We investigated the in vivo function of the B7 family member B7-H3 (also known as B7RP-2) by gene targeting. B7-H3 inhibited T cell proliferation mediated by antibody to T cell receptor or allogeneic antigen-presenting cells. B7-H3-deficient mice developed more severe airway inflammation than did wild-type mice in conditions in which T helper cells differentiated toward type 1 (T(H)1) rather than type 2 (T(H)2). B7-H3 expression was consistently enhanced by interferon-gamma but suppressed by interleukin 4 in dendritic cells. B7-H3-deficient mice developed experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis several days earlier than their wild-type littermates, and accumulated higher concentrations of autoantibodies to DNA. Thus, B7-H3 is a negative regulator that preferentially affects T(H)1 responses.

No abstract

We recognize well the abilities of dendritic cells to activate effector T cell (Teff cell) responses to an array of antigens and think of these cells in this context as pre-eminent antigen-presenting cells, but dendritic cells are also critical to the induction of immunologic tolerance. Herein, we review our knowledge on the different kinds of tolerogenic or regulatory dendritic cells that are present or can be induced in experimental settings and humans, how they operate, and the diseases in which they are effective, from allergic to autoimmune diseases and transplant tolerance. The primary conclusions that arise from these cumulative studies clearly indicate that the agent(s) used to induce the tolerogenic phenotype and the status of the dendritic cell at the time of induction influence not only the phenotype of the dendritic cell, but also that of the regulatory T cell responses that they in turn mobilize. For example, while many, if not most, types of induced regulatory dendritic cells lead CD4+ naïve or Teff cells to adopt a CD25+Foxp3+ Treg phenotype, exposure of Langerhans cells or dermal dendritic cells to vitamin D leads in one case to the downstream induction of CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cell responses, while in the other to Foxp3− type 1 regulatory T cells (Tr1) responses. Similarly, exposure of human immature versus semi-mature dendritic cells to IL-10 leads to distinct regulatory T cell outcomes. Thus, it should be possible to shape our dendritic cell immunotherapy approaches for selective induction of different types of T cell tolerance or to simultaneously induce multiple types of regulatory T cell responses. This may prove to be an important option as we target diseases in different anatomic compartments or with divergent pathologies in the clinic. Finally, we provide an overview of the use and potential use of these cells clinically, highlighting their potential as tools in an array of settings.

Mice deficient in OX40 or 4-1BB costimulatory pathways show defects in T cell recall responses, with predominant effects on CD4 vs CD8 T cells, respectively. However, OX40L can also stimulate CD8 T cells and 4-1BBL can influence CD4 T cells, raising the possibility of redundancy between the two TNFR family costimulators. To test this possibility, we generated mice deficient in both 4-1BBL and OX40L. In an adoptive transfer model, CD4 T cells expressed 4-1BB and OX40 sequentially in response to immunization, with little or no overlap in the timing of their expression. Under the same conditions, CD8 T cells expressed 4-1BB, but no detectable OX40. Thus, in vivo expression of 4-1BB and OX40 can be temporally and spatially segregated. In the absence of OX40L, there were decreased CD4 T cells late in the primary response and no detectable secondary expansion of adoptively transferred CD4 T cells under conditions in which primary expansion was unaffected. The 4-1BBL had a minor effect on the primary response of CD4 T cells in this model, but showed larger effects on the secondary response, although 4-1BBL−/− mice show less impairment in CD4 secondary responses than OX40L−/− mice. The 4-1BBL−/− and double knockout mice were similarly impaired in the CD8 T cell response, whereas OX40L−/− and double knockout mice were similarly impaired in the CD4 T cell response to both protein Ag and influenza virus. Thus, 4-1BB and OX40 act independently and nonredundantly to facilitate robust CD4 and CD8 recall responses.

4-1BBL−/− mice exhibit normal primary CD8 T cell responses to influenza virus, but show decreased CD8 T cell numbers late in the primary response as well as decreased secondary responses. In contrast, CD28−/− mice are defective in initial CD8 T cell expansion. Using agonistic anti-4-1BB Ab to replace the CD28 or 4-1BB signal, we examined the timing of the required signals for CD28 vs 4-1BB costimulation. A single dose of agonistic anti-4-1BB Ab added only during priming restores the secondary CD8 T cell response in CD28−/− mice. Once the T cell numbers in the primary response reach a minimum threshold, a full secondary response is achieved even in the absence of CD28. In contrast, anti-4-1BB added during priming fails to correct the defective secondary response in 4-1BBL−/− mice, whereas addition of anti-4-1BB during challenge fully restores this response. Thus, there is a switch in costimulatory requirement from CD28 to 4-1BB during primary vs recall responses. Adoptive transfer studies show that T cells primed in 4-1BBL−/− or wild-type mice are equally capable of re-expansion when rechallenged in wild-type mice. These studies rule out a model in which signals delivered through 4-1BB during priming program the T cells to give a full recall response and suggest that 4-1BB-4-1BBL interactions take place at later stages in the immune response. The results indicate that anti-4-1BB or 4-1BBL therapy will be most effective during the boost phase of a prime-boost vaccination strategy.