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.archives.ouvertes.fr
from tel.archives.ouvertes.fr More from this publisher
27.06.2013 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!