| Literature DB >> 35474948 |
Zhongyi Jiang1, Haitao Zhu2, Pusen Wang1, Weitao Que1, Lin Zhong1, Xiao-Kang Li1,3, Futian Du4.
Abstract
CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells (Tregs), a subpopulation of naturally CD4+ T cells that characteristically express transcription factor Forkhead box P3 (FOXP3), play a pivotal role in the maintenance of immune homeostasis and the prevention of autoimmunity. With the development of biological technology, the understanding of plasticity and stability of Tregs has been further developed. Recent studies have suggested that human Tregs are functionally and phenotypically diverse. The functions and mechanisms of different phenotypes of Tregs in different disease settings, such as tumor microenvironment, autoimmune diseases, and transplantation, have gradually become hot spots of immunology research that arouse extensive attention. Among the complex functions, CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ Tregs possess a potent immunosuppressive capacity and can produce various cytokines, such as IL-2, IL-10, and TGF-β, to regulate immune homeostasis. They can alleviate the progression of diseases by resisting inflammatory immune responses, whereas promoting the poor prognosis of diseases by helping cells evade immune surveillance or suppressing effector T cells activity. Therefore, methods for targeting Tregs to regulate their functions in the immune microenvironment, such as depleting them to strengthen tumor immunity or expanding them to treat immunological diseases, need to be developed. Here, we discuss that different subpopulations of Tregs are essential for the development of immunotherapeutic strategies involving Tregs in human diseases.Entities:
Keywords: FOXP3; autoimmune disease; regulatory T cell; subpopulation; transplantation; tumor immunity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35474948 PMCID: PMC9023873 DOI: 10.1002/mco2.137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MedComm (2020) ISSN: 2688-2663
FIGURE 1Different subpopulations of FOXP3+ Tregs in high‐incidence human cancers. This figure summarizes the subtypes of FOXP3+ Tregs described in colorectal cancer (CRC), lung cancer (LUC), liver cancer (LIC), and gastric cancer (GC)
FIGURE 2Different subpopulations of FOXP3+ Tregs in other cancers. This figure summarizes the subtypes of FOXP3+ Tregs described in neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), follicular lymphoma (FL), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), melanoma, breast cancer (BRC), cervical cancer (CC), ovarian cancer (OC), bladder cancer (BLC)
FIGURE 3Different subpopulations of FOXP3+ Tregs in autoimmune diseases. This figure summarizes the subtypes of FOXP3+ Tregs described in autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); multiple sclerosis (MS), type 1 diabetes (T1D), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)
FIGURE 4Different subpopulations of FOXP3+ Tregs in transplantation and pregnancy. This figure summarizes the subtypes of FOXP3+ Tregs described in kidney transplantation (KT), hematopoietic stem cells transplantation (HSCT), and materno‐fetal interface
The primary functions of different subpopulations of FOXP3+ Tregs in human cancers, and their frequencies of leading to diseases exacerbation
| Diseases | Markers | Primary Functions | The frequencies of Tregs of leading to disease exacerbation | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorectal cancer | GZMB+ Tregs | GZMB+ Tregs could induce the apoptosis of effector T cells and were related to immune homeostasis and mediating tumor immunity. | ↑ |
[
|
| GZMB+TIM3+ Tregs | GZMB+TIM3+ Tregs presented higher cytolytic capacity towards autologous conventional T cells. | ↑ |
[
| |
| LAG3+TIM3+ Tregs | LAG3+TIM3+ Tregs presented significantly higher expression of TGF‐β, IL‐10, and CTLA‐4, which could suppress the expression of MHC‐II, CD80/CD86, and TNF‐α and increase the expression of IL‐10 in macrophages. | ↑ |
[
| |
| CCR8+ Tregs | The mAb therapy targeting CCR8+ Tregs could obviously inhibit tumor growth and improve the prognosis in CRCs by increasing tumor‐specific T cells. | ↑ |
[
| |
| BLIMP‐1+ eTregs | CRCs patients with low FOXP3+BLIMP‐1+ eTregs infiltration in tumors are associated with high risk of recurrence. | ↓ |
[
| |
| TNFR2+ Tregs | Blockade of TNFR2 signaling could markedly reduce the tumor‐infiltrating TNFR2+ Tregs in CRCs, whereas the number of tumor‐infiltrating IFN‐γ+CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes were significantly increased. | ↑ |
[
| |
| CD30+OX40+ Tregs | High density of tumor‐infiltrating CD30+OX40+ Tregs in CRCs patients was associated with improved prognosis. | ↓ |
[
| |
| Lung cancer | CD62LhighCD25+CD4+ Tregs | CD62LhighCD25+CD4+ Tregs could suppress cytokine production and inhibit the proliferation of Teffs. | ↑ |
[
|
| GARP+ Tregs | GARP+ Tregs were highly infiltrated in tumor tissues in the early stage of lung cancer and exerted immunosuppressive effects through the GARP‐TGF‐β pathway to inhibit Teffs. | ↑ |
[
| |
| FOXA1+ Tregs | FOXA1+ Tregs could inhibit the antitumor immunity of T cells and promote tumor growth by the IFN‐β‐PI3K‐Akt‐FOXA1 signaling pathway. | ↑ |
[
| |
| FOXP3+ Helios− Tregs | Higher percentages of tumor‐infiltrated FOXP3+ Helios− Tregs were seen in advanced‐stage NSCLC with poorer survival. | ↑ |
[
| |
| TNFRSF9+ Tregs | TNFRSF9+ Tregs highly expressed immunosuppressive genes and were related to the poor prognosis of NSCLC. | ↑ |
[
| |
| TNFR2+ Tregs | The high percentage of TNFR2+ Tregs in the peripheral blood of lung cancer patients were associated with lymphatic invasion, distant metastasis, more advanced clinical stage, and worse outcomes. | ↑ |
[
| |
| CCR8+ Tregs | The high frequency of CCR8+ tumor‐infiltrating Tregs played a crucial suppressive function and was correlated with poor prognosis in patients with NSCLC. | ↑ |
[
| |
| IRF4+ eTregs | The abundance of IRF4+ eTregs correlated with poor prognosis in patients with NSCLC. | ↑ |
[
| |
| CCR8+ICOS+ eTregs | The high expression of IRF4 was present in CCR8+ICOS+ eTregs, which further contributed to the superior suppressive activity and worse disease‐free survival and overall survival of NSCLC patients. | ↑ |
[
| |
| IL‐10+ and IL‐35+ Tregs | IL‐10+ and IL‐35+ Tregs‐derived IL‐10 and IL‐35 collectively induced inhibitory receptor, such as TIM‐3 and LAG‐3 expression on intratumoral CD8+ T cells, which further results in T‐cell dysfunction and antitumor immunity failure. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Liver cancer | LAYN+FOXP3+Helios+ Tregs | The high expression of tumor‐infiltrated LAYN+FOXP3+Helios+ Tregs, which possessed suppressive functions, was associated with tumor‐infiltrating exhausted CD8+ T cells and poor survival in liver cancer. | ↑ |
[
|
| LAYN+ Tregs | LAYN+ Tregs showed highly expressed LAYN, TNFRSF9, and ICOS, but the proportion of this cell population in tumor‐infiltrating cells was very small, which was different from FOXP3+ Tregs. | unknown |
[
| |
| GARP+/CTLA4+ Tregs | The high frequency of GARP+/CTLA4+ Tregs in patients with advanced HCC may facilitate immune dysregulation. | ↑ | ||
| CD4+CD69+FOXP3− Tregs | CD4+CD69+FOXP3− Tregs accounted for the vast majority of tumor‐infiltrating Tregs compared with FOXP3+ Tregs and could suppress the CD4+ T‐cell response mainly through mTGF‐β1. | ↑ |
[
| |
| GITR+FOXP3+ Tregs | The expression of GITR was upregulated in activated tumor‐infiltrating Tregs in patients with primary or metastatic liver cancer, GITR ligation could abrogate the tumor‐infiltrating Tregs‐mediated suppression of effector T cells through treatment with soluble GITR ligand. | ↑ |
[
| |
| ICOS+ Tregs | ICOS+ Tregs could produce a mass of IL‐10 and TGF‐β1, higher ICOS+ Tregs levels and ICOS+ Tregs/CD4+ T cells ratios indicated worse prognosis in HCC. | ↑ |
[
| |
| CCR6+ Tregs | CCR6+ Tregs accounted for the majority of intratumoral Tregs, which could induced CD8+ T‐cell exhaustion and was associated with poor prognosis in patients with HCC | ↑ |
[
| |
| CCR4+ Tregs | The high frequency of CCR4+ Tregs exhibited potently immunosuppressive stem‐like specificity by upregulating TCF1, PD‐1, and CTLA‐4 levels and secreting more IL‐10 and IL‐35. | ↑ |
[
| |
| PD‐1+ eTregs | Enhanced PD‐1 expression on eTregs was observed in low‐glucose TME of HCC on account of PD‐1+ eTregs actively absorbed LA through MCT1 and promoted NFAT1 translocation into the nucleus. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Gastric cancer | PD‐1+ eTregs | Tumor‐infiltrating eTregs highly expressed PD‐1 and that the proliferation and immunosuppressive activity of PD‐1+ eTregs could be reinforced by anti‐PD‐1 mAb therapy in patients with GC | ↑ |
[
|
| VEGFR2+FOXP3+ eTregs | VEGFR2+FOXP3+ eTregs highly expressed Ki67 in GC tumor tissues | ↑ |
[
| |
| CD45RA−CCR7− Tregs | Tumor‐infiltrating CD45RA−CCR7−Tregs were induced by tumor‐derived TNF‐α and could inhibit the secretion of IFN‐γ and proliferation of effector CD8+ T cells. | ↑ |
[
| |
| TNFR2+ Tregs | TNFR2+ Tregs preferentially accumulated in TME of GC, which expressed high levels of CTLA‐4 and CCR6 and possessed strong suppressive activity by activating TNF‐α/TNFR2 signaling pathway. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Breast cancer | CCR8+ Tregs | Intratumoral CCR8+ Tregs highly expressed surface‐activated markers, such as CTLA‐4, CD39, and PD‐1, which contributed to the potential of immunosuppression. | ↑ |
[
|
| OX40+ Tregs | Anti‐OX40 therapy could promote tumor‐infiltrated CD4+ T cells proliferation and reduce the tumor metastasis. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Neck squamous cell carcinoma | Nrp1+ Tregs | Nrp1 expression in intratumoral Tregs appeared to correlate with poor prognosis in HNSCC | ↑ |
[
|
| OX40+ Tregs | OX40 was particularly expressed on the surface of Tregs of HNSCC patients. | ↑ |
[
| |
| TIGIT+ Tregs | TIGIT+ Tregs could activate its ligand CD155, and the activation of TIGIT/CD155 signaling was associated with the pathologic grade and lymph node metastasis of HNSCC. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma | OX40+ Tregs | The application of anti‐OX40 could promote tumor‐infiltrated CD4+ T‐cell proliferation and reduce the tumor metastasis. | ↑ |
[
|
| Cervical cancer | Nrp1+ Tregs | The depletion of Nrp1+ Tregs in tumor‐draining lymph nodes was directly related to a favorable response to chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer. | ↑ |
[
|
| TNFR2+ Tregs | The proportion of TNFR2+ Tregs was found to be associated with the clinical stages of cervical cancer. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Ovarian cancer | TNFR2+ Tregs | TNFR2+ Tregs mainly expressed high levels of CD39, CD73, TGF‐β, and GARP in the cell surface to increase their suppressive capacity, which further inhibited the production of IFN‐γ by Teffs. | ↑ |
[
|
| IL‐17A+FOXP3+ Tregs | IL‐17A+FOXP3+ Tregs are a subpopulation of suppressive Tregs, which could be promoted by TGF‐β during tumor progression. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Melanoma | Nrp1+ Tregs | Nrp1 expression in intratumoral Tregs appeared to correlate with poor prognosis in melanoma. | ↑ |
[
|
| TIGIT+ Tregs | The high proportion of TIGIT+ Tregs and a high TIGIT/CD226 ratio in Tregs in the tumor immune microenvironment were associated with poor clinical prognosis in melanoma. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Bladder cancer | TIGIT+ Tregs | TIGIT+ Tregs highly expressed IL‐32 and promoted the migration and invasion of tumor cells. | ↑ |
[
|
| Follicular lymphoma | TIGIT+ Tregs | The abundantly tumor‐infiltrating TIGIT+ Tregs showed enhanced suppressive capacity by inhibiting the activation and proliferation of CD8+ T cells in patients with follicular lymphoma. | ↑ |
[
|
The primary functions of different subpopulations of FOXP3+ Tregs in autoimmune diseases, transplantation, and pregnancy, and their frequencies of beneficial to diseases
| Diseases | Markers | Primary functions | The frequencies of Tregs of beneficial to the disease | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic lupus erythematosus | CTLA‐4+ and GATA‐3+ Tregs | IL‐21 could suppress FOXP3+ Tregs differentiation and suppressive activity by inhibiting CTLA‐4 and GATA‐3 expression, whereas IL‐2 and TGF‐β promoted the expression of CTLA‐4+ Tregs and GATA‐3+ Tregs in SLE. | ↑ |
[
|
| CD4+CXCR5+FOXP3+ Tfrs | The high proportion of circulating Tfrs could suppress Tfhs function and the frequency of Tfrs was positively associated with autoantibodies and might be a response to the enhanced humoral immunity during SLE pathogenesis. | ↑ |
[
| |
| PD‐1+ Tfrs | The high expression of PD‐1 was explored on Tfrs with dysfunction of suppressing Tfhs proliferation and activation in patients with SLE due to IL‐2 deficiency. | ↓ |
[
| |
| PSGL‐1+ Tfrs | PSGL‐1 interaction with selectin impaired the suppression function of Tfrs and contributed to the pathogenesis of SLE via inhibition of the TGF‐β pathway and reduced expression of FOXP3. | ↓ |
[
| |
| Multiple sclerosis | CD39+FOXP3+ Tregs | CD39+FOXP3+ Tregs could suppress the production of IL‐17 by Th17 cells to alleviate the progression of MS. | ↑ |
[
|
| FOXA1+ Tregs | FOXA1 could bind to PD‐L1, which was essential for FOXA1+ Tregs to kill activated T cells. | ↑ |
[
| |
| IFN‐γ+FOXP3+ Tregs | The suppressive activity of IFN‐γ+FOXP3+ Tregs was inhibited through the secretion of IFN‐γ stimulated by IL‐12 in MS. | ↓ |
[
| |
| CXCR5+PD‐1+FOXP3+CD25+ Tfrs | The lower frequency of circulating Tfrs was correlated to the reduction of IL‐10 that might increase the severity of MS. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | CD4+CXCR5+FOXP3+ Tfrs | The circulating CD4+CXCR5+FOXP3+ Tfrs with enhanced suppressive function could alleviate autoimmunity in RA patients by reducing IgG and IgM levels, and the proportion of Tfrs was negatively correlated with the disease severity. | ↑ |
[
|
| TNFR2+ Tregs | TNF treatment could promote the proliferation of TNFR2+ Tregs, ameliorate inflammation by activation of TNF–TNFR2 signaling, and enhance expression of CD25. | ↑ |
[
| |
| TIM3+FOXP3+ Tregs | The proportion of TIM3+FOXP3+ Tregs was significantly decreased in patients with RA, which could potently suppress IFN‐γ and TNF‐α inflammation from Teffs by producing high IL‐10 and TGF‐β. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Type 1 diabetes | CXCR5+FOXP3+ Tfrs | CXCR5+FOXP3+ Tfrs, which were needed to maintain peripheral tolerance by regulating diabetogenic Tfhs and B cells, were reduced in spleen and pancreatic lymph node of patients with T1D. | ↑ |
[
|
| TIM1+ and TMI4+ Tregs | TIM1+ Tregs and TMI4+ Tregs were significantly decreased in PBMCs of patients with T1D. Inhibition of TIM1 could reduce FOXP3 expression and inhibit Tregs development, while TIM4 regulated the activation of naive T cells and proliferation of activated T cells. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Organ transplantation | Notch‐1+ Tregs | Notch‐1+ Tregs were significantly higher in patients with a kidney transplant than in healthy controls, and inhibition of Notch‐1 could reduce the frequency and function of effector T cells, whereas the survival, proliferation, and suppressive function of Tregs were enhanced. | ↓ |
[
|
| CXCR3+FOXP3+ Tregs | CXCR3+FOXP3+ Tregs showed the capacity to translocate to the site of inflammation and could control renal allograft rejection. | ↑ |
[
| |
| Graft‐versus‐host disease | PD‐1+ Tregs | Low doses of IL‐2 enhanced PD‐1 expression of central memory Tregs in patients with cGVHD, suggesting that PD‐1 pathway was a critical homeostasis and tolerance regulator for Tregs. | ↑ |
[
|
| TIM3+ Tregs | The subtype of TIM3+ Tregs exhibited highly immunosuppressive function in GVHD. | ↑ |
[
| |
| ST2+FOXP3+ Tregs | IL‐33 mediates the expansion of ST2+FOXP3+ Tregs via activation of p38 MAPK signaling after HSCT, which could protect against acute GVHD. | ↑ |
[
| |
| LAP+FOXP3+ Tregs | The subset of LAP+FOXP3+ Tregs possessed fully suppressive function and adoptive transfer of LAP+ Tregs could delay the development of xGVHD. | ↑ |
[
| |
| CD150+ Tregs | CD150+ Tregs could secret adenosine to maintain the quiescent status of HSCs, which activated the AMPK pathway to promote energy metabolism to inhibit the GVHD and intestinal cell apoptosis secondary to HSCT. | ↑ |
| |
| Pregnancy | Uterine Tregs | Uterine Tregs highly expressed IL1R2, LAYN, CD80, TNFRSF4, which were considered to be very important in establishing maternal‐fetal immune tolerance and indispensable for successful embryo implantation and pregnancy outcome. | ↑ |
|
| PD‐1highIL‐10+ and TIGIT+FOXP3lowTregs | PD‐1highIL‐10+ and TIGIT+FOXP3low Tregs could significantly inhibit CD4+ T‐cell proliferation. | ↑ |
| |
| CD25highHELIOS+FOXP3+ Tregs | CD25highHELIOS+FOXP3+ Tregs could simultaneously inhibit the proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ Teffs and affect their production of certain cytokines. | ↑ |
|