Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Immunol. 2008 Sep 1;181(5):3323–3335. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.5.3323

In vivo suppression of naïve CD4 T-cell responses by IL-2 and antigen stimulated T-lymphocytes in the absence of APC competition

Hiroto Inaba *, Meredith Steeves †, Phuong Nguyen †, Terrence L Geiger †
PMCID: PMC2559971  NIHMSID: NIHMS58295  PMID: 18714004

Abstract

After stimulation, T-cells enter a transient refractory period, promoted by IL-2, during which they are resistant to re-stimulation. We previously demonstrated that these IL-2 and antigen stimulated refractory T-cells are able to suppress the antigen-induced proliferation of naïve T-cells in vitro. We show here that, after adoptive transfer, these T-cells are also able to suppress naïve T-cell proliferation in vivo. More interestingly, potently suppressive T-cells can be generated directly in vivo by stimulation with antigen and supplemental IL-2. The activity of the suppressive cells is dose-dependent, and the suppressor and suppressed T-cells need not be restricted to the same MHC or antigen. Similar to its role in promoting T-cell-mediated suppression in vitro, IL-2 is critical for the induction of suppressive activity in activated T-cells in vivo. Supplemental IL-2, however, cannot overcome the suppressive activity in target T-cells, indicating that suppression is not mediated by competition for this cytokine. Although the activated T-cells block naïve T-cell proliferation, the naive cells do engage antigen, and upregulate the CD25 and CD69 activation markers after stimulation. Therefore, activated T-cells stimulated in the presence of IL-2 develop MHC and antigen-unrestricted suppressive activity. These results provide a new mechanism for competition among CD4+ T-lymphocytes, in which initial waves of responding T-cells may inhibit subsequently recruited naïve T-cells. They further suggest a novel negative feedback loop limiting the expansion of immune responses that may be present during vigorous immune responses or after IL-2 immunotherapy.

Keywords: T-lymphocyte, proliferation, IL-2, suppression, repertoire development

Introduction

Antigen (Ag) exposure evokes responses from only a small subset of circulating T-cells. The repertoire of responding T-cells need not mirror the pre-immune Ag-specific T-cell repertoire, and can further evolve with time. This frequently leads to an immune response dominated by a small set of T-cell clones. One mechanism guiding repertoire evolution is T-cell competition for Ag (1). Competition has been most clearly seen among cells recognizing the same epitope (2-6). In both CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses, higher affinity epitope-specific cells are more competitive, or fit. During CD8 T-cell responses, some reports have also shown competition among cells specific for distinct epitopes, a phenomenon that has been termed cross-competition (7). Ag and Ag-presenting cell (APC) availability appear to critically influence T-cell competition, implying that more fit T-cells are those better able to access and be adequately stimulated by limiting quantities of Ag (8,9).

Mechanisms besides competition for access to Ag and APC may also help shape the responding T-cell repertoire. Exposure to Ag does not only induce T-cell stimulation. In some T-cells it elicits suppressive functions. It has been hypothesized, though not proven, that the suppression of T-cells by other T-cells acts as a competitive force that influences repertoire development (10). The suppressive properties of T-cells may in cases be transient. In 1984, Fitch and colleagues described that T-cells develop a period of refractoriness to restimulation after Ag stimulation in vitro (11). This refractory period is enhanced by T-cell stimulation in the presence of high concentrations of the pro-mitotic cytokine IL-2 (12). More recently, using culture systems, we showed that refractory Ag and IL-2-stimulated CD4+ T-cells also develop a transient ability to potently suppress naïve T-cell proliferative responses (13,14). Suppression is cell contact or proximity dependent, and the suppressor and target cells need not recognize the same Ag. Although the suppressed cells do not enter cell cycle, they are stimulated by Ag, upregulating early activation markers. These in vitro findings raised the possibility that activated T-cells may also develop suppressive activity in vivo, and compete for immunodominance by suppressing the responses of naïve T-lymphocytes.

To test this concept, we analyzed whether activated T-cells could suppress naïve T-cell responses in vivo. We demonstrate that in vitro-generated refractory cells that are adoptively transferred into mice modestly inhibit the naïve T-cell response to Ag. More interestingly, highly suppressive T-cells can be generated in vivo by stimulation with Ag and supplemental IL-2. Suppressive activity correlates with CD25 upregulation and is suppressor cell dose dependent. Interestingly, the suppressive activity of Ag and IL-2 stimulated T-cells is neither Ag nor MHC-restricted. Nor is it due to the inability of suppressed naïve T-cells to access APC or Ag. The suppressed T-lymphocytes upregulate the CD25 and CD69 activation markers despite failing to proliferate. These results therefore provide the first direct evidence for CD4+ T-cell cross-competition. They further identify a novel form of T-cell suppression and a new level at which T-cell competition may occur, not among T-cells simultaneously stimulated by Ag, but among waves of T-cells, wherein T-cells activated early during a developing immune response may focus and restrict that response by suppressing responses by subsequent waves of lymphocytes. This form of immune suppression may be relevant after therapeutic administration of IL-2, such as in the treatment of malignancies (15), or in circumstances in which the production of IL-2 or similarly acting cytokines is abundant.

Materials and methods

Animals

AND mice, transgenic (Tg) for a rearranged PCC-specific, H-2 Ek-restricted TCR, were bred >20 generations onto the B10.BR background (16). 3A9 mice, transgenic for a rearranged HEL-specific, H-2 Ak-restricted TCR (17) were also bred with B10.BR mice for >10 generations prior to use. All animal experimentation was performed in accordance with St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee requirements.

Media, reagents, and antibodies

Cells were grown in Eagle's-Hank's amino acid (EHAA; BioSource International, Rockville, MD) / 10% heat-inactivated Premium FCS (BioWhittaker, Walkersville, MD), penicillin G (100 U/ml), streptomycin (100 μg/ml), 292 μg/ml L-glutamine (Life Technologies, Rockville, MD), and 50 μM 2-mercaptoethanol (FisherBiotech, Fair Lawn, NJ). Pigeon cytochrome C (PCC; KAERADLIAYLKQATAK) and hen egg lysozyme (HEL; DGSTDYGILQINSRW) peptides were synthesized and HPLC-purified by the SJCRH Hartwell Center for Biotechnology (Memphis, TN). Anti-CD25 (7D4), anti-CD4 (L3T4), anti-CD69 (H1.2F3), anti-Vβ3, anti-Vα11, anti-mouse IL-2 (S4B6), anti-glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor (GITR; clone DTA-1), and anti-CD16/CD32 Fc block (2.4G2) were purchased from BD-PharMingen (San Diego, CA). Anti-mouse Foxp3 (FJK-16s) was purchased from eBioscience (San Diego, CA) and intracytoplasmic staining was performed per manufacturer's directions.

Cell preparation

Single cell suspensions were prepared from lymph nodes and spleen of 6- to 12-week old mice. Erythrocytes were lysed with Gey's solution. For in vitro studies, CD4+CD25− T-cells were purified by staining with Fc block, anti-CD4 and anti-CD25 antibodies in PBS with 5% FCS for 20 min before flow cytometric sorting on a MoFlo high-speed sorter (DakoCytomation). Sorted cell purity ranged from 97 to 99%.

In vitro generation of refractory T-lymphocytes

10×106 ml−1 flow cytometrically-purified CD4+CD25− T-cells were stimulated with a 3- to 5-fold excess of irradiated splenocyte feeders, 5 μM PCC peptide, and 100 U ml−1 recombinant human (rh) IL-2 (NCI Biological Resources Branch Repository, Bethesda, MD) for one or two stimulation cycles, splitting the cells as needed and providing fresh IL-2 containing medium every 3-5 d. Cells were washed and analyzed 4 d after stimulation, at which time we previously demonstrated they are highly refractory to restimulation (14).

CFSE proliferation assay

Flow cytometrically-purified CD4+CD25− AND T-cells or total splenocytes and LN cells, after erythrocyte lysis, were washed and re-suspended at 10×106 - 50×106 cells ml−1 in 5 μM 5,6-carboxylfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester (CFSE) (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA)/PBS/5% FCS for 8 min at 37°C. The cells were then washed 3 times to remove excess CFSE. In some cases, the CFSE-labeled cells were mixed at a 1:1 ratio with unlabeled T cell populations. The cells were stimulated with a 3- to 5-fold excess of 3000 rad-irradiated splenocyte feeders and 5 μM PCC peptide. In the experiments in Figure 11, 3×105 of the designated non-irradiated splenocytes were added to 105 naive CFSE labeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells. Co-cultures were analyzed by flow cytometry 3 d later or at the designated time using a FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences) and CellQuest software (BD Biosciences).

Figure 11. Suppression is not mediated by endogenous Ag/IL-2 stimulated T cells.

Figure 11

Open in a new tab

107 AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with Ag and/or IL-2. Three d later the spleens were removed from the mice. 3×105 non-irradiated splenocytes were added to 105 freshly-isolated CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells, and these were cultured in the presence or absence of 5 μM PCC peptide. (A) B10.BR splenocytes that had not received AND cells were added to CFSE-labeled AND T-cells. The culture was not stimulated with PCC. Flow cytometric histogram showing CFSE dilution with proliferation is shown above corresponding plot depicting the percent of CFSE labeled cells that underwent the indicated number of cell divisions. (B) As in (A) but stimulation of culture with PCC. (C) Splenocytes were from B10.BR mice treated with PCC/IL-2 only. (D) Splenocytes from mice receiving AND cells and stimulated with PCC. (E) Splenocytes from mice receiving AND cells and stimulated with PCC/IL-2. (F) Splenocytes from mice receiving AND cells and treated with PCC/IL-2. The Vβ3+Vα11+ AND T-cells were depleted from the splenocytes by flow cytometric sorting prior to their addition to the culture. Note that the modestly enhanced proliferation seen with the depleted splenocytes was not consistent across experiments.

In vivo proliferation assay

Unlabeled RBC-lysed splenocytes containing 10×106 or the designated number of AND or 3A9 T-cells were administered i.v. (retro-orbital) into B10.BR mice. Recipient mice were then stimulated by administration of 100 μmol PCC or HEL peptides i.v. in 100 μl saline through the alternate retro-orbital plexus. In some experiments, 50,000 IU rhIL-2 was administered intra-peritoneally (i.p.) every 12 h for 60 h (6 doses total). After 3 d (∼72 h), 10×106 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were administered i.v., and PCC and/or HEL peptides subsequently administered. Spleen cells were obtained 24-72 h after peptide administration and analyzed by flow cytometry. CFSE stained AND cells were identified by additional staining with anti-Vβ3, anti-Vα11 and anti-CD4 antibodies as indicated.

Proliferation and cytokine analysis of in vivo treated cells

107 AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with Ag and/or IL-2. Vβ3+Vα11+ AND T cells were purified by sorting from splenocytes and stimulated with Ag to assess cytokine production and proliferation. Culture supernatants were assayed at 48 h for cytokines by Bio-Plex (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturers' protocols. Alternatively, cultures were pulsed with 1 μCi of [3H]TdR after 72 h and harvested ∼16 h later on filtermat for scintillation counting (Wallac-LKB).

Results

Refractory T-cells suppress naïve T-cell responses in vitro and in vivo

To confirm that Ag and IL-2-stimulated refractory AND transgenic Tg T-cells could suppress naïve T-cell responses in vitro, we cultured them at a 1:1 ratio with freshly isolated, CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25− AND T cells. In control cultures, the refractory T-cells were replaced with unlabeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells. When control cultures lacking refractory T-cells were stimulated with PCC peptide, the CFSE-labeled T-cells proliferated vigorously, as determined by the progressive dilution of CFSE in the post-mitotic cells over 72 h. In contrast, naïve T-cells co-cultured with refractory T-cells showed minimal proliferation in response to Ag (Fig. 1a, b), demonstrating that they are efficiently suppressed by the refractory cells. We have previously shown that despite their failure to enter cell cycle, naive T-cells are stimulated in the presence of the refractory cells, upregulating the CD25 and CD69 early activation markers (14).

Figure 1. Suppression of proliferation by refractory T-lymphocytes in vitro.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

(A) 5×104 CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells were stimulated as indicated with irradiated APC in the presence or absence of 5 μM PCC peptide. An equal number of unlabeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells (left and center column) or d 4 activated AND T-cells (right) were added. Samples were harvested and analyzed by flow cytometry at the indicated times. (B) Percent of CFSE labeled cells at each division cycle from the 72 h data in (A) was calculated based on the flow cytometric peaks.

To determine whether the Ag and IL-2-stimulated refractory T-cells could similarly suppress T-cell proliferation in vivo, we transferred 107 of them into unmanipulated syngeneic B10.BR mice. Ten million freshly isolated, CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were separately transferred, and the cells were subsequently stimulated by i.v. administration of PCC peptide. After 3 d, the transferred Vβ3+Vα11+ cells were analyzed for CFSE fluorescence intensity. Control CFSE-labeled T-cells that were not peptide-stimulated showed a single bright CFSE-labeled peak, indicating the absence of proliferation in this population (Fig. 2a, b). PCC administration induced significant proliferation. When the pre-stimulated T-cells and naïve CFSE-labeled T-cells were each transferred, the extent of naïve T-cell proliferation was diminished, with a ∼20% reduction in mean cell cycle number in the experiment shown. Therefore adoptively transferred stimulation refractory T-cells can suppress T-cell proliferation in vivo. However, their activity in vivo is substantially less than that seen in vitro.

Figure 2. Suppression of naïve T-cell responses by refractory T-lymphocytes.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(A) 107 freshly isolated CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were administered with or without an equal number of unlabeled refractory T lymphocytes and stimulated with PCC as indicated. Flow cytometrically gated Vβ3+Vα11+ splenocytes were analyzed 3 d later for CFSE expression. (B) Percent of CFSE labeled cells at each division cycle from the data in (A) is plotted. (C) CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were transferred and stimulated with PCC peptide as indicated. In some panels, mice were pre-treated 3 days prior with unlabeled AND T-cells stimulated with PCC peptide with or without rhIL-2. (D) Percent of CFSE-labeled cells at each division peak in (C).

Suppressive activity of in-vivo activated T cells

We were next interested in determining whether similarly suppressive T-cells could be generated in vivo. To test this, we transferred 107 freshly isolated, unlabeled CD4+CD25− AND T cells into B10.BR mice. We stimulated these in a manner resembling their stimulation with soluble antigenic peptide in vitro, administering soluble PCC peptide i.v., with the goal of converting the cells into a refractory and suppressive state. Three days later, freshly isolated, CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and PCC peptide was again administered i.v. to the mice. Vβ3+Vα11+ cells were analyzed 3 d after the second transfer of cells, and the ability of the pre-activated cells to suppress the proliferation of the CFSE-labeled T-cells was measured. As in figure 2a, CFSE-labeled T cells that were not Ag-stimulated failed to proliferate, while control CFSE-labeled cells administered to mice that had not received an initial dose of unlabeled AND T-cells proliferated strongly to Ag (Fig. 2c, left and left-center panels). When unlabeled cells were administered and stimulated 3 d prior to transfer of the CFSE-labeled cells, little suppression of the proliferation of the CFSE-labeled cells was seen, with a small increase in non-cycling T-cells apparent in the figure shown (Fig. 2c, center-right panel). Thus, in contrast to in vitro co-cultures, in vivo stimulation with Ag does not induce substantial suppressive activity among the AND T-cells.

IL-2 maintains CD25 up-regulation in stimulated AND T-cells in vitro and in vivo

IL-2 promotes suppressive activity and refractoriness among Ag-stimulated T-cells in vitro (12). Inadequate IL-2 signaling may therefore be one explanation for the limited in vivo suppressive activity we observed with the activated T-cells. Activated naïve T cells both secrete IL-2 and upregulate the high affinity IL-2 receptor α chain, CD25, which is critical for optimal IL-2 signal transduction (18-20). Further, IL-2 maintains and enhances CD25 expression, thereby providing positive feedback for its own signaling (21). Considering the crucial role of CD25 in IL-2 signaling and the persistence and increased expression of CD25 as an indicator of IL-2 signaling, we compared CD25 expression after in vitro and in vivo stimulation.

In vitro, purified CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells stimulated with PCC peptide upregulated CD25 within 24 h of activation (Fig. 3a). Levels of CD25 increased progressively over 3 d of stimulation as the cells began to proliferate. To determine the role of IL-2 in this expression, we similarly stimulated the cells in the presence of neutralizing anti-IL-2 antibody. In this circumstance, CD25 expression increased to similar levels as controls at 24 h (Fig. 3b). However, CD25 expression did not continue to increase beyond those levels, and began to diminish after the 48 h time point. As has been previously observed, inhibition of IL-2 signaling with neutralizing antibody did not prominently affect proliferation at this early time point (22). Therefore, in vitro, IL-2 is critical for sustaining the early upregulation of CD25 in peptide-stimulated AND T-cells.

Figure 3. CD25 upregulation on in vitro stimulated AND T-cells.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(A) CFSE-labeled CD4+CD25− AND T-cells were stimulated with PCC peptide and irradiated APC for the indicated times, then analyzed for CD25 expression and CFSE fluorescence by flow cytometry. (B) Cells were stimulated as in (A) except in the presence of neutralizing anti-IL-2 antibody.

We next evaluated the expression of CD25 on freshly isolated, CFSE-labeled AND T-cells that were adoptively transferred and activated with i.v. administered PCC peptide (Fig. 4a). When cells were stimulated in vivo, CD25 was significantly upregulated at 24 h. However, this was not sustained, and by 48 h expression had returned to baseline levels. Despite the loss of CD25, the cells continued to proliferate between the 48 h and 72 h time points. Thus CD25 is upregulated only transiently after T-cell activation by i.v. Ag in vivo, resembling the CD25 upregulation pattern in vitro after stimulation in the setting of IL-2 blockade.

Figure 4. CD25 and CD69 upregulation on in vivo stimulated AND T-cells.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

107 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with Ag with or without IL-2. CD4+Vβ3+ gated splenocytes were analyzed 24, 48 and 72 h later for CFSE as well as CD25 (A) or CD69 (B).

In vitro, IL-2 will accumulate in the medium within a culture well. In vivo, the continuous flow of tissue fluid may limit the accumulation of IL-2 at the site of T-cell activation. It was thus possible that after stimulation in vivo, insufficient levels of IL-2 and/or similarly acting cytokines were present to sustain CD25 expression. We therefore tested whether increasing T-cell exposure to IL-2 may support the retention of CD25 expression in vivo. Administration of twice daily doses of rhIL-2 into mice in which adoptively transferred AND T-cells were stimulated with PCC peptide indeed boosted CD25 expression, and the increased CD25 was maintained to the 72 h time point. The impact of IL-2 was specific for CD25. Upregulation of a second activation marker, CD69, was not influenced by IL-2 treatment (Fig. 4b).

Suppression by Ag/IL-2 stimulated T-cells in vivo

Considering the suppressive activity of the Ag and IL-2-stimulated CD25+ refractory cells that develop in vitro and the impact of IL-2 on T-cell activation in vivo, we were next interested whether the CD25+ T-cells generated by Ag and IL-2 stimulation in vivo would also be suppressive. To test this, we adoptively transferred unlabeled AND T-cells into syngeneic recipients. These were stimulated with Ag and IL-2 to generate activated CD25+ T-cells. Three days later, we transferred CFSE-labeled AND T-cells and again administered i.v. PCC peptide. In contrast to the pre-transferred cells stimulated in the absence of supplemental IL-2, cells stimulated with extra IL-2 were able to almost completely suppress the naïve T-cell response (Fig. 2c, right panel and 2d). Therefore, similar to our in vitro findings with Ag and IL-2-stimulated refractory T-lymphocytes, the proliferation of naïve T-cells stimulated in vivoin the presence of IL-2 and Ag activated T-cells is suppressed.

In vivo suppression does not result from Ag competition

One possible explanation for the observed suppressive activity is competition for Ag between the initially transferred, IL-2/Ag-stimulated PCC-specific T-cells and the subsequently administered naïve PCC-specific T-cells. This seemed unlikely. AND T-cells stimulated in the absence of supplemental IL-2 proliferated strongly, but did not suppress proliferation by subsequently transferred AND T-cells. Nevertheless, it remained possible that the IL-2 stimulated T-cells were more efficient in occupying Ag/MHC complexes on APCs, thereby blocking recognition by the subsequently transferred naïve T-lymphocytes.

To test for this, we analyzed whether T-cells specific for an unrelated Ag with a distinct MHC restriction could similarly suppress the naïve AND T-cell response. Whereas AND Tg T-cells are specific for PCC peptide in the context of H-2 Ek, 3A9 Tg T-cells recognize a HEL peptide in the context of H-2 Ak. We bred 3A9 TCR Tg mice onto the B10.BR background, then tested whether their T-cells could suppress AND T-cell responses. The 3A9 T-cells were transferred into a B10.BR recipient and stimulated by administering HEL peptide with or without IL-2. Three days later, we transferred freshly isolated, CFSE-labeled AND T-cells. We then stimulated both the naïve and activated T-cells by co-administering HEL and PCC peptide. As with the stimulated PCC-specific cells, when the HEL-specific cells were initially stimulated in the absence of supplemental IL-2 they failed to suppress the PCC-specific T-cell response (data not shown and Fig. 7). In contrast, when supplemental IL-2 was administered when the HEL-specific cells were initially stimulated, the subsequent PCC-specific response was suppressed (Fig. 5a-c, f). Therefore suppression does not result from direct Ag competition among T-cells; the suppressor and suppressed cells may be directed against disparate MHC and Ag complexes.

Figure 7. Suppression does not result from numeric competition.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

(A-G) Analyses were performed as in figure 5, except variable doses of 3A9 T-cells were administered and stimulated with i.v. Ag with or without IL-2 three d prior to administration of a constant dose of 107 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells. (H) Percentage of CFSE-labeled cells at each division peak was calculated from the flow cytometry plots in (A-G).

Figure 5. Suppression is not Ag-specific or MHC-restricted.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(A) 107 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were transferred into syngeneic mice and Vβ3+Vα11+ splenocytes analyzed 3 d later. (B) PCC and HEL peptides were administered at the time CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were transferred. (C) 3 d prior to treatment as in (B), 107 unlabeled 3A9 T-cells were administered and stimulated with HEL peptide and rhIL-2. (D) The CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were stimulated with PCC/HEL and IL-2. (E) Performed as in (C) except rhIL-2 treatment was continued after administration of the CFSE-labeled AND T-cells until analysis. (F) Percentage of CFSE-labeled cells at each division peak was calculated from the flow cytometry plots in (A-E).

IL-2 supplementation during T-cell responses cannot overcome suppression

In some but not other in vitro studies, IL-2 can overcome suppression mediated by Foxp3+ regulatory T-cells (Treg) (23-26). To determine if IL-2 could similarly circumvent proliferation suppression here, we treated mice with supplemental IL-2 both after initial stimulation of the HEL-specific 3A9 T-cells, to induce suppressive activity, and after the subsequently administered CFSE-labeled PCC-specific responder T-cells were stimulated with Ag. In controls in which the 3A9 T-cells were not transferred, CFSE-labeled AND T-cells stimulated with PCC and IL-2 underwent more replication cycles than when they were stimulated with PCC alone (Figs. 5b, d, f). When an identical stimulation regimen was used in mice pre-treated with 3A9 T-cells, HEL peptide, and IL-2, the AND T-cells responded only weakly to PCC and IL-2 stimulation (Fig. 5e, f). Therefore, supplemental IL-2 is unable to overcome the suppression of the naïve T-lymphocytes.

Titration of suppression with transferred T-cell dose

We hypothesized that the suppression in the experiments above was mediated by the pre-transferred T-cells, and as such should be T-cell dose dependent. To test this, we titrated the administered dose of 3A9 T-cells. In figures 2 and 5, 107 T-cells were administered both initially and 3 d later. We tested the potency of lower initial doses of 5×106, 2.5×106, and 1.25×106 3A9 T-cells, stimulating them with Ag and IL-2 prior to administering 107 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells (Fig. 6). At a dose of 5×106 3A9 T-cells, strong proliferation suppression was observed. At lower doses, however, diminished suppression was seen, with minimal suppression apparent at a dose of 1.25×106 T-cells. Therefore, suppression is T-cell dose-dependent. IL-2 and Ag treatment by itself is unable to substantially modify proliferation by subsequently administered and stimulated T-lymphocytes in the absence of adequate numbers of activated, suppressive T-cells.

Figure 6. Titration of suppression with T-cell dose.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Analyses were performed as in figure 5, except variable doses of 3A9 T-cells were administered as indicated. Representative plots are shown in (A), and percentage of CFSE-labeled cells in each division peak is shown in (B).

Suppression does not result from numeric competition for APC

Analysis of spleens 72 h after adoptive transfer and stimulation of T-cells with peptide and IL-2 demonstrated a moderate (up to ∼4x) increase in the number of responding cells when compared with stimulation in the absence of added IL-2 (see for example unlabeled cell peak in Fig. 2c, and CFSE-labeled cells in Fig. 4). One possible explanation for the effect of IL-2 was therefore numeric. Enhanced expansion of Ag-specific T-cells in the presence of IL-2 may allow Ag and IL-2 stimulated T-cells to more effectively compete for APC space, excluding subsequently administered naïve T-cells. To examine this, we directly compared the suppressive activity of peptide and IL-2 stimulated 3A9 T-cells with greater numbers of 3A9 T-cells stimulated with peptide in the absence of IL-2.

Doses of 5×106 − 3×107 3A9 T-cells were adoptively transferred and stimulated with HEL peptide in the absence of supplemental IL-2. Three days later 107 AND T-cells were transferred and the cells were stimulated with PCC and HEL peptides. The HEL specific T-cells were wholly unable to suppress the AND T-cells regardless of administered dose (Fig. 7a-e, h). Different results were apparent when 3A9 T-cells (2.5 or 5×106) were transferred and stimulated with HEL and IL-2 during the initial 72 h period (Fig. 7f, g). Whereas a dose of 3×107 cells stimulated without IL-2 did not suppress (Fig. 7c), a dose of only 2.5×106 cells stimulated with IL-2 was suppressive (Fig. 7g, h). As in figure 6, the suppression seen after peptide/IL-2 stimulation was dose-dependent, with weaker suppression after administering 2.5×106 than 5×106 3A9 cells. Therefore the presence of IL-2 during stimulation endows stimulated cells with regulatory activity. The suppressive effects of IL-2 are not secondary to increased expansion of the activated T-cells.

Suppressed T-cells recognize and are stimulated by Ag

Although numerical competition for APCs was not responsible for the suppressive effects of the Ag and IL-2 stimulated T-cells, it was still possible that the adoptively transferred activated T-cells functioned by restricting Ag access or T-cell stimulation. For instance, the activated suppressor cells may have induced pathways preventing naïve T-cells from engaging Ag present on APCs. To assess for this, we analyzed the responder T-cells' upregulation of the CD25 and CD69 activation markers in response to in vivo stimulation. When AND T-cells were transferred into mice and left unstimulated, they did not proliferate and did not upregulate either CD25 or CD69 at 24 or 72 h after transfer (Fig. 8a, b). When the cells were stimulated with i.v. PCC, as in figure 4, they upregulated CD25 and CD69 at 24 h, but this was not maintained and despite extensive proliferation, levels of CD25 and CD69 returned to baseline by 72 h. When 3A9 T-cells were transferred and stimulated with HEL-peptide but not IL-2 prior to transfer of the CFSE-labeled AND T-cells, an identical result was observed. As expected, when the 3A9 cells were stimulated with supplemental IL-2, they blocked PCC-driven proliferation of the AND T-cells. But interestingly, this impediment to cell cycle entry did not also block expression of CD25 or CD69. Both markers were upregulated on the CFSE+, PCC-specific T-cells at 24 h, as they were on control cells stimulated in the absence of suppressive HEL-specific T-cells. By d 3, levels of CD25 were diminished as with control samples. Levels of CD69, though diminishing in comparison with the 24 h time point, remained increased relative to controls. Therefore, naïve T-cells stimulated in the presence of IL-2/Ag activated T-lymphocytes recognized cognate Ag on APCs. This recognition triggered an incomplete stimulation program, with upregulation of CD25 and CD69 activation markers, but a failure to normally induce cell cycling.

Figure 8. CD25 and CD69 upregulation by suppressed T lymphocytes.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

107 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with Ag. Three d prior, an equal number of 3A9 T-cells were adoptively transferred and stimulated with i.v. HEL peptide with or without IL-2. Splenocytes were analyzed 24 and 72 h later. CD4+Vβ3+ lymphocytes were gated and analyzed for CFSE as well as CD25 (A) or CD69 (B).

T-cells stimulated with Ag and IL-2 in vivo are not refractory or anergic, and do not produce suppressive cytokines

Cumulatively, our results show that T-cells stimulated with Ag and supplemental IL-2 in vivo can suppress subsequent naïve T-cell responses. To better establish the mechanism of suppression of the Ag/IL-2 stimulated T-cells, we analyzed their proliferation and cytokine production. AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with PCC with or without IL-2. Three d later, the splenocytes were isolated, and the transferred AND T-cells purified and stimulated with PCC again in culture. The AND T-cells isolated from mice stimulated with Ag/IL-2 in vivo proliferated equivalently to freshly isolated naïve AND T-cells or T-cells that had been transferred but left unstimulated or stimulated in the absence of IL-2 (Fig. 9a). They further produced equivalent levels of IL-2 (Fig. 9b). These results demonstrate that Ag or Ag/IL-2 stimulation of AND T-cells in vivo does not induce unresponsiveness in them. Implicitly, these cells, which are suppressive in vivo, are not anergic, like suppressive Foxp3+ Treg, or refractory like the suppressive cells generated after similar stimulation in vitro (Fig. 1 and (14)).

Figure 9. In vivo Ag/IL-2 stimulated T-cells are not anergic and do not produce inhibitory cytokines.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

107 AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with PCC with or without IL-2. Three d later, Vβ3+Vα11+ AND T-cells were purified by flow cytometric sorting from splenocytes. These or control freshly sorted AND T-cells were stimulated with the indicated concentration of PCC in the presence of irradiated APC. Proliferation (A) was measured at 72 h by [3H]TdR incorporation. Cytokine production (B-E) was determined in the cell free supernatant at 48 h by Bio-plex.

To determine if Ag/IL-2 stimulation altered the differentiation profile of the T-cells, we also analyzed effector cytokine production. We were particularly interested in IL-10 and TGF-β secretion as these cytokines have been shown to be important for the regulatory effects of Foxp3+ Treg, Tr1, and Th3 T-cells (27,28). Little IL-10 was produced among any of the T-cells, and there was no significant difference in production when comparing freshly isolated naïve T-cells, T-cells transferred and left unstimulated, or T-cells transferred and stimulated with Ag alone or Ag/IL-2 (Fig. 9c). TGF-β production was also undetectable among any of the AND T-cell populations (data not shown). Therefore Ag/IL-2 treatment does not appear to convert the AND T-cells into one of the previously defined populations of IL-10 or TGF-β-secreting regulatory T-cells.

To determine if effector cytokine production by the Ag/IL-2-treated T-cells was altered, we also analyzed the production of a Th1 cytokine, IFN-γ, and a Th2 cytokine, IL-4 (Fig. 9d, e). The AND T-cells treated in vivo with Ag/IL-2 demonstrated increased production of both of these cytokines compared to control unstimulated or Ag-alone stimulated T-cells, indicating that in contrast to IL-10 and TGF-β production, the supplemental IL-2 does promote secretion of effector cytokines by the AND T-cells.

In summary, AND T-cells stimulated in vivo with Ag in the presence of supplemental IL-2 do not secrete regulatory cytokines and are not anergic. Their effector cytokine profile is modestly altered by the IL-2 treatment, however, with increased secretion of both Th1 and Th2 cytokines.

Endogenous, but not AND Foxp3+ Treg are preferentially expanded by Ag/IL-2

Considering the low IL-10 and undetectable TGF-β production by the Ag and IL-2-stimulated suppressive T-cells, and their normal proliferative response in vitro, it was unlikely that expansion of Ag-specific Foxp3+ lymphocytes was responsible for suppression. Nevertheless, IL-2 has been shown to expand Foxp3+ Treg in vivo (29).

Further, Ag/IL-2 did induce increased levels of CD25 (Fig. 4), a marker associated with both Treg and activated T-cells. To more directly evaluate the induction of Treg by Ag/IL-2 treatment, we analyzed the expression of Foxp3 and GITR on adoptively transferred and stimulated AND T-cells. We simultaneously evaluated endogenous host-derived T-cells (Fig. 10). The percent of Foxp3+ T-cells among transferred control unstimulated AND T-cells was low, less than 2%, which is consistent with the high level of allelic exclusion of the AND TCR in AND Tg mice. This contrasted with an ∼8% frequency of Foxp3+ cells among endogenous CD4+ T-cells. Treatment of mice with IL-2 alone increased the percentage of Foxp3+ transferred AND T-cells about 4-fold. A similar fold increase in endogenous Foxp3+ Treg was seen. Therefore consistent with prior reports (29), IL-2 can expand Foxp3+ Treg numbers. In contrast, stimulation of the AND T-cells with PCC alone did not affect the percentage of Foxp3+ T-cells among either AND or endogenous T-cells. Interestingly, unlike treatment with IL-2 alone, when the AND T-cells were stimulated with PCC and IL-2, preferential expansion of the AND Treg population was not seen. The percent of Treg were the same as in mice not receiving PCC or mice receiving PCC without IL-2. In contrast, the percent of endogenous Treg did increase after treatment with PCC/IL-2 similarly to treatment with IL-2 alone. Therefore preferential expansion of Treg is observed to IL-2 alone, however when T-cells are Ag-stimulated both effector and regulatory T-cells expand in similar proportions. Analysis of a second Treg marker, GITR, demonstrated results identical to that seen with Foxp3 staining (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. IL-2/PCC induces expansion of endogenous but not AND regulatory T cells.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

107 AND T-cells were adoptively transferred and left unstimulated or stimulated with PCC and/or IL-2. Three d later CD4+Vβ3+Vα11+ (AND) and CD4+Vβ3−Vα11− (endogenous) gated splenocytes were analyzed for Foxp3 or GITR. Percent positive cells is indicated for either the AND T-cell or endogenous T-cell populations.

These results demonstrate that PCC/IL-2 stimulation of AND T-cells in vivo does not preferentially induce the expansion of Ag-specific Foxp3+ Treg. It does however expand the endogenous Ag non-specific population of Treg. Importantly, our results do not support an essential role for these endogenous, Ag non-specific Treg in the suppression of Ag-specific AND responses. Ag/IL-2 treatment of mice in the absence of adequate doses of Ag-specific 3A9 or AND T-cells has no effect on the proliferation of subsequently transferred and stimulated Ag-specific T-cells (Fig. 6 and data not shown).

Suppression by Ag/IL-2 stimulated AND T-cells is AND T-cell dependent and is not mediated by endogenous regulatory T cells

IL-2 administration induced endogenous regulatory T-cell expansion, though our data indicated that these cells were not responsible for suppression after adoptive transfer and Ag/IL-2 stimulation of AND or 3A9 T-cells. To confirm this interpretation, we analyzed the ex-vivo suppressive activity of splenocytes from mice receiving the various treatments in vivo. When purified naïve CFSE-labeled AND T-cells were admixed with nonirradiated splenocytes from unmanipulated B10.BR mice, they proliferated well in response to PCC (Fig. 11a, b). If the splenocytes were obtained from mice treated with IL-2 and PCC, but not with AND T-cells, an identical level of proliferation was seen (Fig. 11c). This shows that the increased proportion of endogenous Treg induced by IL-2 treatment is not associated with a diminished Ag-specific AND T-cell response. Splenocytes isolated from mice that received AND T-cells and PCC, but not IL-2, also did not influence the naïve AND T-cell response, paralleling our results after in vivo transfer of AND T-cells (Fig. 11d). However, when splenocytes were isolated from mice in which AND T-cells were transferred and stimulated with both PCC and IL-2, substantial inhibition of the proliferation of the CFSE-labeled cells was seen in vitro (Fig. 11e). Proliferation suppression was incomplete. However, it must be considered that the AND T-cells constituted only ∼7% of the 3×105 splenocytes added per 1×105 CFSE-labeled AND T-cells in the culture, and therefore the ratio of “suppressor” to naïve T-cells was only about 1:5. To determine whether the in vivo activated AND T-cells were required for this suppression, we depleted these cells from the splenocytes. Interestingly, the suppression was abrogated when the AND T-cells were removed despite the continued presence of elevated levels of endogenous Foxp3+ Treg (Fig. 11f). Therefore adoptively transferred, Ag/IL-2 stimulated T-cells are directly required to suppress subsequent naïve T-cell responses. In contrast, endogenous regulatory T-cells are not directly suppressive.

Discussion

The mechanisms underlying repertoire selection during an immune response are incompletely understood. T-cell mediated suppression may conceivably play a role if it differentially inhibits T-cells based on response characteristics, or alternatively based on temporal recruitment into the immune response. We provide proof-of-principle for such suppressive effects impacting immune responses. Specifically, adoptively transferred or in situ-generated IL-2 and Ag activated CD4+ T-cells can inhibit subsequent naïve T-cell responses. Inhibition is not Ag or MHC-restricted, demonstrating that the suppressed and suppressor T-cells are not competing directly for Ag. Cross-competition, or competition among T-cells specific for distinct epitopes, is well characterized in CD8 T-cell responses (30). In contrast, competition across epitopes in CD4 T-cell responses, which we observe here, has not previously been directly observed (1).

Our in vivo findings are largely in concordance with our prior in vitro observations with refractory T-cell mediated suppression (13,14). IL-2 and Ag stimulated T-cells are able to suppress de-novo T-cell responses both in vitro and in vivo in an MHC/Ag unrestricted manner. Further, in each case, the targeted T-cells recognize Ag and upregulate early activation markers despite their failure to enter cell cycle. One difference between our observations with in vitro and in vivo suppressive populations, however, is that whereas in vitro suppression correlates with T-cell refractoriness (14), the suppressive T-cells in vivo are not refractory (Fig. 9).

T-cell mediated suppression similar to that seen in this study has also been seen with other T-cell types, most prominently anergic Foxp3+ regulatory T-cells (31), but also T-cells that are anergic due to a lack of adequate costimulation (32,33). T-cell refractoriness resembles anergy, in that in each case T-cells do not normally proliferate to TCR stimulation. Therefore there is an association between suppressive activity and unresponsiveness among T-cells. Considering this, unresponsiveness may be inherently linked to suppression. If this is the case, the difference in refractoriness between in vivo and in vtiro Ag and IL-2 stimulated, suppressive T-cells may suggest that they are biologically distinct and operate through different mechanisms. This interpretation would, however, seem unlikely. The induction requirements for the suppressive T-cells in vitro and in vivo are highly similar, as are the manifestations of suppression. Further suggesting a common mechanism, suppressive activated T-cells generated in vitro were able to suppress immune responses in vivo (Fig. 2), and suppressive cells generated in vivo were likewise active in vitro (Fig. 11).

A more likely explanation for the dissociation between refractoriness and suppression is that the refractoriness seen in vitro is not mechanistically linked to suppression, but is rather just an associated property. This would imply that antigenic stimulation in the presence of IL-2 independently induces both currently undefined suppressive mechanisms in T-cells and stimulation refractoriness. Conceivably, due to differences in how IL-2 is administered (pulsatile dosing in vivo but not in vitro), the concentration of IL-2 the T-cells encounter, or the differential availability of other cytokines or costimulatory molecules, refractoriness develops in vitro but does not develop in vivo despite the similar acquisition of suppressive functions by the activated T-cells.

Whereas suppression mediated by anergic T-cells is well documented, precedent for suppression mediated by activated T-cells is not. An interesting example of this type of suppression is, however, potentially present in NF-κB inducing kinase-deficient mice, in which T-cells with an activated phenotype suppress the proliferation of otherwise hyper-responsive naïve T-cells (34). How the activated cells do this, however, remains unresolved.

In future studies it will be important to better delineate the suppressive mechanisms of activated T cells. The requirement for IL-2 to induce suppressive activity may provide a useful clue. Foxp3+ Treg, like the activated T-cells in this study are also highly dependent on IL-2 (31). These Treg constitutively express high affinity IL-2R and are homeostatically dependent on IL-2 (35-37). IL-2 further stimulates suppressive activity within the Treg (38). A number of different suppressive mechanisms are used by Treg, including the production of adenosine, Lag3, granzymes, and indoleamine-pyrrole 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO) (39). These may therefore serve as candidates for directed assessments of the mechanism of suppression by Ag and IL-2 stimulated T-cells. However, a complete picture of how Foxp3+ Treg are able to suppress naïve T-cells has yet to emerge, and a more unbiased approach to a mechanistic analysis may be needed. Indeed, IL-2 has many roles in T-cell activation, promoting proliferation, and both preventing apoptosis and enabling activation induced cell death (40-43), and the mechanisms by which IL-2 promotes suppression by activated T-cells and Treg may be distinct.

Although we were not able to establish the mechanism(s) underlying suppression by the Ag and IL-2 stimulated T-cells, our data do show that some commonly used regulatory mechanisms are not involved. We did not identify any significant increase in IL-10 or TGF-β production by the suppressive T-cells, suggesting that these regulatory cytokines are not significant. Likewise, our data fails to identify a role for Ag-specific Foxp3+ Treg in the suppression. In vitro generated suppressive refractory cells, which are derived from CD4+CD25− T-cells, such as those used in Fig. 1a, do not express detectable levels of Foxp3 (13). In vivo, we do not detect any change in the proportion of Foxp3+, 3A9 and AND Tg T-cells after they are stimulated with Ag and IL-2 compared with Ag alone (Fig. 10 and data not shown). These results strongly suggest that the suppression by the activated T-cells in vivo, like in the in vitro situation, is not dependent on the preferential expansion of Ag-specific Foxp3+ regulatory T-cells. It must be noted that we are not able to exclude functional changes to Ag-specific Foxp3+ Treg following the administration of IL-2 (38). However, considering the small number of these cells present after adoptive transfer, it would seem unlikely that they are responsible for the dramatic suppressive effect we observe.

In contrast to adoptively transferred Ag-specific Foxp3+ Treg, the proportion of endogenous CD4+Foxp3+ T-cells did increase substantially with IL-2 treatment in our analyses. However, suppression was not seen unless we also provided and activated an adequate dose of Ag-specific cells (Fig. 6 and 11). This indicates that the endogenous Foxp3+ cells could not directly suppress Ag-specific responses. It remains possible that these endogenous Foxp3+ cells played an indirect or supportive role in limiting the naïve T-cell responses. Dissecting any such indirect contribution in vivo would be difficult as the elimination of Foxp3+ T-cells provokes spontaneous T-cell activation, autoimmunity, and inflammation that may confound analyses. Nevertheless, the simplest explanation of our results is that endogenous Foxp3+ regulatory T-cells do not play a significant role in activated T-cell mediated suppression, whereas activated Ag-specific T-cells are essential.

IL-2 is not only important in normal immune responses but is currently clinically used as an adjunct therapy in the treatment of some tumors (44,45). The administration regimen of IL-2 in our analyses, multiple doses over a several day period, parallels its common clinical administration. The consequences and mechanisms underlying IL-2 immunotherapy are not fully understood. Recent findings, which we corroborate here, demonstrating that therapeutic IL-2 administration increases numbers of Foxp3 Treg, has raised an appreciation for the potential of IL-2 as an immunomodulatory therapy (29,46). Our results reveal an additional mechanism through which IL-2 may modulate immune responses. By potentiating the development of suppressive activated T-cells, therapeutically administered IL-2 may repress nascent immune responses.

It is interesting that high IL-2 conditions both enhance CD25 expression on activated T-cells and correlate with suppressive activity. The possibility that the activated CD25+ T-cells serve as a sink for IL-2, preventing exposure to IL-2 by and expansion of naïve T-cells would seem unlikely. Supplementation with IL-2, both in vitro and in vivo, when naïve T-cells are activated in the presence of suppressive cells does not rescue the expansion of the naïve T-cells. Further, although IL-2 is an important promoter of cellular expansion both in vitro and in vivo, Ag stimulated T-cells can proliferate in its absence (47,48). In contrast, we observe oftentimes a complete proliferation block with T-cell suppression, implying a distinct mechanism. It would therefore seem more probable that CD25 is a marker of, rather than a mechanism for activated T-cell mediated suppression.

In summary, we demonstrate that activation of T-cells in the presence of IL-2 suppresses the proliferation of, though not Ag recognition by subsequently-stimulated naïve T-lymphocytes. This suppression validates our prior in vitro observations regarding refractory T-cell mediated suppression in an in vivo system, provides the first identified mechanism for cross-competition among CD4+ T-lymphocytes, and suggests a novel negative feedback loop that may restrain overly vigorous immune responses. Such suppression may be important in the presence of strong immune responses and after the therapeutic administration of IL-2.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Richard Cross and Jennifer Smith for assistance with flow cytometric sorting and cytokine analysis.

Supported by NIH grant R01 AI056153 (to TLG) and by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities/St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (to TLG, MS, and HI).

Abbreviations used

Ag

antigen

Treg

CD4+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells

PCC

pigeon cytochrome c

HEL

hen egg lysozyme

Tg

transgenic

rh

recombinant human

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is an author-produced version of a manuscript accepted for publication in The Journal of Immunology (The JI). The American Association of Immunologists, Inc. (AAI), publisher of The JI, holds the copyright to this manuscript. This version of the manuscript has not yet been copyedited or subjected to editorial proofreading by The JI; hence, it may differ from the final version published in The JI (online and in print). AAI (The JI) is not liable for errors or omissions in this author-produced version of the manuscript or in any version derived from it by the U.S. National Institutes of Health or any other third party. The final, citable version of record can be found at www.jimmunol.org.

Reference List

  • 1.Kedl RM, Kappler JW, Marrack P. Epitope dominance, competition and T cell affinity maturation. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2003;15:120–127. doi: 10.1016/s0952-7915(02)00009-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Busch DH, Pamer EG. T cell affinity maturation by selective expansion during infection. J Exp. Med. 1999;189:701–710. doi: 10.1084/jem.189.4.701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Price DA, Brenchley JM, Ruff LE, Betts MR, Hill BJ, Roederer M, Koup RA, Migueles SA, Gostick E, Wooldridge L, Sewell AK, Connors M, Douek DC. Avidity for antigen shapes clonal dominance in CD8+ T cell populations specific for persistent DNA viruses. J Exp. Med. 2005;202:1349–1361. doi: 10.1084/jem.20051357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kedzierska K, La Gruta NL, Davenport MP, Turner SJ, Doherty PC. Contribution of T cell receptor affinity to overall avidity for virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005;102:11432–11437. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0504851102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fasso M, Anandasabapathy N, Crawford F, Kappler J, Fathman CG, Ridgway WM. T cell receptor (TCR)-mediated repertoire selection and loss of TCR vbeta diversity during the initiation of a CD4(+) T cell response in vivo. J Exp. Med. 2000;192:1719–1730. doi: 10.1084/jem.192.12.1719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Malherbe L, Hausl C, Teyton L, McHeyzer-Williams M. Clonal selection of helper T cells is determined by an affinity threshold with no further skewing of TCR binding properties. Immunity. 2004;21:669–679. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2004.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kedl RM, Schaefer BC, Kappler JW, Marrack P. T cells down-modulate peptide-MHC complexes on APCs in vivo. Nat. Immunol. 2002;3:27–32. doi: 10.1038/ni742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rees W, Bender J, Teague TK, Kedl RM, Crawford F, Marrack P, Kappler J. An inverse relationship between T cell receptor affinity and antigen dose during CD4(+) T cell responses in vivo and in vitro. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1999;96:9781–9786. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.17.9781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Blair DA, Lefrancois L. Increased competition for antigen during priming negatively impacts the generation of memory CD4 T cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007;104:15045–15050. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703767104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Willis RA, Kappler JW, Marrack PC. CD8 T cell competition for dendritic cells in vivo is an early event in activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006;103:12063–12068. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605130103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wilde DB, Fitch FW. Antigen-reactive cloned helper T cells. I. Unresponsiveness to antigenic restimulation develops after stimulation of cloned helper T cells. J. Immunol. 1984;132:1632–1638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wilde DB, Prystowsky MB, Ely JM, Vogel SN, Dialynas DP, Fitch FW. Antigen-reactive cloned helper T cells. II. Exposure of murine cloned helper T cells to IL 2-containing supernatant induces unresponsiveness to antigenic restimulation and inhibits lymphokine production after antigenic stimulation. J. Immunol. 1984;133:636–641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Inaba H, Geiger TL. Defective cell cycle induction by IL-2 in naive T-cells antigen stimulated in the presence of refractory T-lymphocytes. Int. Immunol. 2006;18:1043–1054. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxl038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Duthoit CT, Nguyen P, Geiger TL. Antigen nonspecific suppression of T cell responses by activated stimulation-refractory CD4+ T cells. J. Immunol. 2004;172:2238–2246. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.4.2238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.McDermott DF. Update on the application of interleukin-2 in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007;13:716s–720s. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kaye J, Hsu ML, Sauron ME, Jameson SC, Gascoigne NR, Hedrick SM. Selective development of CD4+ T cells in transgenic mice expressing a class II MHC-restricted antigen receptor. Nature. 1989;341:746–749. doi: 10.1038/341746a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ho WY, Cooke MP, Goodnow CC, Davis MM. Resting and anergic B cells are defective in CD28-dependent costimulation of naive CD4+ T cells. J Exp. Med. 1994;179:1539–1549. doi: 10.1084/jem.179.5.1539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nelson BH, Willerford DM. Biology of the interleukin-2 receptor. Adv. Immunol. 1998;70:1–81. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60386-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lin JX, Leonard WJ. The role of Stat5a and Stat5b in signaling by IL-2 family cytokines. Oncogene. 2000;19:2566–2576. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Iwashima M. Kinetic perspectives of T cell antigen receptor signaling. A two-tier model for T cell full activation. Immunol. Rev. 2003;191:196–210. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-065x.2003.00024.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Smith KA, Cantrell DA. Interleukin 2 regulates its own receptors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1985;82:864–868. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.3.864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Villarino AV, Tato CM, Stumhofer JS, Yao Z, Cui YK, Hennighausen L, O'Shea JJ, Hunter CA. Helper T cell IL-2 production is limited by negative feedback and STAT-dependent cytokine signals. J Exp. Med. 2007;204:65–71. doi: 10.1084/jem.20061198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.de la Rosa M, Rutz S, Dorninger H, Scheffold A. Interleukin-2 is essential for CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cell function. Eur. J. Immunol. 2004;34:2480–2488. doi: 10.1002/eji.200425274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barthlott T, Moncrieffe H, Veldhoen M, Atkins CJ, Christensen J, O'Garra A, Stockinger B. CD25+ CD4+ T cells compete with naive CD4+ T cells for IL-2 and exploit it for the induction of IL-10 production. Int. Immunol. 2005;17:279–288. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxh207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Duthoit CT, Mekala DJ, Alli RS, Geiger TL. Uncoupling of IL-2 signaling from cell cycle progression in naive CD4+ T cells by regulatory CD4+CD25+ T lymphocytes. J. Immunol. 2005;174:155–163. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.1.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Oberle N, Eberhardt N, Falk CS, Krammer PH, Suri-Payer E. Rapid suppression of cytokine transcription in human CD4+CD25 T cells by CD4+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells: independence of IL-2 consumption, TGF-beta, and various inhibitors of TCR signaling. J Immunol. 2007;179:3578–3587. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.6.3578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Suri-Payer E, Fritzsching B. Regulatory T cells in experimental autoimmune disease. Springer Semin. Immunopathol. 2006;28:3–16. doi: 10.1007/s00281-006-0021-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Roncarolo MG, Gregori S, Battaglia M, Bacchetta R, Fleischhauer K, Levings MK. Interleukin-10-secreting type 1 regulatory T cells in rodents and humans. Immunol. Rev. 2006;212:28–50. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2006.00420.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ahmadzadeh M, Rosenberg SA. IL-2 administration increases CD4+ CD25(hi) Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in cancer patients. Blood. 2006;107:2409–2414. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-06-2399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kedl RM, Rees WA, Hildeman DA, Schaefer B, Mitchell T, Kappler J, Marrack P. T cells compete for access to antigen-bearing antigen-presenting cells. J Exp. Med. 2000;192:1105–1113. doi: 10.1084/jem.192.8.1105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fontenot JD, Rudensky AY. A well adapted regulatory contrivance: regulatory T cell development and the forkhead family transcription factor Foxp3. Nat. Immunol. 2005;6:331–337. doi: 10.1038/ni1179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jooss K, Gjata B, Danos O, von Boehmer H, Sarukhan A. Regulatory function of in vivo anergized CD4(+) T cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2001;98:8738–8743. doi: 10.1073/pnas.151088898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Taams LS, Boot EP, van Eden W, Wauben MH. ‘Anergic’ T cells modulate the T-cell activating capacity of antigen-presenting cells. J. Autoimmun. 2000;14:335–341. doi: 10.1006/jaut.2000.0372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ishimaru N, Kishimoto H, Hayashi Y, Sprent J. Regulation of naive T cell function by the NF-kappaB2 pathway. Nat. Immunol. 2006;7:763–772. doi: 10.1038/ni1351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fontenot JD, Rasmussen JP, Gavin MA, Rudensky AY. A function for interleukin 2 in Foxp3-expressing regulatory T cells. Nat. Immunol. 2005;6:1142–1151. doi: 10.1038/ni1263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bayer AL, Yu A, Malek TR. Function of the IL-2R for thymic and peripheral CD4+CD25+ Foxp3+ T regulatory cells. J Immunol. 2007;178:4062–4071. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.7.4062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Burchill MA, Yang J, Vogtenhuber C, Blazar BR, Farrar MA. IL-2 receptor beta-dependent STAT5 activation is required for the development of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. J Immunol. 2007;178:280–290. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.1.280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Thornton AM, Donovan EE, Piccirillo CA, Shevach EM. Cutting edge: IL-2 is critically required for the in vitro activation of CD4+CD25+ T cell suppressor function. J Immunol. 2004;172:6519–6523. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.11.6519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vignali D. How many mechanisms do regulatory T cells need? Eur. J Immunol. 2008;38:908–911. doi: 10.1002/eji.200738114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lenardo MJ. Interleukin-2 programs mouse alpha beta T lymphocytes for apoptosis. Nature. 1991;353:858–861. doi: 10.1038/353858a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moriggl R, Topham DJ, Teglund S, Sexl V, McKay C, Wang D, Hoffmeyer A, van Deursen J, Sangster MY, Bunting KD, Grosveld GC, Ihle JN. Stat5 is required for IL-2-induced cell cycle progression of peripheral T cells. Immunity. 1999;10:249–259. doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80025-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kelly E, Won A, Refaeli Y, Van Parijs L. IL-2 and related cytokines can promote T cell survival by activating AKT. J. Immunol. 2002;168:597–603. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.2.597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lord JD, McIntosh BC, Greenberg PD, Nelson BH. The IL-2 receptor promotes lymphocyte proliferation and induction of the c-myc, bcl-2, and bcl-x genes through the trans-activation domain of Stat5. J. Immunol. 2000;164:2533–2541. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.5.2533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.McDermott DF. Update on the application of interleukin-2 in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007;13:716s–720s. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Grande C, Firvida JL, Navas V, Casal J. Interleukin-2 for the treatment of solid tumors other than melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. Anticancer Drugs. 2006;17:1–12. doi: 10.1097/01.cad.0000182748.47353.51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Antony PA, Restifo NP. CD4+CD25+ T regulatory cells, immunotherapy of cancer, and interleukin-2. J Immunother. 2005;28:120–128. doi: 10.1097/01.cji.0000155049.26787.45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schorle H, Holtschke T, Hunig T, Schimpl A, Horak I. Development and function of T cells in mice rendered interleukin-2 deficient by gene targeting. Nature. 1991;352:621–624. doi: 10.1038/352621a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yu A, Zhou J, Marten N, Bergmann CC, Mammolenti M, Levy RB, Malek TR. Efficient induction of primary and secondary T cell-dependent immune responses in vivo in the absence of functional IL-2 and IL-15 receptors. J Immunol. 2003;170:236–242. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.1.236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES