Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL
Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL
tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013 C. Inhibition of cross-presentation with anti-K b -SIINFEKL antibody Given the differences we observed for the persistence of antigen upon i.d. or i.v. immunization (Figures 32 and 33), we hypothesized that this may explain why we obtained an enhanced T cell response after local antigen delivery. It was possible that i.d. immunization resulted in a local antigen depot that would allow for the delayed release of antigen from the site of injection and, consequently, an extended period of antigen presentation in lymphoid organs and a better CD8 + T cell response. This model was also in line with previous results obtained in our lab showing that persistence of antigen is required to have effective cross-priming (Jusforgues-Saklani et al., 2008). To test this hypothesis, we injected mice with antibodies directed against the MHC-I-peptide complexe: H-2K b -SIINFEKL. In this way the antibody will bind and mask antigen, blocking its presentation to T cells. This antibody has been previously characterized and used to block antigen presentation in vivo (Obar and Lefrancois, 2010). If our hypothesis was true, we expected to obtain the same level of response for i.d.-immunized mice that were injected with blocking antibody one week after immunization, and for i.v.-immunized animals. Yet this was not the result observed: the injection of the blocking antibody did not appear to impact the T cell response at all (Figure 36A, B). From these data, it is unclear whether our hypothesis was incorrect, or if the antibody is not efficient at blocking persistent cross-presentation. Indeed, it is difficult to address this question and validate its effect on peptide presentation, as it does not block OT-I proliferation in a control experiment (Figure 36C). Another strategy could be used to address this question: the injection of diphteria toxin receptor-expressing splenocytes could be performed, followed by their removal upon treatment with diphteria toxin. The ability to manipulate the presence of the antigen depot would allow for the investigation of the impact of antigen persistence on T cell priming over time. 110
tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013 Figure 36. Administration of K b -SIINFEKL antibody does not impact IFNγ production after i.d. immunization. (A,B) Mice were immunized i.d. with 5x10 5 K bm1 mOva splenocytes. They received anti-K b -SIINFEKL antibody or isotype control on days 7, 8 and 9. On day 10, the spleen and lymph nodes were harvested for tetramer-based enrichment followed by ex vivo restimulation and intracellular staining for IFNγ. (A) Representative FACS plots of CD8 + T cells were shown. Percentages of CD8 + T cells making IFNγ were evaluated (B). (C) To test the ability of the antibody to block antigen presentation, mice were immunized i.v. with 5x10 5 K bm1 mOva splenocytes. On day 2, they received the blocking antibody or the isotype control. On day 3 post-immunization, 5x10 6 CD45.1 CFSE-labeled OT-I were transferred and the CFSE dilution was evaluated 3 days later. In this section we demonstrated that the quality of the T cell response depends on the route of immunization. As expected, systemically disseminated antigen resulted in rapid cross- presentation, which correlated with the early differentiation of antigen-specific effector T cells. This was in contrast to locally administered antigen, which showed delayed cross- presentation and expansion of responding T cells. Although initially delayed, the T cell response upon i.d. injection was much more robust and polyfunctional that that seen following i.v. injection. Interestingly, the magnitude of T cell expansion was similar for both routes of immunization. Thus, we can conclude that the route of immunization impacts T cell quality but not primary expansion. These differences were not observed upon transfer of large numbers of TCR-transgenic T cells, which highlights the importance of the in-depth Page 111 of 256
- Page 59 and 60: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 61 and 62: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 63 and 64: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 65 and 66: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 67 and 68: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 69 and 70: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 71 and 72: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 73 and 74: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 75 and 76: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 77 and 78: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 79 and 80: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 81 and 82: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 83 and 84: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 85 and 86: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 87 and 88: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 89 and 90: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 91 and 92: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 93 and 94: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 95 and 96: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 97 and 98: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 99 and 100: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 101 and 102: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 103 and 104: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 105 and 106: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 107 and 108: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 109: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 113 and 114: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 115 and 116: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 117 and 118: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 119 and 120: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 121 and 122: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 123 and 124: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 125 and 126: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 127 and 128: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 129 and 130: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 131 and 132: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 133 and 134: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 135 and 136: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 137 and 138: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 139 and 140: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 141 and 142: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 143 and 144: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 145 and 146: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 147 and 148: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 149 and 150: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 151 and 152: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 153 and 154: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 155 and 156: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 157 and 158: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
- Page 159 and 160: tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 20
tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013<br />
C. Inhibition of cross-presentation with anti-K b -SIINFEKL<br />
antibody<br />
Given the differences we observed for the persistence of antigen upon i.d. or i.v.<br />
immunization (Figures 32 and 33), we hypothesized that this may explain why we obtained<br />
an enhanced T cell response after local antigen <strong>de</strong>livery. It was possible that i.d.<br />
immunization resulted in a local antigen <strong>de</strong>pot that would allow for the <strong>de</strong>layed release of<br />
antigen from the site of injection and, consequently, an exten<strong>de</strong>d period of antigen<br />
presentation in lymphoid organs and a b<strong>et</strong>ter CD8 + T cell response. This mo<strong>de</strong>l was also in<br />
line with previous results obtained in our lab showing that persistence of antigen is required to<br />
have effective cross-priming (Jusforgues-Saklani <strong>et</strong> al., 2008).<br />
To test this hypothesis, we injected mice with antibodies directed against the MHC-I-pepti<strong>de</strong><br />
complexe: H-2K b -SIINFEKL. In this way the antibody will bind and mask antigen, blocking<br />
its presentation to T cells. This antibody has been previously characterized and used to block<br />
antigen presentation in vivo (Obar and Lefrancois, 2010). If our hypothesis was true, we<br />
expected to obtain the same level of response for i.d.-immunized mice that were injected with<br />
blocking antibody one week after immunization, and for i.v.-immunized animals. Y<strong>et</strong> this was<br />
not the result observed: the injection of the blocking antibody did not appear to impact the T<br />
cell response at all (Figure 36A, B). From these data, it is unclear wh<strong>et</strong>her our hypothesis was<br />
incorrect, or if the antibody is not efficient at blocking persistent cross-presentation. In<strong>de</strong>ed, it<br />
is difficult to address this question and validate its effect on pepti<strong>de</strong> presentation, as it does<br />
not block OT-I proliferation in a control experiment (Figure 36C). Another strategy could be<br />
used to address this question: the injection of diphteria toxin receptor-expressing splenocytes<br />
could be performed, followed by their removal upon treatment with diphteria toxin. The<br />
ability to manipulate the presence of the antigen <strong>de</strong>pot would allow for the investigation of<br />
the impact of antigen persistence on T cell priming over time.<br />
110