Skip to main content
Clinical and Experimental Immunology logoLink to Clinical and Experimental Immunology
. 2013 Jan 3;171(2):147–154. doi: 10.1111/cei.12027

Experimental models to investigate the function of dendritic cell subsets: challenges and implications

D G Hancock 1, T V Guy 1, E Shklovskaya 1, B Fazekas de St Groth 1
PMCID: PMC3573285  PMID: 23286941

Abstract

The dendritic cell (DC) lineage is remarkably heterogeneous. It has been postulated that specialized DC subsets have evolved in order to select and support the multitude of possible T cell differentiation pathways. However, defining the function of individual DC subsets has proven remarkably difficult, and DC subset control of key T cell fates such as tolerance, T helper cell commitment and regulatory T cell induction is still not well understood. While the difficulty in assigning unique functions to particular DC subsets may be due to sharing of functions, it may also reflect a lack of appropriate physiological in-vivo models for studying DC function. In this paper we review the limitations associated with many of the current DC models and highlight some of the underlying difficulties involved in studying the function of murine DC subsets.

Keywords: animal models/studies – mice/rats, antibody engineering, dendritic cells (myeloid, plasmacytoid, monocyte-derived), T cells, transgenics/knock-outs

Introduction

Dendritic cells (DCs) are professional antigen-presenting cells critically required for the initiation of T cell responses. Some DC subsets sample antigens in peripheral tissues and transport them to the lymph node (LN), where DCs come into contact with recirculating naive T cells. Other DC subsets are strategically positioned within secondary lymphoid organs to capture blood-borne antigens and present them to T cells (reviewed in [1]). In addition to ‘classical’ antigen presentation pathways involving exogenous antigen uptake and presentation to CD4+ T cells in association with histocompatibility complex class II (MHC II), DCs are capable of presenting autophagosome-derived, endogenous antigens to CD4+ T cells and cross-presenting exogenous antigens to CD8+ T cells in association with MHC class I (reviewed in [1]).

Interactions between naive T cells and DCs are believed to control both primary T cell activation and subsequent T cell fate, and thus the outcome of the adaptive immune response. How DCs perform such a complex feat remains unclear. The currently accepted view is that immune outcomes are determined primarily by factors external to both DCs and T cells, such as the microbe-derived signals that radically alter the activation state of DCs [1]. An alternative view is that the DC lineage is comprised of distinct DC subpopulations committed to predetermined functions [2,3]. These functions, including generation of T cell tolerance or immunity, are then amplified by exposure to microbial signals. In this model, the outcome of an immune response depends upon how T cells integrate signals derived from the mix of preprogrammed DCs to which they are exposed during priming.

The DC lineage in the mouse has been subdivided into populations on the basis of surface phenotypes that correlate with differences in ontogeny, microanatomical location and requirements for specific cytokines and transcription factors. In the currently accepted schema, expression of high levels of CD11c and MHC II defines conventional DCs (cDCs), which are generated from precursors residing in secondary lymphoid organs such as LN and spleen [1]. cDCs are then subdivided into CD8+ (Xcr1+Clec9a+) and CD11b+ (Sirpa+) subsets that correlate with the human CD141+ (Xcr1+Clec9a+) and CD1c+ (Sirpa+) DC subsets (reviewed in [4,5]). In addition to cDCs, LNs contain migratory DCs (mDCs) that have entered the LN via afferent lymphatic vessels. In murine LNs draining the skin, mDCs are defined as CD11cintMHC IIhigh, and comprise four distinct subsets: radioresistant migratory epidermal Langerhans cells (mLCs) and three subsets of radiosensitive migratory dermal DCs (mDDCs) that differ in expression of CD11b and CD207/Langerin [6] and/or CD103 (reviewed in [1,7]). Migration of antigen-bearing DCs into the LN is essential for generating both peripheral adaptive immune responses and tolerance to antigens present within non-lymphoid tissues such as the skin [6,8]. Migratory DC subset equivalents in humans have not been established fully, but recent reports have identified multiple distinct DC populations in human skin and LNs [911].

Attributing specific functions to individual DC subsets has proven far more difficult than the analysis of phenotype. DC subsets capable of driving CD4 and CD8 responses, regulating T helper type 1 (Th1)/Th2/Th17 bias, generating inducible regulatory T cells (Tregs) and/or inducing tolerance are highly model-dependent (see Table 1). For example, CD11b+ cDCs are usually held to be responsible for Th2 priming but can produce interleukin (IL)-12 [12,13] and prime both Th1 [1416] and non-polarized Th responses [17]. Even cross-presentation capacity, which has been attributed solely to CD8+ cDCs and CD103+ mDDCs in many models, has also been observed in mLCs, CD11b+ mDDCs and/or CD11b+ cDCs [1826]. In this review we will discuss how underlying limitations of murine experimental models may have led to these apparently contradictory findings.

Table 1.

Key citations highlighting overlapping subset-specific functions in the dendritic cell (DC) literature to date

Resident cDCs Migratory DCs


CD8+ CD11b+ CD11b CD103+ CD11b+ CD103 CD11b CD103 mLCs
MHC I presentation ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Cross-presentation ++ + [1822] ++ + [2325] + [25,26]
Apoptotic cell uptake ++ + [91] ++
MHC II presentation ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
IL-12 production ++ + [12,13]
Th1 induction ++ + [1416] ++ + [92,93]
Th2 induction + [14] ++ + [92] ++ ++
Th17 induction + [94] + [95,96] ++ + [97] + [97] + [49]
iTreg induction ++ + [98,99] ++ + [95]
Tolerance committed + [8]
Humoral immunity ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

For a comprehensive set of DC reviews, see Immunology Reviews, 2010, volume 234(1). Commonly attributed subset functions are denoted with ++. MHC: major histocompatibility complex; IL: interleukin; Th: T helper; iTreg: induced regulatory T cells.

Ex-vivo assays

DC subset function is often inferred from ex-vivo assays that measure the response of antigen-specific T cells co-cultured with DC subsets purified from the draining LNs and/or spleens of immunized or infected mice. Additionally, lymphatic cannulation of larger mammals such as in rats, pigs, sheep and cattle has been used to recover migrating dendritic cells for ex-vivo phenotypical and functional studies (reviewed in [27]).

T cell proliferation and effector function in these ex-vivo assays generally reflect the extent of antigen presentation at the time of DC harvest, and thus provide an indirect measure of the efficiency of in-vivo antigen uptake and processing by a given DC subset. However, ex-vivo assays can also be affected by changes in DC immunogenic properties resulting from the physical manipulation involved in DC isolation [28,29]. In addition, co-culture overrides microanatomical factors that may constrain the probability of in-vivo contact between DCs and T cells within the T cell zones of lymphoid organs. For example, the majority of splenic CD11b+ cDCs are located outside the T cell zone in the steady state and would contact T cells only after Toll-like receptor (TLR)-dependent signals drive their relocation into the T cell zone, yet they may still present antigen to activate T cells in vitro [30]. In skin-draining LN, the peak arrival of mLCs after immunization is on day 4, compared with days 1–2 for mDDCs [6], so that assays performed on day 2 would not detect the capacity of mLCs migrating from the immunization site to present antigen [31].

Another major limitation of ex-vivo assays is that in-vitro T cell responses do not always mimic their in-vivo counterparts [3,32,33]. Effective concentrations of cytokines such as IL-2 are higher in vitro yet T cell division times are longer, and are accompanied by much higher rates of spontaneous cell death [33]. T cell cytokine production tends to be polarized more strongly in vitro than in vivo (reviewed in [34]). Long-term regulation of T cell effector and memory differentiation in vitro is also highly dependent on addition or withdrawal of exogenous cytokines.

Most importantly, the conditions that induce T cell deletion in vivo are not replicated effectively in vitro. In-vivo tolerogenic responses to soluble peptide begin with a proliferative burst that is followed rapidly by deletion in the absence of effector cytokine production [33,35]. In vitro, however, the same T cells make high levels of interferon (IFN)-γ and survive long-term if provided with exogenous IL-2 [3].

DC adoptive transfer

To overcome the limitations of in-vitro assays, antigen-pulsed DC subsets have been transferred into naive animals in order to assess their ability to generate in-vivo T cell responses [36,37]. However, the ensuing immune response may not reflect the true functional capacity of unmanipulated DCs. Multiple reports have shown dramatically inefficient DC trafficking after intraperitoneal [38], intradermal [39] or subcutaneous [40] administration, with only 0–4% of injected DCs reaching the LN. Human studies have provided very similar results [41]. Paradoxically, antigen-pulsed murine splenic CD8+ cDCs, injected either subcutaneously [42] or intratracheally [43], failed to enter the draining LN but still induced a specific T cell response in the node. In general, the T cell response to pulsed DC injection is crucially dependent upon endogenous LN DCs, which may present antigen or antigen–MHC complexes transferred from the injected DCs [4446]. The end result is that the DC responsible for T cell activation may not have the same functions as the immunizing DC. Therefore, caution is required when using the results of DC adoptive transfer experiments to infer DC subset function or to predict the capacity for priming effective responses against pathogens or tumours.

Antibody-mediated targeting

Rather than introducing exogenous antigen-pulsed DCs, antigen can be selectively targeted to DC subsets in situ when delivered in a complex with antibodies against DC subset-specific surface markers. The main benefit of such an approach is that antigen can be targeted to DC subsets in unmanipulated mice in which DCs retain their normal trafficking to LN. However, the applicability of this approach for determining the function of individual DC subsets, rather than for testing the efficacy of potentially therapeutic antibody–antigen complexes, remains unclear.

The attribution of an observed function to the targeted subset, independent of the nature of the targeting molecule, can be extremely difficult. In the case of splenic cDCs, most surface molecules are also expressed on mDCs and other immune cell populations. For example, anti-CD205 (DEC205) will target antigen to CD205high CD8+ cDCs, but may also target mLCs [6], mDDCs [6], activated CD11b+ cDCs [47], macrophages [48] and B cells, all of which express CD205 at lower levels [48]. This lack of specificity can be overcome by antibody-targeting a transgene-encoded receptor whose expression is limited to a single DC subset. In this way, Igyarto et al. recently delivered antigen to murine LCs expressing a transgene-encoded human CD207 by means of an anti-human CD207 antibody [49].

A second constraint is that the measured function of a DC subset may be dependent upon the particular molecule targeted. For instance, when targeted via Dectin-1, CD11b+ cDCs were more efficient at generating CD4+ T cell responses than CD8+ cDCs targeted via DEC205 [50], whereas they were less efficient when targeted via Dcir2 [51]. While the capacity to prime CD8+ T cell responses is usually attributed to CD8+ cDCs, they can also be primed by Dectin-2 (Clec4n)-targeted CD11b+ cDCs [52], but not by Dcir2 (Clec4a4)- [53] or Dectin-1 (Clec7a)-targeted CD11b+ cDCs [50]. Lastly, targeting different specificities on the same DC subset can result in different immune outcomes. For example, CD8+ cDCs induced a strong antibody response without adjuvant when targeted via the 10B4 anti-Clec9a (DNGR1) antibody but not via CD205 [54] or the 7H11 Clec9a antibody [55]. Similarly, CD8+ cDCs induced strong CD8+ T cell responses when targeted via CD207, CD205 or Clec9a [51,54], whereas a weaker response was observed when targeting Clec12a [54].

These distinctions may reflect differences in the expression or signalling properties of the targeted molecule [56] and/or the properties of the targeting antibody itself, including its lifespan in vivo [54]. Thus, targeting experiments, while crucial in determining the therapeutic potential of particular antigen–antibody complexes, may not add substantially to our understanding of the function of DC subsets in vivo.

DC ablation models

DC ablation models have been used to test whether a DC subset is required for a particular T cell response. DC ablation models generally rely upon expression of diphtheria toxin or its receptor to delete DCs either constitutively or inducibly (reviewed in [57]). In addition to killing DCs, ablation may have significant secondary effects due to changes in the immune microenvironment, interference with feedback loops involving other cell types, and so on. Constitutive removal of the entire DC compartment not only prevented immune responses to immunization, but also resulted in gross secondary syndromes ranging from myeloproliferative disorders to spontaneous fatal multi-organ autoimmunity [58,59].

Inducible ablation of individual DC subsets, which would be predicted to have fewer unforseen secondary effects, has been achieved by administration of diphtheria toxin into mice expressing the high-affinity diphtheria toxin receptor (DTR) under appropriate promoters, or by means of treatment with horse cytochrome c. When CD11c-DTR mice were treated with diphtheria toxin, T cell responses to bacterial, viral and parasitic infections were reduced dramatically [57]. However, a range of CD11c-negative/low macrophage and monocyte subsets were also depleted [60], while the majority of the mDC subsets were unaffected [57]. CD11c-DTR mice also developed a chemokine-dependent neutrophilia after dendritic cell ablation [61]. An alternative CD11c-Cre DTR model has been developed recently. In this model, Cre recombinase-mediated excision of a floxed-stop codon allows for constitutive DTR expression in CD11c-Cre-positive cells [62].

Langerin-DTR models have been used to assess the role of LCs in the immune response, but the results from these experiments have been heavily model-dependent. For example, LC deletion resulted in increased [63] or decreased [64] contact hypersensitivity responses depending on the mouse line. In the murine-Langerin-DTR models, developed originally to target only LCs, it was realized subsequently that both CD207/Langerin+ DDCs and LCs were ablated by diphtheria toxin treatment. Because the two DC subsets reconstituted with different kinetics, interpretation of the effect on T cell responses was complex [6365]. Finally, depletion of CD205+ DCs in CD205-DTR mice dramatically reduced CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses to bacterial and viral infections [48]. However, given that the steady-state frequency and distribution of Tregs, Th1 and Th17 cells was grossly altered by diphtheria toxin treatment, it was difficult to attribute the effect solely to CD205+ DCs, without considering the effect of the altered immune environment [48].

CD11c-cre and Langerin-cre mice have also been used to generate targeted knock-outs of multiple immune signalling molecules, including recombination signal binding protein for immunoglobulin kappa J (RBPJ) [66], signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) [67], tumour necrosis factor, alpha-induced protein 3 (TNFAIP3) (A20) [68] and myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 (Myd88) [69]. These applications suffer from the same subset specificity issues as the DTR models, due to model-dependent artefacts and the complex expression patterns of Langerin and the CD11c transgene [70,71].

Administration of horse cytochrome c is an alternate strategy used to ablate cross-presenting DCs via specific induction of the apoptosis pathway in cells possessing cross-presentation machinery [72]. Experiments using this treatment have suggested that cross-presentation is limited to a subset of splenic CD8+ cDCs, although the model was complicated by the partial depletion of CD11b+(CD4+) cDCs, which are usually considered to be incapable of cross-presentation [73].

In addition to inducible ablation, transcription factor knock-out mice have been used to define in-vivo DC subset function, as they show complete or partial deficiencies in well-defined DC subsets (reviewed in [1,74]). For example, the comparison of interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4–/–) mice (lacking CD11b+ DCs) with Id2–/– or IRF8–/– mice (both lacking CD8+ DCs) has supported the paradigm that CD11b+ DCs promote Th2 cytokine production, while CD8+ cDCs promote Th1 cytokine production [75,76]. Similarly, basic leucine zipper transcription factor, ATF-like 3 (BATF3–/–) mice have been used to demonstrate that cross-presentation is confined to the CD8+ cDC and CD103+ mDC subsets, which are selectively deficient in these mice [77]. Interestingly, while both CD205-DTR [48] and BATF3-deficient mice [77] lack CD8+ cDCs, only in the CD205-DTR model were splenic CD4+ T cell responses affected. An additional complexity in transcription-factor knock-out mice is that the targeted transcription factors are expressed, albeit at lower levels, in the remaining DC subsets [74,78]. For example, the CD11b+(CD8) DCs in IRF8–/– mice showed altered in-vitro response to microbial ligands, even though their in-vivo numbers and surface phenotype appeared normal [79].

Thus, the data from ablation models cannot be interpreted without also taking into account the actual rather than predicted ablation patterns, the kinetics of deletion and regeneration, the effect on the remaining DC compartment and the role the depleted cell populations may play in immune homeostasis in the steady state.

DC subset-restricted expression of MHC molecules

Models in which MHC alleles required for specific antigen presentation are expressed only by a defined DC subset would overcome most, if not all, of the problems associated with DC immunization, antibody targeting and ablation strategies. By retaining the entire complement of DC subsets with their normal transcriptional and biochemical programme, these models have the potential to define DC biology in a physiological context. So far, this aim has been achieved only for radioresistant DC subsets, namely LCs.

A number of published models have studied responses to LCs in MHC-disparate bone marrow (BM) chimeras in which LCs remain of host origin, whereas the majority of DDCs and cDCs are replaced [6,8,8082]. The functional capacity of LCs can then be assessed using well-characterized TCR transgenic T cells whose specificity is restricted by an MHC allele encoded within the radioresistant host genome. MHC I-restricted models have made use of the fact that the Kbm1 mutant allele does not allow presentation of the ovalbumin (OVA) epitope to CD8+ OT-I TCR-transgenic T cells. In these models, OT-I stimulation capacity is restricted to LCs and radioresistant stromal cells of the H-2k host reconstituted with H-2Kbm1 BM [82]. The preservation of deletion of OT-I cells in response to skin-derived antigen has been interpreted as indicating that LCs can induce CD8+ T cell deletion in vivo, but the possibility that the effect was mediated via MHC I-expressing LN stromal cells cannot be excluded [82].

In contrast, MHC II-dependent skin responses are effectively restricted only to LCs in MHC II-disparate chimeras, as LN stromal cells do not express MHC II [8]. Two groups have published results from such models. Allen et al. used wild-type hosts reconstituted with MHC II-knock-out (H2-Ab1–/–) BM and concluded that LCs were unable to support CD4+ T cell proliferation [80]. However, reconstitution with MHC II-knock-out BM would generate an immune system in which tonic MHC II-dependent TCR signalling was deficient due to a lack of MHC II expression by the vast majority of DCs [8386]. Such tonic TCR signalling is known to be critical for the maintenance of TCR sensitivity and responsiveness to activation, motility and memory generation within the CD4+ T cell compartment [8790]. Thus the lack of CD4+ T cell response may have been due to the failure of most DCs to express MHC II, rather than an inability of LCs to support T cell proliferation under physiological conditions.

In contrast, our studies have shown that LCs drive a strong proliferative burst in a BM chimera engineered to avoid the unphysiological consequences of MHC II gene knock-out [6,8]. Our model makes use of selective in-vivo expression of individual MHC II alleles on a C57BL/6 (IAb IEneg) background, which reconstitute IEdb expression and thereby allow presentation of moth cytochrome c (MCC) to the 5C.C7 TCR. Using host mice transgenic for the MHC II IE alpha chain, we have restricted expression of IE to radioresistant LCs, while maintaining normal T cell homeostasis via expression of IAb on all host and donor-derived DCs. We have demonstrated that LCs, as the sole antigen-presenting subset in this model, induce deletion of CD4+ T cells even when highly activated by exposure to multiple TLR and inflammasome-mediated signals. Thus our results indicate that LCs are precommitted to the induction of immunological tolerance. LCs can also inhibit the immune response driven by radiosensitive, immunogenic DC subsets. The use of this model has thus allowed the first direct investigation of the in-vivo function of LCs, in contrast to the essentially indirect ablation studies in which the function of multiple DC subsets is assessed in the presence or absence of LCs [8].

While chimeric models are useful for assessing the function of LCs, restricting functional presentation capacity to defined DC subsets in tissues such as gut and lung remains a challenge. The development of further transgenic and knock-in models that will allow functional analysis of individual DC subsets in mice possessing the full complement of MHC-expressing DCs remains a high priority.

Conclusions/future perspectives

The goal of DC subset biology, in the context of T cell responses, is to understand how DCs control the many classes of immune responses that are generated in vivo. Defining the individual functions of DC subsets should allow us to develop a more complete understanding of the mechanisms controlling T cell-mediated immunity and tolerance, maximizing the therapeutic potential of targeting DC subsets for future translation into the clinic. The recent demonstration that mouse and human DC subsets are related much more closely than previously believed underlines the importance of studying DC biology in the mouse using physiological models.

The limitations in the models currently available to study DC subset control of T cell responses (summarized in Table 2) highlight the importance of careful interpretation of the results from these models. The improvement and combination of current models should allow for a clearer picture of DC biology.

Table 2.

Summary of the limitations of the common dendritic cell (DC) models

Models Limitations and challenges
Ex vivo Change in DC immunogenicity due to in-vitro manipulation
Static snapshot of the immune response
Differences in T cell behaviour in-vitro versus in vivo
Cannot test deletional tolerance versus immunological memory
Oversimplification of the in vivo microenvironment
Adoptive transfer Differences in subset trafficking
Low efficiency trafficking to DLN
Antigen transfer to endogenous DCs
Antibody targeting Complex expression patterns
Molecule-specific not subset-specific responses
Same subset but different responses
Targeting functional molecules
DC ablation Defects in immune and T cell homeostasis
Incomplete or complex depletion patterns
Effects on remaining DC populations
MHC restriction Lack of TCR threshold signalling in MHC knock-out models
Knock-in/transgenic MHC expression required
Complex chimeric strategies
Can compare only radioresistant versus radiosensitive DCs

MHC: major histocompatibility complex; DC: dendritic cells; DLN: draining lymph nodes; TCR: T cell receptor.

Disclosure

The authors have no competing interests.

References

  • 1.Steinman RM, Idoyaga J. Features of the dendritic cell lineage. Immunol Rev. 2010;234:5–17. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2009.00888.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fazekas de St Groth B. The evolution of self tolerance: a new cell arises to meet the challenge of self-reactivity. Immunol Today. 1998;19:448–454. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5699(98)01328-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fazekas de St Groth B, Smith AL, Bosco J, Sze DM-Y, Power CA, Austen FI. Experimental models linking dendritic cell lineage, phenotype and function. Immunol Cell Biol. 2002;80:469–476. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1711.2002.01117.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Villadangos JA, Shortman K. Found in translation: the human equivalent of mouse CD8+ dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 2010;207:1131–1134. doi: 10.1084/jem.20100985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Crozat K, Guiton R, Guilliams M, et al. Comparative genomics as a tool to reveal functional equivalences between human and mouse dendritic cell subsets. Immunol Rev. 2010;234:177–198. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2009.00868.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shklovskaya E, Roediger B, Fazekas de St Groth B. Epidermal and dermal dendritic cells display differential activation and migratory behavior while sharing the ability to stimulate CD4+ T cell proliferation in vivo. J Immunol. 2008;181:418–430. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.1.418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Coquerelle C, Moser M. DC subsets in positive and negative regulation of immunity. Immunol Rev. 2010;234:317–334. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2009.00887.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shklovskaya E, O'Sullivan BJ, Ng LG, et al. Langerhans cells are precommitted to immune tolerance induction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:18049–18054. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1110076108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Angel CE, Chen CJ, Horlacher OC, et al. Distinctive localization of antigen-presenting cells in human lymph nodes. Blood. 2009;113:1257–1267. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-06-165266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Segura E, Valladeau-Guilemond J, Donnadieu MH, Sastre-Garau X, Soumelis V, Amigorena S. Characterization of resident and migratory dendritic cells in human lymph nodes. J Exp Med. 2012;209:653–660. doi: 10.1084/jem.20111457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.van de Ven R, van den Hout MF, Lindenberg JJ, et al. Characterization of four conventional dendritic cell subsets in human skin-draining lymph nodes in relation to T-cell activation. Blood. 2011;118:2502–2510. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-03-344838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Huang LY, Reis e Sousa C, Itoh Y, Inman J, Scott DE. IL-12 induction by a Th1-inducing adjuvant in vivo: dendritic cell subsets and regulation by IL-10. J Immunol. 2001;167:1423–1430. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.3.1423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kasahara S, Clark EA. Dendritic cell-associated lectin 2 (DCAL2) defines a distinct CD8α– dendritic cell subset. J Leukoc Biol. 2012;91:437–448. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0711384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Boonstra A, Asselin-Paturel C, Gilliet M, et al. Flexibility of mouse classical and plasmacytoid-derived dendritic cells in directing T helper type 1 and 2 cell development: dependency on antigen dose and differential toll-like receptor ligation. J Exp Med. 2003;197:101–109. doi: 10.1084/jem.20021908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Maroof A, Kaye PM. Temporal regulation of interleukin-12p70 (IL-12p70) and IL-12-related cytokines in splenic dendritic cell subsets during Leishmania donovani infection. Infect Immun. 2008;76:239–249. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00643-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Skokos D, Nussenzweig MC. CD8– DCs induce IL-12-independent Th1 differentiation through Delta 4 Notch-like ligand in response to bacterial LPS. J Exp Med. 2007;204:1525–1531. doi: 10.1084/jem.20062305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schlecht G, Leclerc C, Dadaglio G. Induction of CTL and nonpolarized Th cell responses by CD8α+ and CD8α– dendritic cells. J Immunol. 2001;167:4215–4221. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.8.4215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Backer R, van Leeuwen F, Kraal G, den Haan JM. CD8– dendritic cells preferentially cross-present Saccharomyces cerevisiae antigens. Eur J Immunol. 2008;38:370–380. doi: 10.1002/eji.200737647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baker K, Qiao SW, Kuo TT, et al. Neonatal Fc receptor for IgG (FcRn) regulates cross-presentation of IgG immune complexes by CD8–CD11b+ dendritic cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:9927–9932. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019037108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chung Y, Chang JH, Kweon MN, Rennert PD, Kang CY. CD8α–11b+ dendritic cells but not CD8α+ dendritic cells mediate cross-tolerance toward intestinal antigens. Blood. 2005;106:201–206. doi: 10.1182/blood-2004-11-4240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.den Haan JM, Bevan MJ. Constitutive versus activation-dependent cross-presentation of immune complexes by CD8+ and CD8– dendritic cells in vivo. J Exp Med. 2002;196:817–827. doi: 10.1084/jem.20020295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kamphorst AO, Guermonprez P, Dudziak D, Nussenzweig MC. Route of antigen uptake differentially impacts presentation by dendritic cells and activated monocytes. J Immunol. 2010;185:3426–3435. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1001205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ballesteros-Tato A, Leon B, Lund FE, Randall TD. Temporal changes in dendritic cell subsets, cross-priming and costimulation via CD70 control CD8+ T cell responses to influenza. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:216–224. doi: 10.1038/ni.1838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chung Y, Chang JH, Kim BS, Lee JM, Kim HY, Kang CY. Anatomic location defines antigen presentation by dendritic cells to T cells in response to intravenous soluble antigens. Eur J Immunol. 2007;37:1453–1462. doi: 10.1002/eji.200636544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Oh JZ, Kurche JS, Burchill MA, Kedl RM. TLR7 enables cross-presentation by multiple dendritic cell subsets through a type I IFN-dependent pathway. Blood. 2011;118:3028–3038. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-348839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stoitzner P, Tripp CH, Eberhart A, et al. Langerhans cells cross-present antigen derived from skin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:7783–7788. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509307103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Milling S, Yrlid U, Cerovic V, MacPherson G. Subsets of migrating intestinal dendritic cells. Immunol Rev. 2010;234:259–267. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2009.00866.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jiang A, Bloom O, Ono S, et al. Disruption of E-cadherin-mediated adhesion induces a functionally distinct pathway of dendritic cell maturation. Immunity. 2007;27:610–624. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Manickasingham SP, Edwards AD, Schulz O, Reis e Sousa C. The ability of murine dendritic cell subsets to direct T helper cell differentiation is dependent on microbial signals. Eur J Immunol. 2003;33:101–107. doi: 10.1002/immu.200390001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.De Smedt T, Pajak B, Muraille E, et al. Regulation of dendritic cell numbers and maturation by lipopolysaccharide in vivo. J Exp Med. 1996;184:1413–1424. doi: 10.1084/jem.184.4.1413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Allan RS, Smith CM, Belz GT, et al. Epidermal viral immunity induced by CD8α+ dendritic cells but not by Langerhans cells. Science. 2003;301:1925–1928. doi: 10.1126/science.1087576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fazekas de St Groth B, Smith AL, Koh W-P, Girgis L, Cook MC, Bertolino P. CFSE and the virgin lymphocyte: a marriage made in heaven. Immunol Cell Biol. 1999;77:530–538. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1711.1999.00871.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fazekas de St Groth B, Smith AL, Higgins CA. T cell activation: in vivo veritas. Immunol Cell Biol. 2004;82:260–268. doi: 10.1111/j.0818-9641.2004.01243.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhu J, Yamane H, Paul WE. Differentiation of effector CD4 T cell populations. Annu Rev Immunol. 2010;28:445–489. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-030409-101212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Huang CT, Huso DL, Lu Z, et al. CD4+ T cells pass through an effector phase during the process of in vivo tolerance induction. J Immunol. 2003;170:3945–3953. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.8.3945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Maldonado-Lopez R, de Smedt T, Michel P, et al. CD8α+ and CD8α– subclasses of dendritic cells direct the development of distinct T helper cells in vivo. J Exp Med. 1999;189:587–592. doi: 10.1084/jem.189.3.587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pulendran B, Smith JL, Caspary G, et al. Distinct dendritic cell subsets differentially regulate the class of immune response in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:1036–1041. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.3.1036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Creusot RJ, Yaghoubi SS, Chang P, et al. Lymphoid-tissue-specific homing of bone-marrow-derived dendritic cells. Blood. 2009;113:6638–6647. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-02-204321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Eggert AA, van der Voort R, Torensma R, et al. Analysis of dendritic cell trafficking using EGFP-transgenic mice. Immunol Lett. 2003;89:17–24. doi: 10.1016/s0165-2478(03)00105-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Baumjohann D, Hess A, Budinsky L, Brune K, Schuler G, Lutz MB. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of dendritic cell migration into the draining lymph nodes of mice. Eur J Immunol. 2006;36:2544–2555. doi: 10.1002/eji.200535742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Baumjohann D, Lutz MB. Non-invasive imaging of dendritic cell migration in vivo. Immunobiology. 2006;211:587–597. doi: 10.1016/j.imbio.2006.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Smith AL, Fazekas de St Groth B. Antigen-pulsed CD8α+ dendritic cells generate an immune response after subcutaneous injection without homing to the draining lymph node. J Exp Med. 1999;189:593–598. doi: 10.1084/jem.189.3.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hammad H, de Vries VC, Maldonado-Lopez R, et al. Differential capacity of CD8α+ or CD8α– dendritic cell subsets to prime for eosinophilic airway inflammation in the T-helper type 2-prone milieu of the lung. Clin Exp Allergy. 2004;34:1834–1840. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.02133.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Divito SJ, Wang Z, Shufesky WJ, et al. Endogenous dendritic cells mediate the effects of intravenously injected therapeutic immunosuppressive dendritic cells in transplantation. Blood. 2010;116:2694–2705. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-10-251058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kleindienst P, Brocker T. Endogenous dendritic cells are required for amplification of T cell responses induced by dendritic cell vaccines in vivo. J Immunol. 2003;170:2817–2823. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.6.2817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yewdall AW, Drutman SB, Jinwala F, Bahjat KS, Bhardwaj N. CD8+ T cell priming by dendritic cell vaccines requires antigen transfer to endogenous antigen presenting cells. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e11144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vremec D, Shortman K. Dendritic cell subtypes in mouse lymphoid organs. Cross-correlation of surface markers, changes with incubation and differences among thymus, spleen and lymph nodes. J Immunol. 1997;159:565–573. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Fukaya T, Murakami R, Takagi H, et al. Conditional ablation of CD205+ conventional dendritic cells impacts the regulation of T-cell immunity and homeostasis in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:11288–11293. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202208109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Igyarto BZ, Haley K, Ortner D, et al. Skin-resident murine dendritic cell subsets promote distinct and opposing antigen-specific T helper cell responses. Immunity. 2011;35:260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Carter RW, Thompson C, Reid DM, Wong SY, Tough DF. Preferential induction of CD4+ T cell responses through in vivo targeting of antigen to dendritic cell-associated C-type lectin-1. J Immunol. 2006;177:2276–2284. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.4.2276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Idoyaga J, Lubkin A, Fiorese C, et al. Comparable T helper 1 (Th1) and CD8 T-cell immunity by targeting HIV gag p24 to CD8 dendritic cells within antibodies to Langerin, DEC205, and Clec9A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:2384–2389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019547108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Carter RW, Thompson C, Reid DM, Wong SY, Tough DF. Induction of CD8+ T cell responses through targeting of antigen to Dectin-2. Cell Immunol. 2006;239:87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2006.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Soares H, Waechter H, Glaichenhaus N, et al. A subset of dendritic cells induces CD4+ T cells to produce IFN-gamma by an IL-12-independent but CD70-dependent mechanism in vivo. J Exp Med. 2007;204:1095–1106. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lahoud MH, Ahmet F, Kitsoulis S, et al. Targeting antigen to mouse dendritic cells via Clec9A induces potent CD4 T cell responses biased toward a follicular helper phenotype. J Immunol. 2011;187:842–850. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1101176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sancho D, Mourao-Sa D, Joffre OP, et al. Tumor therapy in mice via antigen targeting to a novel, DC-restricted C-type lectin. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:2098–2110. doi: 10.1172/JCI34584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mascanfroni ID, Cerliani JP, Dergan-Dylon S, Croci DO, Ilarregui JM, Rabinovich GA. Endogenous lectins shape the function of dendritic cells and tailor adaptive immunity: mechanisms and biomedical applications. Int Immunopharmacol. 2011;11:833–841. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2011.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bar-On L, Jung S. Defining dendritic cells by conditional and constitutive cell ablation. Immunol Rev. 2010;234:76–89. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2009.00875.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Birnberg T, Bar-On L, Sapoznikov A, et al. Lack of conventional dendritic cells is compatible with normal development and T cell homeostasis, but causes myeloid proliferative syndrome. Immunity. 2008;29:986–997. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ohnmacht C, Pullner A, King SB, et al. Constitutive ablation of dendritic cells breaks self-tolerance of CD4 T cells and results in spontaneous fatal autoimmunity. J Exp Med. 2009;206:549–559. doi: 10.1084/jem.20082394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Probst HC, Tschannen K, Odermatt B, Schwendener R, Zinkernagel RM, Van Den Broek M. Histological analysis of CD11c-DTR/GFP mice after in vivo depletion of dendritic cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2005;141:398–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2005.02868.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Tittel AP, Heuser C, Ohliger C, et al. Functionally relevant neutrophilia in CD11c diphtheria toxin receptor transgenic mice. Nat Methods. 2012;9:385–390. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Okuyama M, Kayama H, Atarashi K, et al. A novel in vivo inducible dendritic cell ablation model in mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010;397:559–563. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.05.157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kaplan DH, Jenison MC, Saeland S, Shlomchik WD, Shlomchik MJ. Epidermal Langerhans cell-deficient mice develop enhanced contact hypersensitivity. Immunity. 2005;23:611–620. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2005.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bennett CL, van Rijn E, Jung S, et al. Inducible ablation of mouse Langerhans cells diminishes but fails to abrogate contact hypersensitivity. J Cell Biol. 2005;169:569–576. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200501071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kissenpfennig A, Henri S, Dubois B, et al. Dynamics and function of Langerhans cells in vivo: dermal dendritic cells colonize lymph node areas distinct from slower migrating Langerhans cells. Immunity. 2005;22:643–654. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2005.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Caton ML, Smith-Raska MR, Notch RB. RBP-J signaling controls the homeostasis of CD8– dendritic cells in the spleen. J Exp Med. 2007;204:1653–1664. doi: 10.1084/jem.20062648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Melillo JA, Song L, Bhagat G, et al. Dendritic cell (DC)-specific targeting reveals Stat3 as a negative regulator of DC function. J Immunol. 2010;184:2638–2645. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kool M, van Loo G, Waelput W, et al. The ubiquitin-editing protein A20 prevents dendritic cell activation, recognition of apoptotic cells, and systemic autoimmunity. Immunity. 2011;35:82–96. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Haley K, Igyarto BZ, Ortner D, et al. Langerhans cells require MyD88-dependent signals for Candida albicans response but not for contact hypersensitivity or migration. J Immunol. 2012;188:4334–4339. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1102759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hume DA. Applications of myeloid-specific promoters in transgenic mice support in vivo imaging and functional genomics but do not support the concept of distinct macrophage and dendritic cell lineages or roles in immunity. J Leukoc Biol. 2011;89:525–538. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0810472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mabbott NA, Kenneth Baillie J, Hume DA, Freeman TC. Meta-analysis of lineage-specific gene expression signatures in mouse leukocyte populations. Immunobiology. 2010;215:724–736. doi: 10.1016/j.imbio.2010.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Lin ML, Zhan Y, Proietto AI, et al. Selective suicide of cross-presenting CD8+ dendritic cells by cytochrome c injection shows functional heterogeneity within this subset. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:3029–3034. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0712394105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Farrand KJ, Dickgreber N, Stoitzner P, Ronchese F, Petersen TR, Hermans IF. Langerin+ CD8α+ dendritic cells are critical for cross-priming and IL-12 production in response to systemic antigens. J Immunol. 2009;183:7732–7742. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Watowich SS, Liu YJ. Mechanisms regulating dendritic cell specification and development. Immunol Rev. 2010;238:76–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2010.00949.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Kusunoki T, Sugai M, Katakai T, et al. Th2 dominance and defective development of a CD8+ dendritic cell subset in Id2-deficient mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111:136–142. doi: 10.1067/mai.2003.29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Tamura T, Tailor P, Yamaoka K, et al. IFN regulatory factor-4 and -8 govern dendritic cell subset development and their functional diversity. J Immunol. 2005;174:2573–2581. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.5.2573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hildner K, Edelson BT, Purtha WE, et al. Batf3 deficiency reveals a critical role for CD8α+ dendritic cells in cytotoxic T cell immunity. Science. 2008;322:1097–1100. doi: 10.1126/science.1164206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Jackson JT, Hu Y, Liu R, et al. Id2 expression delineates differential checkpoints in the genetic program of CD8α+ and CD103+ dendritic cell lineages. EMBO J. 2011;30:2690–2704. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2011.163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Aliberti J, Schulz O, Pennington DJ, et al. Essential role for ICSBP in the in vivo development of murine CD8α+ dendritic cells. Blood. 2003;101:305–310. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Allenspach EJ, Lemos MP, Porrett PM, Turka LA, Laufer TM. Migratory and lymphoid-resident dendritic cells cooperate to efficiently prime naive CD4 T cells. Immunity. 2008;29:795–806. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.08.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Merad M, Manz MG, Karsunky H, et al. Langerhans cells renew in the skin throughout life under steady-state conditions. Nat Immunol. 2002;3:1135–1141. doi: 10.1038/ni852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Waithman J, Allan RS, Kosaka H, et al. Skin-derived dendritic cells can mediate deletional tolerance of class I-restricted self-reactive T cells. J Immunol. 2007;179:4535–4541. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.7.4535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Garbi N, Hammerling GJ, Probst HC, van den Broek M. Tonic T cell signalling and T cell tolerance as opposite effects of self-recognition on dendritic cells. Curr Opin Immunol. 2010;22:601–608. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2010.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Martin B, Becourt C, Bienvenu B, Lucas B. Self-recognition is crucial for maintaining the peripheral CD4+ T-cell pool in a nonlymphopenic environment. Blood. 2006;108:270–277. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-01-0017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Suffner J, Hochweller K, Kuhnle MC, et al. Dendritic cells support homeostatic expansion of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in Foxp3.LuciDTR mice. J Immunol. 2010;184:1810–1820. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Takeda S, Rodewald HR, Arakawa H, Bluethmann H, Shimizu T. MHC class II molecules are not required for survival of newly generated CD4+ T cells, but affect their long-term life span. Immunity. 1996;5:217–228. doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80317-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.De Riva A, Bourgeois C, Kassiotis G, Stockinger B. Noncognate interaction with MHC class II molecules is essential for maintenance of T cell metabolism to establish optimal memory CD4 T cell function. J Immunol. 2007;178:5488–5495. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.9.5488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Dorfman JR, Stefanova I, Yasutomo K, Germain RN. CD4+ T cell survival is not directly linked to self-MHC-induced TCR signaling. Nat Immunol. 2000;1:329–335. doi: 10.1038/79783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Fischer UB, Jacovetty EL, Medeiros RB, et al. MHC class II deprivation impairs CD4 T cell motility and responsiveness to antigen-bearing dendritic cells in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:7181–7186. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0608299104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Stefanova I, Dorfman JR, Germain RN. Self-recognition promotes the foreign antigen sensitivity of naive T lymphocytes. Nature. 2002;420:429–434. doi: 10.1038/nature01146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Wang Z, Shufesky WJ, Montecalvo A, Divito SJ, Larregina AT, Morelli AE. In situ-targeting of dendritic cells with donor-derived apoptotic cells restrains indirect allorecognition and ameliorates allograft vasculopathy. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e4940. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Nakano H, Free ME, Whitehead GS, et al. Pulmonary CD103+ dendritic cells prime Th2 responses to inhaled allergens. Mucosal Immunol. 2012;5:53–65. doi: 10.1038/mi.2011.47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Zhao X, Deak E, Soderberg K, et al. Vaginal submucosal dendritic cells, but not Langerhans cells, induce protective Th1 responses to herpes simplex virus-2. J Exp Med. 2003;197:153–162. doi: 10.1084/jem.20021109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Joffre OP, Sancho D, Zelenay S, Keller AM, Reis e Sousa C. Efficient and versatile manipulation of the peripheral CD4+ T-cell compartment by antigen targeting to DNGR-1/CLEC9A. Eur J Immunol. 2010;40:1255–1265. doi: 10.1002/eji.201040419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Fortin G, Raymond M, Van VQ, et al. A role for CD47 in the development of experimental colitis mediated by SIRPα+CD103– dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 2009;206:1995–2011. doi: 10.1084/jem.20082805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Uematsu S, Fujimoto K, Jang MH, et al. Regulation of humoral and cellular gut immunity by lamina propria dendritic cells expressing Toll-like receptor 5. Nat Immunol. 2008;9:769–776. doi: 10.1038/ni.1622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Edelson BT, Bradstreet TR, Wumesh KC, et al. Batf3-dependent CD11blow/– peripheral dendritic cells are GM-CSF-independent and are not required for Th cell priming after subcutaneous immunization. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e25660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Gao X, Bai H, Cheng J, et al. CD8α+ and CD8α– DC subsets from BCG-infected mice inhibit allergic Th2-cell responses by enhancing Th1-cell and Treg-cell activity respectively. Eur J Immunol. 2012;42:165–175. doi: 10.1002/eji.201141833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Li H, Zhang GX, Chen Y, et al. CD11c+CD11b+ dendritic cells play an important role in intravenous tolerance and the suppression of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J Immunol. 2008;181:2483–2493. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.4.2483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical and Experimental Immunology are provided here courtesy of British Society for Immunology

RESOURCES