory CD4(+) T (Tr1) cells express high levels of the immunosuppressive cytokine IL-10 but not the master transcription factor Foxp3, and can suppress inflammation and promote immune tolerance. In order to identify and obtain viable Tr1 cells for research and clinical applications, co-expression of CD49b and LAG3 has been proposed as a unique surface signature for both human and mouse Tr1 cells. However, recent studies have revealed that this pattern of co-expression is dependent on the stimulating conditions and the differentiation stage of the CD4(+) T cells. Here, using an IL-10(GFP)/Foxp3(RFP) dual reporter transgenic murine model, we demonstrate that co-expression of CD49b and LAG3 is not restricted to the Foxp3(-) Tr1 cells, but is also observed in Foxp3(+) T regulatory (Treg) cells and CD8(+) T cells that produce IL-10. Our data indicate that IL-10-producing Tr1 cells, Treg cells and CD8(+) T cells are all capable of co-expressing LAG3 and CD49b in vitro following differentiation under IL-10-inducing conditions, and in vivo following pathogenic insult or infection in the pulmonary mucosa. Our findings urge caution in the use of LAG3/CD49b co-expression as sole markers to identify Tr1 cells, since it may mark IL-10-producing T cell lineages more broadly, including the Foxp3(-)Tr1 cells, Foxp3(+) Treg cells, and CD8(+) T cells.

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

4.8
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