Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Experimental Medicine logoLink to The Journal of Experimental Medicine
. 1987 May 1;165(5):1296–1315. doi: 10.1084/jem.165.5.1296

Phenotype, specificity, and function of T cell subsets and T cell interactions involved in skin allograft rejection

PMCID: PMC2188316  PMID: 2437237

Abstract

In the present study we used an adoptive transfer model with athymic nude mice to characterize the T cells involved in initiating and mediating skin allograft rejection. It was found that skin allograft rejection in nude mice required the transfer of immunocompetent T cells and that such reconstitution did not itself stimulate the appearance of T cells derived from the nude host. Reconstitution with isolated populations of Lyt-2+/L3T4- T cells resulted in the rapid rejection of MHC class I-disparate skin allografts, whereas reconstitution with isolated populations of L3T4+/Lyt-2- T cells resulted in the rapid rejection of MHC class II-disparate and minor H-disparate skin allografts. By correlating these rejection responses with the functional capabilities of antigen-specific T cells contained within the reconstituting Lyt-2+ and L3T4+ T cell populations, it was noted that skin allografts were only rejected by mice that, as shown by in vitro assessment, contained both lymphokine-secreting Th cells and lymphokine-responsive Tk cells specific for the alloantigens of the graft. The ability of two such functionally distinct T cell subsets to interact in vivo to reject skin allografts was directly demonstrated in H-Y-specific rejection responses by taking advantage of the fact that H- Y-specific Th cells are L3T4+ while H-Y specific Tk cells are Lyt-2+. Finally, the importance of in vivo interactions between functionally distinct Th/T-inducer cells and T killer (Tk)/T-effector cells in skin allograft rejection was demonstrated by the observation that normal B6 mice retain Qala and Kbm6 skin allografts because of a selective deficiency in antigen-specific Th cells, even though they contain T- effector cells that, when activated, are able to reject such allografts. Thus, the ability to reject skin allografts is neither unique to a specialized subset of T cells with a given Lyt phenotype, nor unique to a specialized subset of helper-independent effector T cells with so-called dual function capability. Rather, skin allograft rejection can be mediated by in vivo collaborations between T-inducer cells and T-effector cells, and the two interacting T cell subsets can express different Lyt phenotypes as well as different antigen specificities.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.2 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Boog C. J., Kast W. M., Timmers H. T., Boes J., de Waal L. P., Melief C. J. Abolition of specific immune response defect by immunization with dendritic cells. Nature. 1985 Nov 7;318(6041):59–62. doi: 10.1038/318059a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Canty T. G., Wunderlich J. R. Quantitative assessment of cellular and humoral responses to skin and tumor allografts. Transplantation. 1971 Feb;11(2):111–116. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197102000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cerottini J. C., Brunner K. T. Cell-mediated cytotoxicity, allograft rejection, and tumor immunity. Adv Immunol. 1974;18:67–132. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60308-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cobbold S. P., Jayasuriya A., Nash A., Prospero T. D., Waldmann H. Therapy with monoclonal antibodies by elimination of T-cell subsets in vivo. Nature. 1984 Dec 6;312(5994):548–551. doi: 10.1038/312548a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cobbold S., Waldmann H. Skin allograft rejection by L3/T4+ and Lyt-2+ T cell subsets. Transplantation. 1986 May;41(5):634–639. doi: 10.1097/00007890-198605000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dallman M. J., Mason D. W., Webb M. The roles of host and donor cells in the rejection of skin allografts by T cell-deprived rats injected with syngeneic T cells. Eur J Immunol. 1982 Jun;12(6):511–518. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830120612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dialynas D. P., Quan Z. S., Wall K. A., Pierres A., Quintáns J., Loken M. R., Pierres M., Fitch F. W. Characterization of the murine T cell surface molecule, designated L3T4, identified by monoclonal antibody GK1.5: similarity of L3T4 to the human Leu-3/T4 molecule. J Immunol. 1983 Nov;131(5):2445–2451. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Flaherty L., Bennett D. Histoincompatibilities found between congenic strains which differ at loci determing differentiation antigens. Transplantation. 1973 Nov;16(5):505–514. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197311000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Golding H., Mizuochi T., McCarthy S. A., Cleveland C. A., Singer A. Relationship among function, phenotype, and specificity in primary allospecific T cell populations: identification of phenotypically identical but functionally distinct primary T cell subsets that differ in their recognition of MHC class I and class II allodeterminants. J Immunol. 1987 Jan 1;138(1):10–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Golding H., Munitz T. I., Singer A. Characterization of antigen-specific, Ia-restricted, L3T4+ cytolytic T lymphocytes and assessment of thymic influence on their self specificity. J Exp Med. 1985 Sep 1;162(3):943–961. doi: 10.1084/jem.162.3.943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Golding H., Singer A. Role of accessory cell processing and presentation of shed H-2 alloantigens in allospecific cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. J Immunol. 1984 Aug;133(2):597–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Golding H., Singer A. Specificity, phenotype, and precursor frequency of primary cytolytic T lymphocytes specific for class II major histocompatibility antigens. J Immunol. 1985 Sep;135(3):1610–1615. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hodgkin P. D., Agostino M., Sellins K., Prowse S. J., Bellgrau D., Lafferty K. J. T lymphocyte function in vivo. Ambivalence of the class I MHC antigen-reactive subset. Transplantation. 1985 Sep;40(3):288–292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Keene J. A., Forman J. Helper activity is required for the in vivo generation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes. J Exp Med. 1982 Mar 1;155(3):768–782. doi: 10.1084/jem.155.3.768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. LeFrancois L., Bevan M. J. A reexamination of the role of LYT-2-positive T cells in murine skin graft rejection. J Exp Med. 1984 Jan 1;159(1):57–67. doi: 10.1084/jem.159.1.57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Loveland B. E., Hogarth P. M., Ceredig R., McKenzie I. F. Cells mediating graft rejection in the mouse. I. Lyt-1 cells mediate skin graft rejection. J Exp Med. 1981 May 1;153(5):1044–1057. doi: 10.1084/jem.153.5.1044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. MacDonald H. R., Lees R. K., Sordat B., Zaech P., Maryanski J. L., Bron C. Age-associated increase in expression of the T cell surface markers Thy-1, Lyt-1, and Lyt-2 in congenitally athymic (nu/nu) mice: analysis by flow microfluorometry. J Immunol. 1981 Mar;126(3):865–870. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. McKenzie I. F., Morgan G. M., Sandrin M. S., Michaelides M. M., Melvold R. W., Kohn H. I. B6.C-H-2bm12. A new H-2 mutation in the I region in the mouse. J Exp Med. 1979 Dec 1;150(6):1323–1338. doi: 10.1084/jem.150.6.1323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller M. H., Powell J. I., Sharrow S. O., Schultz A. R. Rapid data collection, analysis, and graphics for flow microfluorometry instrumentation. Rev Sci Instrum. 1978 Aug;49(8):1137–1142. doi: 10.1063/1.1135535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mizuochi T., Golding H., Rosenberg A. S., Glimcher L. H., Malek T. R., Singer A. Both L3T4+ and Lyt-2+ helper T cells initiate cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses against allogenic major histocompatibility antigens but not against trinitrophenyl-modified self. J Exp Med. 1985 Aug 1;162(2):427–443. doi: 10.1084/jem.162.2.427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mizuochi T., Munitz T. I., McCarthy S. A., Andrysiak P. M., Kung J., Gress R. E., Singer A. Differential helper and effector responses of Lyt-2+ T cells to H-2Kb mutant (Kbm) determinants and the appearance of thymic influence on anti-Kbm CTL responsiveness. J Immunol. 1986 Nov 1;137(9):2740–2747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mizuochi T., Ono S., Malek T. R., Singer A. Characterization of two distinct primary T cell populations that secrete interleukin 2 upon recognition of class I or class II major histocompatibility antigens. J Exp Med. 1986 Mar 1;163(3):603–619. doi: 10.1084/jem.163.3.603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pierres A., Naquet P., Van Agthoven A., Bekkhoucha F., Denizot F., Mishal Z., Schmitt-Verhulst A. M., Pierres M. A rat anti-mouse T4 monoclonal antibody (H129.19) inhibits the proliferation of Ia-reactive T cell clones and delineates two phenotypically distinct (T4+, Lyt-2,3-, and T4-, Lyt-2,3+) subsets among anti-Ia cytolytic T cell clones. J Immunol. 1984 Jun;132(6):2775–2782. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Pilarski L. M., McKenzie I. F. Lyt antigens on the T cells specific for minor histocompatibility antigens: suppression by a Lyt-1+2- regulator. Transplantation. 1981 Nov;32(5):363–367. doi: 10.1097/00007890-198111000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Roopenian D. C., Widmer M. B., Orosz C. G., Bach F. H. Helper cell-independent cytolytic T lymphocytes specific for a minor histocompatibility antigen. J Immunol. 1983 Feb;130(2):542–545. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosenberg A. S., Mizuochi T., Singer A. Analysis of T-cell subsets in rejection of Kb mutant skin allografts differing at class I MHC. 1986 Aug 28-Sep 3Nature. 322(6082):829–831. doi: 10.1038/322829a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Segal D. M., Sharrow S. O., Jones J. F., Siraganian R. P. Fc (IgG) receptors on rat basophilic leukemia cells. J Immunol. 1981 Jan;126(1):138–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Shinohara N., Kojima M. Mouse alloantibodies capable of blocking cytotoxic T cell function. V. The majority of I region-specific CTL are Lyt-2+ but are relatively resistant to anti-Lyt-2 blocking. J Immunol. 1984 Feb;132(2):578–583. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Simon M. M., Edwards A. J., Hämmerling U., McKenzie I. F., Eichmann K., Simpson E. Generation of effector cells from T cell subsets. III. Synergy between Lyt-1 and Lyt-123/23 lymphocytes in the generation of H-2-restricted and alloreactive cytotoxic T cell. Eur J Immunol. 1981 Mar;11(3):246–250. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830110315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Singer A., Kruisbeek A. M., Andrysiak P. M. T cell-accessory cell interactions that initiate allospecific cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses: existence of both Ia-restricted and Ia-unrestricted cellular interaction pathways. J Immunol. 1984 May;132(5):2199–2209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Snider M. E., Armstrong L., Hudson J. L., Steinmuller D. In vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity of T cells cloned from rejecting allografts. Transplantation. 1986 Aug;42(2):171–177. doi: 10.1097/00007890-198608000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sprent J., Schaefer M., Lo D., Korngold R. Properties of purified T cell subsets. II. In vivo responses to class I vs. class II H-2 differences. J Exp Med. 1986 Apr 1;163(4):998–1011. doi: 10.1084/jem.163.4.998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sprent J., Schaefer M. Properties of purified T cell subsets. I. In vitro responses to class I vs. class II H-2 alloantigens. J Exp Med. 1985 Dec 1;162(6):2068–2088. doi: 10.1084/jem.162.6.2068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Steinmuller D. Which T cells mediate allograft rejection? Transplantation. 1985 Sep;40(3):229–233. doi: 10.1097/00007890-198509000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Swain S. L., Panfili P. R. Helper cells activated by allogeneic H-2K or H-2D differences have a Ly phenotype distinct from those responsive to I differences. J Immunol. 1979 Feb;122(2):383–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Tyler J. D., Galli S. J., Snider M. E., Dvorak A. M., Steinmuller D. Cloned LYT-2+ cytolytic T lymphocytes destroy allogeneic tissue in vivo. J Exp Med. 1984 Jan 1;159(1):234–243. doi: 10.1084/jem.159.1.234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Unkeless J. C. Characterization of a monoclonal antibody directed against mouse macrophage and lymphocyte Fc receptors. J Exp Med. 1979 Sep 19;150(3):580–596. doi: 10.1084/jem.150.3.580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Weinberger O., Herrmann S. H., Mescher M. F., Benacerraf B., Burakoff S. J. Cellular interactions in the generation of cytolytic T lymphocyte responses: role of Ia-positive splenic adherent cells in presentation in H-2 antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Oct;77(10):6091–6095. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.10.6091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Widmer M. B., Bach F. H. Antigen-driven helper cell-independent cloned cytolytic T lymphocytes. Nature. 1981 Dec 24;294(5843):750–752. doi: 10.1038/294750a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. von Boehmer H., Haas W. Distinct Ir genes for helper and killer cells in the cytotoxic response to H-Y antigen. J Exp Med. 1979 Nov 1;150(5):1134–1142. doi: 10.1084/jem.150.5.1134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Experimental Medicine are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES