4.8 Article

Allograft rejection mediated by memory T cells is resistant to regulation

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0704397104

关键词

suppression; tolerance; transplantation

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI-41521, R01 AI037691, AI-62789, R01 AI062789, P01 AI041521, AI-37691] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alloreactive memory T cells may be refractory to many of the tolerance-inducing strategies that are effective against naive T cells and thus present a significant barrier to long-term allograft survival. Because CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cells (Tregs) are critical elements of many approaches to successful induction/maintenance of transplantation tolerance, we used MHC class I and II alloreactive TCR-transgenic models to explore the ability of antigen-specific Tregs to control antigen-specific memory T cell responses. Upon coadoptive transfer into RAG-1(-/-) mice, we found that Tregs effectively suppressed the ability of naive T cells to reject skin grafts, but neither antigen-unprimed nor antigen-primed Tregs suppressed rejection by memory T cells. Interestingly, different mechanisms appeared to be active in the ability of Tregs to control naive T cell-mediated graft rejection in the class II versus class I alloreactive models. in the former case, we observed decreased early expansion of effector cells in lymphoid tissue. in contrast, in the class I model, an effect of Tregs on early proliferation and expansion was not observed. However, at a late time point, significant differences in cell numbers were seen, suggesting effects on responding T cell survival. Overall, these data indicate that the relative resistance of both CD4(+) and CD8(+) alloreactive memory T cells to regulation may mediate resistance to tolerance induction seen in hosts with preexisting alloantigen-specific immunity and further indicate the multiplicity of mechanisms by which Tregs may control alloimmune responses in vivo.

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