↓ Skip to main content

Equal Expansion of Endogenous Transplant-Specific Regulatory T Cell and Recruitment Into the Allograft During Rejection and Tolerance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Equal Expansion of Endogenous Transplant-Specific Regulatory T Cell and Recruitment Into the Allograft During Rejection and Tolerance
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01385
Pubmed ID
Authors

James S. Young, Dengping Yin, Augustin Georges Louis Vannier, Maria-Luisa Alegre, Anita S. Chong

Abstract

Despite numerous advances in the definition of a role for regulatory T cells (Tregs) in facilitating experimental transplantation tolerance, and ongoing clinical trials for Treg-based therapies, critical issues related to the optimum dosage, antigen-specificity, and Treg-friendly adjunct immunosuppressants remain incompletely resolved. In this study, we used a tractable approach of MHC tetramers and flow cytometry to define the fate of conventional (Tconvs) and Tregs CD4+ T cells that recognize donor 2W antigens presented by I-Ab on donor and recipient antigen-presenting cells (APCs) in a mouse cardiac allograft transplant model. Our study shows that these endogenous, donor-reactive Tregs comparably accumulate in the spleens of recipients undergoing acute rejection or exhibiting costimulation blockade-induced tolerance. Importantly, this expansion was not detected when analyzing bulk splenic Tregs. Systemically, the distinguishing feature between tolerance and rejection was the inhibition of donor-reactive conventional T cell (Tconv) expansion in tolerance, translating into increased percentages of splenic FoxP3+ Tregs within the 2W:I-Ab CD4+ T cell subset compared to rejection (~35 vs. <5% in tolerance vs. rejection). We further observed that continuous administration of rapamycin, cyclosporine A, or CTLA4-Ig did not facilitate donor-specific Treg expansion, while all three drugs inhibited Tconv expansion. Finally, donor-specific Tregs accumulated comparably in rejecting tolerant allografts, whereas tolerant grafts harbored <10% of the donor-specific Tconv numbers observed in rejecting allografts. Thus, ~80% of 2W:I-Ab CD4+ T cells in tolerant allografts expressed FoxP3+ compared to ≤10% in rejecting allografts. A similar, albeit lesser, enrichment was observed with bulk graft-infiltrating CD4+ cells, where ~30% were FoxP3+ in tolerant allografts, compared to ≤10% in rejecting allografts. Finally, we assessed that the phenotype of 2W:I-Ab Tregs and observed that the percentages of cells expressing neuropilin-1 and CD73 were significantly higher in tolerance compared to rejection, suggesting that these Tregs may be functionally distinct. Collectively, the analysis of donor-reactive, but not of bulk, Tconvs and Tregs reveal a systemic signature of tolerance that is stable and congruent with the signature within tolerant allografts. Our data also underscore the importance of limiting Tconv expansion for high donor-specific Tregs:Tconv ratios to be successfully attained in transplantation tolerance.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 8 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#27,437
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,481
of 341,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#675
of 740 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 740 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.