Dmitri I Kotov1,2, Jason S Mitchell2,3,4, Thomas Pengo5, Christiane Ruedl6, Sing Sing Way7,8, Ryan A Langlois1,2, Brian T Fife2,4, Marc K Jenkins9,2. 1. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 2. Center for Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 3. University Imaging Centers, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 5. University of Minnesota Informatics Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 6. School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637551. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH 45229; and. 8. Perinatal Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH 45229. 9. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; jenki002@umn.edu.
Abstract
Naive CD4+ T lymphocytes differentiate into various Th cell subsets following TCR binding to microbial peptide:MHC class II (p:MHCII) complexes on dendritic cells (DCs). The affinity of the TCR interaction with p:MHCII plays a role in Th differentiation by mechanisms that are not completely understood. We found that low-affinity TCRs biased mouse naive T cells to become T follicular helper (Tfh) cells, whereas higher-affinity TCRs promoted the formation of Th1 or Th17 cells. We explored the basis for this phenomenon by focusing on IL-2R signaling, which is known to promote Th1 and suppress Tfh cell differentiation. SIRP⍺+ DCs produce abundant p:MHCII complexes and consume IL-2, whereas XCR1+ DCs weakly produce p:MHCII but do not consume IL-2. We found no evidence, however, of preferential interactions between Th1 cell-prone, high-affinity T cells and XCR1+ DCs or Tfh cell-prone, low-affinity T cells and SIRP⍺+ DCs postinfection with bacteria expressing the peptide of interest. Rather, high-affinity T cells sustained IL-2R expression longer and expressed two novel Th cell differentiation regulators, Eef1e1 and Gbp2, to a higher level than low-affinity T cells. These results suggest that TCR affinity does not influence Th cell differentiation by biasing T cell interactions with IL-2-consuming DCs, but instead, directly regulates genes in naive T cells that control the differentiation process.
n class="Chemical">Naive n class="Gene">CD4+ T lymphocytes differentiate into various Th cell subsets following TCR binding to microbial peptide:MHC class II (p:MHCII) complexes on dendritic cells (DCs). The affinity of the TCR interaction with p:MHCII plays a role in Th differentiation by mechanisms that are not completely understood. We found that low-affinity TCRs biased mouse naive T cells to become T follicular helper (Tfh) cells, whereas higher-affinity TCRs promoted the formation of Th1 or Th17 cells. We explored the basis for this phenomenon by focusing on IL-2R signaling, which is known to promote Th1 and suppress Tfh cell differentiation. SIRP⍺+ DCs produce abundant p:MHCII complexes and consume IL-2, whereas XCR1+ DCs weakly produce p:MHCII but do not consume IL-2. We found no evidence, however, of preferential interactions between Th1 cell-prone, high-affinity T cells and XCR1+ DCs or Tfh cell-prone, low-affinity T cells and SIRP⍺+ DCs postinfection with bacteria expressing the peptide of interest. Rather, high-affinity T cells sustained IL-2R expression longer and expressed two novel Th cell differentiation regulators, Eef1e1 and Gbp2, to a higher level than low-affinity T cells. These results suggest that TCR affinity does not influence Th cell differentiation by biasing T cell interactions withIL-2-consuming DCs, but instead, directly regulates genes in naive T cells that control the differentiation process.
Authors: James M Ertelt; Jared H Rowe; Tanner M Johanns; Joseph C Lai; James B McLachlan; Sing Sing Way Journal: J Immunol Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Noah J Tubo; Antonio J Pagán; Justin J Taylor; Ryan W Nelson; Jonathan L Linehan; James M Ertelt; Eric S Huseby; Sing Sing Way; Marc K Jenkins Journal: Cell Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Jian Ye; George Coulouris; Irena Zaretskaya; Ioana Cutcutache; Steve Rozen; Thomas L Madden Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Lihui Duan; Dan Liu; Hsin Chen; Michelle A Mintz; Marissa Y Chou; Dmitri I Kotov; Ying Xu; Jinping An; Brian J Laidlaw; Jason G Cyster Journal: Immunity Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 43.474
Authors: Peter D Krueger; Michael F Goldberg; Sung-Wook Hong; Kevin C Osum; Ryan A Langlois; Dmitri I Kotov; Thamotharampillai Dileepan; Marc K Jenkins Journal: Immunity Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 43.474
Authors: Maigan A Brusko; Joshua M Stewart; Amanda L Posgai; Clive H Wasserfall; Mark A Atkinson; Todd M Brusko; Benjamin G Keselowsky Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 7.561