SEARCH:   Advanced

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Rights and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martín, P. Articles by Ardavín, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martín, P. Articles by Ardavín, C. Related Collections Immunobiology Social Bookmarking                   What's this?  Previous Article  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Article  Blood, 1 October 2000, Vol. 96, No. 7, pp. 2511-2519 IMMUNOBIOLOGY Concept of lymphoid versus myeloid dendritic cell lineages revisited: both CD8 and CD8+ dendritic cells are generated from CD4low lymphoid-committed precursors Pilar Martín, Gloria Martínez del Hoyo, Fabienne Anjuère, Sara Ruiz Ruiz, Cristina Fernández Arias, Alvaro Rodríguez Marín, and Carlos Ardavín From the Department of Cell Biology, Faculty of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.     Abstract Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Two dendritic cell (DC) subsets have been identified in the murine system on the basis of their differential CD8 expression. CD8+ DCs and CD8 DCs are considered as lymphoid- and myeloid-derived, respectively, because CD8+ but not CD8 splenic DCs were generated from lymphoid CD4low precursors, devoid of myeloid reconstitution potential. Although CD8 DCs were first described as negative for CD4, our results demonstrate that approximately 70% of them are CD4+. Besides CD4 CD8 and CD4+ CD8 DCs displayed a similar phenotype and T-cell stimulatory potential in mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR), although among CD8 DCs, the CD4+ subset appears to have a higher endocytic capacity. Finally, experiments of DC reconstitution after irradiation in which, in contrast to previous studies, donor-type DCs were analyzed without depleting CD4+ cells, revealed that both CD8+ DCs and CD8 DCs were generated after transfer of CD4low precursors. These data suggest that both CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from a common precursor and, hence, do not support the concept of the CD8+ lymphoid-derived and CD8 myeloid-derived DC lineages. However, because this hypothesis has to be confirmed at the clonal level, it remains possible that CD8 DCs arise from a myeloid precursor within the CD4low precursor population or, alternatively, that both CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from an independent nonlymphoid, nonmyeloid DC precursor. In conclusion, although we favor the hypothesis that both CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from a lymphoid-committed precursor, a precise study of the differentiation process of CD8+ and CD8 DCs is required to define conclusively their origin. (Blood. 2000;96:2511-2519) © 2000 by The American Society of Hematology.     Introduction Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Two main dendritic cell (DC) subsets have been described in the mouse, which can be distinguished on the basis of their differential CD8 expression,1,2 The finding that murine thymic DCs expressing CD8 derived from CD4low lymphoid precursors, devoid of myeloid differentiation potential,3 lead to the definition of the lymphoid DC lineage. Over the past few years, numerous reports dealing with the phenotype, localization, and function of murine CD8+ DCs and CD8 DCs have been published, contributing enormously to our understanding of DC biology.4-15 However, certain issues dealing with CD8+ versus CD8 DCs, such as their differential T-cell stimulatory capacity, production of cytokines, responsiveness to chemokines, induction of TH1 versus TH2 responses, and, in particular, the definition of their respective precursor populations, are still controversial or remain unknown. These studies were based on a variety of experimental approaches performed both in vivo and in vitro and were undertaken by using different DC purification techniques. Consequently, some published controversial results regarding the phenotype and/or the function of the different DC subsets might reflect differences in the DC isolation method used. The protocols of DC isolation used by different research groups differ mainly in the enzymatic digestion performed, in the way of obtaining a DC-enriched low-density fraction, and, more importantly, in the antibodies used to eliminate contaminating cells by magnetic or flow cytometry separation procedures. This negative selection of contaminating cells is of special relevance because certain DC populations can be completely or partially lost, depending on the antibodies used. Therefore, the design of an appropriate negative selection protocol requires an exhaustive phenotypic study of the DC subset to be purified. In this sense, the majority of the reports dealing with the function of CD8+ versus CD8 DC subsets4-7,9 and, more importantly, the article establishing that CD8+ DCs but not CD8 DCs derived from lymphoid committed precursors,16 which has been the basis of the concept of murine lymphoid versus myeloid DCs, rely on a DC isolation method using anti-CD4 and anti-F4/80 antibodies to deplete CD4+ T cells and F4/80+ macrophages. In the present report, we have performed a precise phenotypic analysis of murine splenic CD8+ and CD8 DCs with regard to the expression of certain conflictive markers, and we have re-addressed the question of the derivation of both DC subsets from CD4low precursors. Our results revealed that CD8 DCs, but not CD8+ DCs, expressed CD4 and F4/80 and, therefore, that the use of antibodies against those molecules during CD8 DC isolation might lead to the loss of a significant proportion of them. More importantly, CD8 DCs together with CD8+ DCs were generated from lymphoid-committed CD4low precursors in irradiation chimeras in which the development of donor-type DCs was analyzed on DC-enriched splenic low-density fractions, without depleting cells expressing CD4 and/or F4/80. In irradiation chimeras donor-type CD8+ and CD8 DCs displayed an equivalent phenotype to that of their control counterparts and were generated from CD4low precursors at a similar CD8+-to-CD8 ratio to that found in control mice. These results suggest that both CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from a common precursor and do not support the concept in the murine system of the CD8+ lymphoid-derived and CD8 myeloid-derived DC lineages.     Materials and methods Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Mice For phenotypic and functional experiments 5- to 6-week-old C57 BL/6 and BALB/c mice were used. In reconstitution experiments, donors were 5- to 6-week-old C57 BL/Ka Ly 5.2 mice and recipients were 8-week-old C57 BL/6 Ly 5.1 Pep3b mice. Preparation of DC-enriched very low density cell fractions Spleens were cut into small fragments and digested with collagenase A (0.5 mg/mL; Boehringer-Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany) and Dnase I (40 µg/mL; Boehringer-Mannheim) in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 5% fetal calf serum (FCS) for 10 minutes at 37°C with continuous agitation. Digested fragments were filtered through a stainless-steel sieve, and cell suspensions were washed twice in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) supplemented with 5% FCS and 5 mmol/L EDTA (PBS-EDTA-FCS) containing 5 µg/mL Dnase I. The cells were resuspended in cold isoosmotic Optiprep solution (Nyegaard Diagnostics, Oslo, Norway), pH7.2, density 1.061 g/cm3, containing 5 mmol/L EDTA to dissociate DC-thymocyte complexes, and a very low-density cell fraction (1.061-density fraction), accounting for less than 1% of the starting cell population, obtained by centrifugation at 1700g for 10 minutes, and washed twice in PBS-EDTA-FCS. Preparation of CD8 DC-enriched cell fractions CD8 DC-enriched cell fractions were obtained by treating DC-enriched 1.061-density fractions for 50 minutes at 4°C with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) mixture, including anti-CD3 (clone KT3-1.1), anti-CD8 (clone 53-6.72), anti-B220 (clone RA3-6B2), and anti-granulocyte antigen Gr1 (clone RB6-8C5). The unwanted cells were removed magnetically after incubation for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-rat immunoglobulin-coated magnetic beads (Dynabeads, Dynal, Oslo, Norway) at a 7:1 bead-to-cell ratio. Analysis of CD11c versus CD8 expression of CD8 DC-enriched cell fractions revealed that they were composed of more than 80% CD11c+ CD8 DCs and approximately 20% CD11c CD8 contaminants, CD11c+ CD8+ DCs, representing less than 1% (data not shown). In vivo depletion with anti-CD4 antibodies Depletion of CD4+ cells was achieved by intraperitoneal injection of the in vivo depleting anti-CD4 antibody GK1.5. For this purpose, mice received three injections of 300 µg of GK1.5 on 3 consecutive days and were analyzed 24 hours after the last injection. Modulation of cell surface marker expression by CD8 DCs on culture CD8 DC-enriched cell fractions prepared as described above were cultured for 24 hours or 48 hours at 37°C in the presence 100 µg/mL anti-CD40 mAb (clone FGK45) or anti-CD43 (clone S7). The culture medium was RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% FCS, 10 mmol/L Hepes, 50 µmol/L 2-mercaptoethanol, 100 U/mL penicillin-streptomycin, and 100 ng/mL granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). MLR assay Splenic CD4 CD8 DCs, CD4+ CD8 DCs, total CD8 DCs, or CD8+ DCs from C57BL/6 (H-2b) mice were cultured with purified T cells obtained from mesenteric lymph nodes of BALB/c (H-2d) mice in flat-bottom 96-well plates (1 × 105 cells per well) at different APC-to-T cell ratios. T-cell proliferation was assessed after 5 days by [3H] thymidine (1 µCi/well) uptake in a 4-hour pulse or by CD25 expression. For this assay, CD4 CD8 DCs, CD4+ CD8 DCs, and total CD8 DCs were sorted from CD8 DC-enriched cell fractions. CD8+ DCs were sorted from DC-enriched 1.061-density fractions. The sorted populations had a purity of more than 97%. Isolation of CD4low and CD44+ CD25+ precursor populations CD4low precursors were isolated from C57 BL/Ka Ly 5.2 donor thymuses by depleting pre-T cells, double-positive and single-positive thymocytes, B cells, DCs, macrophages, and granulocytes by complement-mediated cytotoxicity by using anti-CD3 (clone Y-CD3) and anti-CD8 (clone 31M) and then immunomagnetic bead depletion after incubation with anti-CD3 (clone KT3), anti-CD8 (clone 53.6.7-2), anti-CD25 (clone PC61.5), anti-B220 (clone RA3-6B2), anti-MHC class II (MHC II) (clone FD11), anti-macrophage antigen F4/80 (clone C1.A3.1), and anti-granulocyte antigen Gr-1 (clone RB6-8C5). CD4low precursors were then sorted as Thy-1low CD44+ cells after double immunofluorescent staining fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-conjugated anti-Thy-1 (clone AT15) and phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated anti-CD44 (clone IM7, Pharmingen, San Diego, CA). Flow cytometric cell sorting was carried out on a FACSort instrument (Becton Dickinson, Mountain View, CA). The sorted preparation had a purity of more than 98% and contained less than 1% CD11c+ cells as assessed after staining with biotinylated anti-CD11c (clone N418; data not shown) followed by streptavidin-tricolor (Caltag, San Francisco, CA). CD44+ CD25+ precursors were isolated by complement-mediated cytotoxicity by using anti-CD3 (clone Y-CD3), anti-CD4 (clone 172.4), and anti-CD8 (clone 31M) and then sorting after double immunofluorescent staining with PE-conjugated anti-CD44 and biotinylated anti-CD25 followed by streptavidin-tricolor. The sorted population had a purity of more than 97%. Reconstitution experiments with CD4low precursors or CD44+ CD25+ precursors Thymic CD4low precursors (3 × 104 ) or thymic CD44+ CD25+ precursors (3 × 104) from C57 BL/Ka Ly 5.2 donor mice were injected intravenously into -irradiated (7 Gy) C57 BL/6 Ly 5.1 Pep3b recipient mice, along with 3 × 104 Ly 5.1 bone marrow (BM) cells to ensure survival of recipients. Reconstitution experiments with BM cells BM cells (2 × 106) from C57 BL/Ka Ly 5.2 donor mice were injected intravenously into -irradiated (7 Gy) C57 BL/6 Ly 5.1 Pep3b mice. Flow cytometry DC-enriched very low density cell fractions (Figure 1) were analyzed after triple staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD11c (clone N418), PE-conjugated anti-CD8 (clone CT-CD8a, Caltag), and biotin-conjugated anti-DEC-205 (clone NLDC-145); anti-macrophage antigen F4/80 (clone 31-A3-1); or anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5) followed by streptavidin-tricolor (Caltag). The phenotypic analysis of CD4 CD8 DCs and CD4+ CD8 DC subsets (Figure 2) was performed after triple staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD11c, PE-conjugated anti-CD4 (clone CT-CD4, Caltag), and biotin-conjugated anti-DEC-205; anti-macrophage antigen F4/80; anti-Mac-1 (clone M1/70); anti-FcRII/III (clone 2-4G2); anti-LFA-1 (clone FD441.8); anti-CD69 (clone H.1.2F3); anti-B7-2 (clone GL1, Pharmingen); anti-CD40 (clone FGK45); or anti-MHC class II (clone FD11-54.3), followed by streptavidin-tricolor. Analysis of cell surface marker expression by CD8 DCs on culture (Figure 3) was performed after triple staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD11c, PE-conjugated anti-CD8, and biotin-conjugated anti-CD4; anti-macrophage antigen F4/80; or anti-DEC-205 followed by streptavidin-tricolor. Analysis of T-cell proliferation (Figure 4) was performed after triple staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD8, PE-conjugated anti-CD4, and biotin-conjugated anti-CD25 (clone PC61.5) followed by streptavidin-tricolor. Analysis of DC reconstitution (Figures 5 and 6) was performed on splenic DC-enriched 1.061-density fractions after triple staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD11c, PE-conjugated anti-Ly 5.2 (clone AL1-4A2, Pharmingen), and tricolor-conjugated anti-CD8 (clone CT-CD8a, Caltag). Because, after transfer of BM precursors, more than 95% of DCs were of donor origin, the phenotypic analysis of Ly 5.2+ CD8 DCs (Figure 6) was performed after triple staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD11c, PE-conjugated anti-CD8, and tricolor-conjugated anti-CD4 (clone CT-CD4, Caltag) or biotin-conjugated anti-macrophage antigen F4/80 followed by streptavidin-tricolor. Analysis was performed on a FACSort flow cytometer. View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. CD4 and F4/80 expression by splenic DCs. (A) Phenotype of CD8+ and CD8 DCs analyzed on splenic DC-enriched very low density fractions obtained without antibody-mediated depletion. Black histograms show the proportion of CD8 and CD8+ DCs after gating for CD11c+ cells and the proportion of CD4 and CD4+ DCs within the CD8 subset. White profiles represent control stainings. The percentage of cells positive for the indicated markers is shown under the gray histograms. (B) Splenic CD11c versus CD8 profiles of control mice and mice injected intravenously with in vivo depleting anti-CD4 antibodies, showing that most CD8 DCs were eliminated after anti-CD4 treatment. Data are representative of 3 experiments with similar results. View larger version (40K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Comparative phenotypic analysis of CD4 CD8 versus CD4+ CD8 DCs. The phenotype of CD4 CD8 versus CD4+ CD8 DCs was performed on CD8 DC-enriched fractions after gating for CD11c+ CD4 or CD11c+ CD4+ cells. The percentage of cells positive for the indicated markers is shown. In addition, the percentage of CD4 CD8 DCs expressing high levels of FcR or LFA-1 is also indicated. View larger version (40K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Modulation of CD4 expression by CD8 DCs on culture. CD8 DC-enriched fractions were cultured for 24 hours or 48 hours alone or in the presence of anti-CD40 or anti-CD43 antibodies. CD8 DCs were analyzed after gating for CD11c+ CD8 cells. The percentage of cells positive for the indicated markers as well as the mean fluorescence intensity for CD11c expression is shown. White profiles represent control stainings. Data are representative of 3 experiments with similar results. View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. T-cell stimulation capacity of CD8+ DCs versus CD8 DCs. T-cell stimulatory capacity of CD8+ versus CD8 DC (A) and CD4 CD8 versus CD4+ CD8 DC (B). DCs from C57BL/6 mice were cultured with purified allogeneic T cells from BALB/c mice at the indicated APC:T cell ratios. After 5 days, T-cell proliferation was determined by [3H] thymidine uptake or CD25 expression. Data are representative of 3 experiments with similar results. In the [3H] thymidine incorporation assay, error bars represent the SD for triplicate cultures. View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Reconstitution of splenic CD8+ and CD8 DCs from CD4low lymphoid precursors. Thymic CD4low precursors (3 × 104) from C57 BL/Ka Ly 5.2 donor mice were injected intravenously into -irradiated (7 Gy) C57 BL/6 Ly 5.1 Pep3b recipient mice, along with 4 × 104 Ly 5.1 BM cells to ensure survival of recipients. At the indicated times, mice were analyzed for donor-derived DCs, identified as Ly 5.2+ CD11c+ cells, in splenic DC-enriched 1.061-density fractions. The percentage of Ly5.2 and Ly5.2+ CD11c+ DCs (contour plots), as well as the percentage of CD8 and CD8+ DCs among Ly5.2+ DCs (black histograms) are indicated. Grey profiles show the expression of CD4 and F4/80 by CD8 DCs. White profiles represent control stainings. These results are representative of four independent experiments with similar results. View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. Reconstitution of splenic CD8+ and CD8 DCs from CD44+ CD25+ precursors. Thymic CD44+ CD25+ precursors (3 × 104) were injected intravenously into 7 Gy -irradiated 8-week-old C57 BL/6 Ly 5.1 Pep3b recipient mice, along with 4 × 104 Ly 5.1 BM cells to ensure survival of recipients. Ten days after transfer of precursors, mice were analyzed for donor-derived DCs. The percentage of Ly5.2+ CD11c+ DCs as well as the percentage of CD8 and CD8+ DCs among Ly5.2+ DCs are indicated. Data are representative of 2 independent experiments with similar results.     Results Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References Phenotypic profile of mouse splenic DC revisited: CD4 and F4/80 expression by CD8 splenic DCs The most comprehensive analyses of mouse DC phenotype reported so far1,2 have been performed on highly enriched DC preparations obtained after immunomagnetic depletion of contaminating cells with specific mAbs. Those contaminants comprise essentially T and B lymphocytes, macrophages, and granulocytes, and, therefore, mAbs used for depleting them included usually at least anti-CD3, anti-CD4, anti-B220, anti-FcR, anti-F4/80 (macrophage marker), and anti-Gr-1 (granulocyte marker). Obviously, the selection of these mAbs was originally made on the basis of the assumption that DCs did not express those cell surface molecules. However, DCs can be accurately analyzed on DC-enriched very low-density cell fractions, obtained without including the mAb-mediated magnetic bead depletion step, by using a centrifugation medium adjusted at 1.061 g/mL. As shown in Figure 1A, the phenotypic analysis of splenic DCs performed under those conditions revealed that CD8 DCs and CD8+ DCs represented approximately 70% and 30% of all splenic DCs, respectively. As shown in the Table, estimation of the absolute DC number revealed that the spleen of 5- to 6-week-old C57 BL/6 mice contained 180 000-190 000 CD8 DCs and 80 000-90 000 CD8+ DCs. Interestingly, CD8 DCs expressed the macrophage marker F4/80 and more interestingly 70%-75% of them were CD4+. Moreover, CD8+ DCs were essentially negative for F4/80 and CD4, although approximately 20% of them expressed low levels of these markers. Consequently, in the mouse spleen CD8+, DCs were CD4 F4/80 DEC-205+, whereas CD8 DCs were CD4+ F4/80+ DEC-205. However, within the lymph nodes, an additional DC subset expressing intermediate levels of CD8 exists, which has been related to Langerhans cells.2 These cells displayed the same phenotype as splenic CD8+ DCs regarding the markers considered above, that is, they were CD4 F4/80 DEC-205+ (data not shown). To check whether CD4 was functionally expressed at the surface of splenic CD8 DCs, BALB/c mice were injected intraperitoneally with the in vivo depleting anti-CD4 antibody GK1.5. As shown in Figure 1B, the spleen of mice treated in vivo with GK1.5 suffered a profound depletion of CD8 DCs, whereas the CD8+ DC subset was unaffected. CD8 DCs remaining after GK1.5 injection most likely corresponded to CD8 DCs negative for CD4 or expressing low levels of this molecule. This result indicates that the CD4 molecule was functionally expressed by splenic CD8 DCs. In conclusion, the phenotypic analysis of splenic DCs performed on DC-enriched very low-density cell fractions revealed that expression of CD8 and CD4 by splenic DC subsets is mutually exclusive, in that CD8+ DCs are CD4 and, inversely, CD8 DCs are CD4+. Comparative phenotypic analysis of CD4 CD8 DCs versus CD4+ CD8 DCs To investigate whether the CD4 and CD4+ cells CD8 DC corresponded to distinct DC populations or to different CD4 expression levels within the CD8 DC subset, we performed a comparative phenotypic study of CD4 CD8 DCs versus CD4+ CD8 DCs. For this purpose, a CD8 DC-enriched fraction was obtained from a splenic 1.061-density fraction after immunomagnetic bead depletion with anti-CD3, anti-CD8, anti-B220, and anti-Gr-1 mAbs. The analysis was performed on this CD8 DC-enriched fraction by gating on CD4 or CD4+ cells (as shown in Figure 1A) after triple immunofluorescence staining with FITC-conjugated anti-CD11c, PE-conjugated anti-CD4, and biotin-conjugated antibodies against the cell surface markers indicated in Figure 2. Our data show that CD4 CD8 and CD4+ CD8 DCs have a very similar phenotypic profile with regard to a variety of cell surface molecules, including DC and macrophage markers, adhesion, activation, and costimulatory molecules. There was, however, a slight but significant difference with regard to the expression of FcR (CD16-CD32) and LFA-1, because approximately 30% CD4 CD8 DCs but not CD4+ CD8 DCs expressed high levels of these markers. Modulation of CD4 expression by CD8 DCs on culture The data derived from the comparative phenotypic analysis of CD4 versus CD4+ CD8 DC subsets suggest that they belong to a unique DC category with differential expression of CD4. Therefore, it can be speculated that CD4 expression levels correlate with different activation and/or maturation states. To test this hypothesis, CD8 DC-enriched populations were cultured alone or in the presence of antibodies against the molecules CD40 or CD43, known to induce DC activation on ligation.17-19 As illustrated in Figure 3, CD4 expression was strongly down-regulated in CD8 DCs after 24 hours in culture and was almost undetectable after 48 hours. Moreover, addition of anti-CD40 or anti-CD43 antibodies did not prevent CD4 down-regulation, suggesting that CD4 expression by CD8 DCs was not related to the activation of these cells. Under the same experimental conditions, F4/80 expression was also down-regulated after 48 hours, although a significant proportion of CD8 DCs remained positive for this marker. However, CD11c underwent only a slight down-regulation on culture. As for CD4, anti-CD40 or anti-CD43 antibodies had no effect on F4/80 or CD11c expression on 48-hour culture. T-cell stimulation capacity of CD8+ versus CD8 DCs To test whether CD4 expression by CD8 DCs was correlated with their functional potential as antibody-presenting cells, we tested their capacity to induce T-cell stimulation in an MLR assay. For these experiments, CD4 and CD4+ subsets of CD8 DCs, as well as total CD8 DCs and CD8+ DCs, were FACS-sorted and cultured with purified allogeneic T cells. After 5 days, T-cell proliferation was determined by [3H] thymidine uptake or by CD25 expression. We first tested the differential T-cell stimulatory potential of CD8 versus CD8+ DCs. Our data revealed that CD8+ DCs induced a higher [3H] thymidine uptake and CD25 up-regulation in an allogeneic MLR than CD8 DCs (Figure 4A). Because, as shown above, there was a direct correlation between [3H] thymidine incorporation and expression of CD25, the latter was subsequently used to assess, in the same in vitro assay, the capacity of CD4 CD8 DCs versus CD4+ CD8 DCs to stimulate CD8+ or CD4+ T cells. As illustrated in Figure 4B, CD4 and CD4+ CD8 DCs displayed a similar T-cell stimulatory potential in MLR, although the CD4+ CD8 DC subset induced a slightly higher response of both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Interestingly, preliminary results indicate that the endocytic capacity of CD8 DCs appears to be restricted to the CD4+ subset (data not shown). Reconstitution of splenic CD8+ DCs and CD8 DCs from CD4low lymphoid precursors As discussed above, in the murine system the concept that CD8 DCs and CD8+ DCs represent the myeloid and lymphoid DC subsets, respectively, derives essentially from a report analyzing the DC reconstitution potential of CD4low precursors on intravenous injection.16 In that report, only CD8+ DCs were found among the progeny of CD4low precursor after 2 weeks. However, in this study DC reconstitution was analyzed after DC purification, using an immunomagnetic bead depletion protocol employing anti-CD4 and anti-F4/80 antibodies, and, therefore, CD8 DCs could have been excluded from the analysis. To test this hypothesis and thus to investigate whether CD8 DCs derive from the lymphoid lineage-committed CD4low precursor population, CD4low precursors isolated from Ly 5.2 mice were transferred intravenously into -irradiated Ly 5.1 recipient mice. These mice were subsequently analyzed for donor-derived DCs, identified as Ly 5.2+ CD11c+ cells, in DC-enriched 1.061-density fractions, obtained without including the mAb-mediated magnetic bead depletion step, as described above (Figure 1A). Our data, shown in Figure 5, demonstrate that 7 days after the transfer approximately 70% of DCs were donor derived and, interestingly, that among those cells both CD8+ and CD8 DCs were found. At this time point, Ly 5.2+ CD8+ and Ly 5.2+ CD8 DCs represented 55% and 45% of all Ly 5.2+ DCs, respectively. Importantly, donor-derived CD8 DCs derived from CD4low precursors displayed the phenotypic profile characteristic of CD8 DCs found in control spleen (Figure 1), that is, they expressed high levels of CD4 and F4/80. After 14 days, only 30% Ly 5.2+ DCs were found, indicating that the DC reconstitution potential of the CD4low precursor population was partially extinguished and replaced by that of Ly 5.1+ BM precursors. Both Ly 5.2+ CD8+ and Ly 5.2+ CD8 DCs were also found after 14 days, each subset constituting approximately 50% of all Ly 5.2+ DCs. Therefore, as postulated above, in the report by Wu et al,16 CD8 DCs of donor origin could have been missed in the analysis because of their CD4 and/or F4/80 expression that could have determined their depletion, because antibodies against these molecules were used for immunomagnetic depletion in this study. In conclusion, these data indicate that both CD8 and CD8+ DCs are generated from CD4low lymphoid-committed precursors. To exclude that CD8 DCs could have been transferred with the CD4low precursors, the CD4low precursor population was analyzed before transfer for the presence of CD11c+ cells and no CD11c+ cells were found (data not shown). In addition, mice reconstituted with CD4low precursors were analyzed 2 days after transfer for Ly 5.2+ DCs, but no CD11c+ were found in the spleen at this time point (data not shown). Therefore, these data reinforce the view that Ly 5.2+ CD8 and CD8+ DCs derived from the transferred CD4low precursors. To further strengthen our data with CD4low precursors, we tested the ability of the next downstream precursor population, namely the CD44+ CD25+ pro-T cell precursors that have lost the capacity to form B cells but still form DCs16 to generate CD8 and CD8+ DCs on intravenous transfer. As shown in Figure 6, 10 days after the transfer of CD44+ CD25+ precursors, approximately 30% of CD11c+ DCs were donor derived, and both CD8+ and CD8 DCs were found. Interestingly, CD8+ and CD8 DCs represented 58% and 42% of Ly 5.2+ DCs, respectively, indicating that CD4low and CD44+ CD25+ precursors generated the two splenic DC subsets at comparable CD8 DC-to-CD8+ DC ratios. Kinetics of splenic DC differentiation and phenotypic variations of CD8 DCs during reconstitution after transfer of BM cells To study the phenotype of CD8 DCs during the process of DC reconstitution after irradiation, BM cells from Ly 5.2 donor mice were transferred intravenously into -irradiated Ly 5.1 recipient mice. These mice were subsequently analyzed for donor-derived DCs at 7, 14, and 21 days after transfer. For this purpose, the experiments were carried out with BM precursor cells instead of CD4low precursors because the progressive loss of DC reconstitution capacity of the latter, as a result of their extinction, does not allow the analysis of the phenotypic variations undergone by CD8 DCs during the reconstitution process. As shown in Figure 7, during the reconstitution period analyzed (from 7 to 21 days after transfer), virtually all the DCs present in the spleen of reconstituted mice were of donor origin; only after 21 days a small proportion of Ly 5.1+ CD11c+ cells (approximately 5% of all CD11c+ cells) was detected. With regard to the proportion of the CD8 and CD8+ subsets, at 7 and 14 days CD8+ DCs represented approximately 50% of splenic DCs, but after 21 days the proportion of CD8 DCs increased, with the CD8 DC-to-CD8+ DC ratio being 70:30 (ie, as in control spleens; Table 1). View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Kinetics of splenic DC differentiation and phenotypic variations of CD8 DCs during reconstitution after transfer of BM cells. BM cells (2 × 106) from C57 BL/Ka Ly 5.2 donor mice were injected intravenously into -irradiated (7 Gy) C57 BL/6 Ly 5.1 Pep3b recipient mice. At the indicated times, mice were analyzed for donor-derived DCs in splenic DC-enriched 1.061-density fractions. The percentage of Ly5.2 and Ly5.2+ CD11c+ DCs (contour plots), as well as the percentage of CD8 and CD8+ DCs among Ly5.2+ DCs (black histograms) are indicated. Grey profiles show the expression of CD4 and F4/80 by Ly5.2+ CD8 DCs; the percentage of CD4+ or F4/80+ cells is indicated. White profiles represent control stainings. These results are representative of three independent experiments with similar results.                                View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Analysis of splenic CD8+ DC and CD8 DC reconstitution after transfer of BM precursor cells* With regard to kinetics of reconstitution of the two DC subsets after BM transfer, the estimation of the absolute numbers of CD8 and CD8+ DCs of donor origin revealed that 7 days after transfer both DC compartments were fully reconstituted, with the absolute number of CD8+ DCs being 2-fold higher than in control spleens (Table 1). The absolute number of both DC subpopulations increased considerably during the second week of reconstitution, and after 3 weeks, even though the CD8 DC-to-CD8+ DC ratio was similar to that of control spleens, the absolute number of both DC subsets was still 2-fold to 3-fold higher than in controls. Globally, the data derived from our experiments of reconstitution after irradiation show that CD8 and CD8+ DC reconstitution is faster than that of T and B lymphocytes, that the process of DC reconstitution occurs simultaneously for CD8 and CD8+ DCs, and that both subsets are produced in equal numbers during the first 2 weeks after transfer of precursors. In addition, the data reveal that CD8 and CD8+ DCs are generated at the same ratio during reconstitution with both CD4low precursors and BM precursors. Concerning the phenotype of reconstituted DCs, from the shortest time point analyzed, CD8+ DCs displayed the same phenotypic profile as their control counterparts (not shown). However, as illustrated in Figure 7, CD8 DCs underwent variations in their CD4 and F4/80 expression during reconstitution because the percentage of CD4+ CD8 DCs and F4/80+ CD8 DCs increased significantly from 7 to 21 days after transfer. As for the CD8 DC-to-CD8+ DC ratio, after 21 days the CD4 and F4/80 expression profile of CD8 DCs was similar to that of control mice. These data indicate that F4/80 and particularly CD4 expression was subjected to variations during the reconstitution process, suggesting that CD4 expression levels by CD8 DCs might be related with their differentiation and/or physiological state. In addition, these results demonstrate that with 14-day transfer, the majority of CD8 DCs expressed CD4 and F4/80, supporting the hypothesis in the study by Wu et al16 that most likely CD8 DCs were missed in the analysis of CD4low progeny, because the majority or all of them were depleted with anti-CD4 and anti-F4/80 antibodies.     Discussion Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References CD8+and CD8 DCs differ in their location, migratory capacity, T-cell stimulation potential, and phenotype. In the mouse spleen CD8 DCs appear to be located in the marginal zone bridging channels and extend from the marginal zone into the red pulp, whereas CD8+ DCs correspond with the interdigitating DCs located in the T-cell zone of the white pulp.10 However, CD8+ DCs have been demonstrated to have a reduced migratory capacity compared with CD8 DCs.14,15 With regard to the function of CD8 versus CD8+ DCs, several reports are consistent with the notion that CD8 DCs have a higher phagocytic capacity than their CD8+ counterparts,6,10 but, as discussed below, the data published so far regarding their antigen processing and T-cell stimulatory capacity remain controversial. Regarding their phenotypic characteristics, CD8+ and CD8 DCs have been reported to be DEC-205+ CD11b and DEC-205 CD11b+, respectively. Both subsets have been considered negative for the T-cell marker CD4 and the macrophage marker F4/80.2,20 Therefore, as stated in the "Introduction" section, on the basis of this assumption antibodies against these molecules have been used to deplete contaminating T cells and macrophages in functional studies that involve the isolation of CD8+ and CD8 DCs. However, as illustrated in the present report, a careful examination of spleen CD8 DC phenotype revealed that a majority of these cells, but not CD8+ DCs, expressed both molecules. CD4 expression by a proportion of CD8 DCs has been previously reported by Pulendran et al6 in FLT3 ligand-treated mice and recently by Vremec et al.21 This observation is of special relevance because a number of reports analyzing the differential function of CD8 versus CD8+ DCs were performed with purified CD8 DC subsets from which CD4+ F4/80+ DCs were depleted (ie, biased toward the CD4F4/80 fraction). Therefore, these data could not be representative of the functional capacity of the whole CD8 DC population, if CD4 and CD4+ CD8 DCs do not represent two independent DC subsets, but rather different activation, maturation, and/or differentiation stages of the CD8 DC population, as suggested by the data presented in the present study. In particular, our data regarding CD4 expression by CD8 DCs indicate that this molecule is upregulated during CD8 DC reconstitution after irradiation, that CD4 undergoes a dramatic down-regulation on culture, and that the CD4+ fraction of CD8 DCs has a higher T-cell stimulatory and endocytic capacity (data not shown) than the CD4 fraction. In addition, some controversial results regarding the function of CD8 versus CD8+ DCs reported so far might be related to the DC isolation protocol employed and then to differences in the proportion of CD4+ F4/80+ cells among the CD8 DC subset. In this sense, whereas some authors found that CD8 DCs had a much higher T-cell stimulatory potential than CD8+ DCs, which were consequently proposed to exert an immunosuppressor/tolerogenic role,4-5,11 several lines of evidence support the view that both subsets are equally capable of inducing T-cell stimulation.12,14 Moreover, in relation with this issue, it has been proposed that the T-cell response mediated by the CD8+ DCs and CD8 DCs is biased toward a TH1 and TH2 profile, respectively.12,22 In addition, it has been reported that splenic CD8+ but not CD8 DCs produce interleukin 12 (IL-12) after in vivo microbial stimulation.23 More recently, Ohteki et al13 have shown that CD8+ DCs are more efficient than CD8 DCs in producing interferon- in response to IL-12 during bacterial infection, suggesting that the CD8+ DC subset may play an essential role as initiators of innate immunity and subsequent TH1 responses. Therefore, additional studies are needed to define more precisely the role of CD8+ and CD8 DCs in the induction of T-cell responses. With regard to the origin of CD8+ and CD8 DCs, the fact that CD8+ DCs were generated along with T cells after intrathymic transfer of CD4low precursors, devoid of myeloid reconstitution potential,3 led to the widely held hypothesis that CD8+ DCs were lymphoid-derived DCs, although this point remains to be confirmed by clonal assays. Because CD8+ DCs but not CD8 DCs were found in the progeny of CD4low precursors transferred intravenously,16 CD8 DCs were, therefore, considered as myeloid DCs. However, our results revealed that CD8 DCs were generated from CD4low precursors and suggest, as mentioned above, that, in the study stating that CD8 DCs do not derive from CD4low precursors, CD8 DCs could have been missed because of the depletion of the CD4+ and/or F4/80+ cells. Moreover, the data presented here support that CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from a common precursor because both CD4low precursors and BM precursors generated the two DC types at a similar CD8 DC-to-CD8+ DC ratio than that existing in nonreconstituted control spleens. However, it remains possible that CD8 DCs are derived from a myeloid precursor, present among the CD4low precursor population transferred in reconstitution experiments, which would be devoid of reconstitution potential for granulocytes and macrophages, because these cell types were not found among the progeny of CD4low precursors.24 However, assuming as previously proposed that CD8+ DCs derive from CD4low lymphoid precursors, it seems unlikely that this precursor population could contain an unrelated CD8 DC precursor different from the T cell-CD8+ DC lymphoid precursor population, because, if this was the case, this precursor should be present among the CD4low precursors at the definite frequency to allow a correct reconstitution of the CD8+ and CD8 DC subsets. Alternatively, both CD8+ and CD8 DCs could derive from an independent nonlymphoid, nonmyeloid DC precursor. According to this hypothesis, CD8+ DCs would not belong to the lymphoid lineage. This view is supported by two recent reports that describe a developmental dissociation between thymic (CD8+) DCs and T cells in mice deficient for c-kit and the common cytokine receptor gamma chain25 and for Notch1.26 Nevertheless, against this differentiation model, and supporting the existence of a lymphoid DC lineage, a committed DC precursor expressing pT messenger has been recently described in the human thymus.27 In conclusion, we favor the hypothesis that both CD8+ and CD8 DCs have a common origin and derive from a lymphoid-committed precursor. This hypothesis is supported by the analysis of mice homozygous for an Ikaros dominant-negative mutation (Ikaros DN/) that lack T cells, B cells, natural killer cells, and both CD8+ and CD8 DCs but have a normal myeloid development.8 In addition, it has been demonstrated that the development of CD8+ and CD8 DCs does not depend on the presence of GM-CSF,28 which has been claimed to be an essential cytokine for the differentiation of myeloid DCs (reviewed in Shortman and Caux29). With regard to the concept that CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from a common precursor, two independent studies analyzing the redistribution of DCs to T-cell areas of the mouse spleen after in vivo microbial stimulation23,30 suggest that CD8+ and CD8 DCs represent different maturation stages of splenic DCs. Nevertheless, the analysis of mice homozygous for an Ikaros null mutation (Ikaros C/),8 or deficient for RelB31 or PU.132 in which CD8+ but not CD8 DCs developed, does not allow one to draw any decisive conclusion with regard to their origin but supports that they represent two independent DC subsets. Therefore, a precise definition of the immediate precursors and of the differentiation process of both CD8+ and CD8 DCs is required to define conclusively their origin. Finally, if CD8+ and CD8 DCs derive from a common lymphoid precursor as suggested by the data presented here, the majority of murine DCs would be of lymphoid origin, as previously proposed by Shortman and Caux,29 and, therefore, in the murine system myeloid DCs would correspond to monocyte-derived DCs recently described by Randolph et al.33     Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Dr A. Rolink (Basel Institute for Immunology, Basel, Switzerland) for the anti-CD40 hybridoma FGK45.     Footnotes Submitted April 17, 2000; accepted June 5, 2000. Supported by a grant from DGICYT (PB95-0376) and a grant from CAM (08.1/0018/1998) to C.A. P.M., G.M.d.H., and F.A. contributed equally to this work. The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734. Reprints: Carlos Ardavín, Department of Cell Biology, Faculty of Biology, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain; e-mail: ardavin{at}bio.ucm.es.     References Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References 1. Vremec D, Shortman K. Dendritic cell subtypes in mouse lymphoid organscross-correlation of surface markers, changes with incubation, and differences among thymus, spleen, and lymph nodes. J Immunol. 1997;159:565-573[Abstract]. 2. Anjuère F, Martín P, Ferrero I, et al. Definition of dendritic cell subpopulations present in the spleen, Peyer's patches, lymph nodes and skin of the mouse. Blood. 1999;93:590-598[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 3. Ardavín C, Wu L, Li CL, Shortman K. Thymic dendritic cells and T cells develop simultaneously in the thymus from a common precursor population. Nature. 1993;362:761-763[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 4. Kronin V, Winkel K, Süss G, et al. Subclass of dendritic cells regulates the response of naive CD8 T cells by limiting their IL-2 production. J Immunol. 1996;157:3819-3827[Abstract]. 5. Süss G, Shortman K. A subclass of dendritic cells kills CD4 T cells via Fas/Fas-Ligand-induced apoptosis. J Exp Med. 1996;183:1789-1796[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 6. Pulendran B, Lingappa J, Kennedy MK, et al. Developmental pathways of dendritic cells in vivodistinct function, phenotype, and localization of dendritic cell subsets in FLT3 ligand-treated mice. J Immunol. 1997;159:2222-2231[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 7. Winkel KD, Kronin V, Krummel MF, Shortman K. The nature of the signals regulating CD8 T cell proliferative responses to CD8+ or CD8 dendritic cells. Eur J Immunol. 1997;27:3350-3359[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 8. Wu L, Nichogiannopoulou A, Shortman K, Georgopoulos K. Cell-autonomous defects in dendritic cell populations of Ikaros mutant mice point to a developmental relationship with the lymphoid lineage. Immunity. 1997;7:483-492[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 9. Kronin V, Vremec D, Shortman K. Does the IL-2 receptor  chain induced on dendritic cells have a biological function. Int Immunol. 1998;10:237-240[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 10. Leenen PJM, Radosevic K, Voerman JSA, et al. Heterogeneity of mouse spleen dendritic cells: in vivo phagocytic activity, expression of macrophage markers, and subpopulation turnover. J Immunol. 1998;160:2166-2173[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 11. Grohmann U, Bianchi R, Belladonna ML, et al. IL-12 acts selectively on CD8 dendritic cells to enhance presentation of a tumor peptide in vivo. J Immunol. 1999;163:3100-3105[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 12. Maldonado-López R, De Smedt T, Pajak B, et al. Role of CD8+ CD8 dendritic cells in the induction of primary responses in vivo. J Leukoc Biol. 1999;66:242-246[Abstract]. 13. Ohteki T, Fukao T, Suzue K, et al. Interleukin 12-dependent interferon gamma production by CD8+ lymphoid dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 1999;189:1981-1986[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 14. Ruedl C, Bachmann MF. CTL priming by CD8+ and CD8 dendritic cells in vivo. Eur J Immunol. 1999;29:3762-3767[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 15. Smith AL, Fazekas de St Groth B. Antigen-pulsed CD8 dendritic cells generate an immune response after subcutaneous injection without homing to the draining lymph node. J Exp Med. 1999;189:593-598[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 16. Wu L, Li CL, Shortman K. Thymic dendritic cell precursors: relationship to the T lymphocyte lineage and phenotype of the dendritic cell progeny. J Exp Med. 1996;184:903-911[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 17. Caux C, Massacrier C, Vanbervliet B, et al. Activation of human dendritic cells through CD40 cross-linking. J Exp Med. 1994;180:1263-1272[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 18. Cella M, Scheidegger D, Palmer-Lehmann K, Lane P, Lanzavecchia A, Alber G. Ligation of CD40 on dendritic cells triggers production of high levels of interleukin-12 and enhances T cell stimulatory capacity: T-T help via APC activation. J Exp Med. 1996;184:747-752[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 19. Corinti S, Fanales-Belasio E, Albanesi C, Cavani A, Angelisova P, Girolomoni G. Cross-linking of membrane CD43 mediates dendritic cell maturation. J Immunol. 1999;162:6331-6336[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 20. Vremec D, Zorbas M, Scollay R, et al. The surface phenotype of dendritic cells purified from mouse thymus and spleen: investigation of the CD8 expression by a subpopulation of dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 1992;176:47-58[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 21. Vremec D, Pooley J, Hochrein H, Wu L, Shortman K. CD4 and CD8 expression by dendritic cell subtypes in mouse thymus and spleen. J Immunol. 2000;164:2978-2986[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 22. Pulendran B, Smith JL, Caspary G, et al. Distinct dendritic cell subsets differentially regulate the class of immune responses in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:1036-1041[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 23. Sousa C, Hieny S, Scharton-Kersten T, et al. In vivo microbial stimulation induces rapid CD40 ligand-independent production of interleukin 12 by dendritic cells and their redistribution to T cell areas. J Exp Med. 1997;186:1819-1829[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 24. Wu L, Antica M, Johnson G, Scollay R, Shortman K. Developmental potential of the earliest precursor cells from the adult mouse thymus. J Exp Med. 1991;174:1617-1627[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 25. Rodewald HR, Brocker T, Haller C. Developmental dissociation of thymic dendritic cell and thymocyte lineages revealed in growth factor receptor mutant mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:15068-15073[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 26. Radtke F, Ferrero I, Wilson A, Lees R, Aguet M, MacDonald HR. Notch1 deficiency dissociates the intrathymic development of dendritic cells and T cells. J Exp Med. 2000;191:1085-1094[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 27. Res PCM, Couwenberg F, Vyth-Dreese FA, Spits H. Expression of pT mRNA in a committed dendritic cell precursor in the human thymus. Blood. 1999;94:2647-2657[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 28. Vremec D, Lieschke GJ, Dunn AR, Robb L, Shortman K. The influence of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor on dendritic cell levels in mouse lymphoid organs. Eur J Immunol. 1997;27:40-44[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 29. Shortman K, Caux C. Dendritic cell development: multiple pathways to nature's adjuvants. Stem Cells. 1997;15:409-419[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 30. De Smedt T, Pajak B, Muraille E, et al. Regulation of dendritic cell numbers and maturation by lipopolysaccharide in vivo. J Exp Med. 1996;184:1413-1424[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 31. Wu L, D'Amico A, Winkel K, Suter M, Lo D, Shortman K. RelB is essential for the development of myeloid-related CD8 dendritic cells but not of lymphoid-related CD8+ dendritic cells. Immunity. 1998;9:839-847[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 32. Guerriero A, Langmuir PB, Spain LM, Scott EW. PU.1 is required for myeloid-derived but not lymphoid-derived dendritic cells. Blood. 2000;95:879-885[Abstract/Free Full Text]. 33. Randolph GJ, Inaba K, Robbiani DF, Steinman RM, Muller WA. Differentiation of phagocytic monocytes into lymph node dendritic cells in vivo. Immunity. 1999;11:753-761[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. © 2000 by The American Society of Hematology.   CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this? This article has been cited by other articles: Y.-H. Chan, M.-F. Chiang, Y.-C. Tsai, S.-T. Su, M.-H. Chen, M.-S. Hou, and K.-I Lin Absence of the Transcriptional Repressor Blimp-1 in Hematopoietic Lineages Reveals Its Role in Dendritic Cell Homeostatic Development and Function J. Immunol., December 1, 2009; 183(11): 7039 - 7046. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] J. R. Sheng, L. Li, B. B. Ganesh, C. Vasu, B. S. Prabhakar, and M. N. Meriggioli Suppression of Experimental Autoimmune Myasthenia Gravis by Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Is Associated with an Expansion of FoxP3+ Regulatory T Cells J. Immunol., October 15, 2006; 177(8): 5296 - 5306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] I. Caminschi, A. J Corbett, C. Zahra, M. Lahoud, K. M Lucas, M. Sofi, D. Vremec, T. Gramberg, S. Pohlmann, J. Curtis, et al. Functional comparison of mouse CIRE/mouse DC-SIGN and human DC-SIGN Int. Immunol., May 1, 2006; 18(5): 741 - 753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] S. Takeuchi and S. I. Katz Use of interleukin 7 receptor-{alpha} knockout donor cells demonstrates the lymphoid independence of dendritic cells Blood, January 1, 2006; 107(1): 184 - 186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] S. Suzuki, K. Honma, T. Matsuyama, K. Suzuki, K. Toriyama, I. Akitoyo, K. Yamamoto, T. Suematsu, M. Nakamura, K. Yui, et al. From the Cover: Critical roles of interferon regulatory factor 4 in CD11bhighCD8{alpha}- dendritic cell development PNAS, June 15, 2004; 101(24): 8981 - 8986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] X. Peng, S. F. Hussain, and Y. Paterson The Ability of Two Listeria monocytogenes Vaccines Targeting Human Papillomavirus-16 E7 to Induce an Antitumor Response Correlates with Myeloid Dendritic Cell Function J. Immunol., May 15, 2004; 172(10): 6030 - 6038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] S. M. Blois, C. D. Alba Soto, M. Tometten, B. F. Klapp, R. A. Margni, and P. C. Arck Lineage, Maturity, and Phenotype of Uterine Murine Dendritic Cells Throughout Gestation Indicate a Protective Role in Maintaining Pregnancy Biol Reprod, April 1, 2004; 70(4): 1018 - 1023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] B. Leon, G. Martinez del Hoyo, V. Parrillas, H. H. Vargas, P. Sanchez-Mateos, N. Longo, M. Lopez-Bravo, and C. Ardavin Dendritic cell differentiation potential of mouse monocytes: monocytes represent immediate precursors of CD8- and CD8+ splenic dendritic cells Blood, April 1, 2004; 103(7): 2668 - 2676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] H. Q. Shen, M. Lu, T. Ikawa, K. Masuda, K. Ohmura, N. Minato, Y. Katsura, and H. Kawamoto T/NK Bipotent Progenitors in the Thymus Retain the Potential to Generate Dendritic Cells J. Immunol., October 1, 2003; 171(7): 3401 - 3406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] C.-M. Sun, L. Fiette, M. Tanguy, C. Leclerc, and R. Lo-Man Ontogeny and innate properties of neonatal dendritic cells Blood, July 15, 2003; 102(2): 585 - 591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] A. D. Edwards, D. Chaussabel, S. Tomlinson, O. Schulz, A. Sher, and C. Reis e Sousa Relationships Among Murine CD11chigh Dendritic Cell Subsets as Revealed by Baseline Gene Expression Patterns J. Immunol., July 1, 2003; 171(1): 47 - 60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] C. Vasu, R.-N. E. Dogan, M. J. Holterman, and B. S. Prabhakar Selective Induction of Dendritic Cells Using Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor, But Not fms-Like Tyrosine Kinase Receptor 3-Ligand, Activates Thyroglobulin-Specific CD4+/CD25+ T Cells and Suppresses Experimental Autoimmune Thyroiditis J. Immunol., June 1, 2003; 170(11): 5511 - 5522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] E. Donskoy and I. Goldschneider Two Developmentally Distinct Populations of Dendritic Cells Inhabit the Adult Mouse Thymus: Demonstration by Differential Importation of Hematogenous Precursors Under Steady State Conditions J. Immunol., April 1, 2003; 170(7): 3514 - 3521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] A H Lau and A W Thomson Dendritic cells and immune regulation in the liver Gut, February 1, 2003; 52(2): 307 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] P. Brawand, D. R. Fitzpatrick, B. W. Greenfield, K. Brasel, C. R. Maliszewski, and T. De Smedt Murine Plasmacytoid Pre-Dendritic Cells Generated from Flt3 Ligand-Supplemented Bone Marrow Cultures Are Immature APCs J. Immunol., December 15, 2002; 169(12): 6711 - 6719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] B. J. Weigel, N. Nath, P. A. Taylor, A. Panoskaltsis-Mortari, W. Chen, A. M. Krieg, K. Brasel, and B. R. Blazar Comparative analysis of murine marrow-derived dendritic cells generated by Flt3L or GM-CSF/IL-4 and matured with immune stimulatory agents on the in vivo induction of antileukemia responses Blood, December 1, 2002; 100(12): 4169 - 4176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] U. Yrlid and M. J. Wick Antigen Presentation Capacity and Cytokine Production by Murine Splenic Dendritic Cell Subsets upon Salmonella Encounter J. Immunol., July 1, 2002; 169(1): 108 - 116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] P. Martin, G. M. del Hoyo, F. Anjuere, C. F. Arias, H. H. Vargas, A. Fernandez-L, V. Parrillas, and C. Ardavin Characterization of a new subpopulation of mouse CD8alpha + B220+ dendritic cells endowed with type 1 interferon production capacity and tolerogenic potential Blood, June 28, 2002; 100(2): 383 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. Yoneyama, N. Onai, T. Sato, and K. Matsushima Identification of CD8alpha +CD11c- lineage phenotype-negative cells in the spleen as committed precursor of CD8alpha + dendritic cells Blood, June 28, 2002; 100(2): 569 - 577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] R. J. Steptoe, J. M. Ritchie, and L. C. Harrison Increased Generation of Dendritic Cells from Myeloid Progenitors in Autoimmune-Prone Nonobese Diabetic Mice J. Immunol., May 15, 2002; 168(10): 5032 - 5041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] V. G. de Yebenes, Y. R. Carrasco, A. R. Ramiro, and M. L. Toribio Identification of a myeloid intrathymic pathway of dendritic cell development marked by expression of the granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor receptor Blood, April 15, 2002; 99(8): 2948 - 2956. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] S. Vacheron, S. A. Luther, and H. Acha-Orbea Preferential Infection of Immature Dendritic Cells and B Cells by Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus J. Immunol., April 1, 2002; 168(7): 3470 - 3476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] A. D. McLellan, M. Kapp, A. Eggert, C. Linden, U. Bommhardt, E.-B. Brocker, U. Kammerer, and E. Kampgen Anatomic location and T-cell stimulatory functions of mouse dendritic cell subsets defined by CD4 and CD8 expression Blood, March 15, 2002; 99(6): 2084 - 2093. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] J. Feuillard, M.-C. Jacob, F. Valensi, M. Maynadie, R. Gressin, L. Chaperot, C. Arnoulet, F. Brignole-Baudouin, B. Drenou, E. Duchayne, et al. Clinical and biologic features of CD4+CD56+ malignancies Blood, March 1, 2002; 99(5): 1556 - 1563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] P. Martin, S. R. Ruiz, G. M. del Hoyo, F. Anjuere, H. H. Vargas, M. Lopez-Bravo, and C. Ardavin Dramatic increase in lymph node dendritic cell number during infection by the mouse mammary tumor virus occurs by a CD62L-dependent blood-borne DC recruitment Blood, February 15, 2002; 99(4): 1282 - 1288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] G. M. del Hoyo, P. Martin, C. F. Arias, A. R. Marin, and C. Ardavin CD8alpha + dendritic cells originate from the CD8alpha - dendritic cell subset by a maturation process involving CD8alpha , DEC-205, and CD24 up-regulation Blood, February 1, 2002; 99(3): 999 - 1004. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] M. F. Lipscomb and B. J. Masten Dendritic Cells: Immune Regulators in Health and Disease Physiol Rev, January 1, 2002; 82(1): 97 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] P. J. O'Connell, W. Li, Z. Wang, S. M. Specht, A. J. Logar, and A. W. Thomson Immature and Mature CD8{alpha}+ Dendritic Cells Prolong the Survival of Vascularized Heart Allografts J. Immunol., January 1, 2002; 168(1): 143 - 154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] L. Wu, A. D'Amico, H. Hochrein, M. O'Keeffe, K. Shortman, and K. Lucas Development of thymic and splenic dendritic cell populations from different hemopoietic precursors Blood, December 1, 2001; 98(12): 3376 - 3382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] G. Schlecht, C. Leclerc, and G. Dadaglio Induction of CTL and Nonpolarized Th Cell Responses by CD8{alpha}+ and CD8{alpha}- Dendritic Cells J. Immunol., October 15, 2001; 167(8): 4215 - 4221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] D. Izon, K. Rudd, W. DeMuth, W. S. Pear, C. Clendenin, R. C. Lindsley, and D. Allman A Common Pathway for Dendritic Cell and Early B Cell Development J. Immunol., August 1, 2001; 167(3): 1387 - 1392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] S. Henri, D. Vremec, A. Kamath, J. Waithman, S. Williams, C. Benoist, K. Burnham, S. Saeland, E. Handman, and K. Shortman The Dendritic Cell Populations of Mouse Lymph Nodes J. Immunol., July 15, 2001; 167(2): 741 - 748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] A. C. Kirby, U. Yrlid, M. Svensson, and M. J. Wick Differential Involvement of Dendritic Cell Subsets During Acute Salmonella Infection J. Immunol., June 1, 2001; 166(11): 6802 - 6811. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] M. G. Manz, D. Traver, T. Miyamoto, I. L. Weissman, and K. Akashi Dendritic cell potentials of early lymphoid and myeloid progenitors Blood, June 1, 2001; 97(11): 3333 - 3341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] C. Martinon-Ego, R. Berthier, F. Cretin, V. Collin, A.-M. Laharie, and P. N. Marche Murine Dendritic Cells Derived from Myeloid Progenitors of the Thymus Are Unable to Produce Bioactive IL-12p70 J. Immunol., April 15, 2001; 166(8): 5008 - 5017. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Rights and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martín, P. Articles by Ardavín, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martín, P. Articles by Ardavín, C. Related Collections Immunobiology Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

	Copyright © 2000 by American Society of Hematology         Online ISSN: 1528-0020