Abstract
Autoimmune diseases are caused by immune cells attacking the host tissues they are supposed to protect. Recent advances suggest that maintaining a balance of effector and regulatory immune function is critical for avoiding autoimmunity. New therapies, including costimulation blockade, regulatory T cell therapy, antigen-specific immunotherapy, and manipulating the interleukin-2 pathway, attempt to restore this balance. This review discusses these advances as well as the challenges that must be overcome to target these therapies to patients suffering from autoimmune disease while avoiding the pitfalls of general immunosuppression.
INTRODUCTION
Autoimmune disease contributes substantially to morbidity, mortality, and health care cost each year. More than 50 million Americans are currently living with an autoimmune disease, and new cases are rising at an alarming rate (1). Autoimmunity is the highest cause of morbidity in women in the United States and is one of the top 10 causes of death in women under the age of 65 (2). Autoimmune diseases are frequently chronic illnesses, and it is estimated that more than 100 billion health care dollars are spent each year in the management of autoimmune patients, which places autoimmunity among the most costly diseases to diagnose and treat.
Autoimmune diseases can be either systemic or tissue-specific in nature; however, all forms of autoimmunity are thought to result from a disruption of balance within the immune system. The normal immune system is designed to recognize and react to a multitude of foreign pathogens while remaining unresponsive to host tissues (such as self-antigens). This ability to live with—or tolerate—self is known as immunological tolerance. Although lymphocytes specific for self-antigens are constantly being generated in the thymus (termed T lymphocytes or T cells), many of these cells are eliminated before they complete their maturation. However, this process is imperfect. Normal healthy individuals have circulating T cells that are capable of mounting pathogenic immune responses directed at self-antigens (3). Nevertheless, most people do not develop autoimmune disease. Instead, in healthy individuals, the pathogenicity of these self-reactive cells is counterbalanced by regulatory mechanisms that are constantly at work suppressing potentially damaging responses, thus maintaining tolerance to self.
These observations have led to a paradigm shift in the study of autoimmunity. Autoimmune disease is no longer thought to be triggered solely by signals that lead to the aberrant activation of self-reactive cells, but instead may primarily result from a defect in the ability to control these cells. Using the crude analogy of an automobile, auto-immunity does not simply result from stepping on the gas pedal, but also requires letting up on the brake. Elucidating the mechanisms that naturally suppress self-reactivity is central to understanding the pathogenesis of autoimmunity, and exploiting these pathways for therapeutic benefit may provide exciting and novel targeted approaches to treat autoimmune and inflammatory disease.
TREATING AUTOIMMUNITY
Traditional therapies for autoimmune disease have relied on immunosuppressive medications that globally dampen immune responses. These agents are highly effective for many patients and thus remain the current “gold standard” of care. However, long-term treatments with high doses are often needed to maintain disease control, leaving the patient susceptible to life-threatening opportunistic infections and long-term risk of malignancy. In addition, the benefits of many of these drugs are counterbalanced by toxicity and serious side effect profiles. Thus, there has been a push for the development of more specific strategies that lower the risk of systemic immune suppression and improve tolerability. The optimal therapy for autoimmunity would be one that achieves four main goals: (i) specifically targets the pathogenic cells and leaves the remainder of the immune system functioning normally; (ii) reestablishes immune tolerance that is stable over time, such that continuous or long-term therapy is not needed; (iii) has low toxicity and few side effects; and (iv) is overall cost-effective when compared to alternative approaches.
The new wave of treatments for autoimmune disease strives to achieve these goals. Mechanistically, these approaches either focus on inhibiting the activation of pathogenic cells or are aimed at augmenting the pathways that naturally suppress these cells. Herein, we discuss the major advantages and limitations to some of the newest approaches to treat T cell–mediated autoimmunity, with specific focus on strategies to overcome current roadblocks.
COSTIMULATORY BLOCKADE
Activation of T cells requires two main signals (Fig. 1). The first signal is antigen recognition through the T cell receptor (TCR), and the second signal is a costimulatory signal provided by the cell presenting the antigen [antigen-presenting cell (APC)]. Both signals are required to achieve full T cell activation. If the first signal is received without the second, T cells become suboptimally stimulated, resulting in a state of unresponsiveness or anergy (4). In the context of infection with a foreign pathogen, various inflammatory signals increase expression of costimulatory molecules on APCs, leading to full T cell activation. Autoreactive T cells are normally presented self-antigens in the absence of inflammation, receiving a TCR signal (signal 1) without costimulation (signal 2), which effectively renders these cells functionally anergic. However, in the context of autoimmunity (and associated inflammation), self-reactive T cells may receive both signal 1 and signal 2, resulting in full activation. These cells are then capable of mounting pathogenic immune responses in tissues that express their cognate antigen.
Fig. 1.
Costimulatory blockade as a method to treat autoimmunity. T cells require two signals to become fully activated. The first signal (“signal 1”) is provided through the TCR upon recognition and binding of specific antigen presented in the context by MHC (major histocompatibility complex) molecules on APCs. The second signal (“signal 2”) is a costimulatory signal provided by engagement of costimulatory ligands expressed on APCs with costimulatory receptors expressed on T cells. If T cells receive signal 1 without signal 2, they fail to be fully activated and are rendered functionally anergic. CD80 (B7-1) and CD86 (B7-2) binding to CD28 provides a robust costimulatory signal to T cells. Abatacept and belatacept are chimeric fusion proteins consisting of the extracellular domain of CTLA-4 and human IgG1. They bind to CD80 and CD86 with high affinity, preventing binding of these costimulatory ligands to CD28. Through blocking this potent costimulatory pathway, these reagents inhibit the activation of auto-reactive T cells in patients with autoimmunity.
Because costimulation is required for T cell activation, blocking costimulatory pathways is an attractive potential treatment for auto-immune disease. In this approach, costimulatory signals are specifically inhibited in an attempt to render self-reactive T cells anergic and attenuate the overall autoimmune response. The greatest success to date of this approach is cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)–immunoglobulin (Ig), which directly prevents costimulation mediated by CD28 [Fig. 1; (5)]. CD28 was the first costimulatory receptor identified on T cells, and signaling through this receptor initiates a potent T cell activation cascade resulting in proliferation and functional differentiation. The chimeric CTLA-4–Ig protein combines the extracellular domain of CTLA-4 with human IgG1. It is a soluble receptor fusion protein that binds two potent costimulatory ligands on APCs, B7-1 and B7-2 (also called CD80 and CD86). In doing so, CTLA-4–Ig inhibits the ability of these molecules to bind to CD28 (their receptor on T cells). Treatment with CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) has been shown to be effective in both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis and has recently shown promise in treating type 1 diabetes (6–8). In one study, 112 patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes were treated with abatacept or placebo over a 2-year period. Patients treated with abatacept showed a slower reduction in pancreatic β cell function. However, despite monthly administration of the drug over 24 months, the beneficial effects were only observed within the first 6 months of therapy (8).
Despite efficacy in RA, psoriatic arthritis, and type 1 diabetes, costimulatory blockade has been less promising for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease (9–11). Perhaps, this is because this form of treatment blocks activation of naïve T cells, and thus, it may have less of an effect on previously activated T cells or long-lived memory T cells. Once self-reactive T cells have been activated, blocking costimulatory molecules may be unable to suppress the pathogenicity of these cells. Consistently, costimulation blockade works much better in preventing disease than in treating active disease in preclinical animal models of autoimmunity (12). This limitation may also explain why abatacept preferentially works during the early phase of type 1 diabetes, because new T cell activation most likely contributes to the pathogenesis only early in the disease process (8). On the basis of these results, prevention trials for type 1 diabetes are being planned. Because people with prediabetes can be identified before they develop clinical manifestations, prevention in this context may be feasible.
Another limitation of costimulatory blockade is the need for continuous treatments. This approach has not been shown to induce stable self-tolerance with short courses of therapy. In addition, blocking costimulatory signals is not specific for autoreactive T cells. Thus, this approach has the potential to inhibit T cell responses to foreign pathogens, leaving patients susceptible to potentially life-threatening infections.
REGULATORY T CELL THERAPY
Although multiple mechanisms exist to control immune responses directed at self-antigens, one of the most important of these relies on a unique population of T lymphocytes called regulatory T cells (Tregs), whose discovery in the late 1990s has been a milestone in immunology. Tregs are a subset of CD4+ T cells that express high levels of the interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor α chain CD25 and the transcription factor Foxp3 [reviewed in (13)]. Tregs unequivocally have been shown to suppress pathogenic immune responses directed at self-antigens; both mice and humans with nonfunctional Tregs develop florid auto-immunity. Foxp3-deficient mice develop de novo autoimmune gastritis, thyroiditis, diabetes, dermatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease, and die around 3 to 4 weeks of age (14). People with mutations in the Foxp3 gene have a similar phenotype. They develop autoimmune enteropathies, endocrinopathies, and failure to thrive, all of which are manifested within the first few months of life (15). Without a bone marrow transplant, these patients usually die during childhood. The role of Tregs in preventing more common autoimmune diseases is a subject of intense current interest that has led to an emerging paradigm: The outcome of all immune responses, including those directed at self-antigens, is determined by the ratio of functional effector (or conventional) T cells to Tregs.
Because Tregs have a potent and obligatory role in suppressing auto-immunity, they have emerged as the quintessential cell population to exploit for therapeutic benefit. The idea behind this approach is simple: isolate these cells, activate and expand them ex vivo to high numbers, and adoptively transfer them to patients with autoimmune disease in an attempt to suppress (and potentially cure) the ongoing autoimmune response (Fig. 2). However, the implementation of this approach has been fraught with pitfalls and impediments. Although this idea was first proposed more than 15 years ago, clinical trials exploring the safety and potential efficacy of adoptively transferred Tregs in treating human autoimmunity are only now being realized, mostly because of a lack of knowledge about the fundamental biology of these cells in human beings.
Fig. 2.
Augmentation of Tregs to treat human autoimmunity. Both in vivo and ex vivo approaches have been used to enhance the relative numbers of Tregs to treat autoimmune disease. Adoptive Treg therapy is a method by which polyclonal Tregs are purified from peripheral blood or cord blood via fluorescence-activated cell sorting using cell surface markers preferentially expressed on Tregs. Purified cells are expanded ex vivo by culturing in the presence of TCR stimulation (with or without costimulation) in combination with exogenous IL-2 and, in some cases, rapamycin (which preferentially inhibits conventional T cell proliferation in vitro). Expanded cells are then adoptively transferred to the patient. The process of self-antigen–specific tolerance is aimed at enhancing the Treg–to–pathogenic T cell (Teff) ratio in vivo. In this approach, self-peptide is repeatedly administered in increasing doses to induce the preferential expansion of antigen-specific Tregs. Attempts to improve the efficacy of self-antigen tolerance include coupling antigen to autologous cells before injection. Polyclonal Tregs can be expanded in vivo by signaling through the IL-2 receptor (CD25), which is constitutively expressed on Tregs. Attempts to improve the efficacy of this approach in animal models have used recombinant IL-2 and monoclonal anti–IL-2 antibody immune complexes. The overall goal of both ex vivo and in vitro approaches is to increase the relative Treg-to-Teff ratio in an attempt to restore tissue-specific or systemic immune homeostasis.
The ideal population of Tregs for adoptive transfer consists of highly pure antigen-specific Tregs that are stable and potent suppressors capable of specifically regulating autoimmunity in the affected organ(s) without causing global immunosuppression. The first obstacle in obtaining such a population is the inability to isolate highly pure Tregs. Both conventional Foxp3+ Tregs and unconventional Foxp3− Tregs [such as IL-10–producing type 1 Tregs, or Tr1 cells; reviewed in (16)] lack specific cell surface markers that allow for their purification and separation from potentially pathogenic T cells. The best cell surface marker to date is CD25; however, cell purification–based techniques using this marker typically yield between 60 and 90% Foxp3+ cells (17). Foxp3 itself cannot be used because it is an intracellular protein, and permeabilization of cells to identify Foxp3 expression renders them nonviable. Newer approaches have attempted to use other cell surface markers, including CD127, CD45RA, CD121, and latency-associated peptide (18, 19); none of which have proven to yield universally accepted Treg purities. The question of what is an “acceptable” Treg purity remains controversial as well, as even a small percentage of contaminating T cells can theoretically exacerbate autoimmune disease after activation and expansion ex vivo.
Because Foxp3-expressing Tregs comprise roughly 2% of CD4+ T cells in human peripheral blood, these cells need to be expanded to high numbers to be useful in adoptive transfer approaches. A lack of knowledge of the molecular pathways that specifically activate Tregs or promote Treg differentiation (and how this differs from the activation and differentiation of conventional T cells) has resulted in most ex vivo Treg expansion protocols using nonspecific T cell activation methods, such as TCR stimulation and exogenous IL-2 (a pan–T cell growth factor) (20–22). Because these conditions are not specific for Tregs, contaminating T cells (that are potentially pathogenic) are also expanded. However, the addition of the antiproliferative compound rapamycin to Treg cultures favors the growth of CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ Tregs over CD4+CD25− T cells and also supports the suppressive function of cultured Tregs (22–24). Another limitation to ex vivo Treg expansion is the culture time required to obtain adequate numbers of these cells, which is exacerbated by the potential of Tregs to lose their suppressive capacity with time in culture (25).
Most methods of testing human Treg function rely on in vitro suppression assays, and these methods of ascertaining Treg function may not accurately reflect the suppressive capacity of Tregs in vivo. Testing their ability to suppress autoimmune reactions in human beings would clearly be the best assay to ascertain the function of in vitro–expanded Tregs; however, because there are clear ethical and practical concerns with this approach, assaying the suppressive capacity of these cells in humanized mouse models may suffice.
Questions regarding the functionality of these cells are further complicated because in certain contexts, the suppressive function of Tregs may not be stable over time. Cells that once expressed Foxp3 can transition to nonregulatory Foxp3− pathogenic T cells. Indeed, in animal models, cells that once expressed Foxp3 have been shown to convert to pathogenic effector cells capable of inducing type 1 diabetes (26). In human beings, Foxp3-expressing cells are capable of producing both T helper 17 (TH17) and TH1 cytokines upon ex vivo activation (27, 28)—the latter of which are increased in patients with untreated relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (29). Thus, even if a relatively pure population of Tregs could be obtained and selectively expanded, it is unclear whether such cells would stably retain their immunoregulatory capacity and suppress autoimmune reactions upon adoptive transfer to patients.
Despite current limitations in adoptive Treg therapy, a disease setting where this approach is proving to be successful is acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). aGVHD is a “man-made” autoimmune-like disease that can result after bone marrow transplantation. Lymphocytes are administered in the bone marrow or stem cell inoculum that recognize and react against host tissue antigens—primarily host human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules. In this disease setting, both host and donor tissue are accessible before cell administration, which allows for the ex vivo expansion and activation of host-reactive Tregs before adoptive transfer (30). Because the onset of disease is highly controlled (for example, several days to weeks after transfer of host-reactive cells), Tregs can be administered before the initiation of pathogenic anti-host responses, effectively giving these cells a “head start” in preventing and/or suppressing the disease process.
Taking advantage of many of these characteristics of aGVHD, Di Ianni and colleagues recently reported a series of 28 patients that were given donor Tregs before adoptive transfer of hematopoietic stem cells and pathogenic T cells (CD4+CD25− cells) in HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for hematologic malignancy (31). In this setting, about half of the HLA molecules were mismatched between donor T cells and host tissues, which predisposes recipients to a high incidence of severe aGVHD. This type of HSCT traditionally requires high doses of immunosuppression in the post-transplant period and frequently results in lethal aGVHD (32). Only 2 of 26 patients in this study developed moderate-to-severe aGVHD, and no patients received posttransplant immunosuppression. In addition, in the setting of umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplantation, Brunstein and colleagues have recently shown that adoptive transfer of polyclonal Tregs was well-tolerated, safe, and resulted in a reduced incidence of severe aGVHD when compared to historical controls (33). Together, these studies show, for the first time in human beings, that adoptive transfer of Tregs can prevent severe aGVHD and possibly replace the need for high doses of immunosuppressive medications in the posttransplant period. After the pioneering work done in GVHD, investigators are now enrolling patients in clinical trials to study the safety and efficacy of adoptive Treg therapy in other auto-immune diseases, including type 1 diabetes (Table 1).
Table 1.
Selected clinical trials using costimulatory blockade, Tregs, antigen-SIT, or IL-2 to treat human autoimmunity. n, number of patients enrolled; NCT number, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; European trials, EudraCT number on.
Disease | Biologic | Phase | n | Objective/outcome | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Costimulatory blockade | |||||
Early erosive rheumatoid arthritis | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 3b | 459 | Abatacept + methotrexate resulted in greater sustainable clinical, functional, and radiographic benefits (55.2% in remission at 2 years) than methotrexate alone, with acceptable safety and tolerability | (60) |
Psoriatic arthritis | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 2 | 170 | American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) significantly higher than placebo (48% versus 19%) at a dose of 10 mg/kg | (7) |
Type 1 diabetes | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 2 | 112 | Pancreatic insulin production was 59% higher at 2 years with abatacept (n = 73, 0.378 nM) compared to placebo (n = 30, 0.238 nM). No increased infections or neutropenia. | (8) |
Multiple sclerosis | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 1 | 20 | Single CTLA-4–Ig infusion (16 patients) or four doses (4 patients). Reduction in myelin basic protein (MBP)–specific T cell proliferation within 2 months of infusion and decreased interferon-γ production by MBP-specific lines. Mild side effects. | (9) |
Alopecia totalis/universalis | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 1 | ~64 | Test the safety and efficacy of abatacept in the treatment of alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis (not yet started) | NCT01314495 |
Multiple sclerosis | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 2 | ~123 | Evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (recruiting) | NCT01116427 |
Systemic lupus erythematosus | CTLA-4–Ig (abatacept) | 2b | 118 | Primary end point: proportion of patients with new flare was not met compared to placebo; increased serious adverse effects in abatacept group (19.8% versus 6.8%) | (10) |
Systemic lupus erythematosus | Fully human mAb that binds to B7-related protein, B7RP-1 (AMG 557) | 1 | ~48 | Placebo-controlled, ascending, multiple-dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AMG 557 in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (recruiting) | NCT00774943 |
Phase 1 test in six healthy individuals | Agonistic anti-CD28 mAb (TGN1412; TeGenero) | 1 | 6 | Serious adverse affects resulting in multiorgan failure | (61) |
Plaque psoriasis | Humanized mAb that binds to the α subunit (CD11a) of LFA-1 (efalizumab) | 3 | 597 | Efalizumab therapy resulted in significant improvements in plaque psoriasis in subjects with moderate-to-severe disease; drug withdrawn from the market due to an increased incidence of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy | (62, 63) |
Proliferative lupus glomerulonephritis | Humanized anti-CD40L antibody (BG9588) | 2 | 28 | A short course of BG9588 treatment reduced anti-dsDNA (double-stranded DNA) antibodies, increases C3 concentrations, and decreases hematuria; study was terminated prematurely because of thromboembolic events. | (64) |
Regulatory T cell therapy | |||||
GVHD in HSCT (in lymphoma patients) | Purified CD4+CD25+ from haplotype-mismatched donor | Case series | 28 | Tregs prevented GVHD in the absence of posttransplant immunosuppression | (31) |
Acute/chronic GVHD | Ex vivo–expanded CD4+CD127−CD25+ polyclonal Tregs from HLA-matched family donors | Case study | 2 | Chronic GVHD: significant alleviation of the symptoms and reduction of pharmacologic immunosuppression Grade IV aGVHD: therapy only transiently improved disease |
(65) |
aGVHD | Ex vivo–expanded partially HLA-matched third-party UCB CD25+ polyclonal Tregs | 1 | 23 | Objective: studying the side effects and best dose of donor Tregs after an UCB transplant in treating patients with advanced hematologic cancer or other disorder. Compared with identically treated historical controls without Tregs, modest reduction in incidence of grade II to IV aGVHD with no deleterious effect on risks of infection, relapse, or early mortality. |
(33) |
aGVHD | Freshly isolated donor Tregs | 1 | 9 | Safety and feasibility of Treg transfer in patients with high risk of leukemia relapse after SCT. No adverse effects of infusion, no opportunistic infections or early disease relapses. |
(66) |
Type 1 diabetes | Ex vivo–expanded autologous CD4+CD127lo/−CD25+ polyclonal Tregs | 1 | ~14 | Assess the safety and feasibility of intravenous infusion of ex vivo–selected and ex vivo–expanded autologous polyclonal Tregs. Will also assess the effect of Tregs on β cell function as well as on other measures of diabetes severity and the autoimmune response underlying type 1 diabetes mellitus (recruiting) | NCT01210664 |
Antigen-SIT | |||||
Multiple sclerosis (relapsing-remitting subtype) | Autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) coupled with seven immunodominant myelin peptides | 1/2 | 9 (estimated) | Assess the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy and in vivo mechanisms of action of intravenous administration of autologous PBMCs chemically coupled with myelin peptides (ongoing) | NCT01414634 |
Systemic lupus erythematosus | Spliceosomal peptide P140 (IPP-201101) | 2 | 20 | Three doses of 200 μg of peptide given subcutaneously significantly improved status (reduced IgG anti-dsDNA antibody, reduced disease activity scores and SLE disease activity index) | (41) |
Type 1 diabetes mellitus | Oral human insulin | 3 | 300 | Ongoing, prevention of type 1 diabetes in at-risk patients under 18 | Europe (IT, FI, GB) 2006-006550-96 |
Type 1 diabetes mellitus (early-onset patients, <100 days diagnosed) | rhGAD65 formulated in alum | 2 | 145 | Non-efficacious in preventing disease progression | (67) |
Type 1 diabetes mellitus | rhGAD65 formulated in alum (DIAPREV-IT) | 2 | 50 | Prevention of type 1 diabetes in at-risk children (ongoing) | Sweden 2008-007484-16 |
Type 1 diabetes mellitus | Recombinant human insulin oral/intranasal | 2 | 40 | Prevention of type 1 diabetes in at-risk children under 18 (ongoing) | Europe (AT, GB) 2005-001621-29 |
Type 1 diabetes mellitus | A major T cell epitope of heat shock protein 60 (hsp60) (DiaPep277) | 2 | 146 | Preserves insulin production in adults with low- and moderate-risk HLA genotypes | (44) |
IL-2 pathway | |||||
Chronic GVHD | Low-dose subcutaneous IL-2 | 1 | 29 | Favorable safety profile with suppression of disease | (54) |
Steroid-refractory aGVHD | Combinations of low-dose IL-2, low-dose Vidaza, cyclophosphamide, and sirolimus | 1/2 | ~15 | Test the ability of low-dose IL-2 in addition to Vidaza, cyclophosphamide, and sirolimus in promoting and stabilizing the Foxp3 expression of Tregs (recruiting) | NCT01453140 |
GVHD | Low-dose IL-2 | 2 | ~36 | Prophylaxis of GVHD after allogeneic HSCT (recruiting) | NCT00539695 |
Type I diabetes | Low-dose IL-2 (aldesleukin) | 1/2 | ~24 | Induce/stimulate Tregs in type 1 diabetes patients (IL-2 versus placebo) (recruiting) | NCT01353833 |
Type I diabetes | IL-2 and sirolimus (rapamycin) | 1 | 10 | Recent-onset type 1 diabetes (diagnosed within the previous 3 to 48 months); trial stopped (publication pending) | NCT00525889 |
RESTORING TOLERANCE WITH ANTIGEN ADMINISTRATION
If self-antigens that are targeted in various autoimmune diseases are identified, it should be possible to administer these antigens to patients in ways that inhibit rather than promote autoimmune responses. The proof of principle for this approach has been in clinical practice for several years in the context of allergy. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (allergen-SIT) is an effective therapy to suppress immuno-reactivity to allergens and represents the only curative and specific modality to treat allergic disease [reviewed in (34)]. In this approach, specific antigens to which the patient is allergic—have uncontrolled TH2-type immune responses—are repeatedly administered (either cutaneously or orally) in increasing doses, resulting in robust suppression of the allergic reaction that is stable over time. This strategy is currently being successfully used for the systemic desensitization of multiple environmental and drug allergens. It also works for other antigens in nonallergic contexts. Perhaps, the best “real-world” example of this is the nonallergic beekeeper. Bee venom contains several different foreign antigens that are directly inoculated into the skin with a single bee sting. During the beekeeping season, a beekeeper is stung multiple times per week. With successive weeks into the season (and repeated stings), both cutaneous and systemic anti-venom immune responses decline to almost undetectable levels, and these individuals become completely desensitized to bee venom antigens (35), in many cases resulting in life-long tolerance (36).
Multiple mechanisms have been suggested for desensitization to both allergens and bee venom antigens, with increasing evidence supporting the preferential augmentation of antigen-specific Tregs. Studies have shown that antigen-SIT effectively increases the number of antigen-specific Tregs relative to antigen-specific pathogenic T cells (37–39). In mouse model of inducible self-antigen expression in the skin, persistent antigen exposure resulted in a marked increase in the Treg/pathogenic T cell ratio because of a preferential reduction in pathogenic T cell numbers and relative preservation of Tregs in the presence of self-antigen. In addition, persistent expression of self-antigen in tissues led to Treg activation, proliferation, and heightened suppressive capacity, which suggests that exposure to self-antigen not only increases the relative number of Tregs but may also enhance Treg function (40).
This therapeutic approach might be clinically applicable to self-antigens in the context of autoimmunity. Groups are now testing whether repeated exposure to self-antigen leads to a preferential induction of antigen-specific Tregs that are able to suppress an ongoing autoimmune response. In the setting of SLE, three doses of self-peptide were delivered subcutaneously to patients with active disease. This treatment resulted in a significant decrease in autoantibody production and an improvement in clinical disease severity (41). In the setting of auto-immune diabetes, antigen-SIT trials with insulin as the tolerizing antigen have been disappointing (42). However, clinical trials using DiaPep277, a self-antigen targeted in type 1 diabetes, have resulted in preservation of insulin production in patients with established disease and a trend toward increased pancreatic β cell function in patients with recent-onset disease (43, 44). Similar trials are under way in multiple sclerosis, in which myelin peptides will be administered in an attempt to attenuate disease and restore immune tolerance.
A variation of this approach is to modify self-peptides to make them more potent at inducing tolerance. Injection of self-peptides chemically coupled to spleen cells can successfully induce self-tolerance in mice (45). Recently, it has been shown that this method of tolerance induction is linked to the increased expression of immunoregulatory proteins on APCs and the activation of antigen-specific Tregs (46). Together, these studies provide a strong rationale for antigen-SIT in treating auto-immune disease.
The great advantage of antigen-induced tolerance over other therapeutic modalities is that this approach blocks only the harmful response and does not cause broad immunosuppression, with its attendant risk of infection. However, despite excellent results in the setting of allergy, sound preclinical studies, and promising (but limited) clinical data, antigen-SIT has several limitations that must be overcome before its true efficacy can be realized in the setting of autoimmunity. Perhaps the most important caveat of this approach is our lack of knowledge of the dominant antigens that drive most autoimmune diseases. Moreover, these antigens may change over time and can differ between patients with similar clinical disease. In addition, on the basis of what we have learned in mouse models and in the clinical setting of allergy, antigen would need to be repeatedly inoculated to maximize Treg activation and accumulation over pathogenic T cells. Finally, administration of the antigens that cause autoimmunity always carries the risk of exacerbating the autoimmune response; although this remains a concern, it has not occurred in most of the trials done so far.
MANIPULATING THE IL-2 PATHWAY
IL-2 is a T cell growth factor with opposing roles in the immune system. On the one hand, IL-2 can enhance immune responses by promoting the proliferation and generation of effector T cells. On the other hand, IL-2 can indirectly suppress immune response by promoting the survival and function of Tregs [reviewed in (47)]. Various groups have attempted to exploit the IL-2 pathway in an attempt to preferentially enhance Treg numbers and/or function to treat autoimmunity through the use of recombinant IL-2 bound to anti–IL-2 antibody [rIL-2–IL-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) complexes]. Cytokine/anti-cytokine antibody immune complexes have been shown to preferentially stimulate specific T cell subsets (48). In the context of IL-2, low doses of rIL-2–IL-2 mAb complexes preferentially stimulate Tregs (Fig. 2) (49). Tregs expanded using this approach are able to suppress auto-immune reactions in mouse models of hemophilia (50), myasthenia gravis (51), experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (52), and auto-immune diabetes (53).
Although promising in preclinical mouse models, studies validating this approach in human autoimmune diseases are lacking. However, a similar approach with IL-2 in noncomplex form (in the absence of anti–IL-2 antibody) has been attempted. Recently, administration of low-dose recombinant IL-2 in patients with steroid-resistant chronic GVHD resulted in Treg expansion and clinical benefit, although the number of patients treated was small (54). Because this treatment is not antigen-specific, global immune suppression by way of pan-Treg activation remains a concern. In addition, because IL-2 signaling can stimulate conventional T cells (non-Tregs) as well, this approach has the potential to result in some degree of activation of pathogenic T cells, which could exacerbate disease. Nevertheless, promising preclinical data in mouse models suggest that rIL-2/IL-2 mAb complexes may be effective in treating human autoimmune disease in specific settings.
OVERCOMING CURRENT LIMITATIONS
Many of the treatment modalities currently being investigated do not fulfill all four criteria that constitute the “perfect” therapy for auto-immune disease. However, we are getting close. Lack of specificity and an insufficient understanding of the biology of Tregs remain the two largest obstacles.
Costimulatory blockade, adoptive transfer of polyclonal Tregs, and manipulation of the IL-2 pathway all lack specificity and may attenuate most or all immune responses. These approaches confer a higher risk of systemic immune suppression, which is a major limitation of traditional treatments. Newer therapies may adopt a more targeted approach and will thus require less overall therapeutic intervention when compared to traditional therapies (for example, fewer doses over a shorter period of time may be needed to achieve durable disease control). However, only time will tell if these newer modalities will carry a lower risk of severe complications while maintaining efficacy.
In contrast to other approaches, antigen-SIT is highly specific. In the context of allergy, this treatment confers antigen-specific immune tolerance with virtually no compromise in the ability to generate immune responses to other antigens. However, for this intervention to be effective, the antigen(s) driving the autoimmune response must be known. Thus, discovery of the major antigens targeted in human auto-immune diseases will greatly enhance our ability to reestablish antigen-specific immune tolerance in both antigen-SIT and all other current tolerance-promoting strategies. Recent advances in high-throughput screening approaches with self-protein libraries and autologous T cells from autoimmune patients will undoubtedly enhance our ability to do so (55). It is imperative that sufficient research initiative and financial resources are allocated to these lines of investigation.
Because many new and exciting treatments for autoimmune disease attempt to exploit Tregs to reestablish and maintain immune homeostasis, it is essential that we learn more about the fundamental biology of these cells, especially in human beings. Selection markers that better discern these cells from their pathogenic counterparts are needed. In addition, a better understanding of the factors that preferentially activate Tregs over conventional T cells is imperative. These advances will allow for the preferential augmentation of Tregs both in vivo and ex vivo. In addition, several experimental models of auto-immunity have shown that Tregs mediate suppression in the tissues where the autoimmune response is occurring (40, 56, 57). To do so, they acquire specific chemokine receptor profiles that enable them to migrate to the target tissue. Understanding how Tregs acquire and/or maintain tissue-specific homing properties will undoubtedly optimize the in vivo function of these cells as well as improve targeted immune regulation resulting in fewer systemic side effects.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
One of the primary objectives in autoimmune research should be specificity. Aside from discovering the specific antigens that drive human autoimmune disease, we must elucidate mechanisms that specifically augment Treg numbers and suppressive capacity both ex vivo and in vivo. This may be accomplished by discovering ways to genetically modify IL-2 so that it preferentially binds to Tregs, or through the discovery of costimulatory and/or chemokine pathways that are specific to Tregs. This work can be done with existing mouse models but should be expeditiously translated to test if the same principles hold true in human beings.
In addition, combination therapies should be explored. Enhancing the therapeutic efficacy and side effect profiles of current approaches will most likely encompass some combination of antigen specificity and Treg augmentation. For example, blocking costimulation of pathogenic T cells in combination with preferentially activating antigen-specific Tregs may result in long-lived immune tolerance. Antigen-SIT in combination with approaches that preferentially augment Tregs (such as rIL-2/IL-2 mAb complexes) may be more effective than antigen-SIT alone.
Different treatment approaches will most likely be more or less effective in specific disease settings. Antigen-SIT might be most effective in the treatment of tissue-specific autoimmune diseases, such as autoimmunity of the skin. Unlike autoimmune diseases affecting other organs, many of the self-antigens driving the most common types of cutaneous autoimmunity are known (58). In addition, the skin is a highly accessible tissue and local expression of antigen results in skin-specific Treg accumulation, directly recruiting these cells to their site of function (the target tissue) and limiting their capacity to cause systemic immune suppression (40). In contrast, systemic autoimmune diseases like RA and SLE may respond best to treatments that induce systemic tolerance, such as costimulatory blockade with adoptive transfer of antigen-specific Tregs.
In a relatively short amount of time, we have learned an enormous amount about how the normal immune system suppresses self-reactivity and how defects in the ability to do so result in autoimmune disease. Many of the landmark studies that have elucidated novel tolerance-inducing strategies have been done in mouse model systems. Now, we are on the cusp of translating these approaches to treat human disease. Moving forward, a better understanding of the human immune system will undoubtedly help us overcome inherent limitations to current therapies.
In addition to well-controlled and ethically sound clinical trials, this work will also most likely rely on preclinical humanized mouse models. Humanized mice are genetically modified to be selectively immunodeficient, which enables them to accept and stably engraft human tissue. These systems allow for the study of human immune responses in mice and are proving to be an extremely valuable tool for modeling human autoimmunity (59).
In conclusion, there is cause for optimism that the days of non-specific immunosuppressive medications with limited efficacy, high toxicity, and life-threatening side effects might end as the new generation of immunotherapy pushes forward. Certainly, we are making strides toward achieving the perfect treatment for autoimmunity. Thus, it may no longer be prudent to ask if we will ever get there, but instead, it may now be just a question of when.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- 1.American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association. The Cost Burden of Autoimmune Disease: The Latest Front in the War on Healthcare Spending. American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association; East Detroit, MI: 2011. http://www.aarda.org/infocus_article.php?ID=74. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Walsh SJ, Rau LM. Autoimmune diseases: A leading cause of death among young and middle-aged women in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1463–1466. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.9.1463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Davis MM, Altman JD, Newell EW. Interrogating the repertoire: Broadening the scope of peptide–MHC multimer analysis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011;11:551–558. doi: 10.1038/nri3020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mueller DL. Mechanisms maintaining peripheral tolerance. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:21–27. doi: 10.1038/ni.1817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lenschow DJ, Zeng Y, Thistlethwaite JR, Montag A, Brady W, Gibson MG, Linsley PS, Bluestone JA. Long-term survival of xenogeneic pancreatic islet grafts induced by CTLA4lg. Science. 1992;257:789–792. doi: 10.1126/science.1323143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Maxwell LJ, Singh JA. Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: A Cochrane systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:234–245. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.091066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mease P, Genovese MC, Gladstein G, Kivitz AJ, Ritchlin C, Tak PP, Wollenhaupt J, Bahary O, Becker JC, Kelly S, Sigal L, Teng J, Gladman D. Abatacept in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results of a six-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:939–948. doi: 10.1002/art.30176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Orban T, Bundy B, Becker DJ, DiMeglio LA, Gitelman SE, Goland R, Gottlieb PA, Greenbaum CJ, Marks JB, Monzavi R, Moran A, Raskin P, Rodriguez H, Russell WE, Schatz D, Wherrett D, Wilson DM, Krischer JP, Skyler JS. Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Abatacept Study Group, Co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:412–419. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60886-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Viglietta V, Bourcier K, Buckle GJ, Healy B, Weiner HL, Hafler DA, Egorova S, Guttmann CRG, Rusche JR, Khoury SJ. CTLA4Ig treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis: An open-label, phase 1 clinical trial. Neurology. 2008;71:917–924. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000325915.00112.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Merrill JT, Burgos-Vargas R, Westhovens R, Chalmers A, D’Cruz D, Wallace DJ, Bae SC, Sigal L, Becker JC, Kelly S, Raghupathi K, Li T, Peng Y, Kinaszczuk M, Nash P. The efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with non–life-threatening manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a twelve-month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:3077–3087. doi: 10.1002/art.27601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Felix NJ, Suri A, Salter-Cid L, Nadler SG, Gujrathi S, Corbo M, Aranda R. Targeting lymphocyte co-stimulation: From bench to bedside. Autoimmunity. 2010;43:514–525. doi: 10.3109/08916931003674741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Salomon B, Bluestone JA. Complexities of CD28/B7: CTLA-4 costimulatory pathways in autoimmunity and transplantation. Annu Rev Immunol. 2001;19:225–252. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.19.1.225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sakaguchi S, Miyara M, Costantino CM, Hafler DA. FOXP3+ regulatory T cells in the human immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10:490–500. doi: 10.1038/nri2785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hori S, Nomura T, Sakaguchi S. Control of regulatory T cell development by the transcription factor Foxp3. Science. 2003;299:1057–1061. doi: 10.1126/science.1079490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Michels AW, Gottlieb PA. Autoimmune polyglandular syndromes. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2010;6:270–277. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2010.40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.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]
- 17.Tang Q, Bluestone JA. Regulatory T-cell physiology and application to treat auto-immunity. Immunol Rev. 2006;212:217–237. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2006.00421.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Banham AH. Cell-surface IL-7 receptor expression facilitates the purification of FOXP3+ regulatory T cells. Trends Immunol. 2006;27:541–544. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2006.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tran DQ, Andersson J, Hardwick D, Bebris L, Illei GG, Shevach EM. Selective expression of latency-associated peptide (LAP) and IL-1 receptor type I/II (CD121a/CD121b) on activated human FOXP3+ regulatory T cells allows for their purification from expansion cultures. Blood. 2009;113:5125–5133. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-01-199950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Allan SE, Broady R, Gregori S, Himmel ME, Locke N, Roncarolo MG, Bacchetta R, Levings MK. CD4+ T-regulatory cells: Toward therapy for human diseases. Immunol Rev. 2008;223:391–421. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00634.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hippen KL, Merkel SC, Schirm DK, Sieben CM, Sumstad D, Kadidlo DM, McKenna DH, Bromberg JS, Levine BL, Riley JL, June CH, Scheinberg P, Douek DC, Miller JS, Wagner JE, Blazar BR. Massive ex vivo expansion of human natural regulatory T cells (Tregs) with minimal loss of in vivo functional activity. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:83ra41. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Putnam AL, Brusko TM, Lee MR, Liu W, Szot GL, Ghosh T, Atkinson MA, Bluestone JA. Expansion of human regulatory T-cells from patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2009;58:652–662. doi: 10.2337/db08-1168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Valmori D, Tosello V, Souleimanian NE, Godefroy E, Scotto L, Wang Y, Ayyoub M. Rapamycin-mediated enrichment of T cells with regulatory activity in stimulated CD4+ T cell cultures is not due to the selective expansion of naturally occurring regulatory T cells but to the induction of regulatory functions in conventional CD4+ T cells. J Immunol. 2006;177:944–949. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.2.944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Golovina TN, Mikheeva T, Brusko TM, Blazar BR, Bluestone JA, Riley JL. Retinoic acid and rapamycin differentially affect and synergistically promote the ex vivo expansion of natural human T regulatory cells. PLoS One. 2011;6:e15868. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bailey-Bucktrout SL, Bluestone JA. Regulatory T cells: Stability revisited. Trends Immunol. 2011;32:301–306. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2011.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Zhou X, Bailey-Bucktrout SL, Jeker LT, Penaranda C, Martínez-Llordella M, Ashby M, Nakayama M, Rosenthal W, Bluestone JA. Instability of the transcription factor Foxp3 leads to the generation of pathogenic memory T cells in vivo. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:1000–1007. doi: 10.1038/ni.1774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Voo KS, Wang YH, Santori FR, Boggiano C, Wang YH, Arima K, Bover L, Hanabuchi S, Khalili J, Marinova E, Zheng B, Littman DR, Liu YJ. Identification of IL-17-producing FOXP3+ regulatory T cells in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:4793–4798. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900408106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Beriou G, Costantino CM, Ashley CW, Yang L, Kuchroo VK, Baecher-Allan C, Hafler DA. IL-17–producing human peripheral regulatory T cells retain suppressive function. Blood. 2009;113:4240–4249. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-10-183251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dominguez-Villar M, Baecher-Allan CM, Hafler DA. Identification of T helper type 1–like, Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in human autoimmune disease. Nat Med. 2011;17:673–675. doi: 10.1038/nm.2389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Sagoo P, Ali N, Garg G, Nestle FO, Lechler RI, Lombardi G. Human regulatory T cells with alloantigen specificity are more potent inhibitors of alloimmune skin graft damage than polyclonal regulatory T cells. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:83ra42. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Di Ianni M, Falzetti F, Carotti A, Terenzi A, Castellino F, Bonifacio E, Del Papa B, Zei T, Ostini RI, Cecchini D, Aloisi T, Perruccio K, Ruggeri L, Balucani C, Pierini A, Sportoletti P, Aristei C, Falini B, Reisner Y, Velardi A, Aversa F, Martelli MF. Tregs prevent GVHD and promote immune reconstitution in HLA-haploidentical transplantation. Blood. 2011;117:3921–3928. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-311894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Aversa F, Terenzi A, Tabilio A, Falzetti F, Carotti A, Ballanti S, Felicini R, Falcinelli F, Velardi A, Ruggeri L, Aloisi T, Saab JP, Santucci A, Perruccio K, Martelli MP, Mecucci C, Reisner Y, Martelli MF. Full haplotype-mismatched hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: A phase II study in patients with acute leukemia at high risk of relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3447–3454. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Brunstein CG, Miller JS, Cao Q, McKenna DH, Hippen KL, Curtsinger J, Defor T, Levine BL, June CH, Rubinstein P, McGlave PB, Blazar BR, Wagner JE. Infusion of ex vivo expanded T regulatory cells in adults transplanted with umbilical cord blood: Safety profile and detection kinetics. Blood. 2011;117:1061–1070. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-07-293795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Jutel M, Akdis CA. Immunological mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy. Allergy. 2011;66:725–732. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02589.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Meiler F, Zumkehr J, Klunker S, Rückert B, Akdis CA, Akdis M. In vivo switch to IL-10–secreting T regulatory cells in high dose allergen exposure. J Exp Med. 2008;205:2887–2898. doi: 10.1084/jem.20080193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ozdemir C, Kucuksezer UC, Akdis M, Akdis CA. Mechanisms of immunotherapy to wasp and bee venom. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41:1226–1234. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03812.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Möbs C, Slotosch C, Löffler H, Jakob T, Hertl M, Pfützner W. Birch pollen immunotherapy leads to differential induction of regulatory T cells and delayed helper T cell immune deviation. J Immunol. 2010;184:2194–2203. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0901379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Rolland JM, Gardner LM, O’Hehir RE. Functional regulatory T cells and allergen immunotherapy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;10:559–566. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32833ff2b2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Ozdemir C, Kucuksezer UC, Akdis M, Akdis CA. Specific immunotherapy and turning off the T cell: How does it work? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;107:381–392. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2011.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Rosenblum MD, Gratz IK, Paw JS, Lee K, Marshak-Rothstein A, Abbas AK. Response to self antigen imprints regulatory memory in tissues. Nature. 2011;480:538–542. doi: 10.1038/nature10664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Muller S, Monneaux F, Schall N, Rashkov RK, Oparanov BA, Wiesel P, Geiger JM, Zimmer R. Spliceosomal peptide P140 for immunotherapy of systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of an early phase II clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:3873–3883. doi: 10.1002/art.24027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Michels AW, Eisenbarth GS. Immune intervention in type 1 diabetes. Semin Immunol. 2011;23:214–219. doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2011.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Raz I, Elias D, Avron A, Tamir M, Metzger M, Cohen IR. β-Cell function in new-onset type 1 diabetes and immunomodulation with a heat-shock protein peptide (DiaPep277): A randomised, double-blind, phase II trial. Lancet. 2001;358:1749–1753. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06801-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Buzzetti R, Cernea S, Petrone A, Capizzi M, Spoletini M, Zampetti S, Guglielmi C, Venditti C, Pozzilli P. DiaPep Trialists Group, C-peptide response and HLA genotypes in subjects with recent-onset type 1 diabetes after immunotherapy with DiaPep277: An exploratory study. Diabetes. 2011;60:3067–3072. doi: 10.2337/db10-0560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Jenkins MK, Schwartz RH. Antigen presentation by chemically modified splenocytes induces antigen-specific T cell unresponsiveness in vitro and in vivo. J Exp Med. 1987;165:302–319. doi: 10.1084/jem.165.2.302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Getts DR, Turley DM, Smith CE, Harp CT, McCarthy D, Feeney EM, Getts MT, Martin AJ, Luo X, Terry RL, King NJC, Miller SD. Tolerance induced by apoptotic antigen-coupled leukocytes is induced by PD-L1+ and IL-10–producing splenic macrophages and maintained by T regulatory cells. J Immunol. 2011;187:2405–2417. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1004175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Katzman SD, Hoyer KK, Dooms H, Gratz IK, Rosenblum MD, Paw JS, Isakson SH, Abbas AK. Opposing functions of IL-2 and IL-7 in the regulation of immune responses. Cytokine. 2011;56:116–121. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2011.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Boyman O, Kovar M, Rubinstein MP, Surh CD, Sprent J. Selective stimulation of T cell subsets with antibody-cytokine immune complexes. Science. 2006;311:1924–1927. doi: 10.1126/science.1122927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Boyman O, Surh CD, Sprent J. Potential use of IL-2/anti-IL-2 antibody immune complexes for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune disease. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2006;6:1323–1331. doi: 10.1517/14712598.6.12.1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Liu CL, Ye P, Yen BC, Miao CH. In vivo expansion of regulatory T cells with IL-2/IL-2 mAb complexes prevents anti-factor VIII immune responses in hemophilia A mice treated with factor VIII plasmid-mediated gene therapy. Mol Ther. 2011;19:1511–1520. doi: 10.1038/mt.2011.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Liu R, Zhou Q, La Cava A, Campagnolo DI, Van Kaer L, Shi FD. Expansion of regulatory T cells via IL-2/anti-IL-2 mAb complexes suppresses experimental myasthenia. Eur J Immunol. 2010;40:1577–1589. doi: 10.1002/eji.200939792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Webster KE, Walters S, Kohler RE, Mrkvan T, Boyman O, Surh CD, Grey ST, Sprent J. In vivo expansion of T reg cells with IL-2–mAb complexes: Induction of resistance to EAE and long-term acceptance of islet allografts without immunosuppression. J Exp Med. 2009;206:751–760. doi: 10.1084/jem.20082824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Tang Q, Adams JY, Penaranda C, Melli K, Piaggio E, Sgouroudis E, Piccirillo CA, Salomon BL, Bluestone JA. Central role of defective interleukin-2 production in the triggering of islet autoimmune destruction. Immunity. 2008;28:687–697. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.03.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Koreth J, Matsuoka K, Kim HT, McDonough SM, Bindra B, Alyea EP, III, Armand P, Cutler C, Ho VT, Treister NS, Bienfang DC, Prasad S, Tzachanis D, Joyce RM, Avigan DE, Antin JH, Ritz J, Soiffer RJ. Interleukin-2 and regulatory T cells in graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2055–2066. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1108188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Hondowicz BD, Schwedhelm KV, Kas A, Tasch MA, Rawlings C, Ramchurren N, McIntosh M, D’Amico LA, Sanda S, Standifer NE, Shendure J, Stone B. Discovery of T cell antigens by high-throughput screening of synthetic minigene libraries. PLoS One. 2012;7:e29949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Dudda JC, Perdue N, Bachtanian E, Campbell DJ. Foxp3+ regulatory T cells maintain immune homeostasis in the skin. J Exp Med. 2008;205:1559–1565. doi: 10.1084/jem.20072594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Müller M, Carter SL, Hofer MJ, Manders P, Getts DR, Getts MT, Dreykluft A, Lu B, Gerard C, King NJC, Campbell IL. CXCR3 signaling reduces the severity of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by controlling the parenchymal distribution of effector and regulatory T cells in the central nervous system. J Immunol. 2007;179:2774–2786. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.5.2774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.James WD. Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. 10. Saunders Elsevier; Philadelphia: 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 59.Shultz LD, Ishikawa F, Greiner DL. Humanized mice in translational biomedical research. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7:118–130. doi: 10.1038/nri2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Bathon J, Robles M, Ximenes AC, Nayiager S, Wollenhaupt J, Durez P, Gomez-Reino J, Grassi W, Haraoui B, Shergy W, Park SH, Genant H, Peterfy C, Becker JC, Covucci A, Moniz Reed D, Helfrick R, Westhovens R. Sustained disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression in methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors treated with abatacept: 2-year outcomes. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1949–1956. doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.145268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, Brett SJ, Castello-Cortes A, Brunner MD, Panoskaltsis N. Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1018–1028. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Lebwohl M, Tyring SK, Hamilton TK, Toth D, Glazer S, Tawfik NH, Walicke P, Dummer W, Wang X, Garovoy MR, Pariser D. Efalizumab Study Group, A novel targeted T-cell modulator, efalizumab, for plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2004–2013. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa030002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Tavazzi E, Ferrante P, Khalili K. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: An unexpected complication of modern therapeutic monoclonal antibody therapies. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17:1776–1780. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03653.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Boumpas DT, Furie R, Manzi S, Illei GG, Wallace DJ, Balow JE, Vaishnaw A. BG9588 Lupus Nephritis Trial Group, A short course of BG9588 (anti–CD40 ligand antibody) improves serologic activity and decreases hematuria in patients with proliferative lupus glomerulonephritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:719–727. doi: 10.1002/art.10856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Trzonkowski P, Bieniaszewska M, Juścińska J, Dobyszuk A, Krzystyniak A, Marek N, Myśliwska J, Hellmann A. First-in-man clinical results of the treatment of patients with graft versus host disease with human ex vivo expanded CD4+CD25+CD127− T regulatory cells. Clin Immunol. 2009;133:22–26. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2009.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Edinger M, Hoffmann P. Regulatory T cells in stem cell transplantation: Strategies and first clinical experiences. Curr Opin Immunol. 2011;23:679–684. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2011.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Wherrett DK, Bundy B, Becker DJ, DiMeglio LA, Gitelman SE, Goland R, Gottlieb PA, Greenbaum CJ, Herold KC, Marks JB, Monzavi R, Moran A, Orban T, Palmer JP, Raskin P, Rodriguez H, Schatz D, Wilson DM, Krischer JP, Skyler JS. Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet GAD Study Group, Antigen-based therapy with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) vaccine in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: A randomised double-blind trial. Lancet. 2011;378:319–327. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60895-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]