Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 18;79(5):247. doi: 10.1007/s00018-022-04279-1

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Impacts of platelet-derived TGFβ1 on naïve CD4+ T cell responses. A, C Naïve CD4+ T cells were stimulated with αCD3/αCD28 antibodies in the absence (blue squaresInline graphic) or presence (red triangles and green circlesInline graphic) of platelets (Tn:plt = 1:250), and cultured for 5 days with (Inline graphic) or without (Inline graphic) a TGF-β neutralizing antibody (20 µg/ml). Data plotted are flow cytometric phenotyping of T helper cells (A) and the total/active TGFβ1 levels in the supernatants as measured by ELISA (C), n = 7. Panels B: Naïve CD4+ T cells were stimulated with αCD3/αCD28 antibodies in the absence (Inline graphic) or presence (Inline graphic) of platelets (Tn:plt = 1:250), and cultured with (Inline graphic) or without (Inline graphic) a TGFBRII-blocking antibody (15 µg/ml) for 5 days. Flow cytometric phenotyping of T helper cells were plotted (n = 5). DF Platelet-specific TGFβ1 knockout mice or control mice were adoptively transferred with CD4+ T cells from CD45.1 OT-II mice, followed by OVA challenge. Plasma levels of the total and active TGFβ were monitored by ELISA during 7 days (D; n = 5). Mononuclear cells were isolated from the spleen of recipient mice and assayed for flow cytometric phenotyping of Treg, Th1, Th2, and Th17 cells (E; n = 5), as well as phosphorylation levels of Smad2/3 of OT-II T cells (F; n = 5). Data were presented as mean ± SEM. For data presented in AC, the comparisons among the treatments were performed using RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test. For data in D, comparisons between the groups were performed using two-way ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison test. For data presented in EF, Mann–Whitney test was used. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001