Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is the most commonly used experimental model for the human inflammatory demyelinating disease, multiple sclerosis (MS). EAE is a complex condition in which the interaction between a variety of immunopathological and neuropathological mechanisms leads to an approximation of the key pathological features of MS: inflammation, demyelination, axonal loss and gliosis. The counter-regulatory mechanisms of resolution of inflammation and remyelination also occur in EAE, which, therefore can also serve as a model for these processes. Moreover, EAE is often used as a model of cell-mediated organ-specific autoimmune conditions in general. EAE has a complex neuropharmacology, and many of the drugs that are in current or imminent use in MS have been developed, tested or validated on the basis of EAE studies. There is great heterogeneity in the susceptibility to the induction, the method of induction and the response to various immunological or neuropharmacological interventions, many of which are reviewed here. This makes EAE a very versatile system to use in translational neuro-and immunopharmacology, but the model needs to be tailored to the scientific question being asked. While creating difficulties and underscoring the inherent weaknesses of this model of MS in straightforward translation from EAE to the human disease, this variability also creates an opportunity to explore multiple facets of the immune and neural mechanisms of immune-mediated neuroinflammation and demyelination as well as intrinsic protective mechanisms. This allows the eventual development and preclinical testing of a wide range of potential therapeutic interventions. LINKED ARTICLESThis article is part of a themed issue on Translational Neuropharmacology. To view the other articles in this issue visit http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/bph.2011.164.issue-4 Abbreviations ADEM, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis; ADNP, activity dependent neuroprotective protein; AHR, aryl hydrocarbon receptor; APC, antigen-presenting cells; APL, altered peptide ligand; AT, adoptive transfer; C1 and CB2 receptors, cannabinoid receptors 1 and 2; CIS, clinically isolated syndrome; CNS, central nervous system; DA, dark agouti; DMT, disease-modifying treatment; EAE, experimental autoimmune (allergic) encephalomyelitis; EAN, experimental autoimmune (allergic) neuritis; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; GA, glatiramer acetate; IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; IL-1RA, interleukin 1 receptor antagonist; JCV, John Cunningham virus; MBP, myelin basic protein; MOG, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MPTP, 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine; NABT, normal appearing brain tissue; NAWM, normal appearing white matter; NMO, neuromyelitis optica; NK1 receptor, neurokinin 1 receptor; PGE, prostaglandin E; PLP, proteolipid protein; PP, primary progressive; PR, progressive relapsing; ROR, retinoid orphan receptor; RR, relapsing-remitting; SP, secondary progressive; TCR, T-cell receptor; TGF, transforming growth...

Recently the rationale for combining targeted therapy with immunotherapy has come to light, but our understanding of the immune response during MAPK pathway inhibitor treatment is limited. We discovered that the immune-microenvironment can act as source of resistance to MAPK pathway-targeted therapy, and moreover during treatment this source becomes reinforced. In particular, we identified macrophage-derived TNFα as a crucial melanoma-growth factor that provides resistance to MAPK pathway inhibitors through the lineage-transcription factor MITF. Most strikingly, in BRAF mutant melanomas of patients and BRafV600E-melanoma allografts MAPK pathway inhibitors increased the number of tumor-associated macrophages, and TNFα and MITF expression. Inhibiting TNFα-signaling with IκB-kinase inhibitors profoundly enhanced the efficacy of MAPK pathway inhibitors by targeting not only the melanoma cells, but also the microenvironment. In summary, we identify the immune-microenvironment as a novel source of resistance and reveal a new strategy to improve the efficacy of targeted therapy in melanoma.

Naturally occurring CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ regulatory T cells suppress the activity of pathogenic T cells and prevent development of autoimmune responses. There is growing evidence that TLRs are involved in modulating regulatory T cell (Treg) functions both directly and indirectly. Specifically, TLR2 stimulation has been shown to reduce the suppressive function of Tregs by mechanisms that are incompletely understood. The developmental pathways of Tregs and Th17 cells are considered divergent and mutually inhibitory, and IL-17 secretion has been reported to be associated with reduced Treg function. We hypothesized that TLR2 stimulation may reduce the suppressive function of Tregs by regulating the balance between Treg and Th17 phenotype and function. We examined the effect of different TLR2 ligands on the suppressive functions of Tregs and found that activation of TLR1/2 heterodimers reduces the suppressive activity of CD4+CD25hiFOXP3lowCD45RA+ (naive) and CD4+CD25hiFOXP3hiCD45RA− (memory or effector) Treg subpopulations on CD4+CD25−FOXP3−CD45RA+ responder T cell proliferation while at the same time enhancing the secretion of IL-6 and IL-17, increasing RORC, and decreasing FOXP3 expression. Neutralization of IL-6 or IL-17 abrogated Pam3Cys-mediated reduction of Treg suppressive function. We also found that, in agreement with recent observations in mouse T cells, TLR2 stimulation can promote Th17 differentiation of human T helper precursors. We conclude that TLR2 stimulation, in combination with TCR activation and costimulation, promotes the differentiation of distinct subsets of human naive and memory/effector Tregs into a Th17-like phenotype and their expansion. Such TLR-induced mechanism of regulation of Treg function could enhance microbial clearance and increase the risk of autoimmune reactions.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a multifactorial, often progressive, painful disease. OA often progresses with an apparent irreversible loss of articular cartilage, exposing underlying bone, resulting in pain and loss of mobility. This cartilage loss is thought to be permanent due to ineffective repair and apparent lack of stem/progenitor cells in that tissue. However, the adjacent synovial lining and synovial fluid are abundant with mesenchymal progenitor/stem cells (synovial mesenchymal progenitor cells [sMPCs]) capable of differentiating into cartilage both in vitro and in vivo. Previous studies have demonstrated that MPCs can home to factors such as monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP‐1/CCL2) expressed after injury. While MCP‐1 (and its corresponding receptors) appears to play a role in recruiting stem cells to the site of injury, in this study, we have demonstrated that MCP‐1 is upregulated in OA synovial fluid and that exposure to MCP‐1 activates sMPCs, while concurrently inhibiting these cells from undergoing chondrogenesis in vitro. Furthermore, exposure to physiological (OA knee joint synovial fluid) levels of MCP‐1 triggers changes in the transcriptome of sMPCs and prolonged exposure to the chemokine induces the expression of MCP‐1 in sMPCs, resulting in a positive feedback loop from which sMPCs cannot apparently escape. Therefore, we propose a model where MCP‐1 (normally expressed after joint injury) recruits sMPCs to the area of injury, but concurrently triggers changes in sMPC transcriptional regulation, leading to a blockage in the chondrogenic program. These results may open up new avenues of research into the lack of endogenous repair observed after articular cartilage injury and/or arthritis. Stem Cells 2013;31:2253–2265