Characterization of CD4+ T‐cell–dendritic cell interactions during secondary antigen exposure in tolerance and priming

Despite the recent advances in our understanding of the dynamics of the cellular interactions associated with the induction of immune responses, comparatively little is known about the in vivo behaviour of antigen‐experienced T cells upon secondary antigen exposure in either priming or tolerance. Such information would provide an insight into the functional mechanisms employed by memory T cells of distinct phenotypes and provide invaluable knowledge of how a specific tolerogenic or immunogenic state is maintained. Using real‐time imaging to follow the in vivo motility of naïve, primed and tolerized CD4+ T cells and their interactions with dendritic cells (DCs), we demonstrate that each of these distinct functional phenotypes is associated with specific patterns of behaviour. We show that antigen‐experienced CD4+ T cells, whether primed or tolerized, display inherently slower migration, making many short contacts with DCs in the absence of antigen. Following secondary exposure to antigen, primed T cells increase their intensity or area of interaction with DCs whereas contacts between DCs and tolerized T cells are reduced. Importantly, this was not associated with alterations in the contact time between DCs and T cells, suggesting that T cells that have previously encountered antigen are more effective at surveying DCs. Thus, our studies are the first to demonstrate that naïve, primed and tolerized T cells show distinct behaviours before and after secondary antigen‐encounter, providing a novel mechanism for the increased immune surveillance associated with memory T cells. These findings have important consequences for many immunotherapeutics, which aim to manipulate secondary immune responses.

[1]  R. Germain,et al.  Dynamic Imaging of T Cell-Dendritic Cell Interactions in Lymph Nodes , 2002, Science.

[2]  Michael Loran Dustin,et al.  Regulatory T cells inhibit stable contacts between CD4+ T cells and dendritic cells in vivo , 2006, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[3]  G. Freeman,et al.  The B7 family revisited. , 2005, Annual review of immunology.

[4]  M. Croft,et al.  Naive and effector CD4 T cells differ in their requirements for T cell receptor versus costimulatory signals. , 1996, Journal of immunology.

[5]  G. Schuler,et al.  An advanced culture method for generating large quantities of highly pure dendritic cells from mouse bone marrow. , 1999, Journal of immunological methods.

[6]  Yuanfang Ma,et al.  Roles of cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated antigen‐4 in the inductive phase of oral tolerance , 2002, Immunology.

[7]  J. Whitton,et al.  Tentative T Cells: Memory Cells Are Quick to Respond, but Slow to Divide , 2008, PLoS pathogens.

[8]  S. Henrickson,et al.  T-cell priming by dendritic cells in lymph nodes occurs in three distinct phases , 2004, Nature.

[9]  B. Stockinger,et al.  Following the development of a CD4 T cell response in vivo: from activation to memory formation. , 1999, Immunity.

[10]  Yeonseok Chung,et al.  Complementary role of CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells and TGF‐β in oral tolerance , 2005, Journal of leukocyte biology.

[11]  H. Weiner,et al.  Induction of anergy or active suppression following oral tolerance is determined by antigen dosage. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  H. Weiner,et al.  Activation of CD25+CD4+ Regulatory T Cells by Oral Antigen Administration1 , 2001, The Journal of Immunology.

[13]  Paul Garside,et al.  Malaria Impairs T Cell Clustering and Immune Priming despite Normal Signal 1 from Dendritic Cells , 2007, PLoS pathogens.

[14]  A. Sharpe,et al.  CTLA-4 regulates induction of anergy in vivo. , 2001, Immunity.

[15]  K. Smith,et al.  Orally Tolerized T Cells Are Only Able to Enter B Cell Follicles Following Challenge with Antigen in Adjuvant, but They Remain Unable to Provide B Cell Help1 , 2002, The Journal of Immunology.

[16]  M. Croft,et al.  Naive versus memory CD4 T cell response to antigen. Memory cells are less dependent on accessory cell costimulation and can respond to many antigen-presenting cell types including resting B cells. , 1994, Journal of immunology.

[17]  Paul Garside,et al.  Reversal of the TCR Stop Signal by CTLA-4 , 2006, Science.

[18]  A. Gebert,et al.  Naive, Effector, and Memory T Lymphocytes Efficiently Scan Dendritic Cells In Vivo: Contact Frequency in T Cell Zones of Secondary Lymphoid Organs Does Not Depend on LFA-1 Expression and Facilitates Survival of Effector T Cells1 , 2005, The Journal of Immunology.

[19]  G. Bismuth,et al.  CTLA‐4 disrupts ZAP70 microcluster formation with reduced T cell/APC dwell times and calcium mobilization , 2008, European journal of immunology.

[20]  F. Lemonnier,et al.  Differential requirements for survival and proliferation of CD8 naïve or memory T cells. , 1997, Science.

[21]  Michel C Nussenzweig,et al.  Stable T cell–dendritic cell interactions precede the development of both tolerance and immunity in vivo , 2005, Nature Immunology.

[22]  Mark J. Miller,et al.  Two-Photon Imaging of Lymphocyte Motility and Antigen Response in Intact Lymph Node , 2002, Science.

[23]  T. Strom,et al.  Induction of peripheral T cell tolerance in vivo requires CTLA-4 engagement. , 1997, Immunity.

[24]  E. Fuchs,et al.  CD28/B7 regulation of Th1 and Th2 subsets in the development of autoimmune diabetes. , 1996, Immunity.

[25]  Sebastian Amigorena,et al.  Distinct T cell dynamics in lymph nodes during the induction of tolerance and immunity , 2004, Nature Immunology.

[26]  A. Lanzavecchia,et al.  The duration of antigenic stimulation determines the fate of naive and effector T cells. , 1998, Immunity.

[27]  U. V. von Andrian,et al.  CD4 Effector T Cell Subsets in the Response to Influenza , 2002, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[28]  P. Bousso,et al.  CD4 T cells integrate signals delivered during successive DC encounters in vivo , 2005, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[29]  N. Van Houten,et al.  Direct measurement of anergy of antigen-specific T cells following oral tolerance induction. , 1996, Journal of immunology.

[30]  A. Heimberger,et al.  Induction by antigen of intrathymic apoptosis of CD4+CD8+TCRlo thymocytes in vivo. , 1990, Science.

[31]  K. S. Barone,et al.  Effect of in vivo administration of anti‐CTLA‐4 monoclonal antibody and IL‐12 on the induction of low‐dose oral tolerance , 2002, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[32]  H. Weiner,et al.  CTLA-4 is required for the induction of high dose oral tolerance. , 1998, International immunology.

[33]  N. Hogg,et al.  TCR/CD3 mediated stop-signal is decoupled in T-cells from Ctla4 deficient mice. , 2008, Immunology letters.

[34]  A. Mowat,et al.  Induction of Bystander Suppression by Feeding Antigen Occurs despite Normal Clonal Expansion of the Bystander T Cell Population1 , 2004, The Journal of Immunology.

[35]  Yeonseok Chung,et al.  Complementary role of CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells and TGF-beta in oral tolerance. , 2005, Journal of leukocyte biology.

[36]  Michael Loran Dustin Stop and go traffic to tune T cell responses. , 2004, Immunity.

[37]  Ian Parker,et al.  In situ characterization of CD4+ T cell behavior in mucosal and systemic lymphoid tissues during the induction of oral priming and tolerance , 2005, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[38]  Michael D. Cahalan,et al.  Imaging the Single Cell Dynamics of CD4+ T Cell Activation by Dendritic Cells in Lymph Nodes , 2004, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[39]  C. Abraham,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of IL-2 gene regulation following costimulation through LFA-1. , 2000, Journal of immunology.

[40]  Ronald N Germain,et al.  Stromal cell networks regulate lymphocyte entry, migration, and territoriality in lymph nodes. , 2006, Immunity.

[41]  K. Smith,et al.  T‐cell activation occurs simultaneously in local and peripheral lymphoid tissue following oral administration of a range of doses of immunogenic or tolerogenic antigen although tolerized T cells display a defect in cell division , 2002, Immunology.

[42]  L. Lefrançois,et al.  In Situ Imaging of the Endogenous CD8 T Cell Response to Infection , 2007, Science.

[43]  F. Powrie,et al.  CTLA‐4 expression on antigen‐specific cells but not IL‐10 secretion is required for oral tolerance , 2002, European journal of immunology.

[44]  H. Goto,et al.  Orally Tolerized T Cells Can Form Conjugates with APCs but Are Defective in Immunological Synapse Formation1 , 2005, The Journal of Immunology.

[45]  A. Khoruts,et al.  Generation of Anergic and Potentially Immunoregulatory CD25+CD4 T Cells In Vivo After Induction of Peripheral Tolerance with Intravenous or Oral Antigen1 , 2001, The Journal of Immunology.

[46]  M. Harnett,et al.  Inverse Rap1 and Phospho-ERK Expression Discriminate the Maintenance Phase of Tolerance and Priming of Antigen-Specific CD4+ T Cells In Vitro and In Vivo1 , 2007, The Journal of Immunology.

[47]  Mark J. Miller,et al.  T cell repertoire scanning is promoted by dynamic dendritic cell behavior and random T cell motility in the lymph node. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[48]  Ronald E. Pepin A Complementary Role. , 1970 .

[49]  D. Harrison,et al.  Lymphocytes from orally tolerized mice display enhanced susceptibility to death by apoptosis when cultured in the absence of antigen in vitro. , 1996, The American journal of pathology.

[50]  Joost B. Beltman,et al.  Lymph node topology dictates T cell migration behavior , 2007, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[51]  Pau Serra,et al.  Visualizing regulatory T cell control of autoimmune responses in nonobese diabetic mice , 2006, Nature Immunology.