Abstract
The thymus is an intricate primary lymphoid organ wherein bone marrow-derived lymphoid progenitor cells are induced to develop into functionally competent T cells that express a diverse T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire, which is selected to allow for the recognition of foreign antigens while avoiding self-reactivity or autoimmunity. Thymus stromal cells, which can include all non-T-lineage cells, such as thymic epithelial cells (TEC), endothelial cells, mesenchymal/fibroblast cells, dendritic cells and B cells, provide signals that are essential for thymocyte development, as well as for the homeostasis of thymic stroma itself. In this brief review, we focus on the key roles played by thymus stromal cells during early stages of T cell development, such as promoting the homing of thymic seeding progenitors, inducing T-lineage differentiation, and supporting thymocyte survival and proliferation. We also discuss recent advances on the transcriptional regulation that governs TEC function, as well as the cellular and molecular changes that are associated with thymic involution and regeneration.
The thymus is a primary lymphoid organ where bone marrow-derived lymphoid progenitor cells, with continuous support from thymus stromal cells, develop into functionally competent T cells. The developmental stages followed by the majority of thymocytes are conventionally classified by the surface expression status of CD4 and CD8, starting with double-negative (DN), immature single positive (ISP), double positive (DP), and mature single positive (SP) T cells (Figure 1). The DN stage can be further classified, as DN1 to DN4 cells, based on the expression of CD44 and CD25, with DN1 cells expressing CD44 but not CD25, followed by appearance of CD25 during DN2 stage, loss of CD44 at DN3 stage, and finally downregulation of CD25 in DN4 cells. DN1 population contains a small subset (DN1a/b) that is c-Kit (CD117) positive, also known as early thymic progenitor cells (ETPs), and are regarded as the earliest progeny of the bone marrow-derived thymic seeding progenitors (TSPs) (1). Throughout their development, thymocytes need to pass three major selection checkpoints, T cell receptor (TCR) β-selection at DN3 to DN4 stages, positive and negative selection at the DP to SP stages (Fig. 1). This brief review will focus on: i) the roles thymus stromal cells, which can include all non-T-lineage cells, such as thymic epithelial cells (TEC), endothelial cells, mesenchymal/fibroblast cells, dendritic cells and B cells, play during early thymocyte development; ii) transcriptional regulation of key genes involved in this process; and, iii) changes in thymus stromal cells during thymus involution and regeneration.
I. Role of thymus stromal cells during thymocyte development
1). Homing of Progenitor Cells
Thymus organogenesis in mouse embryos starts at the third pharyngeal pouch around embryonic day 11 (E11) when the future thymus coexists with the future parathyroid glands in primordia. The common primordia then detach from the pharynx and migrate caudally and medially, during which thymus anlagen separates from the parathyroid anlagen between E12 and E12.5. Parathyroid rudiment then stays where they separate as the thymus anlagen continue its migration within the thorax and ends up on top of the heart (2).
Initially, the thymus, made up of two separate lobes, is solely composed of endoderm-derived thymic epithelial cell (TEC) progenitors, which are enveloped by a neural crest cell-derived capsule (3). Homing of the first wave of TSPs to thymic rudiment occurs as early as E11.5 and is mediated primarily by the activities of two pairs of chemokine ligand/receptors, namely CCL25/CCR9 and CCL21/CCR7 (4–6). Another pair of chemokine ligand/receptor, CXCL12/CXCR4, provides partial compensation in the absence of CCL25/CCR9 or CCL21/CCR7 (6). At E11.5, CCL21, but not CCL25, is detected within the common primordia (7). A day later, Ccl21 mRNA is found primarily in the parathyroid region at remarkably high levels, while Ccl25 mRNA was found to be expressed exclusively within the thymus rudiment. On the other hand, Cxcl12 mRNA was present in both the thymus and surrounding tissues (8). Based on their expression patterns, CCL21 appears to be the major player to recruit the first wave TSPs to the region surrounding thymus-parathyroid primordia due to its early and higher expression levels, but would not attract/maintain TSPs exclusively inside of the thymus anlagen. It is the role of CCL25 to attract and maintain TSPs inside of the thymus anlagen. On the other hand, CXCL12 could help to recruit TSP to common primordia and further into thymus anlagen in the absence of CCL21 or CCL25, but its contribution would be relatively minor due to its lower expression levels, as well as lack of a gradient between the thymus rudiment and surrounding tissues. This is consistent with the impaired thymopoiesis phenotype observed in E14.5 embryos lacking these 3 chemokine receptors individually or in various combinations (5, 6). Loss of CCR9/CCL25 signaling alone resulted in the greatest reduction, whereas loss of CXCR4/CXCL12 signaling alone led to the mildest reduction, in the number of ETPs. While simultaneous loss of any 2 signaling pathways resulted in greater reduction in ETPs than loss of corresponding individual ones, double knockout of Ccr9 and Ccr7 almost eliminated the homing of the first wave of TSPs. It should be noted that homing of first wave TSPs gradually decreased from E12 until the second wave of TSPs homing into the vascularized thymus (9), likely as a result of the separation of thymus anlagen from parathyroid anlagen and consequently reduction in CCL21 levels surrounding thymus rudiment (2). The importance of the parathyroid anlagen in the homing of the first wave TSPs was also reflected by the reduced thymus colonization of lymphoid progenitors in mice deficient in GCM2, the transcription factor critical for parathyroid gland development (2, 5).
After the thymus becomes vascularized around E15.5 (5), chemokines produced by thymic endothelial cells appear to also play an important, albeit less essential, role in TSP homing. The expression profiles of chemokines in thymic endothelial cells have not been systematically investigated, but mRNA encoding Ccl25, Cxcl12 and Ccl19, another CCR7 ligand, have all been detected in thymic endothelial cells in neonatal or adult mice (10–12). Among them, CCL25/CCR9 signaling plays a dominant role in TSP homing as its deficiency alone, but not that of CCR7 and/or CXCR4, led to a detectable reduction in TSP homing, although additional disruption of CCR7 and/or CXCR4 resulted in further ETP reduction in E17.5 or adult thymus (6, 13–15). It should be pointed out that chemokines produced by TEC regulate intrathymic trafficking of developing thymocytes (16).In particular, it has recently been shown that CCL21 protein encoded by Ccl21a gene in medullary TEC (mTEC) is required for recruiting positively selected thymocytes to medulla for effective negative selection (17).
In addition to chemokines, adhesion molecules expressed on thymic endothelial cells play a critical role in TSP homing. For example, P-selectin on thymic endothelial cells and its ligand PSGL-1, expressed on bone marrow derived lymphoid progenitor cells, have been demonstrated to be critical for TSP homing (13, 18). In addition, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, expressed on thymic endothelial cells, were also shown to be required for efficient adhesion and extravasation of TSPs when assayed using short-term homing assays (13).
Thymic endothelial cells likely also produce molecules other than those discussed above to facilitate TSP homing to the thymus. A recent study found that more than half of P-selectin+ thymic endothelial cells did not express Ly6C at the cell surface, a phenotype similar to high endothelial venules found in lymph nodes (11). These Ly6C− P-selectin+ endothelial cells were preferentially associated with the perivascular space (PVS) at the corticomedullary junction (CMJ) region (11), where TSP were reported to enter the thymus (19, 20). Disruption of LTβR signaling, which was initiated by engagement of lymphotoxin/LIGHT produced by positively selected SP thymocytes to LTβR expressed on endothelial cells, resulted in a decrease in Ly6C− and an accompanying increase in Ly6C+ population among P-selectin+ endothelial cells without significantly affecting the total number of P-selectin+ endothelial cells (11). This led to a reduction in the ETP population. RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) analysis revealed, among the molecules discussed above, only ~ 2-fold increase of Vcam1 mRNA and ~5-fold less of Cxcl12 mRNA in Ly6C−P-selectin+ endothelial cells compared to Ly6C+P-selectin+ endothelial cells, suggesting molecules other than those discussed above contribute to the activity of Ly6C−P-selectin+ endothelial cells to facilitate TSP homing (11). Significant differences in the expression levels of many genes involved in cell adhesion, extracellular matrix organization, and blood vessel morphogenesis were observed (11), although which of these are additionally involved in TSP homing remains to be identified and elucidated.
2). Thymocyte Survival and Proliferation
In the postnatal thymus, the extremely low frequency (<0.001%) of newly arrived TSPs, now called ETPs, highlights the challenges of thymic entry by these rare cells. Nonetheless, ETPs must survive and proliferate to generate a significant pool of cells that will be induced to fully commit to the T cell lineage and eventually give rise to thymocytes bearing a diverse TCR repertoire. Key early players produced by thymus stromal cells are stem cell factor (SCF)/Kit-ligand and interleukin (IL)-7, which provide survival/proliferation signals. DN1 and DN2 cells express high levels of cell surface Kit. In mice with naturally occurring dominant loss-of-function mutation of ckit or Scf, the numbers of pre-β-selection early thymocytes decreased by 40-fold although total thymic cellularity at birth decreased only by half, due to compensative proliferation (transit-amplifying cell rescue) during later stages of thymocyte development (21). The reduction in early thymocyte numbers was mediated at least partially by reduced cell proliferation, as determined by BrdU incorporation.
Elegant transplant experiments showed that engraftment of a Scf mutant thymus under the kidney capsule of a wild-type (WT) recipient led to impaired thymocyte proliferation, demonstrating that it was primarily the loss of intrathymic SCF that affected the cellularity (21). Intrathymic SCF is primarily produced by thymic endothelial cells and cortical TECs (cTECs), with additional contribution from some mesenchymal/fibroblast cells (22). SCF-expressing endothelial cells were found almost exclusively in the cortex and co-express high-levels mRNA of Dll4 and Cxcl12, but not Ccl25 (22). There are two forms of SCF, membrane-bound and secreted/soluble. DN1 cells, but not DN2 cells, were found preferentially associated with endothelial cells expressing membrane-bound SCF. Knocking out membrane-bound SCF specifically in endothelial cells led to a 30-fold reduction in the earliest DN1 cells, 16-fold reduction in late DN1 cells, and 8-fold reduction in DN2 cells, while a knockout of membrane-bound SCF specifically in TEC led to a more significant loss of DN2 cells (15-fold) than DN1 cells (4-fold), consistent with the proximity of DN1 cells to membrane-bound SCF-expressing endothelial cells (22). It should be noted that although lymphoid progenitor cells in bone marrow express Kit and endothelial cells in bone marrow express SCF, the authors did not observe any decrease in lymphoid progenitors in bone marrow from these mice (22). Furthermore, it was shown that there was increased apoptosis, but no difference in cell division, when purified DN1 cells were co-cultured in vitro with primary thymus stromal cells deficient in membrane-bound SCF compared to WT stromal cells, which led the authors to conclude that membrane-bound SCF mainly provides survival, rather than proliferative, signals to early DN cells (22). However, the in vitro culture conditions might not be optimal for cell proliferation. Given the significant difference in BrdU incorporation in early thymocytes from naturally occurring Scf mutants compared to that from WT mice thymus (21), it is likely that SCF provides both survival and proliferative signals to early developing thymocytes.
IL-7 is a key lymphopoietic cytokine produced solely by TECs in the thymus (23, 24). The IL-7 receptor, IL-7R, is composed of two subunits, the IL-7R unique alpha chain (IL7Rα/CD127) and the common gamma chain (γc/CD132), shared with IL-2R, IL-4R, IL-9R, IL-15R and IL-21R. Cell surface IL-7R expression could be detected in all, but DP stages of thymocytes, with DN2 and DN3 cells showing the most responsiveness to IL-7 in an in vitro assay (25, 26). Germline deletion of γc, Il7ra or Il7, as well as TEC-specific deletion of Il7 all led to >90% reduction in thymic cellularity in adult mice (27–31). The more severe phenotype than that seen in mice with a loss of SCF/Kit signaling is consistent with the fact that IL-7 signaling impacts all, but DP stages, of thymocyte development, in contrast to the confined effect of SCF/Kit signaling on DN1/2 cells.
More DN cells from IL-7-deficient thymus than WT thymus were found in G0/G1 phase of cell cycle and were undergoing apoptosis (32). In addition, reduced cell proliferation was also observed in positively selected IL-7R-deficient thymocytes (33, 34), suggesting that both increased cell death and reduced cell proliferation are responsible for a severe reduction in thymic cellularity in the absence of IL-7 signaling. Mechanistically, IL-7 signaling has been found to regulate the expression of trophic receptors and cell cycle regulators in pre- and post-β-selection DN cells (35). In addition, IL-7 signaling has also been shown to upregulate the expression of anti-apoptotic Bcl2 and Mcl1 mRNA (32, 36). Consequently, forced expression of BCL-2 or knocking out pro-apoptotic Bim could partially restore thymic cellularity in mice deficient of IL-7 signaling (37–39). Besides the survival and proliferative activities, IL-7 signaling has also been proposed to coordinate the proliferation, differentiation and Tcra recombination during β-selection and to participate in the lineage decision of CD8 SP cells (35, 40).
In addition to SCF and IL-7, thymic stromal cells have also been proposed to regulate thymocyte survival and proliferation via Notch, CXCL12/CXCR4, Wnt, Hedgehog and BMP signaling (41–46). The role of Notch signaling will be discussed in detail in the following section.
3). Differentiation
Notch signaling provides the absolutely essential intrathymic cue that dictates lymphoid progenitors with multi-lineage potential to differentiate exclusively towards the T cell lineage. In the absence of Notch signaling, the thymus becomes a place where the development of B cells instead of T cells is supported (47–49). Although lymphoid progenitors and developing thymocytes express NOTCH1, NOTCH2 and NOTCH3 receptors, while thymus stromal cells express Notch ligands JAGGED1, JAGGED2, DLL1, and DLL4, only interactions between NOTCH1/DLL4 are physiologically required for T cell development in mice (50–53). DLL4 is expressed at high levels in most cortical, but not medullary, TECs, as well as thymic endothelial cells (22, 50). Although the functional significance of DLL4 on cTECs has been clearly demonstrated, the role of DLL4 expressed on thymic endothelial cells has not been directly investigated. It should be noted that knocking out Dll4 in all endothelial cells using Cdh5-CreERT2 led to 80% reduction in the number of ETP and even more severe (~90%) decrease in total thymic cellularity (54). The impaired T cell lymphopoiesis was attributed to disruption of the DLL4-mediated bone marrow niche, which led to about 2-fold reduction in the frequency of common lymphoid progenitors (CLP), a TSP candidate, in the bone marrow. This interpretation is consistent with the recent finding from our lab that prethymical Notch signaling is required for generation of TSP in bone marrow (55). Nonetheless, it does not exclude the possibility that loss of DLL4 on thymic endothelial cells could partially contributed to the severe impaired thymopoiesis observed in these pan-endothelial Dll4 knockout mice (54).
A comprehensive recent study compared the distribution of the above mentioned four Notch ligands between postnatal human and mouse thymus and further examined their temporal changes in human thymus using immunofluorescence on thymic sections (56). The authors observed a significant reduction in DLL4 levels in human postnatal (< 18 months) cTEC compared to fetal (11 ~ 19 weeks of embryonic development) cTECs. Of note, only low levels of DLL4 were observed on rare cTEC at subcapsular regions, as well as on some mTEC; although, thymic endothelial cells, perivascular mesenchymal (CK19−CD34+) cells and medullary myeloid (CD11c+) cells still expressed high levels of DLL4. This is consistent with a previous report showing that only 10~20% of cTECs obtained from the thymus of early post-natal humans expressed detectable levels of cell surface DLL4, as determined by flow cytometry (57). Nonetheless, the high levels and frequencies of DLL4 expression seen in fetal cTECs when thymocyte development is highly active, as well as its high expression levels on endothelial cells and perivascular cells at the CMJ, where TSPs enter the thymus, suggest an important role of DLL4 in human T-lymphopoiesis (56).
On the other hand, active Notch signaling, as indicated by staining for the cleaved NOTCH1 intracellular domain, was seen throughout cortex albeit more at the CMJ and subcapsular regions in postnatal human thymus, suggesting that perhaps ligand(s) other that DLL4 may provide Notch signaling at the inner cortex in the postnatal human thymus (56). JAGGED2 was found to be the most prominent Notch ligand in the cortex of postnatal and adult (6~11 years old) human thymus (56), consistent with a previous report that more than 90% of cTEC expressed JAGGED2 in post-natal samples, as determined by flow cytometry (57). Ectopic JAGGED2 expression in bone-marrow derived stromal OP9 cells has been shown capable of activating Notch and promoting human T cell development from cord blood-derived hematopoietic progenitor cells (57). Therefore, JAGGED2 might play a more significant role in human T-lymphopoiesis as compared to mouse. Furthermore, JAGGED2 expression exhibited a gradient decreasing from CMJ towards subcapsular region in postnatal but not adult human thymus, opposite to the gradient increasing from CMJ towards subcapsular region in the postnatal mouse thymus. The physiological significance of this gradient and its difference between human and mouse remains to be fully elucidated. In addition, while JAGGED1 was found primarily expressed on mTECs in human fetal and postnatal thymus, consistent with its distribution in mouse postnatal thymus, more cTECs at subcapsular region expressed JAGGED1 in the human adult thymus. The biological relevance of this temporospatial regulation is unknown. Lastly, no significant difference in DLL1 distribution between human and mouse and its temporal regulation in human thymus was observed, suggesting a dispensable role for DLL1 in vivo, as demonstrated by earlier work using TEC specific deletion of Dll1 in mice (58). However, further validation regarding to the sensitivity and specificity of the primary antibodies used was missing, raising a concern whether some observations might need to be re-examined.
4). Positive and Negative Selection, and Alternative Outcomes
Thymic stromal cells, TECs in particular, educate thymocytes so that newly generated T cells can exit the thymus and recognize foreign antigens in the context of self-major histocompatibility complex (MHC), while tolerant to self-antigen recognition in the periphery (59). In brief, cTECs express a unique β5t-containing thymoproteasome that provides a distinctive set of peptides for class I MHC(I) loading that support the positive selection of CD8SP, while expressing CD83 to stabilize class II MHC(II) expression, and expressing TSSP and Cathepsin L to generate MHCII-associated self-peptides in promoting positive selection of CD4SP, respectively. On the other hand, mTECs, together with dendritic cells and B cells, mediate self-tolerance and negative selection by expressing and presenting tissue-restricted self-antigens.
A special type of mTEC that has a similar transcriptional profile to intestinal tuft cells, named thymic tuft cells, were recently identified (60, 61). Its exact biological role in regulating thymocyte development still needs to be further investigated, as the two research groups observed different immunological phenotypes in the absence of thymic tuft cells. In addition to TECs, endothelial cells, DC and B cells, there are other types of thymus stromal cells that play various roles in supporting thymocyte development and/or maintaining homeostasis of the thymic stromal environment itself. Mesenchymal/fibroblast cells have been shown to support the organized thymic architecture and thymus vascular network, as well as to promote the proliferation and differentiation of TECs (62–66). Recently it has been reported that a subtype of thymic fibroblasts that is FSP1+ is essential for the homeostasis of mature mTECs (67). More significantly and unexpectedly, a recent study revealed that medullary gp38+&CD26− fibroblasts relied on lymphotoxin-β signaling to express tissue-restricted antigens, as knocking out lymphotoxin-β receptor specifically in fibroblasts led to a loss of central tolerance and autoimmune phenotype (68). Furthermore, neutrophil that are recruited to medulla by CXCL5 secreted by Hassall’s corpuscles-mTEC were shown to produce IL-23 to activate plasmacytoid (p)DCs, which in turn produced interferon (IFN)α to support SP maturation (69). Moreover, the thymus is well innervated, and neurotransmitters/neuropeptides have been reported to modulate thymopoiesis (70, 71).
II. FoxN1 as the master regulator of TECs
The significance of the transcription factor FoxN1 to thymopoiesis has been appreciated since the identification of its mutation as the genetic cause of the athymic nude (nu/nu) phenotype (72). It was further reinforced by the observation that forced expression of FoxN1 alone was enough to induce mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) to become functional TECs that support T cell development both in vitro and in vivo when engrafted under the kidney capsule (73). It is interesting to note that the thymus was converted to a bipotent lymphoid organ to produce both T cells and B cells when Foxn1 was replace by Foxn4, which closely resembles the metazoan ancestor gene for Foxn1, through transgenic expression of Foxn4 under the Foxn1 promoter in nude mice (74). The generation of significant number of immature B cells in this transgenic strain was mainly due to lower, and perhaps patchy, levels of DLL4 and consequently a higher IL7:DLL4 ratio. However, whether the reduction in Dll4 mRNA resulted from a decrease in Dll4 expression in all cells and/or a decrease in percentage of TECs expressing Dll4 mRNA was not investigated, but might be biologically relevant as the immature B cells were found predominantly in the perivascular space, spatially separated from thymocytes.
Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-Seq) analyses of genome-wide FoxN1-binding sites confirmed that many thymopoietic genes discussed above are direct transcriptional targets of FoxN1, such as Dll4, Cxcl12, Ccl25, and Psmb11 (75, 76). Consistent with a previous observation (77), Il7 was not found to be a FoxN1-target gene. However, it is surprising that Scf was not found to be a direct FoxN1 transcription target given that it was not expressed in the TECs from nude thymic anlagen (75), but was upregulated during FoxN1-induced transformation of MEF to TEC (73). In addition, several other genes whose expression were previously shown to be downregulated following a decrease in FoxN1 protein level (78), such as MHCII, Cathepsin L, CD40 and Aire, were not found to be high-confident FoxN1 direct transcriptional targets (76). Therefore, transcriptional regulation of these genes by FoxN1 must be mediated by a yet-to-be-identified transcription factor(s) that itself could be a direct FoxN1 transcriptional target. On the other hand, Psmb11/β5t, CD83 and Tssp/Prss16 that are required for efficient positive selection of CD8+ and CD4+ SPs, respectively were identified as high-confident FoxN1 direct transcriptional targets although their regulation by FoxN1 was not previously recognized. Direct transcriptional activation of Psmb11/β5t by FoxN1 was confirmed by another independent study (79). Furthermore, many mitochondria- and Golgi-related genes were found to be direct FoxN1 transcriptional targets although their physiological activities related to thymopoiesis have not been investigated and remain to be revealed.
Despite the critical role of FoxN1 in creating and maintaining thymopoietic microenvironment, how FoxN1 expression within the initial thymus anlage becomes turned on at E11 in a tissue-specific manner is not completely understood. Defects in Pax1/Pax9, Eya1, Hox3a and Six1 resulted in impaired thymus development and therefore may regulate FoxN1 expression (80–84). In addition, BMP4 and Wnt signaling have been reported to modulate FoxN1 expression levels in TECs (85–87). However, evidence that these transcription factors bind to FoxN1 promoter and/or enhancer region to initiate and maintain FoxN1 expression in a tissue-specific manner is still lacking. Recently an enhancer region located within its first intron was found to be required for thymus-specific expression of FoxN1 (88). In addition, consistent with previous observations, putative PAX1, SIX1 and SMAD binding sites were identified in this enhancer region. However, the physiological relevance of these putative binding sites remains to be further investigated and may hold the key as to what factor(s) turn on FoxN1 expression and thus bring about thymopoiesis.
III. Changes during thymic involution and regeneration
The thymus undergoes post-puberty age-associated involution in both mouse and human; and, changes in thymic stromal cells, especially a decrease in the numbers of TECs, has been proposed to be the primary cause underlying age-associated involution or atrophy (89–92). In addition, a decrease in TEC numbers has also been reported to occur during pregnancy-induced thymic atrophy and in male mice undergoing chemotherapy (92, 93). In contrast, no reduction in TEC numbers were observed in two recent studies examining age-associated or pregnancy-induced thymus involution respectively (94, 95). This discrepancy resulted mostly from how TEC numbers were measured. All studies that observed a reduction in TEC numbers used flow cytometry following enzymatic digestion to estimate TEC cellularity, which has recently been shown by two independent research groups to dramatically underestimate TEC numbers by at least 10-fold (96, 97). More importantly, the loss of different types of TECs during this procedure was not proportional (96). Therefore, the recovery rate for individual subtypes of TECs might be inconsistent under different biological conditions and consequently it is technically unreliable to compare total TEC numbers and its composition using flow cytometry-based approaches. In the two recent studies that did not observe a decrease in TEC numbers during thymic involution/atrophy, one elegantly employed immunofluorescence microscopy to count TEC and the other still used flow cytometry, but with a new enzymatic digestion protocol, which the authors reported to recover about 5-times more TECs compared to the enzymatic digestion protocol used in previous studies (95).
When qualitative change in thymic stromal cells during pregnancy-induced involution and postpartum regeneration was examined using bulk RNA-Seq, the expression levels of FoxN1 and its target genes, such as Dll4, Ccl25 and Cxcl12, were found to be lower in cTEC during involution and rebound significantly during early postpartum regeneration (95). This is consistent with previous observations showing that FoxN1 expression levels gradually decreased during aging (98–100). On the other hand, forced expression of FoxN1 appeared to rejuvenate an aged thymus (101), suggesting that changes in the expression levels of FoxN1 and its target genes is one of the driving forces behind thymus involution and regeneration. In addition, a change in Il7 mRNA levels was also observed during pregnancy-induced involution and postpartum regeneration, as well as age-associated thymic involution (95, 98), implying a role for a reduction in IL7 levels in driving thymic involution. However, what led to the reduction in FoxN1 and Il7 mRNA levels remains to be investigated.
A profound change in cTEC cell size and morphology was recently reported to occur during age-associated involution and transient regeneration of aged thymus after surgical castration (94). Using an elegant and powerful multi-color confetti expression approach under the control of FoxN1-Cre, which labeled almost all TECs with one of the four fluorescence proteins individually or in diverse combinations, enabled the visualization and measurement of cell morphology and size. In young (~5-week old) thymus, long and looping cell projections from individual cTECs form extensive intracellular labyrinth with 20~30 holes, with each hole filled with 2~10 thymocytes. As a result, each cTEC can support the development of 100 to 150 thymocytes, consistent with the estimated thymocyte to cTEC ratio of ~100 for 10-day old thymus (96). In contrast, cell projections were difficult to detect in aged (12-month old) thymus, especially at the subcapsular region, due to shortening and thinning of cell projections. Consequently, the total cell surface area of individual cTEC decreased by ~50%, while cell volume reduced by ~ 30% in aged compared to young thymuses. During regeneration after castration, the extended cell projections and complex cell morphology were restored in some but not all cTECs. On the other hand, no change in mTEC morphology was observed during involution and regeneration. Of note, no active cell proliferation was observed for cTECs during regeneration of aged thymus although it was readily detectable for mTECs. Therefore, it was the change in cell morphology and consequently the thymopoietic activity, but not the quantity, of cTECs that drives thymic involution and regeneration. Given that castration has been shown to increase FoxN1 protein levels in, but not to increase the percentage of, FoxN1-expressing TEC (99), it is tempting to speculate that only FoxN1-expressing cTECs restored their morphology after castration as a result of elevated FoxN1 protein levels through the activities of high-confident FoxN1 target genes involved in mitochondria and Golgi functions.
Conclusion
The thymus is a sophisticated primary lymphoid organ with its stromal cell components providing all the necessary support to promote thymocyte development. An appreciation of one key stromal cell-dependent event mediated by Notch receptor-ligand interactions enabled us to develop the OP9-DL co-culture system to produce T-lineage cells in vitro and open the field for further studies of the molecular mechanisms involved in this process (102, 103). We hope with further investigation on, and better understanding of, signals provided by thymic stromal cells during the development of distinct subtypes of T cells, we will be able to create more advance cell culture system(s) capable of generating all types of T cells as desired, and enable new avenues for their clinical and therapeutic applications.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. Michele K. Anderson for her advice and comments during the preparation of this this review. This work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC, RGPIN-2016-06592), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, FDN-154332). J.C.Z.-P. was supported by a Canada Research Chair in Developmental Immunology.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Petrie HT, and Zuniga-Pflucker JC. 2007. Zoned out: functional mapping of stromal signaling microenvironments in the thymus. Annu Rev Immunol 25: 649–679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gordon J, and Manley NR. 2011. Mechanisms of thymus organogenesis and morphogenesis. Development 138: 3865–3878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Manley NR, Richie ER, Blackburn CC, Condie BG, and Sage J. 2011. Structure and function of the thymic microenvironment. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 16: 2461–2477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Moore MA, and Owen JJ. 1967. Experimental studies on the development of the thymus. J Exp Med 126: 715–726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Liu C, Saito F, Liu Z, Lei Y, Uehara S, Love P, Lipp M, Kondo S, Manley N, and Takahama Y. 2006. Coordination between CCR7- and CCR9-mediated chemokine signals in prevascular fetal thymus colonization. Blood 108: 2531–2539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Calderon L, and Boehm T. 2011. Three chemokine receptors cooperatively regulate homing of hematopoietic progenitors to the embryonic mouse thymus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 7517–7522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Liu C, Ueno T, Kuse S, Saito F, Nitta T, Piali L, Nakano H, Kakiuchi T, Lipp M, Hollander GA, and Takahama Y. 2005. The role of CCL21 in recruitment of T-precursor cells to fetal thymi. Blood 105: 31–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bleul CC, and Boehm T. 2000. Chemokines define distinct microenvironments in the developing thymus. Eur J Immunol 30: 3371–3379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ramond C, Berthault C, Burlen-Defranoux O, de Sousa AP, Guy-Grand D, Vieira P, Pereira P, and Cumano A. 2014. Two waves of distinct hematopoietic progenitor cells colonize the fetal thymus. Nat Immunol 15: 27–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gossens K, Naus S, Corbel SY, Lin S, Rossi FM, Kast J, and Ziltener HJ. 2009. Thymic progenitor homing and lymphocyte homeostasis are linked via S1P-controlled expression of thymic P-selectin/CCL25. J Exp Med 206: 761–778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shi Y, Wu W, Chai Q, Li Q, Hou Y, Xia H, Ren B, Xu H, Guo X, Jin C, Lv M, Wang Z, Fu YX, and Zhu M. 2016. LTbetaR controls thymic portal endothelial cells for haematopoietic progenitor cell homing and T-cell regeneration. Nat Commun 7: 12369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ueno T, Hara K, Willis MS, Malin MA, Hopken UE, Gray DH, Matsushima K, Lipp M, Springer TA, Boyd RL, Yoshie O, and Takahama Y. 2002. Role for CCR7 ligands in the emigration of newly generated T lymphocytes from the neonatal thymus. Immunity 16: 205–218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Scimone ML, Aifantis I, Apostolou I, von Boehmer H, and von Andrian UH. 2006. A multistep adhesion cascade for lymphoid progenitor cell homing to the thymus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 7006–7011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Krueger A, Willenzon S, Lyszkiewicz M, Kremmer E, and Forster R. 2010. CC chemokine receptor 7 and 9 double-deficient hematopoietic progenitors are severely impaired in seeding the adult thymus. Blood 115: 1906–1912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zlotoff DA, Sambandam A, Logan TD, Bell JJ, Schwarz BA, and Bhandoola A. 2010. CCR7 and CCR9 together recruit hematopoietic progenitors to the adult thymus. Blood 115: 1897–1905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Takahama Y 2006. Journey through the thymus: stromal guides for T-cell development and selection. Nat Rev Immunol 6: 127–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kozai M, Kubo Y, Katakai T, Kondo H, Kiyonari H, Schaeuble K, Luther SA, Ishimaru N, Ohigashi I, and Takahama Y. 2017. Essential role of CCL21 in establishment of central self-tolerance in T cells. J Exp Med 214: 1925–1935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Rossi FM, Corbel SY, Merzaban JS, Carlow DA, Gossens K, Duenas J, So L, Yi L, and Ziltener HJ. 2005. Recruitment of adult thymic progenitors is regulated by P-selectin and its ligand PSGL-1. Nat Immunol 6: 626–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lind EF, Prockop SE, Porritt HE, and Petrie HT. 2001. Mapping precursor movement through the postnatal thymus reveals specific microenvironments supporting defined stages of early lymphoid development. J Exp Med 194: 127–134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mori K, Itoi M, Tsukamoto N, Kubo H, and Amagai T. 2007. The perivascular space as a path of hematopoietic progenitor cells and mature T cells between the blood circulation and the thymic parenchyma. Int Immunol 19: 745–753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rodewald HR, Kretzschmar K, Swat W, and Takeda S. 1995. Intrathymically expressed c-kit ligand (stem cell factor) is a major factor driving expansion of very immature thymocytes in vivo. Immunity 3: 313–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Buono M, Facchini R, Matsuoka S, Thongjuea S, Waithe D, Luis TC, Giustacchini A, Besmer P, Mead AJ, Jacobsen SE, and Nerlov C. 2016. A dynamic niche provides Kit ligand in a stage-specific manner to the earliest thymocyte progenitors. Nat Cell Biol 18: 157–167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Moore NC, Anderson G, Smith CA, Owen JJ, and Jenkinson EJ. 1993. Analysis of cytokine gene expression in subpopulations of freshly isolated thymocytes and thymic stromal cells using semiquantitative polymerase chain reaction. Eur J Immunol 23: 922–927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Alves NL, Richard-Le Goff O, Huntington ND, Sousa AP, Ribeiro VS, Bordack A, Vives FL, Peduto L, Chidgey A, Cumano A, Boyd R, Eberl G, and Di Santo JP. 2009. Characterization of the thymic IL-7 niche in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 1512–1517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sudo T, Nishikawa S, Ohno N, Akiyama N, Tamakoshi M, Yoshida H, and Nishikawa S. 1993. Expression and function of the interleukin 7 receptor in murine lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90: 9125–9129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Van De Wiele CJ, Marino JH, Murray BW, Vo SS, Whetsell ME, and Teague TK. 2004. Thymocytes between the beta-selection and positive selection checkpoints are nonresponsive to IL-7 as assessed by STAT-5 phosphorylation. J Immunol 172: 4235–4244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Peschon JJ, Morrissey PJ, Grabstein KH, Ramsdell FJ, Maraskovsky E, Gliniak BC, Park LS, Ziegler SF, Williams DE, Ware CB, Meyer JD, and Davison BL. 1994. Early lymphocyte expansion is severely impaired in interleukin 7 receptor-deficient mice. J Exp Med 180: 1955–1960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.von Freeden-Jeffry U, Vieira P, Lucian LA, McNeil T, Burdach SE, and Murray R. 1995. Lymphopenia in interleukin (IL)-7 gene-deleted mice identifies IL-7 as a nonredundant cytokine. J Exp Med 181: 1519–1526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cao X, Shores EW, Hu-Li J, Anver MR, Kelsall BL, Russell SM, Drago J, Noguchi M, Grinberg A, Bloom ET, and et al. 1995. Defective lymphoid development in mice lacking expression of the common cytokine receptor gamma chain. Immunity 2: 223–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.DiSanto JP, Muller W, Guy-Grand D, Fischer A, and Rajewsky K. 1995. Lymphoid development in mice with a targeted deletion of the interleukin 2 receptor gamma chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92: 377–381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Shitara S, Hara T, Liang B, Wagatsuma K, Zuklys S, Hollander GA, Nakase H, Chiba T, Tani-ichi S, and Ikuta K. 2013. IL-7 produced by thymic epithelial cells plays a major role in the development of thymocytes and TCRgammadelta+ intraepithelial lymphocytes. J Immunol 190: 6173–6179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.von Freeden-Jeffry U, Solvason N, Howard M, and Murray R. 1997. The earliest T lineage-committed cells depend on IL-7 for Bcl-2 expression and normal cell cycle progression. Immunity 7: 147–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hare KJ, Jenkinson EJ, and Anderson G. 2000. An essential role for the IL-7 receptor during intrathymic expansion of the positively selected neonatal T cell repertoire. J Immunol 165: 2410–2414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Tani-ichi S, Shimba A, Wagatsuma K, Miyachi H, Kitano S, Imai K, Hara T, and Ikuta K. 2013. Interleukin-7 receptor controls development and maturation of late stages of thymocyte subpopulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 612–617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Boudil A, Matei IR, Shih HY, Bogdanoski G, Yuan JS, Chang SG, Montpellier B, Kowalski PE, Voisin V, Bashir S, Bader GD, Krangel MS, and Guidos CJ. 2015. IL-7 coordinates proliferation, differentiation and Tcra recombination during thymocyte beta-selection. Nat Immunol 16: 397–405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Opferman JT, Letai A, Beard C, Sorcinelli MD, Ong CC, and Korsmeyer SJ. 2003. Development and maintenance of B and T lymphocytes requires antiapoptotic MCL-1. Nature 426: 671–676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Akashi K, Kondo M, von Freeden-Jeffry U, Murray R, and Weissman IL. 1997. Bcl-2 rescues T lymphopoiesis in interleukin-7 receptor-deficient mice. Cell 89: 1033–1041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Maraskovsky E, O’Reilly LA, Teepe M, Corcoran LM, Peschon JJ, and Strasser A. 1997. Bcl-2 can rescue T lymphocyte development in interleukin-7 receptor-deficient mice but not in mutant rag-1−/− mice. Cell 89: 1011–1019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Pellegrini M, Bouillet P, Robati M, Belz GT, Davey GM, and Strasser A. 2004. Loss of Bim increases T cell production and function in interleukin 7 receptor-deficient mice. J Exp Med 200: 1189–1195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.McCaughtry TM, Etzensperger R, Alag A, Tai X, Kurtulus S, Park JH, Grinberg A, Love P, Feigenbaum L, Erman B, and Singer A. 2012. Conditional deletion of cytokine receptor chains reveals that IL-7 and IL-15 specify CD8 cytotoxic lineage fate in the thymus. J Exp Med 209: 2263–2276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ciofani M, and Zuniga-Pflucker JC. 2005. Notch promotes survival of pre-T cells at the beta-selection checkpoint by regulating cellular metabolism. Nat Immunol 6: 881–888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Trampont PC, Tosello-Trampont AC, Shen Y, Duley AK, Sutherland AE, Bender TP, Littman DR, and Ravichandran KS. 2010. CXCR4 acts as a costimulator during thymic beta-selection. Nat Immunol 11: 162–170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Tussiwand R, Engdahl C, Gehre N, Bosco N, Ceredig R, and Rolink AG. 2011. The preTCR-dependent DN3 to DP transition requires Notch signaling, is improved by CXCL12 signaling and is inhibited by IL-7 signaling. Eur J Immunol 41: 3371–3380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Liang H, Coles AH, Zhu Z, Zayas J, Jurecic R, Kang J, and Jones SN. 2007. Noncanonical Wnt signaling promotes apoptosis in thymocyte development. J Exp Med 204: 3077–3084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.El Andaloussi A, Graves S, Meng F, Mandal M, Mashayekhi M, and Aifantis I. 2006. Hedgehog signaling controls thymocyte progenitor homeostasis and differentiation in the thymus. Nat Immunol 7: 418–426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Hager-Theodorides AL, Outram SV, Shah DK, Sacedon R, Shrimpton RE, Vicente A, Varas A, and Crompton T. 2002. Bone morphogenetic protein 2/4 signaling regulates early thymocyte differentiation. J Immunol 169: 5496–5504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Radtke F, Wilson A, Stark G, Bauer M, van Meerwijk J, MacDonald HR, and Aguet M. 1999. Deficient T cell fate specification in mice with an induced inactivation of Notch1. Immunity 10: 547–558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Wilson A, MacDonald HR, and Radtke F. 2001. Notch 1-deficient common lymphoid precursors adopt a B cell fate in the thymus. J Exp Med 194: 1003–1012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Han H, Tanigaki K, Yamamoto N, Kuroda K, Yoshimoto M, Nakahata T, Ikuta K, and Honjo T. 2002. Inducible gene knockout of transcription factor recombination signal binding protein-J reveals its essential role in T versus B lineage decision. Int Immunol 14: 637–645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Koch U, Fiorini E, Benedito R, Besseyrias V, Schuster-Gossler K, Pierres M, Manley NR, Duarte A, Macdonald HR, and Radtke F. 2008. Delta-like 4 is the essential, nonredundant ligand for Notch1 during thymic T cell lineage commitment. J Exp Med 205: 2515–2523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Hozumi K, Mailhos C, Negishi N, Hirano K, Yahata T, Ando K, Zuklys S, Hollander GA, Shima DT, and Habu S. 2008. Delta-like 4 is indispensable in thymic environment specific for T cell development. J Exp Med 205: 2507–2513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Shi J, Fallahi M, Luo JL, and Petrie HT. 2011. Nonoverlapping functions for Notch1 and Notch3 during murine steady-state thymic lymphopoiesis. Blood 118: 2511–2519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Suliman S, Tan J, Xu K, Kousis PC, Kowalski PE, Chang G, Egan SE, and Guidos C. 2011. Notch3 is dispensable for thymocyte beta-selection and Notch1-induced T cell leukemogenesis. PLoS One 6: e24937. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Tikhonova AN, Dolgalev I, Hu H, Sivaraj KK, Hoxha E, Cuesta-Dominguez A, Pinho S, Akhmetzyanova I, Gao J, Witkowski M, Guillamot M, Gutkin MC, Zhang Y, Marier C, Diefenbach C, Kousteni S, Heguy A, Zhong H, Fooksman DR, Butler JM, Economides A, Frenette PS, Adams RH, Satija R, Tsirigos A, and Aifantis I. 2019. The bone marrow microenvironment at single-cell resolution. Nature 569: 222–228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Chen ELY, Thompson PK, and Zuniga-Pflucker JC. 2019. RBPJ-dependent Notch signaling initiates the T cell program in a subset of thymus-seeding progenitors. Nat Immunol 20: 1456–1468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Garcia-Leon MJ, Fuentes P, de la Pompa JL, and Toribio ML. 2018. Dynamic regulation of NOTCH1 activation and Notch ligand expression in human thymus development. Development 145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Van de Walle I, De Smet G, Gartner M, De Smedt M, Waegemans E, Vandekerckhove B, Leclercq G, Plum J, Aster JC, Bernstein ID, Guidos CJ, Kyewski B, and Taghon T. 2011. Jagged2 acts as a Delta-like Notch ligand during early hematopoietic cell fate decisions. Blood 117: 4449–4459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Hozumi K, Negishi N, Suzuki D, Abe N, Sotomaru Y, Tamaoki N, Mailhos C, Ish-Horowicz D, Habu S, and Owen MJ. 2004. Delta-like 1 is necessary for the generation of marginal zone B cells but not T cells in vivo. Nat Immunol 5: 638–644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Kondo K, Ohigashi I, and Takahama Y. 2019. Thymus machinery for T-cell selection. Int Immunol 31: 119–125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Bornstein C, Nevo S, Giladi A, Kadouri N, Pouzolles M, Gerbe F, David E, Machado A, Chuprin A, Toth B, Goldberg O, Itzkovitz S, Taylor N, Jay P, Zimmermann VS, Abramson J, and Amit I. 2018. Single-cell mapping of the thymic stroma identifies IL-25-producing tuft epithelial cells. Nature 559: 622–626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Miller CN, Proekt I, von Moltke J, Wells KL, Rajpurkar AR, Wang H, Rattay K, Khan IS, Metzger TC, Pollack JL, Fries AC, Lwin WW, Wigton EJ, Parent AV, Kyewski B, Erle DJ, Hogquist KA, Steinmetz LM, Locksley RM, and Anderson MS. 2018. Thymic tuft cells promote an IL-4-enriched medulla and shape thymocyte development. Nature 559: 627–631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Jenkinson WE, Jenkinson EJ, and Anderson G. 2003. Differential requirement for mesenchyme in the proliferation and maturation of thymic epithelial progenitors. J Exp Med 198: 325–332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Jenkinson WE, Rossi SW, Parnell SM, Jenkinson EJ, and Anderson G. 2007. PDGFRalpha-expressing mesenchyme regulates thymus growth and the availability of intrathymic niches. Blood 109: 954–960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Itoi M, Tsukamoto N, Yoshida H, and Amagai T. 2007. Mesenchymal cells are required for functional development of thymic epithelial cells. Int Immunol 19: 953–964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Foster K, Sheridan J, Veiga-Fernandes H, Roderick K, Pachnis V, Adams R, Blackburn C, Kioussis D, and Coles M. 2008. Contribution of neural crest-derived cells in the embryonic and adult thymus. J Immunol 180: 3183–3189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Muller SM, Stolt CC, Terszowski G, Blum C, Amagai T, Kessaris N, Iannarelli P, Richardson WD, Wegner M, and Rodewald HR. 2008. Neural crest origin of perivascular mesenchyme in the adult thymus. J Immunol 180: 5344–5351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Sun L, Sun C, Liang Z, Li H, Chen L, Luo H, Zhang H, Ding P, Sun X, Qin Z, and Zhao Y. 2015. FSP1(+) fibroblast subpopulation is essential for the maintenance and regeneration of medullary thymic epithelial cells. Sci Rep 5: 14871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Nitta T, Tsutsumi M, Nitta S, Muro R, Suzuki EC, Nakano K, Tomofuji Y, Sawa S, Okamura T, Penninger JM, and Takayanagi H. 2020. Fibroblasts as a source of self-antigens for central immune tolerance. Nat Immunol 21: 1172–1180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Wang J, Sekai M, Matsui T, Fujii Y, Matsumoto M, Takeuchi O, Minato N, and Hamazaki Y. 2019. Hassall’s corpuscles with cellular-senescence features maintain IFNalpha production through neutrophils and pDC activation in the thymus. Int Immunol 31: 127–139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Leposavic G, Pilipovic I, and Perisic M. 2011. Cellular and nerve fibre catecholaminergic thymic network: steroid hormone dependent activity. Physiol Res 60 Suppl 1: S71–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Leposavic GM, and Pilipovic IM. 2018. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Thymic Adrenergic Networks: Sex Steroid-Dependent Plasticity. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 9: 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Nehls M, Pfeifer D, Schorpp M, Hedrich H, and Boehm T. 1994. New member of the winged-helix protein family disrupted in mouse and rat nude mutations. Nature 372: 103–107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Bredenkamp N, Ulyanchenko S, O’Neill KE, Manley NR, Vaidya HJ, and Blackburn CC. 2014. An organized and functional thymus generated from FOXN1-reprogrammed fibroblasts. Nat Cell Biol 16: 902–908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Swann JB, Weyn A, Nagakubo D, Bleul CC, Toyoda A, Happe C, Netuschil N, Hess I, Haas-Assenbaum A, Taniguchi Y, Schorpp M, and Boehm T. 2014. Conversion of the thymus into a bipotent lymphoid organ by replacement of FOXN1 with its paralog, FOXN4. Cell Rep 8: 1184–1197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Calderon L, and Boehm T. 2012. Synergistic, context-dependent, and hierarchical functions of epithelial components in thymic microenvironments. Cell 149: 159–172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Zuklys S, Handel A, Zhanybekova S, Govani F, Keller M, Maio S, Mayer CE, Teh HY, Hafen K, Gallone G, Barthlott T, Ponting CP, and Hollander GA. 2016. Foxn1 regulates key target genes essential for T cell development in postnatal thymic epithelial cells. Nat Immunol 17: 1206–1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Zamisch M, Moore-Scott B, Su DM, Lucas PJ, Manley N, and Richie ER. 2005. Ontogeny and regulation of IL-7-expressing thymic epithelial cells. J Immunol 174: 60–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Nowell CS, Bredenkamp N, Tetelin S, Jin X, Tischner C, Vaidya H, Sheridan JM, Stenhouse FH, Heussen R, Smith AJ, and Blackburn CC. 2011. Foxn1 regulates lineage progression in cortical and medullary thymic epithelial cells but is dispensable for medullary sublineage divergence. PLoS Genet 7: e1002348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Uddin MM, Ohigashi I, Motosugi R, Nakayama T, Sakata M, Hamazaki J, Nishito Y, Rode I, Tanaka K, Takemoto T, Murata S, and Takahama Y. 2017. Foxn1-beta5t transcriptional axis controls CD8(+) T-cell production in the thymus. Nat Commun 8: 14419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Manley NR, and Capecchi MR. 1995. The role of Hoxa-3 in mouse thymus and thyroid development. Development 121: 1989–2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Wallin J, Eibel H, Neubuser A, Wilting J, Koseki H, and Balling R. 1996. Pax1 is expressed during development of the thymus epithelium and is required for normal T-cell maturation. Development 122: 23–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Peters H, Neubuser A, Kratochwil K, and Balling R. 1998. Pax9-deficient mice lack pharyngeal pouch derivatives and teeth and exhibit craniofacial and limb abnormalities. Genes Dev 12: 2735–2747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Xu PX, Zheng W, Laclef C, Maire P, Maas RL, Peters H, and Xu X. 2002. Eya1 is required for the morphogenesis of mammalian thymus, parathyroid and thyroid. Development 129: 3033–3044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Zou D, Silvius D, Davenport J, Grifone R, Maire P, and Xu PX. 2006. Patterning of the third pharyngeal pouch into thymus/parathyroid by Six and Eya1. Dev Biol 293: 499–512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Balciunaite G, Keller MP, Balciunaite E, Piali L, Zuklys S, Mathieu YD, Gill J, Boyd R, Sussman DJ, and Hollander GA. 2002. Wnt glycoproteins regulate the expression of FoxN1, the gene defective in nude mice. Nat Immunol 3: 1102–1108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Wertheimer T, Velardi E, Tsai J, Cooper K, Xiao S, Kloss CC, Ottmuller KJ, Mokhtari Z, Brede C, deRoos P, Kinsella S, Palikuqi B, Ginsberg M, Young LF, Kreines F, Lieberman SR, Lazrak A, Guo P, Malard F, Smith OM, Shono Y, Jenq RR, Hanash AM, Nolan DJ, Butler JM, Beilhack A, Manley NR, Rafii S, Dudakov JA, and van den Brink MRM. 2018. Production of BMP4 by endothelial cells is crucial for endogenous thymic regeneration. Sci Immunol 3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Swann JB, Krauth B, Happe C, and Boehm T. 2017. Cooperative interaction of BMP signalling and Foxn1 gene dosage determines the size of the functionally active thymic epithelial compartment. Sci Rep 7: 8492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Larsen BM, Cowan JE, Wang Y, Tanaka Y, Zhao Y, Voisin B, Constantinides MG, Nagao K, Belkaid Y, Awasthi P, Takahama Y, and Bhandoola A. 2019. Identification of an Intronic Regulatory Element Necessary for Tissue-Specific Expression of Foxn1 in Thymic Epithelial Cells. J Immunol 203: 686–695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Gray DH, Seach N, Ueno T, Milton MK, Liston A, Lew AM, Goodnow CC, and Boyd RL. 2006. Developmental kinetics, turnover, and stimulatory capacity of thymic epithelial cells. Blood 108: 3777–3785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Gui J, Zhu X, Dohkan J, Cheng L, Barnes PF, and Su DM. 2007. The aged thymus shows normal recruitment of lymphohematopoietic progenitors but has defects in thymic epithelial cells. Int Immunol 19: 1201–1211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Chinn IK, Blackburn CC, Manley NR, and Sempowski GD. 2012. Changes in primary lymphoid organs with aging. Semin Immunol 24: 309–320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Hun ML, Wong K, Gunawan JR, Alsharif A, Quinn K, and Chidgey AP. 2020. Gender Disparity Impacts on Thymus Aging and LHRH Receptor Antagonist-Induced Thymic Reconstitution Following Chemotherapeutic Damage. Front Immunol 11: 302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Laan M, Haljasorg U, Kisand K, Salumets A, and Peterson P. 2016. Pregnancy-induced thymic involution is associated with suppression of chemokines essential for T-lymphoid progenitor homing. Eur J Immunol 46: 2008–2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Venables T, Griffith AV, DeAraujo A, and Petrie HT. 2019. Dynamic changes in epithelial cell morphology control thymic organ size during atrophy and regeneration. Nat Commun 10: 4402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Dumont-Lagace M, Daouda T, Depoers L, Zumer J, Benslimane Y, Brochu S, Harrington L, Lemieux S, and Perreault C. 2019. Qualitative Changes in Cortical Thymic Epithelial Cells Drive Postpartum Thymic Regeneration. Front Immunol 10: 3118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Hirakawa M, Nagakubo D, Kanzler B, Avilov S, Krauth B, Happe C, Swann JB, Nusser A, and Boehm T. 2018. Fundamental parameters of the developing thymic epithelium in the mouse. Sci Rep 8: 11095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Sakata M, Ohigashi I, and Takahama Y. 2018. Cellularity of Thymic Epithelial Cells in the Postnatal Mouse. J Immunol 200: 1382–1388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Ortman CL, Dittmar KA, Witte PL, and Le PT. 2002. Molecular characterization of the mouse involuted thymus: aberrations in expression of transcription regulators in thymocyte and epithelial compartments. Int Immunol 14: 813–822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Rode I, Martins VC, Kublbeck G, Maltry N, Tessmer C, and Rodewald HR. 2015. Foxn1 Protein Expression in the Developing, Aging, and Regenerating Thymus. J Immunol 195: 5678–5687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.O’Neill KE, Bredenkamp N, Tischner C, Vaidya HJ, Stenhouse FH, Peddie CD, Nowell CS, Gaskell T, and Blackburn CC. 2016. Foxn1 Is Dynamically Regulated in Thymic Epithelial Cells during Embryogenesis and at the Onset of Thymic Involution. PLoS One 11: e0151666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Bredenkamp N, Nowell CS, and Blackburn CC. 2014. Regeneration of the aged thymus by a single transcription factor. Development 141: 1627–1637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Schmitt TM, and Zuniga-Pflucker JC. 2002. Induction of T cell development from hematopoietic progenitor cells by delta-like-1 in vitro. Immunity 17: 749–756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Mohtashami M, Shah DK, Nakase H, Kianizad K, Petrie HT, and Zuniga-Pflucker JC. 2010. Direct comparison of Dll1- and Dll4-mediated Notch activation levels shows differential lymphomyeloid lineage commitment outcomes. J Immunol 185: 867–876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]