4.8 Article

CD4(+) T Cell Fate Decisions Are Stochastic, Precede Cell Division, Depend on GITR Co-Stimulation, and Are Associated With Uropodium Development

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01381

关键词

T cell differentiation; cell fate; asymmetric cell division; imaging flow cytometry; GITR; mTOR signaling; uropodium

资金

  1. European Research Council [339402-PARIS]
  2. Medical Research Council UK Program Grant Therapeutic Immunoregulation: RTAM0
  3. Edward Penley Abraham Research Fund
  4. MRC [G7904009] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During an immune response, naive CD4(+) T cells proliferate and generate a range of effector, memory, and regulatory T cell subsets, but how these processes are coordinated remains unclear. A traditional model suggests that memory cells use mitochondrial respiration and are survivors from a pool of previously proliferating and glycolytic, but short-lived effector cells. A more recent model proposes a binary commitment to either a memory or effector cell lineage during a first, asymmetric cell division, with each lineage able to undergo subsequent proliferation and differentiation. We used improved fixation and staining methods with imaging flow cytometry in an optimized in vitro system that indicates a third model. We found that cell fates result from stochastic decisions that depend on GITR co-stimulation and which take place before any cell division. Effector cell commitment is associated with mTORC2 signaling leading to uropodium development, while developing memory cells lose mitochondria, have a nuclear localization of NF kappa B and depend on TGF beta for their survival. Induced, T helper subsets and foxp3(+) regulatory T cells were found in both the effector and memory cell lineages. This in vitro model of T cell differentiation is well suited to testing how manipulation of cytokine, nutrient, and other components of the microenvironment might be exploited for therapeutic purposes.

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