English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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-A b  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-A b  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-A b  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-A b  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.

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