|
|
 Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article 
Blood, Vol. 91 No. 11 (June 1), 1998:
pp. 4038-4044
Prevention of Marrow Graft Rejection Without Induction of
Graft-Versus-Host Disease by a Cytotoxic T-Cell Clone That Recognizes
Recipient Alloantigens
By
Yoichiro Kusunoki,
Wei Chen, and
Paul J. Martin
From the Division of Clinical Research, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center; and the Department of Medicine, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
 |
ABSTRACT |
In allogeneic marrow transplantation, donor T cells that recognize
recipient alloantigens prevent rejection but also cause graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). To evaluate whether the ability to
prevent marrow graft rejection could be dissociated from the ability to
cause GVHD, we generated a panel of four different CD8 cytotoxic
T-lymphocyte clones specific for H2d alloantigens. Three of
the clones caused no overt toxicity when as many as 20 × 106 cells were infused intravenously into irradiated
H2d-positive recipients, and one clone caused acute lethal
toxicity within 1 to 3 days after transferring 10 × 106
cells into H2d-positive recipients. One clone that did not
cause toxicity was able to prevent rejection of (C57BL/6J ×
C3H/HeJ)F1 marrow in 800 cGy-irradiated (BALB/cJ × C57BL/6J)F1
recipients without causing GVHD. Large numbers of cells and exogenously
administered interleukin-2 were required to prevent rejection. These
results with different CD8 clones suggest that GVHD and prevention of
rejection could be separable effects mediated by distinct populations
of donor T cells that recognize recipient alloantigens.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
THE RISK OF graft-versus-host disease
(GVHD) after allogeneic marrow transplantation can be decreased by
removing T cells from the donor marrow, but the use of T-cell depletion
has not improved disease-free survival because the benefit of decreased GVHD has been offset by an increased risk of graft failure and other
complications.1 GVHD is initiated by the relatively small subset of donor T cells that recognize recipient alloantigens. In
previous studies we have shown that donor T cells also prevent marrow
graft rejection most effectively when they recognize an alloantigen
expressed on recipient immune effectors that survive the pretransplant
conditioning regimen.2,3 Whether rejection is prevented
primarily by the same cells that cause GVHD is not known.
Recent studies have highlighted the role of proinflammatory cytokines
in the pathogenesis of GVHD.4 Donor T cells activated by
exposure to recipient alloantigens produce interferon- (IFN-), which primes macrophages. Stimulation of primed macrophages by lipopolysaccharide translocated from the gut induces release of tumor
necrosis factor- (TNF-), which in turn causes cachexia and
contributes to tissue injury. Cytokine-primed macrophages also produce
nitric oxide, which contributes to immunosuppression associated with
GVHD.5-7 The role of natural killer and T-cell cytotoxicity
in causing GVHD has been controversial. However, experiments with
Fas-ligand-defective and perforin-deficient donors have indicated that
cytotoxic mechanisms do have some role in the pathogenesis of
GVHD.8-10 The extent to which graft rejection is prevented
by inflammatory cytokines or cytotoxic mechanisms has not been
determined.
In the canine model, infusion of bulk-cultured cytotoxic T lymphocytes
(CTL) specific for recipient alloantigens helped to prevent major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-mismatched
marrow graft rejection, but all engrafted recipients died with acute GVHD.11 To determine whether prevention of rejection could
be separated from GVHD, we generated a panel of donor-derived CD8 CTL
clones specific for recipient alloantigens and tested their effects in
vivo in murine marrow transplant models. Among these clones, we
identified one that prevented allogeneic marrow graft rejection without
causing overt toxicity in the recipient. Differences among the clones
we tested suggest that the effector mechanisms involved in preventing
rejection might be distinct from those that cause GVHD.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Mice.
(C57BL/6J × SJL/J)F1 (B6SJL; H2b/s,
Ly5b/a) males, (C57BL/6J × C3H/HeJ)F1 (B6C3;
H2b/k) males, BALB/cJ (H2d,
Ly5b) females, B6.C-H2bm1/ByJ (bm1;
H2Kbm1, Ly5b) females, and
(BALB/cJ × C57BL/6J)F1 (CB6; H2d/b) females were
purchased from the Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME).
B6.Ly5.1;pep3b (B6.Ly5a) males and
(C3H/HeJ × B6.Ly5a)F1
[(C3H × B6.Ly5a)F1; H2b/k,
Ly5a/b] males were bred at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center (Seattle, WA). Founder B6.Ly5a males and
females were kindly provided by Dr David Myers (Sloan Kettering
Institute, New York, NY). Mice were housed in groups of five under
microisolated, specific pathogen-free conditions with twice weekly cage
changes and were administered sterilized chow and acidified water (pH
3.5) ad libitum. Four weeks after marrow transplantation, mice were
transferred to conventional housing conditions. Experimental procedures
were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
In vitro generation of CTL clones.
Responder B6C3 lymph node (LN) cells or splenocytes
(2.0 × 106/mL) were stimulated with irradiated (30 Gy)
CB6 or BALB/c spleen cells (1.0 × 106/mL) in culture
medium containing a 1:1 mixture of RPMI 1640 medium and enriched
Eagle's medium (Biofluids, Inc, Rockville, MD) supplemented with 10%
fetal calf serum (Hyclone, Logan, UT), 10 mmol/L L-glutamine, 100 U/mL
penicillin, 100 µg/mL streptomycin, 5 × 10 5 mol/L
2-mercaptoethanol, and 5 mmol/L HEPES. Cultures were fed with fresh
medium on the 5th day, and cells (1.0 × 106/well) were
restimulated on the 10th day with irradiated (30 Gy) allogeneic
splenocytes (5 × 105/well) in the presence of
irradiated (30 Gy) syngeneic (responder strain) splenocytes
(5 × 106/well) as filler cells in 24-well plates (2.0 mL/well). Three days after each stimulation, cultures were split 1:4
with fresh medium containing 5 U/mL human recombinant interleukin-2
(IL-2; Cetus, Emeryville, CA). After repeated cycles of restimulation at 10 to 21 day intervals, cells were cloned by limiting dilution in
medium containing 10 U/mL IL-2 and 10 ng/mL murine recombinant IL-7
(R & D Systems, Minneapolis, MN), with irradiated (30 Gy) syngeneic
splenocytes used as filler cells. T-cell clones were propagated by
stimulation with irradiated allogeneic splenocytes (5 × 105/well) in the presence of irradiated (30 Gy)
syngeneic splenocytes (5 × 106/well), 10 U/mL IL-2, and
1 to 10 ng/mL IL-7. T-cell clones were rested for at least 14 days
between cycles of restimulation and for at least 7 days before testing
in vitro or in vivo unless otherwise indicated.
In vitro cytotoxicity assays.
Targets were prepared from LN cells activated with 2.0 µg/mL ConA and
then labeled with 51Cr. Cloned effectors and targets
(10 × 103/well) were incubated in RPMI 1640 medium
containing 5 mmol/L HEPES and 10% bovine serum for 4 hours at 37°C.
Results represent the means of triplicate determinations in which the
percent specific 51Cr release was calculated by standard
methods. Spontaneous release values were less than 30%.
Cytokine production.
Cloned T cells (1.0 × 106/well) were stimulated in
2.0-mL culture wells with immobilized CD3-specific antibody
145-2C1112 (hamster IgG; hybridoma kindly provided by Dr
Jeffrey Bluestone, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL). Culture
supernatants were collected and stored at  20°C until testing.
IL-2/IL-4 activity was determined by a biological assay using
CTLL-2 cells, and other cytokines were measured with
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits and standards from Genzyme
(Cambridge, MA) (IFN-, TNF-, IL-4, and IL-1) or from
PerSeptive Diagnostics (League City, TX) (IL-6). Assay detection limits
were 10 pg/mL for IL-4, 15 pg/mL for IL-1, and 10 pg/mL for IL-6.
Immunofluorescent staining.
Cells were stained with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) or
phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated monoclonal antibodies specific for CD3
(145-2C11, hamster IgG),12 T-cell receptor (TCR)- (H57-597, hamster IgG; Pharmingen, San Diego, CA),13
TCR- (GL3, hamster IgG; Pharmingen),14 CD4 (GK1.5,
rat IgG2b; hybridoma obtained from American Type Culture Collection
[ATCC], Rockville, MD),15 CD8 (2.43, rat IgG2b; hybridoma
obtained from ATCC),16 CD44 (IM7, rat IgG2b;
Pharmingen),17 or CD62L (MEL 14, rat IgG2a; Pharmingen),18 each at optimal concentration. Stained cells were fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde and analyzed by flow cytometry with
the use of a FACScan (Becton Dickinson and Co, Mountain View, CA).
Marrow transplantation.
Recipients 7 to 8 weeks of age were prepared by total body irradiation
in a single fraction from dual-opposed 60Co sources at an
exposure rate of 20 to 25 cGy/minute on the day before transplantation.
Marrow obtained by femur flush was depleted of T lymphocytes by rabbit
complement (1:10)-mediated lysis using a mixture of antibodies specific
for CD4, CD8, and Thy-1.2 (30-H12, rat IgG2b; hybridoma kindly provided
by Dr J.A. Ledbetter, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Seattle, WA),19
each at optimal concentration. Nylon wool-nonadherent T lymphocytes
were obtained from pooled mesenteric, axillary, and femoral lymph
nodes. CD8 blasts were enriched from mixed lymphocyte cultures
(MLC) by complement-mediated lysis using a CD4-specific antibody. Mixtures containing T-cell-depleted donor marrow
(5.0 × 106 cells/recipient) and purified T cells, CD8
blasts, or cloned CTL were injected into recipients via the lateral
tail vein. In some experiments, recipients were administered
recombinant human IL-2 (Cetus Co, Emeryville, CA) intraperitoneally
(IP) on the day of transplant and for 6 to 13 consecutive days
thereafter. IL-2 doses are expressed as U of activity for supporting
the proliferation of murine CTLL-2 cells.
For assessment of chimerism after transplantation, heparinized blood
obtained from the orbital venous plexus was lysed with NH4Cl buffer, and leukocytes were stained for two-color
analysis with FITC-conjugated CD3-specific antibody 145-2C11 and with
biotinylated antibodies specific for H2KkDk
(16-1-2N, mouse IgG2a; hybridoma obtained from ATCC)20 or
Ly5.1 (A20-1.7, mouse IgG2a; hybridoma kindly provided by Dr Shoji
Kimura, Sloan Kettering Institute).21 Binding of the
biotinylated antibody was assessed by staining with streptavidin-PE
(Becton Dickinson). Stained cells were fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde
and analyzed by flow cytometry with the use of a FACScan. Bit maps for
lymphoid cells and granulocytes were defined by forward and side
scatter characteristics, and the percent of donor cells within each
window was enumerated. Results were rounded to the nearest integer and were not corrected for background staining. For each experiment, thresholds for delineating positive and negative cells were determined by staining samples from appropriate positive and negative controls. In
the lymphoid and myeloid gates, respectively, negative control samples
showed 0% to 2.5% (mean, 0.7%) and 0.1% to 16% (mean, 5.3%)
background staining, whereas positive control samples showed 87.1% to
100% (mean, 99.2%) and 82.4% to 100% (mean, 99.0%) stained cells.
Recipients with less than or equal to 20% donor granulocytes in the
blood at one month after transplantation were categorized as having
rejected the graft. Except where noted, recipients with greater than
20% donor granulocytes at 1 month after transplantation were retested
at 2 months after transplantation to assess the stability of donor
myeloid engraftment. Recipients with less than or equal to 20% donor
granulocytes in the blood at 2 months after transplantation were
categorized as having rejected the graft, whereas those with greater
than 20% donor granulocytes were categorized as durably engrafted. By
this definition, rejection occurred in approximately 10% of recipients
with greater than 20% donor granulocytes at 1 month after
transplantation.
For three-color flow cytometry, cells were stained with an
FITC-conjugated antibody specific for H2KkDk,
PE-conjugated antibody specific for CD3 (145-2C11; Pharmingen), and
biotin-conjugated antibody specific for Ly5.1. Binding of the
biotin-conjugated antibody was assessed by staining with
streptavidin-conjugated Tri-Color (Caltag Laboratories, San Francisco,
CA).
| |
RESULTS |
Prevention of rejection by CD8 blasts specific for recipient
alloantigens.
We have shown previously that donor CD8 cells isolated from lymph nodes
can prevent rejection of T-cell-depleted B6C3 marrow and cause GVHD in
irradiated (800 cGy) CB6 recipients.2 To determine whether
cultured T cells can have similar effects in vivo, CD8 cells were
recovered from 5-day mixed lymphocyte cultures in which B6C3 LN T cells
were stimulated with irradiated host-specific CB6 spleen cells and
tested for their ability to prevent allogeneic marrow graft rejection
and cause GVHD in CB6 recipients. Rejection of B6C3 marrow cells in CB6
recipients was prevented by CB6-specific CD8 blasts, and these cells
did not require exogenous IL-2 for optimal activity (Table
1). At least 2.5 × 105
CB6-specific CD8 blasts were needed to prevent rejection, suggesting that the cultured cells were substantially less effective than freshly
isolated LN cells which could prevent rejection with as few as 5.0 × 104 CD8 cells.2 Recipients transplanted with
grafts containing 1.0 to 1.25 × 106 freshly isolated LN
CD8 cells developed readily apparent GVHD manifested by weight loss
that began during the fourth week after transplantation as compared
with recipients transplanted with T-cell-depleted marrow alone (Fig
1). Recipients transplanted with grafts
containing 1.0 to 1.25 × 106 cultured CD8 blasts did not
develop overt GVHD manifested by weight loss when IL-2 was not
administered after the transplant (Fig 1). Cultured CD8 blasts did
cause weight loss in some experiments but not in others when IL-2 was
administered after the transplant (data not shown).
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 1.
Body weight profiles for CB6 recipients transplanted with
B6C3 marrow cells alone, with 1.0 to 1.25 × 106 LN T
cells added, or with 1.0 to 1.25 × 106 cultured CD8
blasts added. The figure summarizes results for recipients not treated
with IL-2 in the experiments from Table 1. Bars indicated 1 SEM. At 28, 35, and 42 days after transplantation, body weight was significantly
lower in the group transplanted with grafts containing LN T cells than
in the other two groups (P < .02 for all comparisons).
|
|
Testing of CD8 CTL clones.
To evaluate whether the ability to prevent marrow graft rejection could
be dissociated from the ability to cause GVHD, we generated a panel of
four different B6C3 CD8 CTL clones specific for H2d
alloantigens. Three of these clones caused no overt acute toxicity when
as many as 20 × 106 cells were infused
intravenously into irradiated CB6 recipients, even when exogenous IL-2
was administered to sustain viability and in vivo survival of the cells
(data not shown). One clone caused acute lethal toxicity within 1 to 3 days after transferring 10 × 106 cells into recipients
that expressed the alloantigen recognized by the clone. One clone
(designated 14C3) that did not cause acute toxicity was able to prevent
rejection of B6C3 marrow in CB6 recipients (Table
2). The 14C3 cells prevented rejection only
when IL-2 was administered after transplantation (Table 3, Exp
1), although there was some variation in
the minimum amount of IL-2 needed for this effect (Table 3, Exp 1 and
2). At least 20 × 106 14C3 cells were needed to prevent
rejection in this model (Table 3, Exp 3). Smaller numbers of 14C3 cells
could not prevent rejection even when large doses of IL-2 were
administered over an extended period of 13 days after transplantation
in an attempt to sustain survival of the clone in vivo (Table 3, Exp
3).
Expansion and decline of 14C3 cell numbers after transplantation.
To evaluate the persistence of 14C3 cells after transplantation,
irradiated CB6 recipients were transplanted with grafts containing 5.0 × 106 T-cell-depleted (B6.Ly5a × C3H)F1
marrow cells and 20 × 106 14C3 cells. Recipients were
treated with IL-2 (30,000 U IP) on the day of transplant and for 6 consecutive days thereafter. In two recipients tested on day 7 after
transplantation, 62% and 51% of LN cells were CD3-positive,
H2k-positive, and Ly5.1-negative, indicating that they
originated from the 14C3 clone and not from the Ly5.1-positive marrow
graft or from the H2k-negative recipient. On day 7, the
spleens in these two recipients respectively contained 3.4 × 106 and 2.6 × 106 14C3 cells. In two
recipients tested on day 14 after transplantation, LN suspensions
contained 10% and 4% 14C3 cells, and the spleens respectively
contained 0.3 × 106 and 0.2 × 106 14C3
cells. Thus, 14C3 cells were able to traffic through lymphoid organs
and persist for at least 2 weeks after transplantation, but the number
of 14C3 cells decreased after treatment with IL-2 was discontinued on
day 7 after transplantation. Longer periods of IL-2 administration did
not prevent the decline in numbers of 14C3 cells in lymph nodes and the
spleen after day 7 (data not shown), suggesting that in vivo survival
of 14C3 cells was limited by factors other than the availability of
IL-2.
Functional characteristics of CTL clones.
The 14C3 clone and the other two clones that did not cause acute lethal
toxicity had similar characteristics, despite the differences in
ability to prevent marrow graft rejection. All three clones expressed
CD3 and TCR- but not TCR-, and all expressed CD8 but not
CD4 (data not shown). None of these three CTL clones showed detectable
CD62L expression at any time during the culture cycle. Clones 3F3 and
7C11 expressed CD44, but clone 14C3 showed little if any CD44
expression (data not shown). All three clones showed specific cytotoxic
activity against H2d-positive BALB/c targets, and all three
produced substantial amounts of IFN- and TNF- after stimulation
with immobilized CD3-specific antibody (Table
4), but no IL-2, IL-4, IL-1, or IL-6
could be detected (data not shown).
Prevention of rejection by 14C3 cells requires recognition of a
recipient alloantigen.
Three donor/recipient strain combinations were tested to determine the
recognition requirements for prevention of marrow graft rejection by
14C3 cells. With B6C3 donors and CB6 recipients, 14C3 cells recognize
an alloantigen expressed by recipient T cells (H2Kd).
Rejection of B6C3 marrow in 800 cGy irradiated CB6 recipients was
prevented by adding 2.5 × 105 B6C3 LN T cells to the
graft and also by adding 20 × 106 B6C3-derived 14C3 cells
to the graft (Table 5), confirming results shown in Tables 2 and 3. With B6SJL donors and CB6 recipients, 14C3
cells recognize an alloantigen expressed by recipient T cells (H2Kd), but they do not express H2s
alloantigens that provoke rejection of the B6SJL marrow graft and
therefore cannot prevent rejection by interfering with the generation
of cytotoxic responses against H2s alloantigens or by other
passive mechanisms. Rejection of B6SJL marrow in 800 cGy irradiated CB6
recipients was prevented by adding 1.0 × 106
B6SJL LN T cells to the graft and also by adding 20 × 106
B6C3-derived 14C3 cells to the graft (Table 5). With
B6.Ly5a donors and bm1 recipients, 14C3 cells do not
recognize any alloantigens expressed by recipient T cells, but they do
express the H2Kb alloantigens that provoke
T-cell-mediated22 rejection of the B6.Ly5a
marrow graft. Rejection of B6.Ly5a marrow in 550 cGy
irradiated bm1 recipients was prevented by adding 2.5 × 105 B6.Ly5a LN T cells to the graft but not by
adding 20 × 106 14C3 cells to the graft (Table 5).
Results with B6.Ly5a donors and bm1 recipients were similar
when 14C3 cells were activated either by stimulation with immobilized
CD3-specific antibody for 1 day before transplantation or by adding 5.0 × 106 unirradiated T-cell-depleted CB6 marrow cells to
the graft. Taken together, these results show that 14C3 must recognize
an alloantigen on recipient cells to prevent marrow graft rejection.
Evaluation of toxicity caused by infusion of 14C3 cells in allogeneic
recipients.
The ability of 14C3 cells to cause GVHD through recognition of
H2Kd in irradiated CB6 recipients was evaluated by
monitoring weight and by histological examination after transplantation
of T-cell-depleted B6C3 marrow. During the first week after
transplantation, recipients treated with 14C3 cells had slightly more
weight loss than negative controls transplanted with grafts containing
no added T cells (P < .001) (Fig
2). After the first week, 14C3 recipients
recovered completely and showed a weight gain profile identical to that of negative controls, whereas positive controls transplanted with grafts containing 2.5 × 105 LN T cells developed GVHD
manifested by weight loss that began during the third week after
transplantation as compared with recipients transplanted with
T-cell-depleted marrow alone (P < .005 at day 21, and
P < .001 at day 28). The transient weight loss caused by
14C3 cells was not accompanied by histological changes diagnostic of
GVHD in the skin, liver, gut, or lung of recipients evaluated on day 7 after transplantation (data not shown). Increased weight loss during
the first week after transplantation also occurred when 14C3 cells were
administered with T-cell-depleted B6SJL marrow in CB6 recipients but
not when 14C3 cells were administered with B6.Ly5a marrow
in bm1 recipients (data not shown). Thus, weight loss did not occur in
recipients lacking the H2Kd alloantigen recognized by 14C3
cells.
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 2.
Body weight profiles for CB6 recipients transplanted with
B6C3 marrow cells alone, with 2.5 × 105 LN T cells added,
or with 20 × 106 14C3 cells added. The figure summarizes
results in experiments from Table 5. All recipients were treated with
IL-2 (2,000 U IP) on the day of transplant and for 6 consecutive days
thereafter. Bars indicate 1 SEM.
|
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
Results in the present study have shown two notable findings. First,
bulk-cultured, alloantigen-stimulated CD8 cells and certain cloned CD8
cytotoxic effector cells caused little or no overt acute toxicity after
adoptive transfer into irradiated recipients expressing antigen(s)
recognized by the CTL. Second, one of the clones we generated was able
to prevent allogeneic marrow graft rejection without causing GVHD.
These results suggest that GVHD and prevention of rejection could be
separable functional effects mediated by distinct populations of donor
T cells that recognize recipient alloantigens.
The ability of 14C3 cells to prevent marrow graft rejection was
exceptional among the clones we tested. We have not identified characteristics of 14C3 cells that distinguish this clone from others
that did not prevent rejection. It is possible that rejection would
have been prevented if we had given larger numbers of cells from clones
that did not cause toxicity. All of the CD8 clones we tested recognized
an alloantigen in the recipient, had cytotoxic function, and produced
type 1 cytokines. The clones that did not cause toxicity had closely
similar cell surface phenotypes and functional responses as determined
by in vitro testing. The functional heterogeneity we observed could
reflect differences in TCR avidity.23 However, in
preliminary experiments 14C3 cells and 7C11 showed similar
susceptibility to inhibition of cytotoxic activity by CD8-specific
antibody (unpublished observations, June 1995). By this
criterion,24 differences in TCR avidity for these two
clones were not apparent. The requirement for exogenous IL-2
administration for prevention of rejection with 14C3 cells but not with
alloactivated CD8 blasts is consistent with the inability of 14C3 cells
to produce IL-2 after activation.
Although donor T cells can prevent rejection even when they do not
recognize an alloantigen expressed by recipient T
cells,3,25,26 adoptive transfer of 14C3 cells did not
prevent rejection in recipients lacking the H2Kd
alloantigen recognized by the clone. Because previous studies have
shown that CTL clones inhibit or "veto" the generation of cytotoxic responses against their own antigens,27-29 and
because 14C3 cells express H2Kb antigens, we had expected
that they would be able to prevent rejection of B6.Ly5a
marrow by bm1 recipients. In this model, rejection occurs entirely through recognition of H2Kb antigens, presumably resulting
in the generation of cytotoxic effectors that destroy the graft. In
further studies we have found that 14C3 cells do not mediate veto
effects that inhibit the generation of cytotoxic responses against
their own antigens (unpublished observations, January
1997). We have not identified an explanation for the
inability of 14C3 cells to mediate veto activity. This unusual
characteristic of 14C3 cells made it impossible for us to determine
whether a CTL clone with veto activity could prevent marrow graft
rejection in recipients not expressing the antigen recognized by the
clone.
The cellular receptors involved in preventing marrow graft rejection
through recognition of alloantigens expressed by recipient T cells have
not been fully defined. Our current results with 14C3 cells strongly
implicate TCR- receptors as an allorecognition mechanism by which
donor T cells can prevent rejection. The 14C3 CTL clone expresses
TCR- but not TCR- or NK1.1 and was able to prevent
rejection only in recipients that express the H2Kd
alloantigen recognized by the clone. These results are consistent with
findings reported by Drobyski and Majewski,30 who found that T cells from TCR--deficient donors had a greatly reduced ability to prevent marrow graft rejection as compared with T cells from
TCR--deficient donors.
By comparison with freshly isolated T cells, cultured CD8 blasts and
cloned CD8 CTL had a greatly reduced ability to prevent marrow graft
rejection. If the precursor frequency for MHC class I alloantigens is
estimated at 1/100 to 1/1,000,31,32 our previous observation that rejection can be prevented by as few as 5 × 104 lymph node T cells implies that 50 to 500 cells
specific for recipient alloantigens could be responsible for this
effect.2 In the same model, at least 25 × 104
cultured CD8 blasts were necessary to prevent rejection. If the host-specific CTL precursor frequency in this population is estimated at 1/10 to 1/100, then these results imply that freshly isolated LN CD8
cells have 10- to 100-fold more activity for preventing rejection than
short-term cultured CD8 blasts. With the 14C3 CTL clone, 20 × 106 cells were needed to prevent rejection, implying that
freshly isolated CD8 cells have on the order of 200,000-fold more
activity for preventing rejection than 14C3 cells.
Previous studies have shown that murine T-cell clones often have
limited survival and abnormal migration patterns, which could explain
their inefficient function after adoptive transfer in vivo.33-37 Poor survival could result from insufficient
production of critical autocrine cytokines such as IL-2, and limited
ability to migrate into lymph nodes could reflect the absence of
L-selectin (CD62L) expression by cultured murine T-cell
clones.33 The ability of donor T cells to recognize host
effectors responsible for causing rejection could be impaired if the
alloantigen recognized on host effectors is also expressed by many
other tissues. The killing of target cells by CTL can be decreased by
competitive inhibition, and high-affinity interactions with alloantigen
might downregulate TCR and CD8 expression,38 induce anergy,
or cause apoptosis,39 thereby disabling the clone.
Activation-induced cell death after unremitting antigen stimulation has
been described in other CD8 adoptive transfer systems,39,40
and could explain why 14C3 cells could not be sustained beyond 2 weeks
in vivo, despite the exogenous administration of IL-2.
Acute lethal toxicity in adoptive transfer experiments has been
described for cultured CD4 clones,41,42 but not for CD8 clones. In recipients with acute lethal toxicity caused by our CD8
clones, histopathologic examination showed evidence of pulmonary vascular leak as the predominant abnormality (unpublished observations, October 1994), similar to the results described earlier
for CD4 clones. The induction of pulmonary vascular leak by CD4 clones required recognition of an activating alloantigen in the recipient but
did not require CTL activity or secondary host-derived inflammatory mechanisms.42 Correlations between acute toxicity after
adoptive transfer and the ability to produce large quantities of
TNF- suggested that inflammatory mediators released by activated CD4 cells can directly influence vascular permeability.41 We
have not performed extensive experiments to assess potential mechanisms that might explain differences among CD8 clones in their ability to
cause acute toxicity after adoptive transfer in recipients that express
the alloantigen recognized by the clone.
Several explanations might account for the limited ability of 14C3
cells and other CD8 clones to cause toxicity after adoptive transfer
into recipients that express the antigen recognized by the clone.
First, the limited survival of 14C3 cells after adoptive transfer might
constrain their ability to cause chronic toxicity. Second, although the
clones do produce certain inflammatory cytokines such as TNF- and
IFN-, they might not produce other cytokines necessary for causing
acute lethal toxicity. Further studies to delineate the cytokines
uniquely produced by clones that caused toxicity are in progress. The
transient weight loss observed during the first week after transfer of
20 × 106 14C3 cells into CB6 recipients suggests that
this clone might have caused more apparent toxicity if larger numbers
of cells had been administered.
In clinical marrow transplantation, GVHD occurs more frequently than
rejection. This observation and the reciprocal decrease in risk of GVHD
and increase in risk of rejection associated with T-cell depletion of
the donor marrow could suggest a simple quantitative relationship
between the two effects. Thus, the prevention of rejection by donor T
cells could be interpreted as a clinically limited form of GVHD.
However, our previous studies have shown that murine CD4 cells that
cause severe GVHD have a limited ability to prevent rejection,
presumably because the recipient effectors that cause rejection do not
express class II alloantigens recognized by donor CD4
cells.2 Thus, the recognition requirements for preventing
rejection are more stringent than those for causing GVHD in that
rejection is prevented primarily through recognition of antigens on
recipient immune effectors, whereas GVHD is caused through recognition
of antigens potentially having more diverse distributions of tissue
expression. Our current results showing marked differences among CD8
clones that recognize recipient alloantigens in their ability to
prevent rejection or cause toxicity suggest that the primary donor
T-cell effector mechanisms responsible for preventing rejection might
be distinct from those that cause tissue damage in GVHD. Such
qualitative differences in recognition and function suggest the
possibility that selected T-cell populations could be used clinically
to prevent marrow graft rejection without causing GVHD in humans.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
Submitted October 20, 1997;
accepted January 20, 1998.
Supported by US Public Health Service Grants No. AI-27951 and HL-55257.
Y.K.'s work was performed during a sabbatical leave supported by the
Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan.
Address reprint requests to Paul J. Martin, MD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, D2-100, PO Box 19024, Seattle, WA
98109-1024.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" is accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
The experiments described in this study were performed with assistance
from Kelli McIntyre, and the manuscript was prepared with assistance
from Alison Sell. The authors thank Dr Michael A. Bean for helpful
discussions and Dr Martin A. Cheever and Dr Ilonna Rimm for critical
reading of the manuscript.
| |
REFERENCES |
1.
Kernan NA:
T-cell depletion for GVHD prevention in humans
, in Ferrara JLM,
Deeg HJ,
Burakoff SJ
(eds):
Graft-vs.-Host Disease
New York, NY, Marcel Dekker, Inc
, 1997
, p 615
2.
Martin PJ:
Donor CD8 cells prevent allogeneic marrow graft rejection in mice: Potential implications for marrow transplantation in humans.
J Exp Med
178:703,
1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3.
Martin PJ:
Prevention of allogeneic marrow graft rejection by donor T cells that do not recognize recipient alloantigens: Potential role of a veto mechanism.
Blood
88:962,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4.
Seemayer TA:
The role of endotoxin in the pathogenesis of acute graft-versus-host disease
, in Ferrara JLM,
Deeg HJ,
Burakoff SJ
(eds):
Graft-vs.-Host Disease
New York, NY, Marcel Dekker, Inc
, 1997
, p 501
5.
Hoffman RA,
Langrehr JM,
Wren SM,
Dull KE,
Ildstad ST,
McCarthy SA,
Simmons RL:
Characterization of the immunosuppressive effects of nitric oxide during graft-versus-host disease.
J Immunol
151:1508,
1993[Abstract]
6.
Falzarano G,
Krenger W,
Snyder KM,
Delmonte J Jr,
Karandikar M,
Ferrara JLM:
Suppression of B-cell proliferation to lipopolysaccharide is mediated through induction of the nitric oxide pathway by tumor necrosis factor- in mice with acute graft-versus-host disease.
Blood
87:2853,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7.
Krenger W,
Falzarano G,
Delmonte J Jr,
Snyder KM,
Byon JCH,
Ferrara JLM:
Interferon- suppresses T cell proliferation to mitogen via the nitric oxide pathway during experimental acute graft-versus-host disease.
Blood
88:1113,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8.
Braun MY,
Lowin B,
French L,
Acha-Orbea H,
Tschopp J:
Cytotoxic T cells deficient in both functional Fas ligand and perforin show residual cytolytic activity yet lose their capacity to induce lethal acute graft-versus-host disease.
J Exp Med
183:657,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9.
Baker MB,
Altman NH,
Podack ER,
Levy RB:
The role of cell-mediated cytotoxicity in acute GVHD after MHC-matched allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in mice.
J Exp Med
183:2645,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10.
Baker MB,
Riley RL,
Podack ER,
Levy RB:
GVHD-associated lymphoid hypoplasia and B cell dysfunction is dependent upon donor T cell-mediated Fas-ligand function, but not perforin function.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
94:1366,
1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11.
Schwarzinger I,
Raff RF,
Flowers MED,
Niederwieser D,
Graham T,
Shulman H,
Appelbaum FR,
Schuening F,
Storb R:
Recipient-specific donor cytotoxic T lymphocytes enhance engraftment of unrelated, DLA non-identical canine marrow.
Bone Marrow Transplant
13:303,
1994[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
12.
Leo O,
Foo M,
Sachs DH,
Samelson LE,
Bluestone JA:
Identification of a monoclonal antibody specific for a murine T3 polypeptide.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
84:1374,
1987[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13.
Kubo RT,
Born W,
Kappler JW,
Marrack P,
Pigeon M:
Characterization of a monoclonal antibody which detects all murine T cell receptors.
J Immunol
142:2736,
1989[Abstract]
14.
Goodman T,
LeFrancois L:
Intraepithelial lymphocytes: Anatomical site, not T cell receptor form, dictates phenotype and function.
J Exp Med
170:1569,
1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15.
Wilde DB,
Marrack P,
Kapler J,
Dialynas DP,
Fitch FW:
Evidence implicating L3T4 in class II MHC antigen reactivity: Monoclonal antibody GK1.5 (anti-L3T4a) blocks class II MHC antigen-specific proliferation, release of lymphokines, and binding by cloned murine helper T lymphocyte lines.
J Immunol
131:2178,
1983[Abstract]
16.
Sarmiento M,
Glasebrook AL,
Fitch FW:
IgG or IgM monoclonal antibodies reactive with different determinants on the molecular complex bearing LYT2 antigen block T cell-mediated cytolysis in the absence of complement.
J Immunol
125:2665,
1980[Abstract]
17.
Lesley J,
Trowbridge IS:
Genetic characterization of a polymorphic murine cell-surface glycoprotein.
Immunogenetics
15:313,
1982[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
18.
Gallatin WM,
Weissman IL,
Butcher EC:
A cell-surface molecule involved in organ-specific homing of lymphocytes.
Nature
304:30,
1983[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Ledbetter JA,
Herzenberg LA:
Xenogeneic monoclonal antibodies to mouse lymphoid differentiation antigens.
Immunol Rev
47:63,
1979[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
20.
Ozato K,
Mayer N,
Sachs DH:
Hybridoma cell lines secreting monoclonal antibodies to mouse H2 and Ia antigens.
J Immunol
124:533,
1980[Abstract]
21.
Shen FW:
Monoclonal antibodies to mouse lymphocyte differentiation antigens
, in Hammerling GJ,
Hammerling U,
Kearney JF
(eds):
Monoclonal Antibodies and T Cell Hybridomas: Perspectives and Technical Advances.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier/North Holland and Biomedical Press
, 1981
, p 25
22.
Vallera DA,
Taylor PA,
Sprent J,
Blazar BR:
The role of host T cell subsets in bone marrow rejection directed to isolated major histocompatibility complex class I versus class II differences of bm1 and bm12 mutant mice.
Transplantation
57:249,
1994[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
23.
Alexander-Miller MA,
Leggatt GR,
Berzofsky JA:
Selective expansion of high- or low-avidity cytotoxic T lymphocytes and efficacy for adoptive immunotherapy.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
93:4102,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24.
Cai Z,
Sprent J:
Resting and activated T cells display different requirements for CD8 molecules.
J Exp Med
179:2005,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25.
Lapidot T,
Lubin I,
Terenzi A,
Faktorowich Y,
Erlich P,
Reisner Y:
Enhancement of bone marrow allografts from nude mice into mismatched recipients by T cells void of graft-versus-host activity.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
87:4595,
1990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26.
Faktorowich Y,
Lapidot T,
Lubin I,
Reisner Y:
Enhancement of BM allografting from C57BL/6 `nude' mice into C3H/HeJ recipients by tolerized T cells from (C57BL/6  C3H/HeJ) and (C3H/HeJ C57BL/6) chimeras.
Bone Marrow Transplant
12:15,
1993[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Fink PJ,
Rammensee HG,
Bevan MJ:
Cloned cytolytic T cells can suppress primary cytotoxic responses directed against them.
J Immunol
133:1775,
1984[Abstract]
28.
Fink PJ,
Rammensee HG,
Benedetto JD,
Staerz UD,
Lefrancois L,
Bevan MJ:
Studies on the mechanism of suppression of primary cytotoxic responses by cloned cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
J Immunol
133:1769,
1984[Abstract]
29.
Claesson MH,
Miller RG:
Functional heterogeneity in allospecific cytoxic T lymphocyte clones I. CTL clones express strong anti-self suppressive activity.
J Exp Med
160:1702,
1984[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30.
Drobyski WR,
Majewski D:
Donor T lymphocytes promote allogeneic engraftment across the major histocompatibility barrier in mice.
Blood
89:1100,
1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31.
Fisher-Lindahl L,
Wilson DB:
Histocompatibility antigen-activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes. II. Estimates of the frequency and specificity of precursors.
J Exp Med
145:508,
1977[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32.
Widmer MB,
Macdonald HR:
Cytolytic T lymphocyte precursors reactive against mutant Kb alloantigens are as frequent as those reactive against a whole foreign haplotype.
J Immunol
124:48,
1980[Abstract]
33.
Dailey MO,
Fathman CG,
Butcher EC,
Pillemer E,
Weissman IL:
The in vivo behavior of T cell clones: Altered migration due to loss of the lymphocyte surface homing receptor.
J Mol Cell Immunol
2:27,
1985[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
34.
Dailey MO,
Fathman CG,
Butcher C,
Pillemer E,
Weissman IL:
Abnormal migration of T lymphocyte clones.
J Immunol
128:2134,
1982[Abstract]
35.
Carroll AM,
Palladino MA,
Oettgen H,
DeSousa M:
In vivo localization of cloned IL-2-dependent T cells.
Cell Immunol
76:69,
1983[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
36.
LeFever AV,
Truitt RL,
Shih CC-Y,
Liepins A,
Bortin MM:
Migration patterns and functional activity of cloned cytotoxic T lymphocytes in syngeneic and allogeneic mice.
Transplantation
37:410,
1984[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
37.
Rodrigues M,
Nussenzweig RS,
Romero P,
Zavala F:
The in vivo cytotoxic activity of CD8+ T cell clones correlates with their levels of expression of adhesion molecules.
J Exp Med
175:895,
1992[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38.
Rocha B,
von Boehmer H:
Peripheral selection of the T cell repertoire.
Science
251:1225,
1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39.
Rocha B,
Grandien A,
Freitas AA:
Anergy and exhaustion are independent mechanisms of peripheral T cell tolerance.
J Exp Med
181:993,
1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40.
Zhang L,
Miller RG,
Zhang J:
Characterization of apoptosis-resistant antigen-specific T cells in vivo.
J Exp Med
183:2065,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41.
Miconnet I,
Huchet R,
Bonardelle D,
Motta R,
Canon C,
Garay-Rojas E,
Kress M,
Reynes M,
Halle-Pannenko O,
Bruley-Rosset M:
Graft-versus-host mortality induced by noncytolytic CD4+ T cell clones specific for non-H2 antigens.
J Immunol
145:2123,
1990[Abstract]
42.
Lehmann PV,
Schumm G,
Moon D,
Hurtenbach U,
Falcioni F,
Muller S,
Nagy ZA:
Acute lethal graft-versus-host reaction induced by major histocompatibility complex class II-reactive T helper cell clones.
J Exp Med
171:1485,
1990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. G. Clark, J. B. Mandac-Dy, A. E. Dixon, D. K. Madtes, K. M. Burkhart, J. M. Harlan, and D. C. Bullard
Trafficking of Th1 Cells to Lung: A Role for Selectins and a P-Selectin Glycoprotein-1-Independent Ligand
Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.,
February 1, 2004;
30(2):
220 - 227.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E. Georges, R. Storb, B. Bruno, S. J. Brodie, J. D. Thompson, A. G. Taranova, J. M. Zaucha, M.-T. Little, E. Zellmer, P. F. Moore, et al.
Engraftment of DLA-haploidentical marrow with ex vivo expanded, retrovirally transduced cytotoxic T lymphocytes
Blood,
December 1, 2001;
98(12):
3447 - 3455.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Auphan-Anezin and A.-M. Schmitt-Verhulst
Differential Survival of Transferred CD8 T Cells and Host Reconstitution Depending on TCR Avidity for Host-Expressed Alloantigen
J. Immunol.,
June 15, 2001;
166(12):
7200 - 7207.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X.-Z. Yu, S. Bidwell, P. J. Martin, and C. Anasetti
Visualization, Fate, and Pathogenicity of Antigen-Specific CD8+ T Cells in the Graft-Versus-Host Reaction
J. Immunol.,
November 1, 1999;
163(9):
4780 - 4787.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
Introduction
Abstract