Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2021 Oct 15;10:e70989. doi: 10.7554/eLife.70989

Sepsis leads to lasting changes in phenotype and function of memory CD8 T cells

Isaac J Jensen 1, Xiang Li 2, Patrick W McGonagill 3, Qiang Shan 4, Micaela G Fosdick 5, Mikaela M Tremblay 6, Jon CD Houtman 5,6, Hai-Hui Xue 4, Thomas S Griffith 7,8,9,10,11, Weiqun Peng 2, Vladimir P Badovinac 1,6,
Editors: Gabrielle T Belz12, Satyajit Rath13
PMCID: PMC8589447  PMID: 34652273

Abstract

The global health burden due to sepsis and the associated cytokine storm is substantial. While early intervention has improved survival during the cytokine storm, those that survive can enter a state of chronic immunoparalysis defined by transient lymphopenia and functional deficits of surviving cells. Memory CD8 T cells provide rapid cytolysis and cytokine production following re-encounter with their cognate antigen to promote long-term immunity, and CD8 T cell impairment due to sepsis can pre-dispose individuals to re-infection. While the acute influence of sepsis on memory CD8 T cells has been characterized, if and to what extent pre-existing memory CD8 T cells recover remains unknown. Here, we observed that central memory CD8 T cells (TCM) from septic patients proliferate more than those from healthy individuals. Utilizing LCMV immune mice and a CLP model to induce sepsis, we demonstrated that TCM proliferation is associated with numerical recovery of pathogen-specific memory CD8 T cells following sepsis-induced lymphopenia. This increased proliferation leads to changes in composition of memory CD8 T cell compartment and altered tissue localization. Further, memory CD8 T cells from sepsis survivors have an altered transcriptional profile and chromatin accessibility indicating long-lasting T cell intrinsic changes. The sepsis-induced changes in the composition of the memory CD8 T cell pool and transcriptional landscape culminated in altered T cell function and reduced capacity to control L. monocytogenes infection. Thus, sepsis leads to long-term alterations in memory CD8 T cell phenotype, protective function and localization potentially changing host capacity to respond to re-infection.

Research organism: Human, Mouse

eLife digest

A dirty cut, a nasty burn, a severe COVID infection; there are many ways for someone to develop sepsis. This life-threatening condition emerges when the immune system overreacts to a threat and ends up damaging the body.

Even when patients survive, they are often left with a partially impaired immune system that cannot adequately protect against microbes and cancer; this is known as immunoparalysis. Memory CD8 T cells, a type of immune cell that is compromised by sepsis, are a long-lived population of cells that ‘remember’ previous infection or vaccination, and then react faster to prevent the same illness if the person ever encounters the same threat again. Yet it is unclear how exactly sepsis harms the function and representation of memory CD8 T cells, and the immune system in general.

Jensen et al. investigated this question, first by showing that sepsis leads to a profound loss of memory CD8 T cells, but that surviving memory CD8 T cells multiply quickly – especially a subpopulation known as central memory CD8 T cells – to re-establish the memory CD8 T cell population. Since the central memory CD8 T cells proliferate better than the other memory T cells this alters the overall composition of the pool of memory CD8 T cells, with central memory cells becoming overrepresented.

Further experiments revealed that this biasing toward central memory T cells, due to sepsis, created long-term changes in the distribution of memory CD8 T cells throughout the body. The way the genetic information of these cells was packaged had also been altered, as well as which genes were switched on or off. Overall, these changes reduced the ability of memory CD8 T cells to control infections.

Together, these findings help to understand how immunoparalysis can emerge after sepsis, and what could be done to correct it. These findings could also be applied to other conditions – such as COVID-19 – which may cause similar long-term changes to the immune system.

Introduction

Dysregulated systemic inflammatory responses define septic events and the associated cytokine storm, which is comprised of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines (CDC, 2020; Singer et al., 2016). Sepsis leads to a substantial global health and economic burden wherein nine people develop sepsis every 6 s and two of those individuals die (Rudd et al., 2020). In the United States alone the cost to treat sepsis is >$20 billion with a mortality rate of ~20 % (CDC, 2020). While a 20 % mortality rate is high, it is also a vast improvement over the last 30 years where mortality had been at ~50 % (Dombrovskiy et al., 2007; Gaieski et al., 2013). This reduction in mortality rate has largely been through early intervention as the complexity of the cytokine storm has, dishearteningly, lead to the failure of >100 phase II and III clinical trials targeting the pro-inflammatory aspects of the cytokine storm (Marshall, 2014). Yet, even as survival of the cytokine storm has increased it has also become apparent that previously septic individuals are still at increased risk for mortality, this defines the sepsis-induced immunoparalysis state (Delano and Ward, 2016a; Delano and Ward, 2016b; Dombrovskiy et al., 2007; Donnelly et al., 2015).

Sepsis-induced immunoparalysis is characterized by an increased susceptibility to both new and previously encountered unrelated infections and cancer (Danahy et al., 2019; Jensen et al., 2018a; Kutza et al., 1998; Walton et al., 2014). Alternately, sepsis-induced immunoparalysis reduces susceptibility to development of autoimmunity, cumulatively demonstrating immunologic impairment (Jensen et al., 2020). These profound impairments are sufficient to reduce the 5 year survival of septic cohorts, relative to non-septic cohorts; consequently, the majority of sepsis-associated mortality is late mortality secondary to the cytokine storm (Dombrovskiy et al., 2007; Donnelly et al., 2015; Gaieski et al., 2013). This immunologic impairment is typified by transient lymphopenia and reduced capacity of various surviving lymphocyte populations to perform effector function (Hotchkiss et al., 2016; Hotchkiss et al., 2013), including CD4 (Cabrera-Perez et al., 2014; Cabrera-Perez et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2017; Jensen et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2020; Sjaastad et al., 2020b) and CD8 T cells (Condotta et al., 2013; Danahy et al., 2017; Danahy et al., 2019; Duong et al., 2014; Serbanescu et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2019), B cells (Hotchkiss et al., 2001; Sjaastad et al., 2018; Unsinger et al., 2010), NK cells (Hou et al., 2014; Jensen et al., 2021b; Jensen et al., 2018b; Souza-Fonseca-Guimaraes et al., 2012), and dendritic cells (DCs) (Poehlmann et al., 2009; Roquilly et al., 2017; Strother et al., 2016). We and others have characterized numerous impairments early after sepsis induction; however, the extent to which those cell populations recover in number and function remains largely unknown.

Specifically, sepsis-induced lymphopenia impacts both memory and naïve CD8 T cells early after sepsis (Condotta et al., 2015; Condotta et al., 2013; Duong et al., 2014; Jensen et al., 2018a; Markwart et al., 2014). Additionally, those memory CD8 T cells that survive the cytokine storm are less capable of undergoing antigen-dependent effector function and responding to inflammatory cues (bystander activation). These intrinsic impairments, in conjunction with the numeric deficits imposed by the lymphopenic environment, reduce host capacity to control both infection (i.e. viral and bacterial) and cancer (Danahy et al., 2017; Danahy et al., 2019; Duong et al., 2014; Gurung et al., 2011). Additionally, extrinsic factors, such as reduced integrin expression on endothelia (Danahy et al., 2017) or altered monocyte/ macrophage activity (Jensen et al., 2021a; Roquilly et al., 2020), can influence CD8 T cell capacity to migrate into sites of infection. Even when T cells are spared from the cytokine storm by vascular exclusion (i.e. tissue residence) CD8 T cell-mediated protection can be hampered by inability of other cells (e.g. endothelia) to respond to the inflammatory cues provided by CD8 T cells (Danahy et al., 2017). Yet, these impairments are largely characterized proximal to the septic insult. However, sepsis-induced impairments are long-lasting and may not be consistent across time (Jensen et al., 2018a). Specifically, the lymphopenic environment is transient yet the ability to control cancer can remain reduced long after numeric recovery is complete (Danahy et al., 2019). Thus, while there does not appear to be preferential susceptibility to sepsis, if and how different subsets of memory CD8 T cells recover may dramatically shape how hosts respond to pathogen re-encounter and thereby contribute to the immunoparalysis state.

Here, using samples from septic patients and well described experimental models we demonstrate increased proliferation of CD8 T cells (particularly central memory cells [TCM]) in septic patients and mice after cecal ligation and puncture (CLP)-induced sepsis, relative to non-septic controls. As a consequence of this increased proliferation, there is a remodeling of the memory CD8 T cell pool. This compositional change in turn leads to lasting changes in the localization, function, and protective capacity of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells.

Results

Increased CD8 T cell proliferation in septic patients

The sepsis-induced immunoparalysis state poses a substantial threat to the health and long-term survival of septic patients (Delano and Ward, 2016a; Delano and Ward, 2016b; Dombrovskiy et al., 2007; Donnelly et al., 2015). A major contributing factor to sepsis-induced immunoparalysis is the intrinsic and numerical deficits imposed on naive and memory CD8 T cells (Jensen et al., 2018a). In particular, deficits in existing memory CD8 T cells can enhance host susceptibility to pathogens against which the host was previously immune or vaccinated. To understand how CD8 T cells respond to septic insult and the lymphopenic state, septic patients were recruited within 24 hr of admission and the frequency and number of CD8 T cells in the peripheral blood were compared to that of healthy controls. Patient cohorts did not exhibit substantial demographic differences though septic patients were severely ill, as defined by APACHE II and SOFA scores (Table 1). While there was not a difference in the frequency of CD8 T cells among lymphocytes between septic patients and healthy controls (Figure 1a and b), there was a cohort of septic patients with a substantially reduced number of CD8 T cells per mL of blood (Figure 1c) reflecting the sepsis-induced lymphopenia. It is relevant to consider that admission time may not correspond to the onset of sepsis such that admitted patients may have not yet experienced or already recovered from sepsis-associated lymphopenia. Thus, numeric variability in samples may reflect a broad range of insult and recovery within the 24 hr of admission. Notably, robust induction of Ki67 expression, a marker of recent proliferation, by CD8 T cells (Figure 1a and d) was observed, regardless of degree of lymphopenia.

Table 1. Patient demographics.

Patients Septic (n = 27) Control (n = 16) p-value
Age (mean ± SD) 59.3±16.3 51.6±13.2 ns
Male (%) 40.7% 37.5% ns
Caucasian (%) 100% 81.3% 0.0454
APACHE II Score (mean ± SD) 11.1±5.9
SOFA Score (mean ± SD) 4.6±4.3
% in Septic Shock 55.6%
Time Post-Admission (hrs) 6.1±5.6

Figure 1. Increased proliferation among CD8 T cells of septic patients.

(A) Representative gating for CD8 T cell subsets and Ki67 expression from healthy controls and septic patients (within 24 hr of hospital admission). (B) Frequency and (C) number of CD8 T cells among lymphocytes in healthy controls and septic patients. Dashed lines indicate the normal range for the number of CD8 T cells per mL of blood. (D) Frequency of Ki67 expressing CD8 T cells in healthy controls and septic patients. (E) Frequency Ki67 expressing cells among Naïve, Effector (TEff), Effector Memory (TEM), Central Memory (TCM), and Stem Cell Memory (TSCM) CD8 T cells from healthy controls and septic patients. Data are representative of 2 independent experiments with 16–27 patients per group. *=p < 0.05. Error bars in represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Composition of total and proliferating CD8 T cells in healthy controls and septic hosts.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

(A) Frequency of Naïve, Effector (TEff), Effector Memory (TEM), Central Memory (TCM), and Stem Cell Memory (TSCM) among CD8 T cells. (B) Frequency of Ki67-expressing cells among Naïve, Effector (TEff), Effector Memory (TEM), Central Memory (TCM), and Stem Cell Memory (TSCM) CD8 T cells. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 16–27 patients per group. Error bars in represent standard error of the mean.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

This proliferation could either represent newly evoked effector CD8 T cell responses to the sepsis-inducing pathogens or homeostatic proliferation of surviving T cells induced by lymphopenic environment (Cheung et al., 2009; Davenport et al., 2019; Jensen et al., 2018a; Unsinger et al., 2009). To address this, the frequency of Ki67 expressing cells was evaluated between naïve (CCR7+CD45RA+CD45RO-), effector (TEff; CCR7-CD45RA+CD45RO-), effector memory (TEM; CCR7-CD45RA-CD45RO+), central memory (TCM; CCR7+CD45RA-CD45RO+), and stem cell memory (TSCM; CCR7+CD45RA+CD45RO+) CD8 T cells (Cieri et al., 2013; Sarkar et al., 2019). If the proliferation was in response to the septic insult only TEff CD8 T cells should be prominently proliferating relative to healthy controls; however, there was only modest induction of Ki67 among TEff CD8 T cells (Figure 1e). Intriguingly, robust proliferation among naïve, TCM, and TSCM CD8 T cells was observed, suggesting proliferation may reflect numerical recovery after sepsis-induced lymphopenia (Figure 1e). Notably, there was not a significant increase in Ki67+ TEM CD8 T cells from septic patients (Figure 1e). These data suggest that there is differential proliferation by memory CD8 T cell subsets in septic hosts. Given this differential proliferation by memory CD8 T cell subsets, an altered composition of the memory CD8 T cell pool would be anticipated after sepsis. Indeed, there was a modest, although not statistically different, increase in the frequency of both TCM and TSCM CD8 T cells in septic patients, relative to healthy controls, even at this early time point (Figure 1—figure supplement 1a). Importantly, when evaluating the representation of CD8 T cell subsets among Ki67-expressing CD8 T cells, TCM and TSCM CD8 T cells were not proportionally increased (Figure 1—figure supplement 1b), with TCM being the most prominent among cells that recently proliferated. Collectively, these data suggest that sepsis may alter the composition of the memory CD8 T cell compartment due to intrinsic differences in the capacity of different memory CD8 T cell subsets to proliferate.

Pre-existing memory 8 T cells numerically recover after sepsis

To further address how sepsis may alter the composition of the CD8 T cell compartment due to differential capacity memory CD8 T cell subsets to sense signals of the ‘empty’ environment and undergo homeostatic proliferation, we utilized a murine LCMV-infection model to establish memory CD8 T cells followed by a cecal ligation and puncture (CLP; Figure 2a). To facilitate resolution/analyses of the memory CD8 T cell compartment a physiologically relevant number of naïve Thy1.1+ TCR-Tg P14 CD8 T cells, specific for the GP33 epitope of LCMV, were adoptively transferred into Thy1.2+ recipient mice. Mice were then infected with LCMV-Arm, an acute infection which elicits a robust and well characterized memory CD8 T cell response (Badovinac et al., 2007). This system of memory generation and sepsis induction enables rigorous interrogation of a defined population of “pre-existing” memory CD8 T cells (memory cells that exist prior to sepsis induction) wherein both the time of the priming infection and septic event are known. Additionally, naïve and antigen-experienced (Ag-exp) CD8 T cells can be differentiated based on the expression of surrogate markers of activation CD8a and CD11a (naïve: CD8ahiCD11alo; Ag-exp: CD8aloCD11ahi) (Rai et al., 2009). This enables evaluation of endogenous naïve and Ag-exp CD8 T cells in addition to the Ag-exp P14 CD8 T cells (Figure 2b). Further depth of interrogation is achieved with memory P14 CD8 T cells, relative to the bulk antigen-experienced CD8 T cell population, given that memory P14 CD8 T cells are not specific for antigens evoked/released during the septic event, and the influence of sepsis on this discrete pre-existing memory CD8 T cell population delineates from potential ‘secondary’ antigen encounter and from potential and anticipated novel Ag-specific CD8 T cell responses to the septic event.

Figure 2. Pre-existing memory CD8 T cells numerically recover with time after sepsis.

Figure 2.

(A) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naïve Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Armstrong (LCMV-Arm). Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. The number of endogenous naïve, endogenous antigen-experienced, and antigen-experienced P14 CD8 T cells was monitored in the blood. (B) Representative gating for endogenous naïve, endogenous antigen-experienced, and antigen-experienced P14 CD8 T cells. (C) Percent survival of endogenous naïve, endogenous antigen-experienced, and antigen-experienced P14 CD8 T cells in the blood 2 days after either Sham or CLP surgery, relative to a pre-surgery bleed. (D) Representative gating of Ki67 on P14 CD8 T cells. (E) Frequency of Ki67-expressing P14 CD8 T cells in the blood of Sham and CLP hosts 9 days post-surgery. (F) The number of P14 CD8 T cells per mL of blood in Sham and CLP hosts prior to (d0), or 2 days (d2), 2 weeks (2 wk), and 4 weeks (4 wk) after surgery. Values above the bars indicate the fold difference (Sham/CLP) in the number of P14 CD8 T cells. (C–E) Are representative of 3 independent experiments with 5–6 mice per group. (F) Is cumulative from two independent experiments with 10–12 mice per group. *=p < 0.05. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 2—source data 1. Source data for Figure 2C.
Figure 2—source data 2. Source data for Figure 2E.
Figure 2—source data 3. Source data for Figure 2F.

Following septic insult, the lymphopenic state impacted naïve and Ag-exp cells to the same degree (Figure 2c), as has been previously reported (Condotta et al., 2013; Duong et al., 2014; Jensen et al., 2018a). Importantly, the memory P14 CD8 T cells were similarly susceptible to sepsis-induced lymphopenia as the endogenous Ag-exp cells (Figure 2c). Additionally, there was induction of Ki67 expression by memory P14 CD8 T cells after sepsis (Figure 2d and e), demonstrating that the P14 CD8 T cells can be used to model the influence of sepsis on pre-existing memory CD8 T cells. When the number of memory P14 CD8 T cells per mL of blood was quantified, we observed numeric loss and recovery of P14 CD8 T cells in CLP hosts (Figure 2f), similar to prior reports of homeostatic proliferation following sepsis-induced lymphopenia (Unsinger et al., 2009). Thus, pre-existing memory CD8 T cells numerically recover with time after sepsis, potentially due to increased proliferation in response to the sepsis-induced lymphopenic environment.

Numeric recovery following sepsis increases the proportion of central memory CD8 T cells

To address how this numeric recovery may alter the composition of the memory T cell compartment phenotypic characterization of splenic memory P14 CD8 T cells from Sham and CLP mice was performed >30 days post-surgery (Figure 3a). Additionally, FlowSOM was utilized to cluster memory P14 CD8 T cells based on surface marker expression of CD8a, CD11a, Thy1.1, CD62L, KLRG1, CD127, CX3CR1, CXCR3, CD25, CD27, CD69, CD103, and CD122 in an unbiased manner (Van Gassen et al., 2015). Memory P14 CD8 T cells were similarly evaluated by tSNE analysis and FlowSOM-defined clusters were then projected into the tSNE (Figure 3b and c). Notably, Sham and CLP hosts had differential representation of two of the most prominent clusters (6 and 8) with cluster six being enriched in Sham P14 CD8 T cells and cluster eight in CLP P14 CD8 T cells (Figure 3d and e). Clusters 6 and 8 were then compared to define distinctions between Sham and CLP cells (Figure 3g). Memory P14 CD8 T cells enriched in Sham mice (cluster 6) were CD62L-KLRG1+CD127-CX3CR1+CXCR3lo, while memory P14 CD8 T cells enriched in CLP mice (cluster 8) were CD62L+KLRG1-CD127+CX3CR1-CXCR3lo/med (Figure 3h). Clusters 6 and 8 therefore appear to define TEM and TCM CD8 T cells, respectively. Definition of these subsets was predominantly by the expression of CD62L, although the expression of KLRG1, CD127, CX3CR1, and CXCR3 conformed with the respective phenotypes as well (Martin and Badovinac, 2018). Thus, CLP P14 CD8 T cells are enriched for TCM with a reduced representation of TEM, corresponding to the increased proliferation of CD8 TCM observed in septic patients (Figure 1e; Figure 1—figure supplement 1b).

Figure 3. Sepsis alters the phenotypic composition of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells.

Figure 3.

(A) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ CD57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Armstrong (LCMV-Arm). Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Phenotypic marker expression on P14 CD8 T cells was then assessed 30 days after surgery. (B) Representative antigen-experienced P14 CD8 T cells used in FlowSOM and tSNE analyses. (C) tSNE displaying FlowSOM defined clusters among P14 CD8 T cells based on surface marker expression of CD8a, CD11a, Thy1.1, CD62L, KLRG1, CD127, CX3CR1, CXCR3, CD25, CD27, CD69, CD103, and CD122. (D) Sham and CLP tSNE plots displaying clusters most robustly enriched in corresponding group. (E) Change (Δ) in the frequency of P14 CD8 T cells in each cluster (Sham-CLP); clusters biased toward Sham are >0, clusters biased toward CLP are <0. (G) tSNE plots displaying the clusters 6 (enriched in Sham hosts) and 8 (enriched in CLP hosts). (H) Surface expression of CD62L, KLRG1, CD127, CX3CR1, and CXCR3 comparing clusters 6 and 8. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 2–3 mice per group. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

Figure 3—source data 1. Source data for Figure 3.

TCM have a higher capacity to undergo homeostatic proliferation, relative to TEM, which accounts for the gradual shift toward TCM with time after antigen encounter (Martin and Badovinac, 2018; Martin et al., 2015; Wherry et al., 2003). Therefore, to address whether the higher proliferative potential of TCM accounted for the shift to CD8 TCM following sepsis, Ki67 expression in splenic TEM and TCM P14 CD8 T cells was interrogated at various times after Sham or CLP surgery (Figure 4a). Indeed, both TCM and TEM proliferated in CLP hosts greater than their Sham counterparts, following lymphopenia (Figure 4b). However, P14 CD8 TCM cells proliferated more robustly than their TEM counterparts in CLP hosts. Importantly, P14 CD8 TCM cells proliferated more than their TEM counterparts in Sham hosts across all timepoints, consistent with prior reports of higher homeostatic proliferation among TCM cells (Wherry et al., 2003). To confirm the higher degree of proliferation in P14 CD8 TCM cells following sepsis, BrdU incorporation was evaluated over the course of a week beginning at D9 post-surgery, the timepoint at which differential proliferation had been observed by Ki67 expression (Figure 4c). Similar to the results with Ki67, elevated proliferation was observed in both TCM and TEM P14 CD8 T cells from CLP hosts, relative to Sham hosts (Figure 4d). Additionally, P14 CD8 TCM cells had higher incorporation of BrdU (relative to TEM counterparts) in both Sham and CLP hosts with P14 CD8 TCM cells from CLP hosts having the highest degree of BrdU incorporation. Similar results were also demonstrated in endogenous Ag-exp CD8 T cells reaffirming the findings in the TCR-Tg memory P14 CD8 T cells. This proliferative difference was further associated with an increase in the frequency of TCM among P14 CD8 T cells at D16 post-surgery, the time at which BrdU assessment was performed (Figure 4e). Additionally, a trending increase in the representation of TCM was observed among Ag-exp CD8 T cells in CLP hosts, relative to Sham hosts, at the same time in spite of potential novel effector CD8 T cell responses to the septic insult.

Figure 4. Central memory CD8 T cells more robustly proliferate after sepsis.

Figure 4.

(A) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Armstrong (LCMV-Arm). Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. The frequency of Ki67 expressing central and effector memory P14 CD8 T cells was monitored in the spleen after surgery. (B) Frequency of Ki67 expressing cells among central (CD62L+) and effector (CD62L-) memory P14 CD8 T cells in Sham and CLP hosts prior to (d0) or 5-, 9-, and 16 days after surgery. *=p < 0.05 CD62L+ v CD62L- CLP P14 CD8 T cells; &=p < 0.05 CD62L+ v CD62L- Sham P14 CD8 T cells; #=p < 0.05 Sham v CLP CD62L+ P14 CD8 T cells; %=p < 0.05 Sham v CLP CD62L- P14 CD8 T cells (C) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naïve Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection followed by BrdU administration 9 days later. BrdU incorporation by central and effector memory endogenous and P14 CD8 T cells was assessed 7 days later. (D) Frequency of CD62L+ and CD62L- memory P14 CD8 T cells and endogenous CD8 T cells that have incorporated BrdU. (E) Frequency of CD62L+ P14 CD8 T cells and endogenous CD8 T cells 16 days after surgery. (F) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. The frequency of P14 CD8 T cells among lymphocytes in the spleen, liver, PBL, mediastinal lymph node (medLN), and mesenteric lymph node (mesLN) was then determined 30 days after surgery. Preferential localization was determined by the ratio of P14 CD8 T cells in the tissues compared relative to the spleen. (G) Ratio of the frequency of P14 CD8 T cells among lymphocytes in the liver, PBL, medLN, and mesLN relative to the spleen. All data are representative of at least two independent experiments with 4–8 mice per group. *=p < 0.05. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 4—source data 1. Source data for Figure 4B.
Figure 4—source data 2. Source data for Figure 4D and E.
Figure 4—source data 3. Source data for Figure 4G.

In addition to differential capacity to undergo homeostatic proliferation TCM and TEM have different localization throughout the body. TCM preferentially localizes to lymphatic tissue while TEM preferentially circulates and traverse non-lymphatic tissue (Gerlach et al., 2016; Masopust et al., 2001; Mueller et al., 2013). To further address this shift in the representation of TCM and TEM, the localization of memory P14 CD8 T cells was evaluated in the liver, peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL), mediastinal lymph nodes (mLN), and mesenteric lymph nodes (mesLN) relative to the spleen (Figure 4f). Spleen was chosen as the baseline for comparison as it is a mixture of circulation with lymphatic tissue. PBL was chosen to emphasize circulating cells, while liver was chosen as a non-lymphatic tissue because it is a highly vascular tissue with direct contact to blood coming from the abdominal cavity and thus relevant to the septic insult. MedLN are the site of initial infection with LCMV-Arm following i.p. infection and is therefore relevant to the generation of the initial memory response (Olson et al., 2012), while mesLN drain the gut tissue and are relevant to CLP induction. Thus, if sepsis leads to a global shift toward central memory we expected to see a reduced proportion of memory P14 CD8 T cells in the liver and PBL and a greater proportion in the medLN and mesLN in CLP hosts, relative to Sham. Indeed, the ratio of P14 CD8 T cells among lymphocytes in the liver and PBL, relative to the spleen, had a trending reduction in CLP hosts, compared to Sham hosts (Figure 4g). Conversely, the ratio of P14 CD8 T cells among lymphocytes in the medLN and mesLN relative to the spleen, were significantly increased in CLP hosts, compared to Sham hosts. These data demonstrate differential localization of CD8 T cells in Sham and CLP hosts corresponding to the change in the representation of TEM and TCM. Cumulatively, the data in Figure 4 demonstrate that preferential proliferation by TCM alters the composition and localization of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells after sepsis. Thus, pre-existing differences in the biology of central and effector memory T cells are the underlying mechanism by which central memory CD8 T cells become over-represented in pre-existing memory populations after sepsis.

Sepsis leads to long-term changes in memory CD8 T cell transcription and chromatin accessibility

Beyond localization TCM and TEM have differential functions mediated by discrete transcriptional and epigenetic landscapes (Chang et al., 2014; Kaech and Cui, 2012; Milner et al., 2020). Therefore, to address how the sepsis-induced changes in the composition of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells may alter the overall transcriptional regulation of memory CD8 T cells RNA-sequencing was performed on memory P14 CD8 T cells from Sham and CLP hosts both 1- and 31 days post-surgery (Figure 5a). Numerous transcriptional differences between the four groups were identified (Figure 5b–d). Notably, when evaluated by principal component analysis (PCA) there was clear distinction between the Sham and CLP groups at each timepoint (Figure 5b); however, this distinction narrowed at D31 relative to D1 potentially reflecting some degree of recovery from the initial the cytokine storm. Additionally, D1 and D31 were distinct within their respective surgical groups recapitulating prior literature demonstrating how memory changes with time after antigen encounter (Davenport et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2017). Importantly, numerous gene changes (269 total; 174 down, 95up) were present at D31 post-surgery in CLP hosts, relative to Sham controls (Figure 5c and d). To understand how these lasting transcriptional changes related to the septic insult, the significantly different genes expressed at D31 by Sham and CLP memory P14 CD8 T cells were clustered into three groups (Figure 5e). Given our observation of faster transition to central memory by CD8 T cells after sepsis the first cluster of genes identified were those that were similarly changed when comparing D1 to D31 Sham and D31 Sham to CLP P14 CD8 T cells. These changes constituted 99 of the 269 transcriptional (Table 2) differences between Sham and CLP memory P14 CD8 T cells at D31 and validate the observations in the prior figures of more rapid adoption of time-dependent changes in memory (i.e. conversion to central memory) (e.g. changes in clusters 6 and 8 of Figure 3). The remaining genes were then evaluated for the presence of a sepsis-induced transcriptional ‘scar’ to delineate conserved changes as a result of the septic event. These changes constituted the second cluster and were identified by the similar transcriptional changes for D1 Sham to CLP and D31 Sham to CLP. This sepsis-induced ‘scar’ constituted 113 of the 269 gene changes observed (Table 2) and demonstrates that some of the transcriptional changes evoked early after sepsis persist. Finally, there remained a third cluster of 57 gene changes (Table 2) that were neither associated with time-dependent changes in CD8 T cell memory nor were they associated with the early sepsis induced changes to memory CD8 T cells. Thus, novel transcriptional changes also arise in memory CD8 T cells during the post-septic environment. Summarily, these data demonstrate that sepsis leads to lasting changes in the transcriptional landscape of memory CD8 T cells. These changes are associated with the more rapid acquisition of time-dependent changes by memory CD8 T cells in CLP hosts, a sepsis-induced transcriptional scar, and novel transcriptional changes acquired in the post-septic environment.

Figure 5. Sepsis alters the gene expression and chromatin accessibility of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells.

Figure 5.

(A) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Splenic P14 CD8 T cells were FACS-sorted one or 31 after surgery for RNA extraction. P14 CD8 T cells were isolated from 3 D1-Sham hosts, 3 D1-CLP hosts, 3 D31-Sham hosts, and 2 D31-CLP hosts. (B) Principal Component analysis of P14 CD8 T cells from Sham and CLP hosts either 1- or 31 days post-surgery. (C) Number of statistically significant gene changes as a result of indicated comparisons. (D) Gene expression heatmap of genes with statistically significant changes (fold change >1.5, p < 0.05) as a result of any comparison. (E) Gene expression heatmap of genes with statistically significant changes (fold change >1.5, p < 0.05) between D31 Sham and CLP P14 CD8 T cells. Clusters were consecutively defined by similar expressional changes in: D1 to D31 Sham P14 CD8 T cells and D31 Sham to CLP P14 CD8 T cells [Cluster 1], D1 Sham to CLP P14 CD8 T cells and D31 Sham to CLP P14 CD8 T cells [Cluster 2], and non-defined by prior categorization [Cluster 3] (F) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Splenic P14 CD8 T cells were FACS-sorted 31 days after surgery for assessment of chromatin accessibility. P14 CD8 T cells were isolated from 2 D31-Sham hosts and 3 D31-CLP hosts. (G) Total number of differential chromatin accessibility peaks (DCAPs, fold change >2 p < 0.05) and delineation of those within either a promoter, gene body, or intergenic regions assigned to the most proximal to a transcription start site. (H) List of genes whose change in transcript is concordant with changes in chromatin accessibility along with the relative change and known function in CD8 T cells. (I) Example of differentially expressed peaks (indicated by the red box) within the P2R×7 and Sell gene loci from representative Sham and CLP P14s. (J) List of genes whose expression defined the phenotypically distinct populations between Sham and CLP P14 CD8 T cells in Figure 3 alongside their fold change in transcript and the p-value associated with that fold-change.

Figure 5—source data 1. Source data for Figure 5C and D.
elife-70989-fig5-data1.xlsx (484.5KB, xlsx)
Figure 5—source data 2. Source data for Figure 5E.
elife-70989-fig5-data2.xlsx (100.3KB, xlsx)

Table 2. Gene clusters.

gene_id Relative FC D32 sham vs CLP p_value_ Cluster #
Cdc6 4.03064298 0.00005 Cluster 1
Tppp3 4.88825654 0.00005 Cluster 1
Neil3 3.66496647 0.00005 Cluster 1
Hist1h1e 3.76231332 0.00005 Cluster 1
Mcm10 3.47460746 0.00005 Cluster 1
Ttc8 3.38918878 0.00005 Cluster 1
Stmn1 2.06406728 0.0508 Cluster 1
Gpr34 3.41697573 0.00005 Cluster 1
Ppp2r2c 1.83454208 0.0437 Cluster 1
Kntc1 2.99415727 0.00005 Cluster 1
Bfsp1 1.60516322 0.03045 Cluster 1
Birc5 2.8137029 0.00005 Cluster 1
Ccdc136 2.28917856 0.0344 Cluster 1
Gm5124 1.60472157 0.03095 Cluster 1
Ccnb2 2.49461988 0.00005 Cluster 1
Apol7b 2.6692603 0.00005 Cluster 1
Tktl1 1.9334132 0.02895 Cluster 1
Dtl 2.59828557 0.00005 Cluster 1
Pask 2.7640812 0.00005 Cluster 1
Crip2 2.52029044 0.0004 Cluster 1
Clspn 2.45116907 0.00015 Cluster 1
Mki67 2.61164716 0.00005 Cluster 1
Fam64a 2.65731637 0.0006 Cluster 1
2810408I11Rik 1.5215239 0.06725 Cluster 1
Rad51ap1 1.63064417 0.00235 Cluster 1
Tnfsf4 2.37518519 0.0009 Cluster 1
E2f1 2.34354094 0.031 Cluster 1
Cep55 2.4930123 0.0004 Cluster 1
Morn3 2.12074329 0.00035 Cluster 1
Aurkb 2.4030389 0.00005 Cluster 1
Hist2h2bb 2.02820011 0.0464 Cluster 1
Exo1 2.36813282 0.00005 Cluster 1
Fcrlb 1.52457593 0.04225 Cluster 1
Tmem176a 1.59714799 0.0361 Cluster 1
Socs2 2.02128114 0.00155 Cluster 1
Ncapg2 1.97320931 0.00745 Cluster 1
Klra9 2.11296665 0.00005 Cluster 1
Chek1 1.59507471 0.05475 Cluster 1
Rad51 1.58587164 0.00005 Cluster 1
Dscc1 1.74867599 0.00015 Cluster 1
Bzrap1 1.61419626 0.00005 Cluster 1
Cd300e 1.519849 0.07755 Cluster 1
Gm1720 1.94574412 0.0019 Cluster 1
Brca1 1.5604888 0.05435 Cluster 1
Gm14124 1.64708499 0.03685 Cluster 1
Shcbp1 1.79205262 0.00005 Cluster 1
Nebl 1.8053468 0.04325 Cluster 1
Ckap2l 1.73019782 0.0003 Cluster 1
Cdkn2a 1.82961741 0.00085 Cluster 1
Phlda3 1.63185741 0.03825 Cluster 1
Adgre4 1.57646266 0.00005 Cluster 1
Klri2 1.56007674 0.0011 Cluster 1
Mmp25 1.54571785 0.04745 Cluster 1
Nenf 1.5307705 0.0182 Cluster 1
Igf1 –1.524316 0.01 Cluster 1
Rac3 –1.5034855 0.07065 Cluster 1
Trf –1.6496992 0.00015 Cluster 1
Chaf1a –1.6002474 0.0011 Cluster 1
Orc1 –1.6245667 0.04185 Cluster 1
Fignl1 –1.7257028 0.0216 Cluster 1
D430020J02Rik –1.6263897 0.0051 Cluster 1
Cenph –1.8078839 0.0047 Cluster 1
Blvrb –1.8434164 0.0457 Cluster 1
Cpne7 –1.5149666 0.02655 Cluster 1
Psrc1 –1.7535019 0.00145 Cluster 1
Uhrf1 –1.5739852 0.0013 Cluster 1
Plbd1 –1.7851892 0.0021 Cluster 1
Rgs12 –1.8455643 0.01885 Cluster 1
Hpgd –1.8522078 0.06025 Cluster 1
P2r×7 –2.0648257 0.01595 Cluster 1
Bub1b –2.2247142 0.0223 Cluster 1
4833418N02Rik –2.3048295 0.011 Cluster 1
Ube2c –1.621509 0.0124 Cluster 1
Cadm1 –2.3409109 0.00015 Cluster 1
Tyrobp –2.4355709 0.00335 Cluster 1
Jup –2.4842838 0.0023 Cluster 1
Pyroxd2 –2.2264265 0.0282 Cluster 1
Gins1 –1.8339216 0.00005 Cluster 1
Gm4013 –2.7505116 0.01255 Cluster 1
Axl –2.6625156 0.00005 Cluster 1
Nr6a1 –2.729109 0.00125 Cluster 1
Hspa2 –2.796573 0.00005 Cluster 1
Spry2 –2.7405966 0.00005 Cluster 1
Mpeg1 –2.8281527 0.00005 Cluster 1
Ticrr –2.9418017 0.00005 Cluster 1
Plxdc1 –2.9468017 0.00005 Cluster 1
Ly86 –3.2898687 0.0019 Cluster 1
Cd302 –3.3417875 0.00005 Cluster 1
C6 –3.3367417 0.0003 Cluster 1
Slc37a2 –3.3489759 0.00005 Cluster 1
Gm2011 –3.4732831 0.00005 Cluster 1
H2-T3 –2.0828371 0.00935 Cluster 1
Wnt2b –3.5079301 0.0004 Cluster 1
Clec12a –3.0562022 0.00895 Cluster 1
Mmp17 –4.1251312 0.00005 Cluster 1
Ncaph –4.1603359 0.0417 Cluster 1
Kcnj10 –4.2878368 0.00005 Cluster 1
Cd163 –4.2866184 0.0001 Cluster 1
Il11 –5.666901 0.0001 Cluster 1
Syk 4.80557812 0.0603 Cluster 2
9030619P08Rik 2.73623094 0.0353 Cluster 2
Prss16 2.57604894 0.00005 Cluster 2
Tcf4 2.52783097 0.0069 Cluster 2
Itgad 2.32061951 0.00005 Cluster 2
Abcc3 2.47441931 0.0143 Cluster 2
Hfe 1.91152093 0.00065 Cluster 2
Fcgr3 1.94948898 0.00005 Cluster 2
Rab3il1 2.00253853 0.00255 Cluster 2
Lrp1 2.06172226 0.06585 Cluster 2
Cd5l 1.6117422 0.0645 Cluster 2
Mir2861 1.93355795 0.0162 Cluster 2
Il18 1.64165162 0.07875 Cluster 2
Mir155hg 1.9632828 0.0003 Cluster 2
Irf4 1.83011207 0.00085 Cluster 2
Cmklr1 1.71253206 0.00655 Cluster 2
Mt3 1.61299839 0.00005 Cluster 2
Cd163l1 1.68200967 0.0028 Cluster 2
Palm 1.69858804 0.0309 Cluster 2
Hmox1 1.8719138 0.0014 Cluster 2
Mertk 1.69725108 0.05425 Cluster 2
Esm1 1.55538421 0.08875 Cluster 2
Lrrc25 1.53588266 0.01125 Cluster 2
Lgmn 1.53366352 0.0421 Cluster 2
Mafb 1.59909428 0.00005 Cluster 2
Havcr2 1.61859719 0.00005 Cluster 2
Epb4.1l3 1.64271249 0.0257 Cluster 2
Siglece 1.58382507 0.0091 Cluster 2
Prr5 –1.5418463 0.05615 Cluster 2
Pla2g7 –1.5675528 0.00005 Cluster 2
Dusp14 –1.6724627 0.02015 Cluster 2
Tgm2 –1.6678575 0.04595 Cluster 2
Riiad1 –1.5429946 0.00005 Cluster 2
Lilrb4a –1.6883324 0.00685 Cluster 2
Ninj2 –1.5669531 0.08315 Cluster 2
Cish –1.6443416 0.0508 Cluster 2
Cenpe –1.8650444 0.07995 Cluster 2
Cenpm –1.5922104 0.00155 Cluster 2
Tpx2 –1.5558403 0.05695 Cluster 2
Oip5 –1.7861225 0.00005 Cluster 2
Cdca7 –1.5875434 0.04035 Cluster 2
Ckap2 –1.6603956 0.00425 Cluster 2
Ncapg –1.8932803 0.019 Cluster 2
Ssc4d –1.9973193 0.0063 Cluster 2
Stkld1 –1.8746276 0.04135 Cluster 2
Cdca8 –1.6650517 0.0087 Cluster 2
Cdc45 –1.9715619 0.00405 Cluster 2
Lrp11 –1.9542283 0.0003 Cluster 2
Mcm5 –1.965633 0.012 Cluster 2
Cks1b –2.0197826 0.0137 Cluster 2
Apitd1 –1.614175 0.01045 Cluster 2
Spc24 –2.1192151 0.00145 Cluster 2
Serpine2 –2.0231734 0.00005 Cluster 2
Brip1 –1.6461742 0.092 Cluster 2
Pole –2.2240204 0.0253 Cluster 2
Lig1 –1.7583399 0.0015 Cluster 2
Cenpn –1.7057202 0.00005 Cluster 2
Gm19434 –2.012432 0.0005 Cluster 2
Carns1 –2.0274411 0.0205 Cluster 2
Mpp2 –1.5418367 0.00775 Cluster 2
Mustn1 –2.061708 0.0017 Cluster 2
Rn45s –2.10963 0.07705 Cluster 2
Sema6b –2.2547383 0.0119 Cluster 2
Cfp –2.0456935 0.0001 Cluster 2
App –2.211262 0.00935 Cluster 2
Car9 –2.0062063 0.02255 Cluster 2
1700102P08Rik –2.4325509 0.0268 Cluster 2
Snhg10 –2.345361 0.00015 Cluster 2
Lima1 –2.3391753 0.07585 Cluster 2
Selm –2.0294095 0.00265 Cluster 2
Slc41a3 –2.1887998 0.0001 Cluster 2
Src –2.6392902 0.00015 Cluster 2
Miat –2.5487856 0.0109 Cluster 2
Cd79a –2.5900501 0.00055 Cluster 2
Plxnb2 –2.9874612 0.00005 Cluster 2
Pla2g2d –1.529167 0.0268 Cluster 2
Lyz2 –2.9362402 0.04775 Cluster 2
Cdk3-ps –3.0692156 0.00265 Cluster 2
Mir6236 –2.5029162 0.0004 Cluster 2
Smagp –1.9662967 0.00005 Cluster 2
AF251705 –2.8636993 0.0226 Cluster 2
Gfra2 –2.8780666 0.00005 Cluster 2
Tmem91 –3.2171875 0.00005 Cluster 2
Pld4 –1.5079912 0.02785 Cluster 2
Itgb5 –1.6713455 0.00225 Cluster 2
Treml4 –3.2826024 0.0001 Cluster 2
Cd14 –2.7112347 0.00005 Cluster 2
Marcks –3.1963602 0.00005 Cluster 2
Cmbl –2.6693158 0.00005 Cluster 2
Klra3 –2.5417462 0.03455 Cluster 2
Ctsh –3.5891694 0.00565 Cluster 2
Klra8 –3.3087585 0.0001 Cluster 2
Cd81 –3.3276415 0.00005 Cluster 2
C1qb –3.7316146 0.00005 Cluster 2
Aif1 –3.2695906 0.01525 Cluster 2
Bank1 –3.0876517 0.002 Cluster 2
C1qc –3.0727492 0.0001 Cluster 2
Apoe –3.5282676 0.00005 Cluster 2
Clec4a3 –2.9215824 0.00015 Cluster 2
Tgfbi –3.5641054 0.00005 Cluster 2
Mrc1 –3.6479097 0.03025 Cluster 2
Sirpa –4.0829446 0.00005 Cluster 2
Clec1b –1.7537681 0.0004 Cluster 2
Klra14-ps –3.8984753 0.00005 Cluster 2
Ccr3 –2.5323907 0.06515 Cluster 2
C1qa –3.5880749 0.00005 Cluster 2
Vcam1 –3.6726209 0.0011 Cluster 2
Tbxas1 –4.4023688 0.00005 Cluster 2
Csf1r –4.0805398 0.00005 Cluster 2
Fcna –3.3668046 0.00005 Cluster 2
Adgre1 –3.7926073 0.00005 Cluster 2
Adamdec1 –4.9789792 0.00005 Cluster 2
Tnfrsf8 –2.2700751 0.0008 Cluster 2
Aldh2 2.4260512 0.00025 Cluster 3
Slc40a1 2.40044187 0.0057 Cluster 3
Zfp385a 2.16534965 0.06435 Cluster 3
Spag5 1.88610893 0.00005 Cluster 3
Nusap1 1.84390075 0.09965 Cluster 3
B9d1 1.78604818 0.0031 Cluster 3
Top2a 1.74249558 0.0044 Cluster 3
Alox5ap 1.64982614 0.09075 Cluster 3
Sgol2a 1.61420186 0.05365 Cluster 3
Cdk1 1.59276453 0.0489 Cluster 3
Pla2g4b 1.58954405 0.04465 Cluster 3
Fam174b 1.54600394 0.00895 Cluster 3
Spc25 1.51665085 0.0962 Cluster 3
Ppp1r13l –1.5091602 0.0399 Cluster 3
Neto2 –1.5160875 0.0106 Cluster 3
Eif3j2 –1.5188243 0.03625 Cluster 3
Gm28042 –1.5257346 0.02945 Cluster 3
Gm4532 –1.5651414 0.05395 Cluster 3
Sowahc –1.5972355 0.09105 Cluster 3
Tnfrsf21 –1.6215854 0.04005 Cluster 3
Gm3435 –1.6321142 0.01435 Cluster 3
Zfp112 –1.6371301 0.04985 Cluster 3
Nr1h3 –1.6602966 0.07725 Cluster 3
2810468N07Rik –1.6797191 0.0173 Cluster 3
Hck –1.6894024 0.04875 Cluster 3
Pth1r –1.7203976 0.06865 Cluster 3
Tagln3 –1.7598763 0.05825 Cluster 3
Hist1h4d –1.7606181 0.0688 Cluster 3
Tubb3 –1.803737 0.00005 Cluster 3
Klre1 –1.8122236 0.02795 Cluster 3
Spi1 –1.8248628 0.0498 Cluster 3
Fcgr4 –1.8961012 0.01005 Cluster 3
Mrgpre –1.9259777 0.00455 Cluster 3
Chrne –1.9429018 0.03985 Cluster 3
Tctex1d2 –1.9516374 0.00005 Cluster 3
Sdc3 –1.9572554 0.0026 Cluster 3
Tlr7 –1.9874423 0.0019 Cluster 3
Slc11a1 –2.0856253 0.001 Cluster 3
Gzma –2.102273 0.00005 Cluster 3
Cpsf4l –2.1529279 0.0146 Cluster 3
Clec4a1 –2.2106337 0.0132 Cluster 3
Fcer1g –2.2631622 0.0002 Cluster 3
Ncf2 –2.2765987 0.00205 Cluster 3
Slpi –2.2838533 0.00005 Cluster 3
Cd244 –2.4303599 0.0011 Cluster 3
Ptgs1 –2.5181601 0.0003 Cluster 3
Cybb –2.7556258 0.0001 Cluster 3
Matk –3.0595087 0.00005 Cluster 3
Ifitm2 –3.1387932 0.01575 Cluster 3
Cdc20b –3.2338662 0.00705 Cluster 3
Msc –3.4433671 0.01 Cluster 3
Clec4n –3.4851723 0.00015 Cluster 3
Rgl1 –3.5597601 0.0001 Cluster 3
Spic –3.6767727 0.00005 Cluster 3
Hebp1 –3.7616875 0.00025 Cluster 3
Hist1h3e –4.1043962 0.04245 Cluster 3
Lrg1 –5.383073 0.0033 Cluster 3

To address how these transcriptional changes may be the result of an altered epigenetic landscape, chromatin accessibility was assessed in Sham and CLP P14 CD8 T cells by ATAC-sequencing at D31 post-surgery (Figure 5f). While 1646 peaks were differentially expressed, the changes observed were predominantly more peaks (more accessibility) in CLP hosts (Figure 5g). Of these the majority were either within a gene body or intergenic regions assigned to the nearest a transcription start site. Significant changes in gene expression were then compared with DCAPs to establish whether there was concordance between the gene changes observed and the accessibility of the chromatin. Indeed, there were genes whose chromatin accessibility and transcription is concordant. Importantly, these concordant genes identified potentially relevant changes in CD8 T cell function (Figure 5h and i). Among these P2r×7, Rad51, and Bub1b all have prior association with CD8 T cell survival, DNA damage repair, and cell cycling (Baek et al., 2003; Borges da Silva et al., 2018; Yamamoto et al., 1996). Thus, the increase in the expression of these genes in CLP P14 CD8 T cells likely reflects the numerical recovery after sepsis and general shift toward TCM. Conversely, the increased expression of Cish and decreased expression of Itgad, which inhibit TCR functional avidity (Palmer et al., 2015) and promote cell adhesion (Siegers et al., 2017), respectively, demonstrate the function of surviving CD8 T cells may be compromised or altered. This is particularly interesting given that the TCR is itself fixed in these populations thus the variations are not attributable to changes in the composition of the TCR repertoire, a finding that would not be obvious in a polyclonal TCR population. To relate these findings back to the phenotypic differences observed previously, the chromatin accessibility within the Sell locus (which encodes CD62L) was compared between P14 CD8 T cells from Sham and CLP hosts (Figure 5i). Critically, there was increased accessibility in the CD62L locus of P14 CD8 T cells from CLP hosts, relative to Sham (indicated in the boxed regions). Thus, the increased accessibility at the Sell locus corresponds to increased transcription at that locus (Figure 5j) and a subsequent increase in the expression of CD62L (Figure 4). Importantly, the transcription of the additional phenotypic distinctions observed in Figure 3 largely conformed wherein there was decreased expression of Cx3cr1 and Klrg1 (Figure 5j), though no change in expression was observed for other markers such Cxcr3 and Il7r. Thus, sepsis leads to lasting changes in chromatin accessibility, some of which are concordant with gene expression. The resulting transcriptional changes are likely to reflect functional outcomes consistent with the composition of the memory CD8 T cell population.

To interrogate putative functional impairments, gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was performed to compare Sham and CLP memory P14 CD8 T cells at D31 post-surgery. When evaluating the top five positively enriched KEGG pathways in CLP P14 CD8 T cells, there was an obvious trend toward cell cycling (Figure 6a). Specifically, the pathways included: KEGG_Ribosome, _DNA_Replication, _Nucleotide_Excision_Repair, _Proteasome, and _Cell_Cycle. In conjunction with the concordant gene analysis (Figure 5g), this information further supports the notion that the numerical recovery after sepsis alters the composition of memory CD8 T cells through proliferation. A critical example of this is the substantial enrichment of ribosomal proteins (Figure 6b and c), putatively necessary for increased translational output during proliferation. Conversely, several pathways were also negatively enriched in CLP P14 CD8 T cells (positively enriched in Sham), including: KEGG_Complement_And_Coagulation_Cascades, _Glycerophopholipid_Metabolism, _FC_Gamma_R_Mediated_Phagocytosis, _Cell_Adhesion_Molecules_CAMS, and _FC_Epsilon_RI_Signaling_Pathway (Figure 6d). The primary underlying connection between the first two and last two of these appears to be linked to integrin expression and cell adhesion, while the change in glycerophospholipid metabolism may suggest sepsis-induced metabolic alterations. Given that integrin expression was also identified among the concordant genes in Figure 5g, gene enrichment in KEGG_Cell_Adhesion_Molecules_CAMS was evaluated and reduced expression of additional integrins was observed (Figure 6e and f). Given the critical nature of integrins in TCR function, including TCR-dependent function and immunologic synapse formation, these data suggest that sepsis alters the intrinsic capacity of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells to recognize cognate antigen. Further, when we compared the transcriptional changes between Sham D31 and CLP D31 with the published data set KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL we observed that P14s from Sham hosts were biased toward effector CD8 T cells while the P14s from CLP hosts were biased toward memory CD8 T cells, mirroring the shift from effector to central CD8 T cell memory (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). This reinforces our observation of sepsis accelerating the adoption of time-dependent changes in the composition of the memory CD8 T cell pool.

Figure 6. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) reveals long-term sepsis-induced differences in molecular pathways of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells.

Top 5 KEGG pathways positively- (A) and negatively- (D) enriched in CLP hosts. Enrichment scores for Ribosomal- (B) and Adhesion- (E) associated genes. Red box indicates leading edge of enriched region; genes enriched in CLP - box to right, genes enriched in Sham – box to left. Gene expression heatmap of core enriched genes for Ribosomal (C) and Adhesion (F) associated genes.

Figure 6—source data 1. Source data for Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) reinforces that sepsis promotes a shift to TCM at transcriptional level.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

The KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL was used for evaluation. KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL _UP represents genes enriched in effector CD8 T cells relative to memory CD8 T cells. KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL _DN represents genes enriched in memory CD8 T cells relative to efector CD8 T cells. Enrichment scores for KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL _UP- (A) and KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL _DN- (C) associated genes. Red box indicates leading edge of enriched region; genes enriched in CLP - box to right, genes enriched in Sham – box to left. Gene expression heatmap of core enriched genes for Ribosomal (B) and Adhesion (D) associated genes.
Figure 6—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 6—figure supplement 1A-D.

Sepsis-induced changes in pre-existing memory CD8 T cell composition impact cell function and capacity to control infection

To address the putative functional alterations resulting from sepsis-induced changes in the memory CD8 T cell pool, the capacity of memory P14 CD8 T cells to undergo TCR-dependent adhesion and immunologic synapse formation >30 days after either Sham or CLP surgery was assessed (Figure 7—figure supplement 1a). Notably, impairment in adherence capacity was observed in P14 CD8 T cells from CLP hosts under limiting stimulation conditions (low αCD3 concentration; Figure 7—figure supplement 1b, c); however, when stimulation was not limiting (high αCD3 concentration) Sham and CLP P14 CD8 T cells were equally capable of undergoing TCR-dependent adhesion. The TCR-induced signaling complex was then assessed via TIRF microscopy, under equivalent adherence conditions (high aCD3 concentration), to assess clustering of AKT, a surrogate of the TCR-induced signaling complex. Importantly, despite equal capability to adhere there remained a deficit in the ability to cluster AKT at the cell membrane following TCR stimulation (Figure 7—figure supplement 1d, e). Thus, sepsis leads to lasting changes in TCR based function of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells.

To address how these changes in signaling capability may influence cytokine production Sham and CLP splenocytes were disparately CFSE labeled >30 days post-surgery and then mixed for in vitro peptide stimulation (Figure 7a). Given that APCs from Sham and CLP hosts are shared in this scenario, discrepancies in function are not the result of differences in antigen display. Intriguingly, there was no deficiency in capacity to produce IFNγ, yet P14 CD8 T cells from CLP hosts actually had a higher capacity to produce IL-2 (Figure 7b–d). Importantly, similar results were observed after peptide (GP33) stimulation of the endogenous virus-specific memory CD8 T cell population (Figure 7—figure supplement 2). Indeed, this finding conforms precisely with the shift toward TCM in CLP hosts since TCM have greater capacity to produce IL-2 than TEM. These data also suggest that changes in the composition of pre-existing memory CD8 cells may dominantly impact the function of the population as a whole.

Figure 7. Sepsis leads to lasting changes in pre-existing memory CD8 T cell function and Listeria control.

(A) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Splenocytes from Sham and CLP mice were isolated 30 days after surgery and disparately labeled with CFSE, mixed, and then placed in media alone (i.e. unstimulated) or stimulated GP33 peptide. Representative profiles (B) and quantification of the frequency of IFNγ- (C) and IL-2- (D) producing P14s stimulated with either media control or GP33. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 5 mice per group. (E) Experimental Design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Splenic P14 CD8 T cells were enriched from Sham and CLP mice 30 days after surgery and then transferred into naïve mice. Mice that received either Sham or CLP P14 CD8 T cells, or did not receive any cell transfer (i.e. naïve) were then infected with 105 CFU of Listeria monocytogenes expressing GP33 (L.m.-GP33) 1 day later. CFU of L.m.-GP33 per gram of liver (F) and spleen (G) was assessed 5 days after infection. Data are cumulative of two independent experiments with 5–9 mice per group. *=p < 0.05. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

Figure 7—source data 1. Source data for Figure 7C and D.
Figure 7—source data 2. Source data for Figure 7F and G.

Figure 7.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1. Sepsis leads to lasting deficit in pre-existing memory CD8 T cell TCR-dependent adhesion and immunologic synapse formation.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

(A) Experimental design: Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Splenic P14 CD8 T cells were enriched 30 days after surgery and evaluated for TCR-dependent adherence or AKT clustering, as an indicator of immunologic synapse formation. (B) Representative images of P14 CD8 T cell adherence to αCD3 mAb-coated plates. (C) Quantification of Sham and CLP P14 CD8 T cell adherence to plates at indicated concentration of αCD3 mAb. LOD is defined by adherence to wells lacking αCD3 mAb. (D) Representative images of AKT staining by TIRF microscopy. (E) Mean AKT pixel intensity of adhered cells. Data are of a single experiment with (B, C) 3–4 mice per group or (C, D) 109–120 cells analyzed per group. *=p < 0.05. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
Figure 7—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 7—figure supplement 1c.
Figure 7—figure supplement 1—source data 2. Source data for Figure 7—figure supplement 1e.
Figure 7—figure supplement 2. Sepsis leads to lasting changes in pre-existing polyclonal memory CD8 T cell function.

Figure 7—figure supplement 2.

Antigen-experienced P14 chimeric mice were generated by adoptive transfer of 5 × 103 naive Thy1.1+ TCR-transgenic P14 CD8 T cells to Thy1.2+ C57Bl/6 mice that were subsequently infected with LCMV-Arm. Mice underwent Sham or CLP surgery 30 days after infection. Splenocytes from Sham and CLP mice were isolated 30 days after surgery and disparately labeled with CFSE, mixed, and then placed in media alone (i.e. unstimulated) or stimulated GP33 peptide. Quantification of the frequency of IFNγ- (A) and IL-2- (B) producing P14s stimulated with either media control or GP33. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 5 mice per group.
Figure 7—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data for Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

With the relationship between the composition of the memory CD8 T cell pool and their capacity to promote effector function in mind, we next interrogated the ability of these memory CD8 T cells to control infection. Nolz et al. previously demonstrated that TEM more effectively control virulent Listeria monocytogenes (L.m.) infection compared to TCM (Nolz and Harty, 2011), likely due to localization of cells in either non-lymphoid tissues (critically the liver) or lymphoid tissues, respectively. Therefore, to address whether the shift toward TCM in the CLP host impaired the subsequent capacity to control L.m., P14 CD8 T cells were enriched from either Sham or CLP hosts > 30 days post-surgery then transferred to naïve recipients. Transfer of these cells into naive recipients alleviates potential environmental deficits imposed by sepsis and allows for direct assessment of the capacity of the memory CD8 T cells to control infection. Additionally, the use of naive recipients alleviates confounding variables such as bystander responses (Ehl et al., 1997; Lertmemongkolchai et al., 2001). One day after transfer, mice that received either no cell transfer, P14 CD8 T cells from Sham mice, or P14 CD8 T cells from CLP were challenged with virulent L.m. expressing GP33. L.m. challenge occurred 1 day after cell transfer to allow time for the cells to distribute and localize to their respective niches. GP33 expression by L.m. enables the memory P14 CD8 T cells to mediate antigen-specific control. Colony-forming units (CFU) in both the liver and spleen were assessed 5 days post-infection (Figure 7e). Recipients that received memory P14 CD8 T cells from either Sham or CLP hosts more robustly controlled L.m. infection than the naive hosts that did not receive any memory CD8 T cells (Figure 7f and g). However, memory P14 CD8 T cells from Sham recipients were significantly better at controlling L.m. than those from CLP recipients; 77- and 20-fold differences control in the liver and spleen, respectively (Figure 7f and g). This improved control by memory P14 CD8 T cells from Sham hosts demonstrates the higher capacity of TEM to control L.m. infection. Thus, our data cumulatively demonstrate how sepsis-induced changes in the composition of the pre-existing memory CD8 T cells alters the functional capability of the memory CD8 T cell population as a whole, thereby altering the host response to infection.

Discussion

In the present study, we demonstrate that sepsis leads to a lasting change in the composition of the memory CD8 T cell compartment in the sepsis survivors. This occurs as a result of proliferation in the lymphopenic environment that occurs after sepsis, seen in both patients and mice, wherein TCM have higher proliferative capacity than TEM. This biasing toward TCM alters the localization of memory CD8 T cells. Further, the memory CD8 T cell pool has an altered transcriptional landscape and chromatin accessibility, which is associated both with the transition toward TCM and functional alterations. The culmination of these sepsis-induced changes alters the function of the memory CD8 T cells and reduces their capacity to control virulent L.m. infection.

There are several important implications of the present study, and the biasing toward TCM, that are relevant to our understanding of the immunoparalysis state. Among these is the relationship to tissue resident memory CD8 T cells (TRM), which provide sensing and alarm function at sites of prior infection (Masopust et al., 2001; Schenkel et al., 2013). The present study focuses on the influence of sepsis on circulating TEM and TCM CD8 T cells; however, the substantial population of TRM throughout the body may be an interesting source of future interrogation. Danahy et al. previously demonstrated that TRM were not susceptible to sepsis-induced lymphopenia, due to their exclusion from the vasculature (Danahy et al., 2017). In the present study, recovery in cellularity was observed with time after sepsis, but the biasing toward TCM may pose a particular problem for TRM. Specifically, Slütter et al. demonstrated that lung TRM are seeded from circulating TEM (Slütter et al., 2017). Thus, the challenge to the TRM may be twofold: (1) the reduced seeding of cells during the lymphopenic state and (2) reduced TEM pool from which to seed the TRM. This reduction may culminate in a more rapid waning of lung TRM and reinforce susceptibility to previously encountered infections. Moreover, the detrimental effects of sepsis on memory CD8 T cells may also be relevant to other major inflammatory events and poorly controlled infections (e.g. SARS-CoV-2) and should be considerations in the long-term consequences for similarly impacted individuals (Li et al., 2020; Sariol and Perlman, 2020).

While the immunoparalysis state is often viewed directly through the lens of the detriments that may arise, it is also relevant to consider other means by which the host immune response may be shaped. The loss of TEM here demonstrates their critical role in fighting some infections (i.e. L.m.) (Nolz and Harty, 2011); however, TCM are also a potent population that can critically mediate control in other infection scenarios. Thus, infections for which TCM can provide critical control may be unimpaired or even enhanced in the post-septic environment. This is potentially complicated by intrinsic deficits that may be present in the memory cells, as observed in our GSEA analysis and by CD8 T cell extrinsic impairments. Therefore, future studies should consider additional interrogation of mechanisms by which the immune system is altered beyond detrimental aspects. Additionally, while our interrogation focused on a shift of pre-existing memory CD8 T cells toward a central memory phenotype, it remains possible that other T cell populations (e.g. different antigen specificities) may bias toward effector memory. This may be particularly relevant to memory T cell populations whose TCR has some low degree of cross reactivity with antigens present on microbes released during the septic event. These considerations may be important for future therapeutic interrogation in the specific targeting of the appropriate deficits.

Additionally, it is relevant to consider that proliferation, as demarcated by Ki67, was also observed in naïve CD8 T cells of septic patients. While not the focus of the present study this is also observed in our mouse model. The proliferation by naïve CD8 T cells in septic hosts suggests that CD8 T cells are proliferating in response to the lymphopenic environment. Indeed, naive cells undergo antigen-independent proliferation in other lymphopenic environments, such as Rag-/- or irradiated hosts, wherein they adopt conventional markers of antigen experience along with some effector functionality (Cheung et al., 2009; Pribikova et al., 2018; Unsinger et al., 2009; White et al., 2017). Thus, it may be relevant to consider how the proliferation of these cells also alter the composition of the memory CD8 T cell compartment and shapes host response to subsequent infection for which they may be specific.

Our novel characterization of how numeric recovery in the lymphopenic environment alters the composition of the memory CD8 T cell compartment demonstrates how sepsis can lead to lasting changes in host immunity. However, the implications of these changes may extend beyond the enhanced susceptibility to infection described here to potentially reframe our understanding of the immunoparalysis state. Future interrogation of these lasting effects will likely be required to best address the deficits that arise in the immunoparalysis state. Further understanding how sepsis shapes both naive and memory T cells may also alternately produce therapeutic interventions to benefit other diseases. One such example may be in the promotion of TCM over TEM, or vice versa, for specific vaccination strategies. Such outcomes and lines of investigation would be highly instructive for understanding how prior immune history shapes subsequent host immune responses.

Materials and methods

Key resources table.

Reagent type (species) or resource Designation Source or reference Identifiers Additional information
Strain, strain background (Mus musculus) C57BL6/J Jackson Laboratory Stock No: 000664(RRID:IMSR_JAX:000664)
Strain, strain background (Mus musculus) B6.PL(84NS)/Cy Jackson Laboratory Stock No: 000983(RRID:IMSR_JAX:000406) C57BL6/JThy1.1
Strain, strain background (Mus musculus) B6.Cg-Tcratm1Mom Tg(TcrLCMV)327Sdz(P14) Jackson Laboratory Stock No: 37394-JAX(RRID:IMSR_TAC:4138)
Strain, strain background (Mus musculus) Thy1.1/1.1- B6.Cg-Tcratm1Mom Tg(TcrLCMV)327Sdz This paper Thy1.1/1.1 P14 Can be acquired
through lab
contact or
breeding of
above commercially
available strains
Strain, strain background (Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus) Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus Armstrong strain(LCMV-Arm) Armstrong, C. and Lillie, R.D. Experimental lymphocytic choriomeningitis of monkeys and mice produced by a virus encountered in studies of the 1933 St Louis encephalitis epidemic. Public Health Reports 49, 1019–1027 (1934) LCMV-Arm Can be acquired through lab contact.
Strain, strain background (virulent Listeria monocytogenes) Virulent recombinant Listeria monocytogenes expressing GP33-41(XFL203 L.m.-GP33) Shen et al. Recombinant Listeria monocytogenes as a live vaccine vehicle for the induction of protective anti-viral cell-mediated immunity. PNAS 92(9) 3987–3991 (1995) L.m.-GP33 Can be acquired through lab contact.
Peptide, recombinant protein GP33-44 AnaSpec Catalog #:AS-61296
Antibody CD8a(Rat monoclonal) Biolegend 5H10-1(RRID:AB_312762) FACs(1:400)
Antibody CD11a(Rat monoclonal) Biolegend M17/4(RRID:AB_312776) FACs(1:300)
Antibody Thy1.1(Mouse monoclonal) eBioscience HIS51(RRID:AB_1257173) FACs(1:1000)
Antibody KLRG1(Mouse monoclonal) eBioscience 2F1(RRID:AB_540279) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD127(Rat monoclonal) eBioscience eBioSB/199 FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD62L(Rat monoclonal) Biolegend MEL-14(RRID:AB_1853103) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CX3CR1(Mouse monoclonal) eBioscience SA011F11(RRID:AB_2565701) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CXCR3(Armenian Hamster monoclonal) eBioscience CXCR3-173(RRID:AB_1210593) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD27(Armenian Hamster monoclonal) eBioscience LG.7F9 FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD69(Hamster monoclonal) Biolegend H1.2F3(RRID:AB_1853105) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD103(Hamster monoclonal) Biolegend 2E7(RRID:AB_469040) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD25(Mouse monoclonal) Biolegend PC61.5 FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD122(Rat monoclonal) Biolegend TM-b1 FACs(1:100)
Antibody IFNγ(Rat monoclonal) eBioscience XMG1.2(RRID:AB_465410) FACs(1:100)
Antibody IL-2(Rat monoclonal) Biolegend JES6-5H4(RRID:AB_315298) FACs(1:100)
Antibody Ki67(Mouse monoclonal) BD Pharmingen B56(RRID:AB_2858243) FACs(1:100)
Antibody BrdU(Mouse monoclonal) Biolegend Bu20a(RRID:AB_1595472) FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD45RA(Mouse monoclonal) Tonbo HI100 FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD45RO(Mouse monoclonal) Tonbo UCHL1 FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD3(Mouse monoclonal) Biolegend HIT3a FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD8a(Mouse monoclonal) Biolegend HIT8a FACs(1:100)
Antibody CCR7(Mouse monoclonal) Biolegend G043H7 FACs(1:100)
Antibody CD3(Mouse monoclonal) Biolegend OKT3 Plate coating(0–10 μg)
Antibody CD8a(Rat monoclonal) Biolegend 53–6.7 FACs(1:100)
Antibody AKT(rabbit monoclonal) Cell Signaling Technology 11E7 TIRF microscopy(1:20)
Antibody Anti-rabbit IgG(donkey monoclonal) Biolegend Poly4064 TIRF microscopy(1:100)
Commercial assay or kit Foxp3/ Transcription Factor Staining Buffer Set Invitrogen 00-5523-00
Software, algorithm GraphPad Prism GraphPad Prism 8 Version 8.4.2 (464)(RRID:SCR_002798)

Mice

Inbred C57Bl/6 (B6, Thy1.2) and TCR-transgenic (TCR-Tg) P14 (Thy1.1) mice were purchased from the National Cancer Institute (Frederick, MD) and maintained in the animal facilities at the University of Iowa at the appropriate biosafety level according to the University of Iowa Animal Care and Use Committee and National Institutes of Health guidelines. Male and female mice > 6 weeks of age were used for experiments; no discernable differences were observed based on sex of the animals.

Generation of antigen-experienced CD8 T cells; P14 chimeras

To generate antigen-experienced CD8 T cells 5 × 103 naïve P14 TCR-Tg CD8 T cells were adoptively transferred into recipient mice, followed a day later by infection with 105 plaque forming units (PFU) of Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis Virus-Armstrong (LCMV-Arm) by intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection.

Institutional setting and IRB approval

Patients were recruited at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, an 811-bed academic tertiary care center. Blood sample acquisition, patient data collection, and analysis were approved by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (ID #201804822). Informed consent was obtained from patients or their legally authorized representatives.

Sepsis patient selection and data collection

Subjects 18 years of age or older meeting Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis or septic shock (Singer et al., 2016) secondary to intra-abdominal infection, soft tissue infection, bloodstream infection, or pneumonia were enrolled. Exclusion criteria were infection requiring antibiotics in the past month, hospitalization for infection in the past year, and chemotherapy or radiation within the past year were excluded. Demographics and baseline characteristics including age, gender, race, APACHE II score, SOFA score, and presence of septic shock were collected. EDTA-treated blood samples were collected within 24 hr of presentation.

Healthy control patient selection and data collection

Healthy volunteers 25–80 years of age were recruited from University of Iowa faculty, staff, and graduate/professional students. Exclusion criteria were signs or symptoms of active infections, infection requiring antibiotics within the past month, infection requiring hospitalization in the past year, and chemotherapy or radiation in the past year. Demographic data including age, gender, and race were collected. EDTA-treated blood samples were collected at an initial visit to our research clinic.

Human cell isolation and cryopreservation

Human cell isolation was adjusted from the previously described methodology (Lauer et al., 2017). Briefly, whole blood was centrifuged, and plasma removed. ACK red blood cell lysis buffer was then added to the cell pellet and rested for 5 min at room temperature. Cells were again centrifuged, and supernatant was removed. Lysis and centrifugation was repeated one to two additional times. Cells were then washed with PBS three times before being counted and resuspended in cell freeze media (90%FCS [Hyclone] 10%DMSO [Fischer Scientific]). Cells were then stored at –80 °C until use. When used in vitro, PBL were rapidly thawed and placed into warmed complete media. Cells were then washed three times with warmed media and aggregates filtered prior to use.

Cell isolation

Peripheral blood was collected by submandibular cheek bleeds to obtain PBL. Single-cell suspensions from spleen, liver, and lymph nodes were generated after mashing tissue through a 70 μm cell strainer without enzymatic digestion. Liver cells were subsequently run on a 35 % Percoll gradient. ACK lysis buffer was used for red blood cell lysis of PBL, spleen, and liver samples.

Flow cytometry, peptides, and cytokine detection

Flow cytometry data were acquired on a FACSCanto or LSRII (BD Biosciences, San Diego, CA) and analyzed with FlowJo software (Tree Star, Ashland, OR). FlowJo Software was also used for FlowSOM and tSNE analysis. To determine expression of cell surface proteins, mAb were incubated at 4 °C for 20–30 min and cells were fixed using Cytofix/Cytoperm Solution (BD Biosciences) and, in some instances, followed by incubation with mAb for an additional 20–30 min to detect intracellular proteins. The following mAb clones were used to stain murine samples: CD8a (53–6.7; eBioscience), CD11a (M17/4; Biolegend), Thy1.1 (HIS51; eBioscience), KLRG1 (2F1; Biolegend), CD127 (eBioSB/199; eBioscience), CD62L (MEL-14; eBioscience), CX3CR1 (SA011F11; Biolegend), CXCR3 (CXCR3-173; Biolegend), CD27 (LG.7F9; eBioscience), CD69 (H1.2F3; Biolegend), CD103 (2E7; eBioscience), CD25 (PC61.5; eBioscience), CD122 (TM-b1; eBioscience), IFNγ (XMG1.2; eBioscience), IL-2 (JES6-5H4; eBioscience), Ki67 (B56; eBioscience) and BrdU (Bu20a; eBioscience). The following mAb clones were used staining of patient samples: CD45RA (HI100; Tonbo), CD45RO (UCHL1; Tonbo), CD3 (HIT3a; Biolegend), CD8a (HIT8a; Biolegend), and CCR7 (G043H7; Biolegend). Overnight fixation with FoxP3 fixation/permeabilization (eBioscience) buffer was used to stain Ki67 and BrdU. For BrdU staining, following fixation/ permeabilization cells were treated with DNAse I for 1 hr at 37 °C, then stained for intracellular BrdU.

Cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) model of sepsis induction

Mice were anesthetized with ketamine/xylazine (University of Iowa, Office of Animal Resources), the abdomen was shaved and disinfected with Betadine (Purdue Products), and a midline incision was made (Sjaastad et al., 2020a). The distal third of the cecum was ligated with Perma-Hand Silk (Ethicon), punctured once (for CLP20) or twice (for CLP50) using a 25-gauge needle, and a small amount of fecal matter extruded out of each puncture. The cecum was then returned to abdomen, the peritoneum was closed with 641 G Perma-Hand Silk (Ethicon), and skin sealed using surgical Vetbond (3 M). Following surgery, 1 mL PBS was administered s.c. to provide post-surgery fluid resuscitation. Bupivacaine (Hospira) was administered at the incision site, and flunixin meglumine (Phoenix) was administered for postoperative analgesia. Sham mice underwent identical surgery excluding cecal ligation and puncture.

Normalized assessment of lymphopenia (Figure 2C)

Due to large differences in the number of naïve to antigen-experienced endogenous cells to antigen-experienced P14 CD8 T cells in order to compare the relative degree of lymphopenia the data for each population was normalized. Data are normalized as: % survival = (1-((# of [Naive, Endo, or P14] CD8 T cells in the PBL of the same mouse prior to surgery) - (# of [Naive, Endo, or P14] CD8 T cells in the PBL of a mouse at D2 post-surgery)) / (# of [Naive, Endo, or P14] CD8 T cells in the PBL of the same mouse prior to surgery)) * 100.

BrdU administration

BrdU was administered by a single i.p. injection (2 mg/mouse) followed by ad libitum consumption in the drinking water (0.8 mg/mL) for 7 days.

RNA-seq and gene set enrichment analysis

Total RNA was extracted from P14 (Thy1.1+CD8aloCD11ahi) CD8 T cells sorted 1 day post-Sham or CLP and 31 days post-Sham or CLP, 2–3 biological replicates were obtained for each group. Libraries were sequenced on Illumina’s HiSeq2000 in single-end mode with the read length of 50 nucleotides. The RNA-seq data are deposited at the GEO (GSE174358) under the SuperSeries of GSE174359. RNA-seq was performed as previously described (Shan et al., 2017). The sequencing quality of RNA-seq libraries was assessed by FastQC v0.11.4 (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). Adaptor sequences were removed through Cutadapt. The reads were mapped to mouse genome mm9 using Tophat (v2.1.0) (Trapnell et al., 2009). Mapped reads were then processed by Cuffdiff (v2.2.1) to estimate the expression level of all genes and identify differentially expressed genes. The expression level of a gene was expressed as a gene-level Fragments Per Kilobase of transcripts per Million mapped reads (FPKM) value. Upregulated or downregulated genes in when comparing groups were identified by requiring a greater than 1.5-fold expression change and a false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.1, as well as a FPKM values > 1.0. The reproducibility of RNA-seq data was evaluated by applying the principal component analysis for all genes between biological replicates. UCSC genes from the iGenome mouse mm9 assembly (https://support.illumina.com/sequencing/sequencing_software/igenome.html) were used for gene annotation. Gene set enrichment and functional assignment were performed in software from the Broad Institute as described (Martin et al., 2015; Shan et al., 2017; Subramanian et al., 2005). Enrichment was evaluated for Day 31 CLP samples relative to Day 31 Sham samples.

ATAC-seq and data analysis

To determine the global impact of sepsis on chromatin accessibility, splenic memory P14 CD8 T cells were sorted from Sham and CLP hosts > 30 days after surgery. 5 × 104 cells were prepared for sequencing as previously described (Buenrostro et al., 2015; Shan et al., 2021). The ATAC-seq data are deposited at the GEO (accession number GSE174357) under the SuperSeries of GSE174359. The sequencing quality of ATAC-seq libraries was assessed by FastQC v0.11.4 (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/) and adapters were removed through Cutadapt. The reads were mapped to mouse genome mm9 using Bowtie2 v2.2.5 and only uniquely mapped reads (MAPQ >10) were retained. The mapped reads from multiple replicates were pooled for Sham or CLP CD8+ T cells, respectively, and were processed with MACS v2.1. 1 (Zhang et al., 2008) for peaks calling, with stringent criteria of ≥4 fold enrichment, P-value < 1E–five and FDR < 0.05. These sites were merged to generate a union pool of chromatin accessible sites containing 43,784 unique sites. For reproducibility analysis, reads at each site were counted in each ATAC-seq library, and then normalized by the total read-count of the union sites in the respective library. The resulting matrix was used for the principal component analysis. The read count matrix was used as input for edgeR (Robinson et al., 2010) (v.3.20.7.2) (quasi-likelihood test, robust, fold-change 2.0 and FDR < 0.01) to identify differential chromatin accessible sites between P14_Sham and P14_CLP conditions. A total of 304 Sham-specific and 1342 CLP-specific sites were identified, respectively.

CFSE

Splenocytes (107 /mL) from CLP and Sham hosts were labeled with CarboxyFluorescein diacetate Succinimidyl Ester (CFSE; eBioscience) by incubating the cells at room temperature for 15 minutes with 1 μM or 0.1 μM CFSE, respectively. Labeled cells were then incubated for 5 minutes with 1 mL FCS on ice to remove any free CFSE, and washed three times with RPMI prior to stimulation.

Peptide stimulation

CFSE labeled splenocytes from Sham and CLP hosts were mixed 1:1 and stimulated with 200 nM of GP33 peptide or media control for 8 hr at 37 °C in the presence of Brefeldin A (BfA; BD Biosciences).

Listeria challenge

Memory P14 CD8 T cells were isolated from either Sham or CLP hosts by positive selection, based on Thy1.1 expression, and naïve recipients received 2 × 105 of either P14 CD8 T cells each (controls did not receive cell transfer). Mice were subsequently infected the following day with 105 colony forming units (CFU) of virulent Listeria monocytogenes (10,403 s) express the GP33 epitope (L.m.-GP33).

Adhesion assay

Cellular adhesion was performed as previously described with some modification (Bilal et al., 2015; Chapman et al., 2012). Briefly, flat-bottomed 96-well plates (Thermo-Fisher) were coated with 0–10 μg of αCD3 (OKT3, Biolegend). P14 CD8 T cells were isolated by positive selection, based on Thy1.1. 5 × 106 P14 CD8 T cells were incubated on the plate for 30 min. Non-adherent cells were removed by quickly inverting the plate to empty contents. Adherent cells were stained with αCD8a-APC-Cy7 (53–6.7; Biolegend). Cells were washed twice with PBS before being imaged utilizing Licor Odyssey Infrared detector.

TIRF microscopy

Images were taken using Leica AM TIRF MC imaging system as described with the following modifications (Bilal et al., 2015). P14 CD8 T cells were isolated by positive selection, based on Thy1.1, and placed on glass chamber slides (5 × 104 cells/chamber; LabTek II) precoated with 10 μg/mL α-CD3 mAb. Cells were stimulated for 15 minutes, fixed with 4 % paraformaldehyde, and permeabilized with 0.25 % Triton-X. Cells were blocked with SEA blocking buffer (Thermo-Fisher) for 1 hour and stained with 5 µL rabbit α-human/mouse AKT antibody (11E7, Cell Signaling Technology) overnight at 4 °C. Cells were washed and incubated with DyLight 488-conjugated donkey α-rabbit IgG (poly4064, BioLegend) secondary antibody for 2 hr at room temperature. Cells were washed and fresh PBS was added to each well. Images were taken at room temperature using 100 X oil submersion lens and Leica AM TIRF MC imaging system at the University of Iowa Central Microscopy Research Facility. Laser intensity and exposure parameters remained constant within each experiment. TIRF microscopy images were analyzed using ImageJ software. Membrane AKT was quantified by measuring mean pixel intensity in the longest axis of cells.

Statistical analysis

Unless stated otherwise data were analyzed using Prism8 software (GraphPad) using two-tailed Student t-test (for two individual groups, if unequal variance Mann-Whitney U test was used), one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test (for >2 individual groups, if unequal variance Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s post-hoc test was used), two-way ANOVA (for multiparametric analysis of two or more individual groups, pairing was used for samples that came from the same animal), Fisher’s exact test (for categorical data from two individual groups) with a confidence interval of >95% to determine significance (*p ≤ 0.05). Data are presented as standard error of the mean.

Acknowledgements

We thank our labs and collaborators for their useful discussion. This work was supported by NIH Grants R01AI114543 (VPB), R21AI147064 (VPB), R35GM134880 (VPB), R21AI151183 (VPB), R01GM115462 (TSG), R35GM140881 (TSG), R01AI112579 (H-HX), R01AI121080 (H-HX and WP), R01AI139874 (H-HX and WP), R21AI157121 (JCH), T32AI007511 (IJJ), T32AI007485 (IJJ) and a Veterans Health Administration Merit Review Award I01B × 001324 (TSG). Research produced at the Central Microscopy Research Core at the University of Iowa was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [P30CA086862].

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Vladimir P Badovinac, Email: vladimir-badovinac@uiowa.edu.

Gabrielle T Belz, The University of Queensland, Australia.

Satyajit Rath, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), India.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • National Institutes of Health R01AI114543 to Vladimir P Badovinac.

  • National Institutes of Health R21AI147064 to Vladimir P Badovinac.

  • National Institutes of Health R21AI151183 to Vladimir P Badovinac.

  • National Institutes of Health R01GM115462 to Thomas S Griffith.

  • National Institutes of Health R35GM134880 to Vladimir P Badovinac.

  • National Institutes of Health R35GM140881 to Thomas S Griffith.

  • National Institutes of Health R01AI112579 to Hai-Hui Xue.

  • National Institutes of Health R01AI121080 to Hai-Hui Xue, Weiqun Peng.

  • National Institutes of Health R01AI139874 to Hai-Hui Xue, Weiqun Peng.

  • National Institutes of Health R21AI157121 to Jon CD Houtman.

  • National Institutes of Health T32AI007511 to Isaac J jensen.

  • National Institutes of Health T32AI007485 to Isaac J jensen.

  • Veterans Health Administration HSR and D I0BX001324 to Thomas S Griffith.

  • National Cancer Institute P30CA086862 to Jon CD Houtman.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing.

Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing.

Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review and editing.

Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Resources, Writing – review and editing.

Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.

Writing – review and editing.

Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.

Ethics

Human subjects: Patients were recruited at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, an 811-bed academic tertiary care center. Blood sample acquisition, patient data collection, and analysis were approved by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (ID #201804822). Informed consent was obtained from patients or their legally authorized representatives.

Experimental procedures using mice were approved by University of Iowa Animal Care and Use Committee under ACURF protocol #6121915 and #9101915. The experiments performed followed Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare guidelines and PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Cervical dislocation was used as the euthanasia method of all experimental mice. Inbred C57Bl/6 (B6, Thy1.2) and TCR-transgenic (TCR-Tg) P14 (Thy1.1) mice were purchased from the National Cancer Institute (Frederick, MD) and maintained in the animal facilities at the University of Iowa at the appropriate biosafety level according to the University of Iowa Animal Care and Use Committee and National Institutes of Health guidelines. Male and female mice >6 weeks of age were used for experiments; no discernable differences were observed based on sex of the animals.

Additional files

Transparent reporting form

Data availability

Sequencing data are deposited in GEO under accession code GSE174358. Source data for all figures are provided in associated excel files.

The following dataset was generated:

Peng B. 2021. Sepsis leads to lasting changes in phenotype and function of memory CD8 T cells (RNA-Seq) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus. GSE174358

References

  1. Badovinac VP, Haring JS, Harty JT. Initial T cell receptor transgenic cell precursor frequency dictates critical aspects of the CD8(+) T cell response to infection. Immunity. 2007;26:827–841. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.04.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baek KH, Shin HJ, Yoo JK, Cho JH, Choi YH, Sung YC, McKeon F, Lee CW. p53 deficiency and defective mitotic checkpoint in proliferating T lymphocytes increase chromosomal instability through aberrant exit from mitotic arrest. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2003;73:850–861. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1202607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilal MY, Zhang EY, Dinkel B, Hardy D, Yankee TM, Houtman JCD. GADS is required for TCR-mediated calcium influx and cytokine release, but not cellular adhesion, in human T cells. Cellular Signalling. 2015;27:841–850. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2015.01.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borges da Silva H, Beura LK, Wang H, Hanse EA, Gore R, Scott MC, Walsh DA, Block KE, Fonseca R, Yan Y, Hippen KL, Blazar BR, Masopust D, Kelekar A, Vulchanova L, Hogquist KA, Jameson SC. The purinergic receptor P2RX7 directs metabolic fitness of long-lived memory CD8+ T cells. Nature. 2018;559:264–268. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0282-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Buenrostro JD, Wu B, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ. ATAC‐seq: A Method for Assaying Chromatin Accessibility Genome‐Wide. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. 2015;109:21. doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb2129s109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cabrera-Perez J, Condotta SA, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. Impact of sepsis on CD4 T cell immunity. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2014;96:767–777. doi: 10.1189/jlb.5MR0114-067R. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabrera-Perez J, Condotta SA, James BR, Kashem SW, Brincks EL, Rai D, Kucaba TA, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. Alterations in Antigen-Specific Naive CD4 T Cell Precursors after Sepsis Impairs Their Responsiveness to Pathogen Challenge. Journal of Immunology. 2015;194:1609–1620. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1401711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. CDC Sepsis: Data & Reports. 2020. [August 1, 2020]. https://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/datareports/index.html
  9. Chang JT, Wherry EJ, Goldrath AW. Molecular regulation of effector and memory T cell differentiation. Nature Immunology. 2014;15:1104–1115. doi: 10.1038/ni.3031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chapman NM, Yoder AN, Houtman JCD. Non-Catalytic Functions of Pyk2 and Fyn Regulate Late Stage Adhesion in Human T Cells. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e53011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen C-W, Mittal R, Klingensmith NJ, Burd EM, Terhorst C, Martin GS, Coopersmith CM, Ford ML. Cutting Edge: 2B4-Mediated Coinhibition of CD4+ T Cells Underlies Mortality in Experimental Sepsis. Journal of Immunology. 2017;199:1961–1966. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1700375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheung KP, Yang E, Goldrath AW. Memory-like CD8+ T cells generated during homeostatic proliferation defer to antigen-experienced memory cells. Journal of Immunology. 2009;183:3364–3372. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0900641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cieri N, Camisa B, Cocchiarella F, Forcato M, Oliveira G, Provasi E, Bondanza A, Bordignon C, Peccatori J, Ciceri F, Lupo-Stanghellini MT, Mavilio F, Mondino A, Bicciato S, Recchia A, Bonini C. IL-7 and IL-15 instruct the generation of human memory stem T cells from naive precursors. Blood. 2013;121:573–584. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-05-431718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Condotta SA, Rai D, James BR, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Sustained and incomplete recovery of naive CD8+ T cell precursors after sepsis contributes to impaired CD8+ T cell responses to infection. Journal of Immunology. 2013;190:1991–2000. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Condotta SA, Khan SH, Rai D, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Polymicrobial Sepsis Increases Susceptibility to Chronic Viral Infection and Exacerbates CD8+ T Cell Exhaustion. Journal of Immunology. 2015;195:116–125. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1402473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Danahy DB, Anthony SM, Jensen IJ, Hartwig SM, Shan Q, Xue HH, Harty JT, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Polymicrobial sepsis impairs bystander recruitment of effector cells to infected skin despite optimal sensing and alarming function of skin resident memory CD8 T cells. PLOS Pathogens. 2017;13:e1006569. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Danahy DB, Kurup SP, Winborn CS, Jensen IJ, Harty JT, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Sepsis-Induced State of Immunoparalysis Is Defined by Diminished CD8 T Cell-Mediated Antitumor Immunity. Journal of Immunology. 2019;203:725–735. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1900435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davenport B, Eberlein J, van der Heide V, Jhun K, Nguyen TT, Victorino F, Trotta A, Chipuk J, Yi Z, Zhang W, Clambey ET, Scott DK, Homann D. Aging of Antiviral CD8+ Memory T Cells Fosters Increased Survival, Metabolic Adaptations, and Lymphoid Tissue Homing. Journal of Immunology. 2019;202:460–475. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1801277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Delano MJ, Ward PA. The immune system’s role in sepsis progression, resolution, and long-term outcome. Immunological Reviews. 2016a;274:330–353. doi: 10.1111/imr.12499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Delano MJ, Ward PA. Sepsis-induced immune dysfunction: can immune therapies reduce mortality? The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2016b;126:23–31. doi: 10.1172/JCI82224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, Paz HL. Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003. Critical Care Medicine. 2007;35:1244–1250. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000261890.41311.E9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Donnelly JP, Hohmann SF, Wang HE. Unplanned Readmissions After Hospitalization for Severe Sepsis at Academic Medical Center-Affiliated Hospitals. Critical Care Medicine. 2015;43:1916–1927. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Duong S, Condotta SA, Rai D, Martin MD, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Polymicrobial Sepsis Alters Antigen-Dependent and -Independent Memory CD8 T Cell Functions. Journal of Immunology. 2014;192:3618–3625. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1303460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ehl S, Hombach J, Aichele P, Hengartner H, Zinkernagel RM. Bystander Activation of Cytotoxic T Cells: Studies on the Mechanism and Evaluation of In Vivo Significance in a Transgenic Mouse Model. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1997;185:1241–1251. doi: 10.1084/jem.185.7.1241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG. Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Critical Care Medicine. 2013;41:1167–1174. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerlach C, Moseman EA, Loughhead SM, Alvarez D, Zwijnenburg AJ, Waanders L, Garg R, de la Torre JC, von Andrian UH. The Chemokine Receptor CX3CR1 Defines Three Antigen-Experienced CD8 T Cell Subsets with Distinct Roles in Immune Surveillance and Homeostasis. Immunity. 2016;45:1270–1284. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.10.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gurung P, Rai D, Condotta SA, Babcock JC, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. Immune Unresponsiveness to Secondary Heterologous Bacterial Infection after Sepsis Induction Is TRAIL Dependent. Journal of Immunology. 2011;187:2148–2154. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1101180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hotchkiss RS, Tinsley KW, Swanson PE, Schmieg RE, Jr, Hui JJ, Chang KC, Osborne DF, Freeman BD, Cobb JP, Buchman TG, Karl IE. Sepsis-Induced Apoptosis Causes Progressive Profound Depletion of B and CD4+ T Lymphocytes in Humans. Journal of Immunology. 2001;166:6952–6963. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.166.11.6952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2013;13:862–874. doi: 10.1038/nri3552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hotchkiss RS, Moldawer LL, Opal SM, Reinhart K, Turnbull IR, Vincent JL. Sepsis and septic shock. Nature Reviews. Disease Primers. 2016;2:16045. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hou H, Liu W, Wu S, Lu Y, Peng J, Zhu Y, Lu Y, Wang F, Sun Z, Lenz LL. Tim-3 Negatively Mediates Natural Killer Cell Function in LPS-Induced Endotoxic Shock. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e110585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jensen IJ, Sjaastad FV, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Sepsis-Induced T Cell Immunoparalysis: The Ins and Outs of Impaired T Cell Immunity. Journal of Immunology. 2018a;200:1543–1553. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1701618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jensen IJ, Winborn CS, Fosdick MG, Shao P, Tremblay MM, Shan Q, Tripathy SK, Snyder CM, Xue H-H, Griffith TS, Houtman JC, Badovinac VP, Munz C. Polymicrobial sepsis influences NK-cell-mediated immunity by diminishing NK-cell-intrinsic receptor-mediated effector responses to viral ligands or infections. PLOS Pathogens. 2018b;14:e1007405. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jensen I.J, Jensen SN, Sjaastad FV, Gibson-Corley KN, Dileepan T, Griffith TS, Mangalam AK, Badovinac VP. Sepsis impedes EAE disease development and diminishes autoantigen-specific naive CD4 T cells. eLife. 2020;9:e55800. doi: 10.7554/eLife.55800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jensen I.J, McGonagill PW, Berton RR, Wagner BA, Silva EE, Buettner GR, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. Prolonged Reactive Oxygen Species Production following Septic Insult. ImmunoHorizons. 2021a;5:477–488. doi: 10.4049/immunohorizons.2100027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jensen I.J, McGonagill PW, Butler NS, Harty JT, Griffith TS, Badovinac VP. NK Cell–Derived IL-10 Supports Host Survival during Sepsis. The Journal of Immunology. 2021b;206:1171–1180. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.2001131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaech SM, Cui W. Transcriptional control of effector and memory CD8+ T cell differentiation. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2012;12:749–761. doi: 10.1038/nri3307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kutza AST, Muhl E, Hackstein H, Kirchner H, Bein G. High Incidence of Active Cytomegalovirus Infection Among Septic Patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 1998;26:1076–1082. doi: 10.1086/520307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lauer FT, Denson JL, Burchiel SW. Isolation, Cryopreservation, and Immunophenotyping of Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells. Current Protocols in Toxicology. 2017;74:18. doi: 10.1002/cptx.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lertmemongkolchai G, Cai G, Hunter CA, Bancroft GJ. Bystander activation of CD8+ T cells contributes to the rapid production of IFN-gamma in response to bacterial pathogens. Journal of Immunology. 2001;166:1097–1105. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.166.2.1097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Li H, Liu L, Zhang D, Xu J, Dai H, Tang N, Su X, Cao B. SARS-CoV-2 and viral sepsis: observations and hypotheses. The Lancet. 2020;395:1517–1520. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30920-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Markwart R, Condotta SA, Requardt RP, Borken F, Schubert K, Weigel C, Bauer M, Griffith TS, Förster M, Brunkhorst FM, Badovinac VP, Rubio I. Immunosuppression after Sepsis: Systemic Inflammation and Sepsis Induce a Loss of Naïve T-Cells but No Enduring Cell-Autonomous Defects in T-Cell Function. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e115094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Marshall JC. Why have clinical trials in sepsis failed? Trends in Molecular Medicine. 2014;20:195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2014.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Martin MD, Kim MT, Shan Q, Sompallae R, Xue HH, Harty JT, Badovinac VP. Phenotypic and Functional Alterations in Circulating Memory CD8 T Cells with Time after Primary Infection. PLOS Pathogens. 2015;11:e1005219. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Martin MD, Shan Q, Xue HH, Badovinac VP. Time and Antigen-Stimulation History Influence Memory CD8 T Cell Bystander Responses. Frontiers in Immunology. 2017;8:634. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin MD, Badovinac VP. Defining Memory CD8 T Cell. Frontiers in Immunology. 2018;9:2692. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Martin MD, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. CD4 T Cell Responses and the Sepsis-Induced Immunoparalysis State. Frontiers in Immunology. 2020;11:1364. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Masopust D, Vezys V, Marzo AL, Lefrançois L. Preferential Localization of Effector Memory Cells in Nonlymphoid Tissue. Science. 2001;291:2413–2417. doi: 10.1126/science.1058867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Milner JJ, Nguyen H, Omilusik K, Reina-Campos M, Tsai M, Toma C, Delpoux A, Boland BS, Hedrick SM, Chang JT, Goldrath AW. Delineation of a molecularly distinct terminally differentiated memory CD8 T cell population. PNAS. 2020;117:25667–25678. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008571117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Mueller SN, Gebhardt T, Carbone FR, Heath WR. Memory T Cell Subsets, Migration Patterns, and Tissue Residence. Annual Review of Immunology. 2013;31:137–161. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-032712-095954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Nolz JC, Harty JT. Protective Capacity of Memory CD8+ T Cells Is Dictated by Antigen Exposure History and Nature of the Infection. Immunity. 2011;34:781–793. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.03.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Olson MR, McDermott DS, Varga SM. The Initial Draining Lymph Node Primes the Bulk of the CD8 T Cell Response and Influences Memory T Cell Trafficking after a Systemic Viral Infection. PLOS Pathogens. 2012;8:e1003054. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Palmer DC, Guittard GC, Franco Z, Crompton JG, Eil RL, Patel SJ, Ji Y, Van Panhuys N, Klebanoff CA, Sukumar M, Clever D, Chichura A, Roychoudhuri R, Varma R, Wang E, Gattinoni L, Marincola FM, Balagopalan L, Samelson LE, Restifo NP. Cish actively silences TCR signaling in CD8+ T cells to maintain tumor tolerance. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. 2015;212:2095–2113. doi: 10.1084/jem.20150304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Poehlmann H, Schefold JC, Zuckermann-Becker H, Volk HD, Meisel C. Phenotype changes and impaired function of dendritic cell subsets in patients with sepsis: a prospective observational analysis. Critical Care. 2009;13:R119. doi: 10.1186/cc7969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Pribikova M, Moudra A, Stepanek O. Opinion: Virtual memory CD8 T cells and lymphopenia-induced memory CD8 T cells represent a single subset: Homeostatic memory T cells. Immunology Letters. 2018;203:57–61. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2018.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rai D, Pham NLL, Harty JT, Badovinac VP. Tracking the Total CD8 T Cell Response to Infection Reveals Substantial Discordance in Magnitude and Kinetics between Inbred and Outbred Hosts. Journal of Immunology. 2009;183:7672–7681. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:139–140. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Roquilly A, McWilliam HEG, Jacqueline C, Tian Z, Cinotti R, Rimbert M, Wakim L, Caminschi I, Lahoud MH, Belz GT, Kallies A, Mintern JD, Asehnoune K, Villadangos JA. Local Modulation of Antigen-Presenting Cell Development after Resolution of Pneumonia Induces Long-Term Susceptibility to Secondary Infections. Immunity. 2017;47:135–147. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2017.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Roquilly A, Jacqueline C, Davieau M, Mollé A, Sadek A, Fourgeux C, Rooze P, Broquet A, Misme-Aucouturier B, Chaumette T, Vourc’h M, Cinotti R, Marec N, Gauttier V, McWilliam HEG, Altare F, Poschmann J, Villadangos JA, Asehnoune K. Alveolar macrophages are epigenetically altered after inflammation, leading to long-term lung immunoparalysis. Nature Immunology. 2020;21:636–648. doi: 10.1038/s41590-020-0673-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, Colombara DV, Ikuta KS, Kissoon N, Finfer S, Fleischmann-Struzek C, Machado FR, Reinhart KK, Rowan K, Seymour CW, Watson RS, West TE, Marinho F, Hay SI, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Angus DC, Murray CJL, Naghavi M. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet. 2020;395:200–211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sariol A, Perlman S. Lessons for COVID-19 Immunity from Other Coronavirus Infections. Immunity. 2020;53:248–263. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sarkar I, Pati S, Dutta A, Basak U, Sa G. T-memory cells against cancer: Remembering the enemy. Cellular Immunology. 2019;338:27–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2019.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Schenkel JM, Fraser KA, Vezys V, Masopust D. Sensing and alarm function of resident memory CD8+ T cells. Nature Immunology. 2013;14:509–513. doi: 10.1038/ni.2568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Serbanescu MA, Ramonell KM, Hadley A, Margoles LM, Mittal R, Lyons JD, Liang Z, Coopersmith CM, Ford ML, McConnell KW. Attrition of memory CD8 T cells during sepsis requires LFA-1. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2016;100:1167–1180. doi: 10.1189/jlb.4A1215-563RR. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Shan Q, Zeng Z, Xing S, Li F, Hartwig SM, Gullicksrud JA, Kurup SP, Van Braeckel-Budimir N, Su Y, Martin MD, Varga SM, Taniuchi I, Harty JT, Peng W, Badovinac VP, Xue H-H. The transcription factor Runx3 guards cytotoxic CD8+ effector T cells against deviation towards follicular helper T cell lineage. Nature Immunology. 2017;18:931–939. doi: 10.1038/ni.3773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Shan Q, Hu S e, Chen X, Danahy DB, Badovinac VP, Zang C, Xue HH. Ectopic Tcf1 expression instills a stem-like program in exhausted CD8+ T cells to enhance viral and tumor immunity. Cellular & Molecular Immunology. 2021;18:1262–1277. doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-0436-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Siegers GM, Barreira CR, Postovit LM, Dekaban GA. CD11d β2 integrin expression on human NK, B, and γδ T cells. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2017;101:1029–1035. doi: 10.1189/jlb.3AB0716-326RR. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche J-D, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent J-L, Angus DC. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3. JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sjaastad FV, Condotta SA, Kotov JA, Pape KA, Dail C, Danahy DB, Kucaba TA, Tygrett LT, Murphy KA, Cabrera-Perez J, Waldschmidt TJ, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. Polymicrobial Sepsis Chronic Immunoparalysis Is Defined by Diminished Ag-Specific T Cell-Dependent B Cell Responses. Frontiers in Immunology. 2018;9:2532. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Sjaastad F.V, Jensen IJ, Berton RR, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. ducing Experimental Polymicrobial Sepsis by Cecal Ligation and Puncture. Current Protocols in Immunology. 2020a;131:e110. doi: 10.1002/cpim.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sjaastad F.V, Kucaba TA, Dileepan T, Swanson W, Dail C, Cabrera-Perez J, Murphy KA, Badovinac VP, Griffith TS. Polymicrobial Sepsis Impairs Antigen-Specific Memory CD4 T Cell-Mediated Immunity. Frontiers in Immunology. 2020b;11:1786. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Slütter B, Van Braeckel-Budimir N, Abboud G, Varga SM, Salek-Ardakani S, Harty JT. Dynamics of influenza-induced lung-resident memory T cells underlie waning heterosubtypic immunity. Science Immunology. 2017;2:eaag2031. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aag2031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Souza-Fonseca-Guimaraes F, Parlato M, Fitting C, Cavaillon JM, Adib-Conquy M. NK Cell Tolerance to TLR Agonists Mediated by Regulatory T Cells after Polymicrobial Sepsis. Journal of Immunology. 2012;188:5850–5858. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1103616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Strother RK, Danahy DB, Kotov DI, Kucaba TA, Zacharias ZR, Griffith TS, Legge KL, Badovinac VP. Polymicrobial Sepsis Diminishes Dendritic Cell Numbers and Function Directly Contributing to Impaired Primary CD8 T Cell Responses In Vivo. Journal of Immunology. 2016;197:4301–4311. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, Mesirov JP. Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. PNAS. 2005;102:15545–15550. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506580102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Trapnell C, Pachter L, Salzberg SL. TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1105–1111. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Unsinger J, Kazama H, McDonough JS, Hotchkiss RS, Ferguson TA. Differential lymphopenia-induced homeostatic proliferation for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells following septic injury. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2009;85:382–390. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0808491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Unsinger J, Kazama H, McDonough JS, Griffith TS, Hotchkiss RS, Ferguson TA. Sepsis-Induced Apoptosis Leads to Active Suppression of Delayed-Type Hypersensitivity by CD8+ Regulatory T Cells through a TRAIL-Dependent Mechanism. Journal of Immunology. 2010;184:6766–6772. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0904054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Van Gassen S, Callebaut B, Van Helden MJ, Lambrecht BN, Demeester P, Dhaene T, Saeys Y. FlowSOM: Using self-organizing maps for visualization and interpretation of cytometry data. Cytometry. Part A. 2015;87:636–645. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Walton AH, Muenzer JT, Rasche D, Boomer JS, Sato B, Brownstein BH, Pachot A, Brooks TL, Deych E, Shannon WD, Green JM, Storch GA, Hotchkiss RS. Reactivation of Multiple Viruses in Patients with Sepsis. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e98819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Wherry EJ, Teichgräber V, Becker TC, Masopust D, Kaech SM, Antia R, von Andrian UH, Ahmed R. Lineage relationship and protective immunity of memory CD8 T cell subsets. Nature Immunology. 2003;4:225–234. doi: 10.1038/ni889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. White JT, Cross EW, Kedl RM. Antigen-inexperienced memory CD8+ T cells: where they come from and why we need them. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2017;17:391–400. doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Xie J, Chen C -w, Sun Y, Laurie SJ, Zhang W, Otani S, Martin GS, Coopersmith CM, Ford ML. creased attrition of memory T cells during sepsis requires 2B4. JCI Insight. 2019;4:e126030. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.126030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Yamamoto A, Taki T, Yagi H, Habu T, Yoshida K, Yoshimura Y, Yamamoto K, Matsushiro A, Nishimune Y, Morita T. Cell cycle-dependent expression of the mouse Rad51 gene in proliferating cells. Molecular & General Genetics. 1996;251:1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF02174338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhang Y, Liu T, Meyer CA, Eeckhoute J, Johnson DS, Bernstein BE, Nusbaum C, Myers RM, Brown M, Li W, Liu XS. Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS. Genome Biology. 2008;9:R137. doi: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision letter

Editor: Gabrielle T Belz1
Reviewed by: Antoine Roquilly2

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Acceptance summary:

This manuscript addresses the important issue of how sepsis influences the function particularly of CD8 T cells. It shows that while antigen-specific T cells respond to infection following transient sepsis and paralysis, embedded changes occur in the T cells influencing their long-term performance and capacity to mediate immune protection.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for sending your article entitled "Sepsis leads to lasting changes in phenotype and function of memory CD8 T cells" for peer review at eLife. Your article is being evaluated by 2 peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation is being overseen by Satyajit Rath as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Antoine Roquilly (Reviewer #2).

A summary of the essential revisions required is provided below. The individual reviews from the reviewers are also provided for the sake of context.

Essential revisions:

1. The mice model used to discriminate endogen and transferred memory T cells is underexploited. While P14 T cells are LCMV-specific, they are not specific to the antigens produced during CLP surgery. The reasons to discriminate endogen (Thy 1.1neg) vs. P14 (Thy 1.1pos) during CLP are not clear. Most of the time, endogenous and P14 CD8 memory T cells have the same response (Figure 2C, 4D-E) while this information is missing and only P14 response is described in most of the experiments (Figure 3, Figure 4B-C, 4G, 5, 6 and 7). The comparison of endogenous CD8 memory T cells with P14 should be consistent throughout the study since the role of TCR signaling could be of importance (as suggested by the increased Cish gene which is involved in TCR functional inhibition, see RNAseq, Figure 5H). Finally, the in vivo functional assay of the memory T cells response (Figure 7E-G) does not exclude a bystander role of endogen cells since IL-2 production can act on both cell types.

2. The description by flow cytometry of different subsets of P14 cells during sepsis (Figure 3C-H) is of interest but the mechanisms explaining the increased in cluster 8 (CD62L+) is not clear. In addition, the definition of cell survival (Figure 2C) is not clear to me and should be better explained.

3. Clarification of RNA seq analyses: The authors endeavour to uncover a mechanism for the altered activity of the CD8 T cells and use bulk RNAseq. In this analysis they identify 3 clusters. It is not clear exactly how the 8 subsets identified by flow cytometry and the sequence clusters relate to each other. Cluster 3 is composed of 57 genes that are changed but none of the genes in this cluster were mentioned nor provided in a table for reviewer consideration.

The finding of a CM and EM signature in the transcriptomic analyses would have strengthened the results. Whether if this phenomena is common with endogen cells, and if this is associated with alteration of cell function is unknown. Notably, is the production of IL-2 during sepsis similar in CD62L+ and CD62L- cells?

Overall, the RNAsequencing analyses is difficult to interpret due to the highly curated presentation and lack of fuller datasets.

Reviewer #1:

In this work, the authors endeavoured to understand how CD8 T cells, and preexisting memory CD8 T cells, might be influenced by sepsis. This is a very important question. They uncover interestingly that memory cells can still respond to subsequent infections, but are indelibly modulated by their exposure to the septic environment. This work provides interesting insights to the modulation of T lymphocytes and subsequent responsiveness post sepsis.

This manuscript addresses the important issue of how sepsis influences the function particularly of CD8 T cells. It shows that while antigen-specific T cells respond to infection following transient sepsis and paralysis, embedded changes occur in the T cells influencing their long-term performance. Although the changes in T cells are interesting, these effects are not dissociated from the extrinsic influences of other cell types that might also be affected by sepsis.

Page 4, line 91/92: There appears to be a word or words missing.

More recent references eg. Roquilly et al., Immunity and Nature Immunology have not been referenced.

In the human samples, a gap in the study is that admission may not correspond to the onset of sepsis. Delineation of a surrogate for the timing would be useful and some de-identified data to provide a temporal perspective of the onset of sepsis. One possibility may be the timing of lymphopenia. Part of the information is provided in Table 1.

The initial data is developed through characterisation of the proportions and numbers of different subsets of CD8 T cells. The hypotheses that the differential expansion/contraction of these subsets is based on our knowledge of normal responses. It is not entirely clear that this will be the case during sepsis. Using clustering based on known surface receptor expression, the authors designate 8 different subsets which they posit a pattern of temporal development. They then go on to endeavour to uncover a mechanism for the altered activity of the CD8 T cells and use bulk RNAseq. In this analysis they identify 3 clusters. It is not clear exactly how the 8 subsets identified by flow cytometry and the sequence clusters relate to each other. Cluster 3 is composed of 57 genes that are changed but none of the genes in this cluster were mentioned nor provided in a table for reviewer consideration. The RNAsequencing analyses is difficult to interpret due to the highly curated presentation and lack of fuller datasets.

Overall, this is an interesting study but the data are presented in quite a superficial manner limiting the impact of the work.

Reviewer #2:

Isaac J. Jensen et al., investigated in septic humans and in a mice of peritonitis the time course of the modifications of memory T cells during and after sepsis. They tracked in vivo the fate of antigen-specific memory T cells by using an elegant Antigen-specific T cells transfer whose proliferation is induced by a first viral infection. Once the virus-specific memory T cells are well settled, they induced an intraabdominal sepsis to investigate the modification of memory T cells during and after sepsis. They found in septic humans that while the percentages of CD8 T cells among lymphocytes remained unchanged, the rates of proliferating naïve and memory CD8 T cells were increased during sepsis. In the mice models, they observed that the survival of memory T cells decreased during sepsis, but their number rapidly returned to control values due to high rate of in vivo proliferation. Yet, the recovery of the number of memory T cells is associated with modifications of the proportions of effector vs. central memory T cells, and of the tissue localization. Transcriptomic and epigenetic analyses confirmed modifications of the CD8 T cells functional programming during sepsis, with upregulation of cell survival and proliferation functions. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the cytokine production of antigen-specific memory T cells is not decreased during sepsis, and IL-2 being even increased. in vivo, the gain of function of antigen-specific CD8 T cells (high proliferation, high IL-2 production) are not associated with higher control of viral load during reinfection. Altogether, the authors demonstrated that while memory CD8 T cells gain function during sepsis, it is associated with a poorer control of viral infection. These data add in an interesting way to the ongoing discussion on whether sepsis induced training of immunity (gained functions and increased resistance to infection) or tolerance / immunosuppression (loss of functions and increased susceptibility to infection).

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, but some aspects of data analysis need to be clarified and extended.

1) The mice model used to discriminate endogen and transferred memory T cells is underexploited. While P14 T cells are LCMV-specific, they are not specific to the antigens produced during CLP surgery. So the reasons to discriminate endogen (Thy 1.1neg) vs. P14 (Thy 1.1pos) during CLP are not clear. Most of the time, endogen and P14 CD8 memory T cells have the same response (Figure 2C, 4D-E) while this information is missing and only P14 response is described in most of the experiments (Figure 3, Figure 4B-C, 4G, 5, 6 and 7). The comparison of endogen CD8 memory T cells with P14 should be consistent throughout the study since the role of TCR signaling could be of importance (as suggested by the increased Cish gene which is involved in TCR functional inhibition, see RNAseq, Figure 5H). Finally, the in vivo functional assay of the memory T cells response (Figure 7E-G) does not exclude a bystander role of endogen cells since IL-2 production can act on both cell types.

2) The description by flow cytometry of different subsets of P14 cells during sepsis (Figure 3C-H) is of interest but the mechanisms explaining the increased in cluster 8 (CD62L+) is not clear. Are the modifications in phenotype observed in Figure 3 explained by the transcriptomic activity of cells? The finding of a CM and EM signature in the transcriptomic analyses would have strengthened the results. Whether if this phenomena is common with endogen cells, and if this is associated with alteration of cell function is unknown. Notably, is the production of IL-2 during sepsis similar in CD62L+ and CD62L- cells?

As a summary, data are sounds, but the demonstration that the alterations are specific, or not, to any memory CD8 T cells subsets; and are antigen-specific or not, would have significantly increased the gain of knowledge.

In general, the paper is difficult to follow because the studied cells frequently between Figures: endo. vs P14, CD62L+ vs. CD62Lneg, then 14 alone.

1 – I would recommend to analyse endogen and P14 cells together throughout the manuscript. Indeed, I think that more than the endogen vs. transfer feature, P14 cells are likely not responding directly to CLP-derived antigens.

2 – The definition of cell survival (Figure 2C) is not clear to me and should be better explained.

3 – While the data of CD62L+ vs CD62L- subsets are of interest (Figure 3), this information is not exploited in the RNAseq and ATAC-seq analyses. The comparison with public data set of effector memory and central memory T cells would likely reinforced the message of differential composition of these subsets.

eLife. 2021 Oct 15;10:e70989. doi: 10.7554/eLife.70989.sa2

Author response


Essential revisions:

1. The mice model used to discriminate endogen and transferred memory T cells is underexploited. While P14 T cells are LCMV-specific, they are not specific to the antigens produced during CLP surgery. The reasons to discriminate endogen (Thy 1.1neg) vs. P14 (Thy 1.1pos) during CLP are not clear.

We apologize for the lack of clarity. The true value of using the P14s in this system is because, as the reviewer indicates, they are not specific for the antigens evoked/released after sepsis and therefore their response can be truly delineated from a sepsis-induced ‘secondary’ antigen response.

Additionally, because novel effector CD8 T cell responses are anticipated/predicted during the septic event this would complicate sole analysis of all antigen experienced (effector and memory) CD8 T cells. Therefore, memory P14 CD8 T cells serve as a sentinel population to describe how sepsis influences those pre-existing memory CD8 T cells that exist prior to sepsis. After all, that is the question experimentally addressed in this submission.

Text clarifying and extended this point has been incorporated within the manuscript (line 172-177).

Most of the time, endogenous and P14 CD8 memory T cells have the same response (Figure 2C, 4D-E) while this information is missing and only P14 response is described in most of the experiments (Figure 3, Figure 4B-C, 4G, 5, 6 and 7). The comparison of endogenous CD8 memory T cells with P14 should be consistent throughout the study since the role of TCR signaling could be of importance (as suggested by the increased Cish gene which is involved in TCR functional inhibition, see RNAseq, Figure 5H).

The reason for the seemingly selective use of the P14s in the indicated figures is due to potential complicating factors of using the polyclonal CD8 T cell responses. For instance:

– With respect to Figure 3 the findings are subsequently evaluated for the polyclonal antigen experienced CD8 T cell population in Figure 4 E.

– With regard to Figures 5 and 6 these were done on the memory P14 CD8 T cells because of potential complications associated with using the polyclonal antigen experienced CD8 T cell population (e.g., novel CD8 T cell responses to antigens induced by sepsis and the potential for cross-reactivity between intestinal microflora with LCMV epitopes). This is particularly relevant to indicated TCR signaling which may be influenced by varying TCR signal strengths elicited due to novel microflora directed responses or potential secondary cross-reactive responses. We therefore contend that by focusing on memory P14 CD8 T cells wherein the TCR is a fixed variable this gives additional power to the analysis that would not be achievable in polyclonal populations. Text emphasizing this point has been now incorporated (line 318-321).

– With respect to Figure 7A-D we had continued to focus on memory P14 CD8 T cells due to convenience/clarity but are more than happy to include the data emphasizing GP33 stimulated cytokine (IFNγ and IL-2) production for the endogenous memory CD8 T cells, that showed a similar trend, as well (Please see new Figure 7—figure supplement 2 and line 384-386).

– Regarding 7E-G, however, transfer of endogenous cells would result in the same complications highlighted in the previous bullet point therefore it is our assertion that such assessments would be more confounding than illuminating to the impact of sepsis on pre-existing memory CD8 T cells.

Finally, the in vivo functional assay of the memory T cells response (Figure 7E-G) does not exclude a bystander role of endogen cells since IL-2 production can act on both cell types.

With regard to this point it is unclear what endogenous cells the reviewer is referring to. If the concern is with regard to endogenous cells generated either by LCMV or sepsis then we recognize that this could be a complicating factor and had therefore isolated the Thy1.1 memory P14 CD8 T cells prior to adoptive transfer. If the concern is with regard to potential bystander roles of the endogenous effector and/or memory CD8 T cells in the transfer recipients this seems unlikely given that the recipients are all naïve SPF mice that have neither experienced LCMV infection or undergone surgery. Thus, the mice are on equal standing with regard to the groups except with respect to which donor the memory P14s came from (if any) and would therefore reasonably rule out a bystander role for endogenous cells in either case. Text clarifying and extended this point has been incorporated within the manuscript (line 398-402).

2. The description by flow cytometry of different subsets of P14 cells during sepsis (Figure 3C-H) is of interest but the mechanisms explaining the increased in cluster 8 (CD62L+) is not clear. In addition, the definition of cell survival (Figure 2C) is not clear to me and should be better explained.

The mechanism, as we describe it, for the increased representation in Tcm (CD62L+) CD8 T cells is through the increased proliferative capacity of Tcm relative to Tem. Thus as the numeric recovery is achieved through homeostatic proliferation the Tcm gradually become overrepresented (relative to sham hosts). This mechanism is probed in Figure 4B-E of the manuscript. Additional text clarifying this point has been incorporated to reduce confusion (line 260-262).

We apologize for the lack of clarity in Figure 2C. This is calculated based off of the number of cells in peripheral blood (with respect to the indicated subset) at day 2 post-surgery divided by the average number of cells in the peripheral blood (with respect to the indicated subset) prior to surgery multiplied by 100 (to convert to a percentage). This transformation of the data is done to because there are highly different numbers in the different cell population (Naïve, endogenous, and P14 CD8 T cells) and is meant to demonstrate that all populations are equally susceptible to sepsis induced lymphopenia (in spite of differences in the cell number). Text clarifying this point is now included in the Materials and methods (line 1010-1016).

3. Clarification of RNA seq analyses: The authors endeavour to uncover a mechanism for the altered activity of the CD8 T cells and use bulk RNAseq. In this analysis they identify 3 clusters. It is not clear exactly how the 8 subsets identified by flow cytometry and the sequence clusters relate to each other.

Because of the differences in how these distinct analyses with discrete outputs are performed it is likely not best practice to overlay phenotypic clusters with changes in population RNA-seq. However, as stated in the text, cluster 1 demonstrates an enhancement of time-dependent changes in the CLP P14s. When considering how the memory CD8 T cell pool naturally changes overtime to have a reduced frequency of Tem and a higher frequency of Tcm this cluster reflects the Tem to Tcm conversion induced by sepsis. Thus, the changes in clusters 6 and 8 of the flow cytometry data likely are encompassed in this first cluster.

Additionally, we performed additional analyses (new Figure 6—figure supplement 1) and when we compared our gene expression changes with changes in a published data set (KAECH_DAY15_EFF_VS_MEMORY_CD8_TCELL), P14s from CLP hosts were more similar to memory CD8 T cells whereas P14s from Sham hosts had a more effector like signature further reflecting (and confirming) the shift toward central memory subset in CLP hosts. Text has been incorporated to discuss these additional analyses and better highlight this point (line 355-361).

Cluster 3 is composed of 57 genes that are changed but none of the genes in this cluster were mentioned nor provided in a table for reviewer consideration.

We apologize for this oversight and have included the requested information for all 3 gene clusters in Table II and the associated file “Figure 5-source data 2”.

The finding of a CM and EM signature in the transcriptomic analyses would have strengthened the results.

As indicated in the comment regarding the overlay of phenotypic clusters with RNA-seq clusters we feel that cluster 1 likely captures this transcription signature. Further, while the fold change in Sell (gene for CD62L) did not meet the 1.5X threshold change it did have a statistically significant change in expression (see Figure 5J) which further supports this conversion. Notably the fold change in the gene 1.2X mirror the relative phenotypic change 1.2X observed in Figure 4E (55%/45%).

Further, as suggested by the reviewer we have performed GSEA to compare sepsis induced changes with effector vs memory CD8 T cells to further highlight the compositional shift from TEM to TCM. Indeed, P14s from Sham hosts were biased toward effector cells while P14s from CLP hosts were biased toward memory cells. This reflects the time-dependent shift from effector to central memory, mirrored in the sepsis-induced changes in memory CD8 T cells (Figure 6—figure supplement 1and line 355-361).

Whether if this phenomena is common with endogen cells, and if this is associated with alteration of cell function is unknown.

While we did not perform RNA-seq/ATAC-seq on total endogenous cells for the reasons outlined in response to point number 1 we do believe the virus-specific memory P14 CD8 T cells are a faithful sensor population as they have behaved similarly when analyzed in comparison to the endogenous CD8 T cells (Martin et al., 2015 Plos Pathog. e1005219; Khan et al., 2019 Nature 571(7764):211-218). Further, in the event of differences it would be impossible to rule out that the differences were not due to changes in the pool of activated cells (inclusion of sepsis responsive effector or memory CD8 T cells or cross-reactivity epitopes between the LCMV infection with the septic event) rather than true differences between memory P14s and endogenous CD8 T cells.

Notably, is the production of IL-2 during sepsis similar in CD62L+ and CD62L- cells?

CD62L is shed from the cells surface during antigen encounter (Herndler-Brandstetter et al., 2005 J Immunol. 175(3)1566-1574) it is difficult to determine whether the cells CD62L- cells from the CLP hosts are actually generating IL-2 or if it is merely (likely) that the CD62L+ cells shed their CD62L following antigen encounter. However, given that it is widely reported that CD62L+ cells preferentially produce IL-2 (Martin and Badovinac 2018 Front. Immunol. 2692; Wherry et al., 2003 Nat. Immunol. 4:225-234) and that the increase in IL-2 production coincides with our similar observation of an increase in CD62L we feel that it is more reasonably the CD62L+ cells that are contributing the IL-2 following stimulation in Figure 7.

Overall, the RNAsequencing analyses is difficult to interpret due to the highly curated presentation and lack of fuller datasets.

We hope that the addition of the gene tables and the discussion mentioned provide now enough clarity to reviewers (and hopefully other scientist that will read our manuscript) to interpret/understand these data sets.

Reviewer #1:

In this work, the authors endeavoured to understand how CD8 T cells, and preexisting memory CD8 T cells, might be influenced by sepsis. This is a very important question. They uncover interestingly that memory cells can still respond to subsequent infections, but are indelibly modulated by their exposure to the septic environment. This work provides interesting insights to the modulation of T lymphocytes and subsequent responsiveness post sepsis.

We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment our manuscript.

This manuscript addresses the important issue of how sepsis influences the function particularly of CD8 T cells. It shows that while antigen-specific T cells respond to infection following transient sepsis and paralysis, embedded changes occur in the T cells influencing their long-term performance. Although the changes in T cells are interesting, these effects are not dissociated from the extrinsic influences of other cell types that might also be affected by sepsis.

We recognize that effects in memory CD8 T cell subsets are not the sole influence by which sepsis alter host immune status. While this study is focused on pre-existing memory CD8 T cells future assessments should/would harmonize these findings with alterations in other cell types.

Page 4, line 91/92: There appears to be a word or words missing.

More recent references eg. Roquilly et al., Immunity and Nature Immunology have not been referenced.

In the human samples, a gap in the study is that admission may not correspond to the onset of sepsis. Delineation of a surrogate for the timing would be useful and some de-identified data to provide a temporal perspective of the onset of sepsis. One possibility may be the timing of lymphopenia. Part of the information is provided in Table 1.

The initial data is developed through characterisation of the proportions and numbers of different subsets of CD8 T cells. The hypotheses that the differential expansion/contraction of these subsets is based on our knowledge of normal responses. It is not entirely clear that this will be the case during sepsis. Using clustering based on known surface receptor expression, the authors designate 8 different subsets which they posit a pattern of temporal development. They then go on to endeavour to uncover a mechanism for the altered activity of the CD8 T cells and use bulk RNAseq. In this analysis they identify 3 clusters. It is not clear exactly how the 8 subsets identified by flow cytometry and the sequence clusters relate to each other. Cluster 3 is composed of 57 genes that are changed but none of the genes in this cluster were mentioned nor provided in a table for reviewer consideration. The RNAsequencing analyses is difficult to interpret due to the highly curated presentation and lack of fuller datasets.

These comments have been addressed in the above response to the editor.

Overall, this is an interesting study but the data are presented in quite a superficial manner limiting the impact of the work.

We appreciate that these represent some of the more initial aspects of the long-term impacts of sepsis on pre-existing memory CD8 T cells but contend that they provide a substantive advance, uncover interesting and previously unknown biology, and lay the groundwork for future experiments that will further analyze/uncover/define role of sepsis in shaping vaccine and/or infection induced memory CD8 T cell pool and ability of the host to respond to pathogen (re)-encounter.

Reviewer #2:

Isaac J. Jensen et al., investigated in septic humans and in a mice of peritonitis the time course of the modifications of memory T cells during and after sepsis. They tracked in vivo the fate of antigen-specific memory T cells by using an elegant Antigen-specific T cells transfer whose proliferation is induced by a first viral infection. Once the virus-specific memory T cells are well settled, they induced an intraabdominal sepsis to investigate the modification of memory T cells during and after sepsis. They found in septic humans that while the percentages of CD8 T cells among lymphocytes remained unchanged, the rates of proliferating naïve and memory CD8 T cells were increased during sepsis. In the mice models, they observed that the survival of memory T cells decreased during sepsis, but their number rapidly returned to control values due to high rate of in vivo proliferation. Yet, the recovery of the number of memory T cells is associated with modifications of the proportions of effector vs. central memory T cells, and of the tissue localization. Transcriptomic and epigenetic analyses confirmed modifications of the CD8 T cells functional programming during sepsis, with upregulation of cell survival and proliferation functions. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the cytokine production of antigen-specific memory T cells is not decreased during sepsis, and IL-2 being even increased. in vivo, the gain of function of antigen-specific CD8 T cells (high proliferation, high IL-2 production) are not associated with higher control of viral load during reinfection. Altogether, the authors demonstrated that while memory CD8 T cells gain function during sepsis, it is associated with a poorer control of viral infection. These data add in an interesting way to the ongoing discussion on whether sepsis induced training of immunity (gained functions and increased resistance to infection) or tolerance / immunosuppression (loss of functions and increased susceptibility to infection).

We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment of our manuscript.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, but some aspects of data analysis need to be clarified and extended.

1) the mice model used to discriminate endogen and transferred memory T cells is underexploited. While P14 T cells are LCMV-specific, they are not specific to the antigens produced during CLP surgery. So the reasons to discriminate endogen (Thy 1.1neg) vs. P14 (Thy 1.1pos) during CLP are not clear. Most of the time, endogen and P14 CD8 memory T cells have the same response (Figure 2C, 4D-E) while this information is missing and only P14 response is described in most of the experiments (Figure 3, Figure 4B-C, 4G, 5, 6 and 7). The comparison of endogen CD8 memory T cells with P14 should be consistent throughout the study since the role of TCR signaling could be of importance (as suggested by the increased Cish gene which is involved in TCR functional inhibition, see RNAseq, Figure 5H). Finally, the in vivo functional assay of the memory T cells response (Figure 7E-G) does not exclude a bystander role of endogen cells since IL-2 production can act on both cell types.

2) The description by flow cytometry of different subsets of P14 cells during sepsis (Figure 3C-H) is of interest but the mechanisms explaining the increased in cluster 8 (CD62L+) is not clear. Are the modifications in phenotype observed in Figure 3 explained by the transcriptomic activity of cells? The finding of a CM and EM signature in the transcriptomic analyses would have strengthened the results. Whether if this phenomena is common with endogen cells, and if this is associated with alteration of cell function is unknown. Notably, is the production of IL-2 during sepsis similar in CD62L+ and CD62L- cells?

These comments have been addressed in the above response to the editor.

As a summary, data are sounds, but the demonstration that the alterations are specific, or not, to any memory CD8 T cells subsets; and are antigen-specific or not, would have significantly increased the gain of knowledge.

We recognize the reviewers point and this would be a highly relevant aspect for future consideration. While it would be ideal to observe different populations behaving discretely this is technically challenging, particularly so if the distinctions rely on cross-reactivity between existing memory CD8 T cells and gut microflora released during the septic insult. Text addressing these points has been incorporated in the discussion (line 456-460).

In general, the paper is difficult to follow because the studied cells frequently between Figures: endo. vs P14, CD62L+ vs. CD62Lneg, then 14 alone.

1 – I would recommend to analyse endogen and P14 cells together throughout the manuscript. Indeed, I think that more than the endogen vs. transfer feature, P14 cells are likely not responding directly to CLP-derived antigens.

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment in principal and have in the above response attempted to explain our rationale for lacking the analysis of the total endogenous memory CD8 T cell population in some cases and providing the additional results with bona-fide endogenous memory CD8 T cells where possible (new Figure 7—figure supplement 2 and line 384-386).

2 – The definition of cell survival (Figure 2C) is not clear to me and should be better explained.

This comment has been addressed in the essential revisions portion (please see above).

3 – While the data of CD62L+ vs CD62L- subsets are of interest (Figure 3), this information is not exploited in the RNAseq and ATAC-seq analyses. The comparison with public data set of effector memory and central memory T cells would likely reinforced the message of differential composition of these subsets.

The reviewer’s point is of interest. We performed the requested analysis, discussed response to the above editor comment. Data are presented in Figure 6—figure supplement 1 and discussed in the text (line 355-361).

Associated Data

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

    Data Citations

    1. Peng B. 2021. Sepsis leads to lasting changes in phenotype and function of memory CD8 T cells (RNA-Seq) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus. GSE174358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 1.
    Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 2—source data 1. Source data for Figure 2C.
    Figure 2—source data 2. Source data for Figure 2E.
    Figure 2—source data 3. Source data for Figure 2F.
    Figure 3—source data 1. Source data for Figure 3.
    Figure 4—source data 1. Source data for Figure 4B.
    Figure 4—source data 2. Source data for Figure 4D and E.
    Figure 4—source data 3. Source data for Figure 4G.
    Figure 5—source data 1. Source data for Figure 5C and D.
    elife-70989-fig5-data1.xlsx (484.5KB, xlsx)
    Figure 5—source data 2. Source data for Figure 5E.
    elife-70989-fig5-data2.xlsx (100.3KB, xlsx)
    Figure 6—source data 1. Source data for Figure 6.
    Figure 6—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 6—figure supplement 1A-D.
    Figure 7—source data 1. Source data for Figure 7C and D.
    Figure 7—source data 2. Source data for Figure 7F and G.
    Figure 7—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data for Figure 7—figure supplement 1c.
    Figure 7—figure supplement 1—source data 2. Source data for Figure 7—figure supplement 1e.
    Figure 7—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data for Figure 7—figure supplement 1.
    Transparent reporting form

    Data Availability Statement

    Sequencing data are deposited in GEO under accession code GSE174358. Source data for all figures are provided in associated excel files.

    The following dataset was generated:

    Peng B. 2021. Sepsis leads to lasting changes in phenotype and function of memory CD8 T cells (RNA-Seq) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus. GSE174358


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES