Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2026 May 28;22(5):e1014282. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1014282

Homotypic interactions between SLAMF1 receptors on innate T cells and neutrophils regulate killing of fungi

Lindsay Suarez Lau 1, Sarah Lichtenberger 1, Cleison Ledesma Taira 1, Bruce S Klein 1,2,3, Marcel Wüthrich 1,*
Editor: Amariliz Rivera4
PMCID: PMC13229365  PMID: 42207808

Abstract

Innate lymphocytes and myeloid cells communicate and play an essential part in activating neutrophils and other effector cells to kill fungi. Here, we identified that Signaling Lymphocytic Activation Molecule 1 (SLAMF1) orchestrates a cellular and molecular signaling network that activates phagocytes. We uncovered innate lymphocytes including innate CD4+ or TCRγδ+ T cells augment neutrophil killing of Blastomyces dermatitidis (Bd) in a SLAMF1 dependent manner. SLAMF1 expression on neutrophils enabled homotypic SLAMF1:SLAMF1 interactions with innate CD4+ T cells, which released soluble factors that activated neutrophils to kill fungi. Our work furnishes new mechanistic insight about the role of SLAMF1 in mobilizing innate immune cells to induce phagocyte-driven killing of inhaled fungi.

Author summary

The innate immune system is the first line of defense against inhaled fungi but the mechanisms by which the host immune system becomes activated and mounts a protective response is incompletely understood. We identified a receptor on innate immune cells that facilitates communication between cells and recruits and activates killer cells that destroy inhaled fungi. We found that a receptor on the cell surface of innate immune cells promotes cell contact and release of soluble factors, which orchestrates resistance to infection. We envision that soluble receptor could be harnessed for future anti-fungal therapy.

Introduction

Cell surface molecules expressed on leukocytes regulate innate immune responses to pathogens. Signaling Lymphocytic Activation Molecule Family (SLAMF) receptors orchestrate and interconnect innate and adaptive immune cells [1]. SLAMF receptors are expressed on hematopoietic lineage cells [2] and have three modes of action: (i) homophilic contact-dependent interaction between cells that modulate immunity; (ii) direct microbial sensing as part of the anti-microbial response; and (iii) as an entry receptor for pathogens [3–5]. The role of SLAMF1 in antifungal resistance is understudied. We have reported that SLAMF1 is dispensable in vaccine immunity [6], but essential for host defense against fungi. Thus, understanding its role in innate immunity represents a gap in knowledge. Herein, we investigated whether hematopoietic cells activate phagocytes to kill fungal pathogens through homophilic signaling between SLAMF1 receptors on innate lymphocytes and myeloid cells.

Results & discussion

SLAMF1 is required for innate resistance to Bd

To investigate whether innate resistance to Bd infection requires SLAMF1, we infected unvaccinated mice. SLAMF1-/- mice died earlier (Fig 1A) and had 3.5 log more lung CFU than wild-type mice at the termination of the experiment (Fig 1B), indicating a deficit in innate resistance to fungal infection in SLAMF1-/- mice.

Fig 1. SLAMF1 is required for innate resistance to Bd, in vivo killing and ROS/NO production by neutrophils and monocytes.

Fig 1

Survival (A) and lung CFU (B) 4 days post infection of SLAMF1 knockout (KO) and wild type (WT) mice infected with Bd. *p < 0.05, Kaplan Meier test for survival. CFU from at least 10 mice/group are expressed as Log10 plotted with geometric mean ± geometric SD *p < 0.05, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. In vivo killing assay: Dot plots show yeast-associated cells (alveolar macrophages, neutrophils and monocytes) and the percentages of cells containing dead (DsRed-, Uvitex+) vs. live (DsRed + , Uvitex+) yeast. Dot-plots are concatenated data for 5 mice/group *p < 0.05 vs KO, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test (C). Lung cells stained ex vivo with ROS or NO indicators DHR-123 or DAF-FM diacetate. Geometric MFI of staining is shown for yeast-associated neutrophils, monocytes, and alveolar macrophages *p < 0.05 two tailed Mann-Whitney T test (D). In vitro killing assay: neutrophils and monocytes were isolated from bone marrow of wildtype and SLAMF1 KO mice and cocultured with Bd yeast overnight at 37C. 8 replicates plated for CFU. *p < 0.05 vs. all other groups, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test (E + F).

Phagocytes including neutrophils, monocytes, and macrophages internalize and kill fungi [7]. To see if SLAMF1 impacts elimination of Bd by phagocytes in vivo, we used a DsRed viability reporter strain [8,9]. We assessed killing by phagocytes at 16 hours post-infection (hpi) when the burden of lung CFU was comparable between wild type and SLAMF1-/- mice. The percentage of dead yeast in neutrophils and monocytes, but not alveolar macrophages, was reduced in SLAMF1-/- mice vs. controls (Figs 1C and S1A). Thus, killing of Bd by neutrophils and monocytes is impaired in the absence of SLAMF1 [7]. While the percentage of killed yeast associated with neutrophils (26.9%) is lower than with monocytes (49.08%), the number of yeast-associated neutrophils is 4.3 times higher than yeast-associated monocytes (S1B Fig) indicating that innate resistance is mostly determined by killing of yeast by neutrophils. We thus focused on activation of neutrophils to understand how SLAMF1 promotes resistance.

Production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO) is essential and serves as a surrogate of innate antifungal resistance [8]. We investigated a link between these products and reduced in vivo killing by neutrophils in SLAMF1-/- mice. ROS and NO staining were reduced in yeast-associated neutrophils and monocytes in SLAMF1-/- vs. controls (Fig 1D) and was unaffected in alveolar macrophages.

To assess intrinsic killing by SLAMF1-/- neutrophils and monocytes, we cocultured the cells with Bd in vitro. In contrast to the in vivo defect, in vitro killing of Bd was similar for SLAMF1-/- and SLAMF1+/+ neutrophils and monocytes. (Fig 1E and 1F). Thus, these SLAMF1-/- phagocytes are not intrinsically impaired in killing Bd yeast. SLAMF1 must be required on other cells for antifungal function of neutrophils and monocytes in vivo.

Innate CD4+ T cells, TCRγδ+ T cells and monocytes express SLAMF1 and augment neutrophil killing of Bd in vitro

We stained lung cells for SLAMF1 16 hpi when lung CFU is similar between SLAMF1-/- and control mice. Among 17 populations of myeloid and lymphoid cells surveyed, CD4+TCRβ+, TCRγδ+, MAIT cells and Ly6Chi CCR2+ monocytes expressed SLAMF1 (Fig 2A). We next investigated whether these cells activate neutrophils in a SLAMF1-dependent manner. MAIT cells were excluded, as there were too few in the lung after infection and specific cre mice were unavailable to study the SLAMF1 on MAIT cells.

Fig 2. CD4+ T cells, TCRγδ+ T cells, and monocytes express SLAMF1 and augment phagocyte killing of Bd.

Fig 2

Ex vivo staining of lung leukocytes for SLAMF1. WT and SLAMF1 KO mice were challenged with Bd and lungs harvested at 16 hr post-infection. Lung cells were stained ex vivo with anti-SLAMF1 (CD150) mAb. SLAMF1 staining of cells from WT and SLAMF1 KO mice (shaded. The plots are concatenates from 5 mice/group. P values were calculated based on individual sample MFIs between WT and SLAMF1KO mice. p < 0.05 vs. KO for all cell types, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test (A). In vitro killing assay with candidate activating cells, neutrophils and Bd yeast (B) created in Biorender https://BioRender.com/lc170nt. Neutrophils were isolated from bone marrow of WT mice. Candidate cells were isolated from lungs of WT mice 16 hr after challenge. Neutrophils plus CD4+ T cells (C), TCRγδ+ cells (D) and monocytes (E) were cocultured with Bd yeast overnight. In (F), CD4+ T cells were co-cultured with Bd yeast and monocytes as the effector. 8 replicates plated for CFU. *p < 0.05 two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Bars are geometric mean with 95% CI. Graphs representative of 5 (B), 2 (C), and 2 (D) experiments, respectively.

We established an in vitro coculture assay with yeast, neutrophils and each candidate cell type (Fig 2B). We used naïve neutrophils from bone marrow and SLAMF1+ candidate cells from lungs 16 hpi; cell purity was > 90% for CD4+ T cells and monocytes, and 56% for TCRγδ+ T cells (S2 Fig). Whereas neutrophils alone reduced yeast numbers (Fig 2C - 2E), the addition of CD4+ T cells, TCR-γδ+ T cells or monocytes to cocultures further reduced CFU (Fig 2C -2E). Thus, CD4+ T cells, TCRγδ+ T cells and monocytes augment neutrophil killing of fungi. CD4+ T cells also augmented fungal killing by monocytes (Fig 2F).

Conditional mice that lack SLAMF1 on innate lymphocytes or monocytes

We created mice where SLAMF1 is ablated on the target cell by Tamoxifen treatment. We validated commercial SLAMF1fl/fl mice by creating Ella cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice that lack SLAMF1 in embryonic cells. They phenocopy SLAMF1 cell surface staining and resistance to Bd infection of SLAMF1 global knockout mice (S3A3-S3D Fig).

To test the role of SLAMF1 on target cells, we crossed SLAMF1fl/fl mice with cell-specific Cre+ mice (S3E3-S3H Fig). We verified loss of SLAMF1 on target cells by FACS. At 16 hpi, CD4+ T cells from the lungs of CD4-Cre+ x SLAMF1fl/fl mice showed reduced SLAMF1 staining vs. controls (S3E Fig). Likewise, SLAMF1 was reduced on TCRγδ+ T cells from TCRγδ-Cre+ x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (S3F Fig) and monocytes from CCR2-Cre+ x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (S3G Fig). Since wild type monocytes display limited SLAMF1, we used GFP as a surrogate marker to verify Cre activation and elimination of SLAMF1 after tamoxifen treatment on the cells from CCR2-Cre+ x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (S3H Fig), but not controls.

CD4+ T cells and TCRγδ+ T cells require SLAMF1 to augment killing by neutrophils

To investigate whether CD4+ T cells, TCRγδ+ T cells and monocytes require SLAMF1 to augment neutrophil killing, we cocultured yeast and neutrophils with candidate cells from Cre+ and Cre- conditional mice (Fig 3A). CD4+ T cells that lack SLAMF1 in CD4-Cre+ mice failed to augment neutrophil killing compared to CD4-Cre- controls (Fig 3B). Likewise, TCRγδ+ T cells from TCRγδ-Cre+ mice failed to augment neutrophil killing compared to Cre- controls (Fig 3C). Monocytes from CCR2-Cre+ mice did not differ from Cre- controls in this assay (Fig 3D). Thus, only innate T-cells augment killing by neutrophils in a SLAMF1-dependent manner.

Fig 3. CD4+ T cells and TCRγδ+ T cells augment neutrophil killing in a SLAMF1-dependent manner and in vivo killing of Bd in conditional SLAMF1knockout mice.

Fig 3

In vitro killing assay with candidate activating cells from conditional SLAMF1 knockout mice (A) created in Biorender https://BioRender.com/71w6m5v. Neutrophils isolated from bone marrow of wild type mice were cocultured with Bd yeast and candidate activating cells from lungs of conditional CD4-Cre x SLAMF1fl/fl (B), TCRγδ-Cre x SLAMF fl/fl mice (C), and CCR2-cre SLAMF1fl/fl mice (D) harvested 16 hr post-infection. 8 replicates plated for CFU. Data representative of 3 assays. *p < 0.05, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Wild type (WT), SLAMF1 knockout (KO), conditional CD4-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice, CCR2-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice, and TCRγδ-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice were infected with 2x104 Bd yeast and lung CFU plated at 14 days post-infection. Cre+ mice lack SLAMF1 on corresponding conditional knockout mice, Cre- mice served as wildtype littermate controls for the corresponding Cre+ knockout mice (E). *p < 0.05 two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Bars represent geometric mean with 95% CI.

SLAMF1 on CD4+ T cells is indispensable for anti-fungal resistance in vivo

We challenged conditional knockout mice and analyzed lung CFU to determine dispensability of SLAMF1 on target cells. Similar to SLAMF1 global knockout mice, CD4-Cre+ mice that lacked SLAMF1 on CD4+ T cells had increased lung CFU vs. controls (Fig 3E). In contrast, we saw no difference in lung CFU between TCRγδ-Cre+ vs. Cre- mice and CCR2-Cre+ vs. Cre- mice (Fig 3E). Thus, SLAMF1 is indispensable on CD4+ T cells for host resistance but dispensable on TCRγδ+ T cells and monocytes.

Augmented neutrophil killing also requires SLAMF1 expression on neutrophils

CD4+ T cells and TCRγδ+ T cells required SLAMF1 to augment neutrophil killing in vitro. If these lymphocytes activate neutrophils by SLAMF1:SLAMF1 homotypic interactions, SLAM1 expression should be required on neutrophils. To test this, we cocultured CD4+ T cells and neutrophils from wild type or SLAMF1-/- mice. Neutrophils alone from wild type or SLAMF1-/- mice each reduced yeast numbers, confirming SLAMF1-/- neutrophils have no intrinsic killing defect. The addition of CD4+ T cells from wild type mice reduced CFU in the wells with neutrophils from wild type but not SLAMF1-/- mice (Fig 4A). Thus, homotypic SLAMF1 interaction between neutrophils and CD4+ T cells is required to augment killing by neutrophils.

Fig 4. Augmented neutrophil killing requires SLAMF1 expression on neutrophils and soluble factors.

Fig 4

In vitro killing assay with wild type or SLAMF1 KO neutrophils and CD4+ T cells from WT mice. Neutrophils from bone marrow of naive mice were cocultured overnight with Bd yeast and CD4+ T cells harvested from the lungs of WT mice 16 hrs post-infection (A). 8 replicates plated for CFU. *p < 0.05, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Format of in vitro transwell assay: activating cells that potentially produce soluble factor in the bottom well; sensing neutrophils in the top well. Bd yeast and neutrophils from bone marrow of naive wild type mice were placed in the top insert wells. Bd yeast, neutrophils, and CD4+ T cells harvested from the lungs of wild type mice 16 hr post challenge were placed in the bottom well (B) created in Biorender https://BioRender.com/lc170nt. Transwell system results after overnight coculture, 8 replicates plated for CFU (C). *p < 0.05, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Model for SLAMF1 functions (D) created in Biorender https://BioRender.com/2r3dje9: 1) Cell contact through SLAMF1: SLAMF1 homotypic interactions between neutrophils and CD4+ T cells are requisite for neutrophil activation. 2) Homotypic SLAMF1:SLAMF1 interactions generate soluble factors that also augment neutrophil killing of Bd yeast.

Unexpectedly, we saw no SLAMF1 expression on lung neutrophils from infected wild type mice (S4A Fig) despite in vitro results indicating SLAMF1 on neutrophils is required to augment killing. We surmised SLAMF1 on neutrophils could be internalized upon contact with Bd yeast in the lung, as the in vitro assay uses naïve neutrophils from bone marrow. Indeed, fresh neutrophils from the bone marrow of wild type mice display SLAMF1 (S4B Fig). We then tested if SLAMF1 on neutrophils is downregulated by exposure to Bd yeast in vitro. Neutrophils from wild type mice displayed SLAMF1 when cultured without yeast but not after coculture with yeast (S4C Fig). After coculture, we detected intracellular SLAMF1, suggesting the receptor had become internalized. Thus, early in infection, homotypic SLAMF1:SLAMF1 interactions between CD4+ T cells and neutrophils likely augment neutrophil killing of yeast. Yeast may subvert these events by binding the receptor themselves.

Mtb infection conversely enhances expression of SLAMF1 on human neutrophils [10]. That study concluded that SLAMF1 can regulate myeloid cell autophagy or Th1 responses against Mtb. Hence, SLAMF1 may offer a target for host directed therapy by increasing pathogen control or reducing tissue damage during infection.

Homotypic SLAMF1 interactions between innate CD4+ T cells and neutrophils augment fungal killing by neutrophils via production of soluble factors

We investigated whether homotypic SLAMF1 interactions between innate T cells and neutrophils yields soluble factors that activate neutrophils to kill Bd. We established a transwell assay where the lower well contained yeast, innate T cells and neutrophils, and the upper well contained only neutrophils and yeast. Soluble factors from the lower well could then pass the membrane to activate neutrophils in the upper well (Fig 4B). To verify that soluble factors pass through the 0.4 mm pores of the transmembrane, we used recombinant IFN-γ (17 kDA) to activate neutrophils and increase their release of ROS and pro inflammatory cytokines [11]. IFN-γ addition to the lower well augmented neutrophil killing of Bd in the top well (S4D Fig). Addition of CD4+ T cells to the bottom well augmented killing of yeast by neutrophils in both the bottom well and top well (Fig 4C). Thus, homotypic SLAMF1 interactions between CD4+ T cells and neutrophils yield soluble factors that also activates neutrophils. We conclude that augmented killing by neutrophils may result from SLAMF-1 mediated cell-contact or contact-dependent production of soluble factors or both (Fig 4D).

We previously reported that TCRγδ+ T cells and CD4+ T cells recruit and activate neutrophils and innate resistance to Bd infection [12]. We did not investigate the role of SLAMF1 in that study. The mechanics that activate these innate populations at the site of infection have not been fully identified to our knowledge. Homotypic SLAMF1 interactions between innate lymphocytes and neutrophils and associated release of soluble products may underpin such responses during Bd and other mucosal fungal infections (e.g., candidiasis), where neutrophil killing of fungi could result from SLAMF1 mediated cell-contact, contact-dependent production of soluble factors or both.

Our study raises questions about SLAMF1 that have implications for innate immunity to fungi and other intracellular microbes: SLAMF1 as a sensor of fungi and the receptor’s role in either phagocytosis or immune evasion; SLAMF1 induced signaling in lymphocytes and neutrophils; the identity of soluble factors released by SLAMF1 homotypic interactions; and the potential use of soluble SLAMF1 receptor for antifungal immunotherapy. Insights from such work will deepen understanding of diverse SLAMF1’s receptor functions that regulate innate immune interactions and provide the foundation for targeted host directed therapies.

Materials and methods

Ethics Statement

Animal studies adhered to protocol M005891 approved by the IACUC of UW-Madison. Animal studies were compliant with provisions established by the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Services (PHS) Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Additional Methods are found in S1 Text.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. To main Fig 1 In vivo killing assay: Percent of lung phagocytes associated with dead yeast (A) and number of alveolar macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes associated with total number of yeast for wild type and SLAMF1 knockout mice (B).

*p < 0.05, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test.

(EPS)

ppat.1014282.s001.eps (1.7MB, eps)
S2 Fig. To main Fig 2 Flow analysis and stacked bar graphs of lung leukocyte populations before and after isolation of CD4+ T cells (A) and TCRγδ+ T cells (B), and analysis of bone marrow before and after isolation of monocytes (C).

To identify cell types of interest before and after enrichment we used a panel of multiplexing antibodies to identify 17 pulmonary leukocyte subsets with 12 color flow cytometry [13]. Stacked bar graphs show percentage of each immune cell type relative to all immune cells identified by the Lymphoid Myeloid panel.

(EPS)

ppat.1014282.s002.eps (2.8MB, eps)
S3 Fig. To main Fig 3 Breeding scheme for the generation of conditional SLAMF1knockout mice.

To validate commercial SLAMF1 floxed mice we bred them first to homozygosity and crossed them with Ella-Cre mice to generate Ella-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice that lack SLAMF1 in embryonic cells (A) created in Biorender https://BioRender.com/1ni5v4x. SLAMF1 expression on target cells for Ella-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice in comparison to wildtype and SLAMF1 KO mice. Geometric MFI of staining. Plots are concatenates from 5 mice/group. *p < 0.05 vs WT, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test (B). Survival (C) and lung CFU (D) 9 days post infection of Ella-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice and WT mice infected with Bd. *p < 0.05, Kaplan Meier test for survival. CFU from at least 9 mice/group are expressed as Log10 plotted with geometric mean ± geometric SD *p < 0.05 two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Ex vivo staining of lung leukocytes for SLAMF1 in CD4-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (E) and TCRγδ-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (F). Ex vivo staining of bone marrow for SLAMF1 in CCR2-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (G). Plots show the histograms and geometric mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of SLAMF1 staining for corresponding target cells in Cre+ and Cre- mice in comparison to wild type and SLAMF1 knockout mice. GFP expression by conditional CCR2-Cre+ x SLAMF1fl/fl mice that were generated using CCR2-CreER-GFP mice (H). Plots are concatenates from 5 or more mice/group. *p < 0.05 vs SLAMF1 expressing cells (WT vs KO, Cre- vs Cre+), two tailed Mann-Whitney T test.

(EPS)

ppat.1014282.s003.eps (4.4MB, eps)
S4 Fig. To main Fig 4 Ex vivo staining of neutrophils from lungs 16 hr post-infection (A) and from bone marrow of naive mice (B).

Surface and intracellular staining of neutrophils from the bone marrow with anti-SLAMF1 (CD150) after overnight coculture with or without Bd yeast (C) Geometric MFI of staining. Plots are concatenates from 5 mice/group. Validation of transwell system using IFN-γ as a positive control (D). Neutrophils and yeast were placed in the top well and recombinant IFN-γ added in the bottom well. 16 hours later, CFU were plated from the top well.

(EPS)

ppat.1014282.s004.eps (2.4MB, eps)
S1 Text. Materials and Methods.

(DOCX)

ppat.1014282.s005.docx (39.2KB, docx)
S1 Data. Raw data used to generate graphs.

(XLSX)

ppat.1014282.s006.xlsx (48.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

Flow samples were processed at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC) Flow Core Facility on a BD LSR Fortessa and Aurora that was purchased with the NIH shared instrumentation grant 1S100OD018202–01 and University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Support grant P30 CA014520.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript, its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

NIH grants R21AI173718 (MW), R01AI040996 (BK/MW), R37 AI035681 (BK), and R01 AI168370 (BK) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Romero X, Sintes J, Engel P. Role of SLAM family receptors and specific adapter SAP in innate-like lymphocytes. Crit Rev Immunol. 2014;34(4):263–99. doi: 10.1615/critrevimmunol.2014010538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen S, Li D, Wang Y, Li Q, Dong Z. Regulation of MHC class I-independent NK cell education by SLAM family receptors. Adv Immunol. 2020;145:159–85. doi: 10.1016/bs.ai.2019.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Veillette A. Immune regulation by SLAM family receptors and SAP-related adaptors. Nat Rev Immunol. 2006;6(1):56–66. doi: 10.1038/nri1761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tatsuo H, Ono N, Tanaka K, Yanagi Y. SLAM (CDw150) is a cellular receptor for measles virus. Nature. 2000;406(6798):893–7. doi: 10.1038/35022579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.van Driel BJ, Liao G, Engel P, Terhorst C. Responses to Microbial Challenges by SLAMF Receptors. Front Immunol. 2016;7:4. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kohn EM, Dos Santos Dias L, Dobson HE, He X, Wang H, Klein BS, et al. SLAMF1 Is Dispensable for Vaccine-Induced T Cell Development but Required for Resistance to Fungal Infection. J Immunol. 2022;208(6):1417–23. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.2100819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sterkel AK, Mettelman R, Wüthrich M, Klein BS. The unappreciated intracellular lifestyle of Blastomyces dermatitidis. J Immunol. 2015;194(4):1796–805. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1303089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fites JS, Gui M, Kernien JF, Negoro P, Dagher Z, Sykes DB, et al. An unappreciated role for neutrophil-DC hybrids in immunity to invasive fungal infections. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(5):e1007073. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang H, Lee T-J, Fites SJ, Merkhofer R, Zarnowski R, Brandhorst T, et al. Ligation of Dectin-2 with a novel microbial ligand promotes adjuvant activity for vaccination. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(8):e1006568. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pellegrini JM, Sabbione F, Morelli MP, Tateosian NL, Castello FA, Amiano NO, et al. Neutrophil autophagy during human active tuberculosis is modulated by SLAMF1. Autophagy. 2021;17(9):2629–38. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1825273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marchi LF, Sesti-Costa R, Ignacchiti MDC, Chedraoui-Silva S, Mantovani B. In vitro activation of mouse neutrophils by recombinant human interferon-gamma: increased phagocytosis and release of reactive oxygen species and pro-inflammatory cytokines. Int Immunopharmacol. 2014;18(2):228–35. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2013.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hernández-Santos N, Wiesner DL, Fites JS, McDermott AJ, Warner T, Wüthrich M, et al. Lung Epithelial Cells Coordinate Innate Lymphocytes and Immunity against Pulmonary Fungal Infection. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;23(4):511–522.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2018.02.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wiesner DL, Merkhofer RM, Ober C, Kujoth GC, Niu M, Keller NP, et al. Club Cell TRPV4 Serves as a Damage Sensor Driving Lung Allergic Inflammation. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;27(4):614–628.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.02.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michal Olszewski

26 Mar 2026

PPATHOGENS-D-26-00450

Homotypic interactions between SLAMF1 receptors on innate T cells and neutrophils regulate killing of fungi

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Wuthrich,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Pathogens's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amariliz Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michal Olszewski

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Additional Editor Comments :

The current study provides convincing data to support the conclusions presented. The findings are of interest to a broad audience and will open new areas for investigation. Please address the reviewer's recommendations to modify the text.

Journal Requirements:

1) Please insert an Ethics Statement at the beginning of your Methods section in the main file of the manuscript, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'. It must include:

i) The full name(s) of the Institutional Review Board(s) or Ethics Committee(s)

ii) The approval number(s), or a statement that approval was granted by the named board(s).

2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/figures

3) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a complete list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information file (S1 Text.pdf) after the references list.

4) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.". Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

1) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.".

Note: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: In this report, Lau et al. describe how SLAMF1 governs homotypic interactions between CD4+ T cells and neutrophils to enhance their antifungal killing capacity during infection with Blastomyces dermatitidis (Bd). The study uses a well-rounded approach with multiple cell-type-specific SLAMF1 KO mice, in vivo and in vitro assays of fungal killing and assays of inter-cellular communications to arrive at the conclusions, which are well supported by the data. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides an important advance in the field of antifungal immunity by identifying inter-cellular communication in mediating fungal clearance.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: 1. The presented data convincingly show the role of SLAMF1 in phagocytic fungal killing. Do the authors see any role for SLAMF1 in leukocyte accumulation/recruitment

2. The authors focus their attention on neutrophils as there were ~4-fold higher number of neutrophils associated with the fungus than monocytes. While this is reasonable, as monocytes also participate in fungal killing and harbor SLAMF1, does a similar homotypic interaction-mediated enhancement of killing is observed for monocytes too?

3. Does the absence of SLAMF1 on CD4 T cells lead to impaired host survival?

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: 1. In Figure 1C, the labels hide the flow events on the plot. Please modify the label position so that the events are visible.

2. The mouse fungal challenge method should include additional details on route of administration, and how lungs were homogenized.

3. For the in vitro killing assay, please specify the effector-to-target ratios used for the ease of interpretation.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

Michal Olszewski

19 May 2026

Dear Dr. Wuthrich,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Homotypic interactions between SLAMF1 receptors on innate T cells and neutrophils regulate killing of fungi' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Amariliz Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michal Olszewski

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

Michal Olszewski

Dear Dr. Wüthrich,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Homotypic interactions between SLAMF1 receptors on innate T cells and neutrophils regulate killing of fungi," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

For Research Articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. To main Fig 1 In vivo killing assay: Percent of lung phagocytes associated with dead yeast (A) and number of alveolar macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes associated with total number of yeast for wild type and SLAMF1 knockout mice (B).

    *p < 0.05, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test.

    (EPS)

    ppat.1014282.s001.eps (1.7MB, eps)
    S2 Fig. To main Fig 2 Flow analysis and stacked bar graphs of lung leukocyte populations before and after isolation of CD4+ T cells (A) and TCRγδ+ T cells (B), and analysis of bone marrow before and after isolation of monocytes (C).

    To identify cell types of interest before and after enrichment we used a panel of multiplexing antibodies to identify 17 pulmonary leukocyte subsets with 12 color flow cytometry [13]. Stacked bar graphs show percentage of each immune cell type relative to all immune cells identified by the Lymphoid Myeloid panel.

    (EPS)

    ppat.1014282.s002.eps (2.8MB, eps)
    S3 Fig. To main Fig 3 Breeding scheme for the generation of conditional SLAMF1knockout mice.

    To validate commercial SLAMF1 floxed mice we bred them first to homozygosity and crossed them with Ella-Cre mice to generate Ella-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice that lack SLAMF1 in embryonic cells (A) created in Biorender https://BioRender.com/1ni5v4x. SLAMF1 expression on target cells for Ella-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice in comparison to wildtype and SLAMF1 KO mice. Geometric MFI of staining. Plots are concatenates from 5 mice/group. *p < 0.05 vs WT, two tailed Mann-Whitney T test (B). Survival (C) and lung CFU (D) 9 days post infection of Ella-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice and WT mice infected with Bd. *p < 0.05, Kaplan Meier test for survival. CFU from at least 9 mice/group are expressed as Log10 plotted with geometric mean ± geometric SD *p < 0.05 two tailed Mann-Whitney T test. Ex vivo staining of lung leukocytes for SLAMF1 in CD4-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (E) and TCRγδ-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (F). Ex vivo staining of bone marrow for SLAMF1 in CCR2-cre x SLAMF1fl/fl mice (G). Plots show the histograms and geometric mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of SLAMF1 staining for corresponding target cells in Cre+ and Cre- mice in comparison to wild type and SLAMF1 knockout mice. GFP expression by conditional CCR2-Cre+ x SLAMF1fl/fl mice that were generated using CCR2-CreER-GFP mice (H). Plots are concatenates from 5 or more mice/group. *p < 0.05 vs SLAMF1 expressing cells (WT vs KO, Cre- vs Cre+), two tailed Mann-Whitney T test.

    (EPS)

    ppat.1014282.s003.eps (4.4MB, eps)
    S4 Fig. To main Fig 4 Ex vivo staining of neutrophils from lungs 16 hr post-infection (A) and from bone marrow of naive mice (B).

    Surface and intracellular staining of neutrophils from the bone marrow with anti-SLAMF1 (CD150) after overnight coculture with or without Bd yeast (C) Geometric MFI of staining. Plots are concatenates from 5 mice/group. Validation of transwell system using IFN-γ as a positive control (D). Neutrophils and yeast were placed in the top well and recombinant IFN-γ added in the bottom well. 16 hours later, CFU were plated from the top well.

    (EPS)

    ppat.1014282.s004.eps (2.4MB, eps)
    S1 Text. Materials and Methods.

    (DOCX)

    ppat.1014282.s005.docx (39.2KB, docx)
    S1 Data. Raw data used to generate graphs.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1014282.s006.xlsx (48.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter final .docx

    ppat.1014282.s008.docx (169.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript, its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES