4.7 Article

IL-21 inhibits T cell IL-2 production and impairs Treg homeostasis

期刊

BLOOD
卷 119, 期 20, 页码 4656-4664

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-10-388546

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC) Non-Clinical Senior Fellowship
  2. MRC
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. Diabetes United Kingdom
  5. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030_124922]
  7. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [310030_124922] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  8. Medical Research Council [G0802382, G9818340B] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. MRC [G0802382] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modulation of regulatory T cell (Treg) suppression has important implications for vaccine development, the effectiveness of tumor surveillance, and the emergence of autoimmunity. We have previously shown that the cytokine IL-21 can counteract Treg suppression. However, whether this reflects an effect of IL-21 on Treg, conventional T cells, or antigen-presenting cells is not known. Here we have used lymphocyte populations from IL-21R-deficient mice to pinpoint which cell type needs to be targeted by IL-21 for Treg suppression to be overcome. We show that IL-21 counteracts suppression by acting on conventional T cells and that this is associated with inhibition of IL-2 production. Despite the lack of IL-2, conventional T-cell responses proceed unimpaired because IL-21 can substitute for IL-2 as a T cell growth factor. However, IL-21 is unable to substitute for IL-2 in supporting the Treg compartment. Thus, IL-21 signaling in conventional T cells indirectly impacts Treg homeostasis by decreasing IL-2 availability. These data demonstrate that IL-21 and IL-2 can have overlapping roles in promoting conventional T-cell responses but play distinct roles in controlling Treg homeostasis and function. The data also suggest a new paradigm whereby cytokines can promote immunity by inhibiting IL-2. (Blood. 2012; 119(20): 4656-4664)

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