4.7 Article

Islet-Derived CD4 T Cells Targeting Proinsulin in Human Autoimmune Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 722-734

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db16-1025

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK-099317, DK-095995, DK-057516, DK-104194, DK-104223, DK-101120, DK-104155, DK-08231, DK-110845]
  2. National Institutes of Health [P30CA046934, P01A142288]
  3. JDRF [25-2010-624, 1-INO-2014-173-A-V, 25-2013-268, 17-2012-3, 25-2012]
  4. Children's Diabetes Foundation
  5. Peter Culshaw Family Award
  6. Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute [TR001082]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type 1 diabetes results from chronic autoimmune destruction of insulin-producing beta-cells within pancreatic islets. Although insulin is a critical self-antigen in animal models of autoimmune diabetes, due to extremely limited access to pancreas samples, little is known about human antigenic targets for islet-infiltrating T cells. Here we show that proinsulin peptides are targeted by islet-infiltrating T cells from patients with type 1 diabetes. We identified hundreds of T cells from inflamed pancreatic islets of three young organ donors with type 1 diabetes with a short disease duration with high-risk HLA genes using a direct T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing approach without longterm cell culture. Among 85 selected CD4 TCRs tested for reactivity to preproinsulin peptides presented by diabetes-susceptible HLA-DQ and HLA-DR molecules, one T cell recognized C-peptide amino acids 19-35, and two clones from separate donors responded to insulin B-chain amino acids 9-23 (B:9-23), which are known to be a critical self-antigen-driving disease progress in animal models of autoimmune diabetes. These B: 9-23-specific T cells from islets responded to whole proinsulin and islets, whereas previously identified B:9-23 responsive clones from peripheral blood did not, highlighting the importance of proinsulin-specific T cells in the islet microenvironment.

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

4.7
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