4.7 Article

Single-cell lineage mapping of a diverse virus-specific naive CD4 T cell repertoire

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 218, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20200650

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI125741, DK127526, AI153537, DK108557, DK107541, DK121747, AI137248]
  2. American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant
  3. Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Endowment Grant
  4. Cancer Research Institute Irvington Fellowship
  5. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32-GM080202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-cell sequencing technology was used to track individual virus-specific CD4 T cells during an acute lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) infection, revealing previously unappreciated clonal diversity and cellular heterogeneity among virus-specific helper T cells. Despite most naive CD4 T cells giving rise to multiple lineages, approximately 28% of naive cells exhibited a preference towards either Th1 or T-FH cells, with the TCR structure influencing lineage decisions.
Tracking how individual naive T cells from a natural TCR repertoire clonally expand, differentiate, and make lineage choices in response to an infection has not previously been possible. Here, using single-cell sequencing technology to identify clones by their unique TCR sequences, we were able to trace the clonal expansion, differentiation trajectory, and lineage commitment of individual virus-specific CD4 T cells during an acute lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) infection. Notably, we found previously unappreciated clonal diversity and cellular heterogeneity among virus-specific helper T cells. Interestingly, although most naive CD4 T cells gave rise to multiple lineages at the clonal level, similar to 28% of naive cells exhibited a preferred lineage choice toward either Th1 or T-FH cells. Mechanistically, we found that TCR structure, in particular the CDR3 motif of the TCR alpha chain, skewed lineage decisions toward the T-FH cell fate.

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