The hallmarks of the adaptive immune response are specificity and memory. The cellular response is mediated by T cells which express cell surface T cell receptors (TCRs) that recognize peptide antigens in complex with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules on antigen presenting cells (APCs). However, binding of cognate TCRs with MHC-peptide complexes alone (signal 1) does not trigger optimal T cell activation. In addition to signal 1, the binding of positive and negative costimulatory receptors to their ligands modulates T cell activation. This complex signaling network prevents aberrant activation of T cells. CD28 is the main positive costimulatory receptor on naïve T cells; upon activation, CTLA4 is induced but reduces T cell activation. Further studies led to the identification of additional negative costimulatory receptors known as checkpoints, e.g. PD1. This review chronicles the basic studies in T cell costimulation that led to the discovery of checkpoint inhibitors, i.e. antibodies to negative costimulatory receptors (e.g. CTLA4 and PD1) which reduce tumor growth. This discovery has been recognized with the award of the 2018 Nobel prize in Physiology/Medicine. This review highlights the structural and functional roles of costimulatory receptors, the mechanisms by which checkpoint inhibitors work, the challenges encountered and future prospects.

The ability of bacteria to form biofilms increases their survival under adverse environmental conditions. Biofilms have enormous medical and environmental impact; consequently, the factors that influence biofilm formation are an important area of study. In this investigation, the roles of two cold shock proteins (CSP) during biofilm formation were investigated in Salmonella Typhimurium, which is a major foodborne pathogen. Among all CSP transcripts studied, the expression of cspE (STM14_0732) was higher during biofilm growth. The cspE deletion strain (ΔcspE) did not form biofilms on a cholesterol coated glass surface; however, complementation with WT cspE, but not the F30V mutant, was able to rescue this phenotype. Transcript levels of other CSPs demonstrated up-regulation of cspA (STM14_4399) in ΔcspE. The cspA deletion strain (ΔcspA) did not affect biofilm formation; however, ΔcspEΔcspA exhibited higher biofilm formation compared to ΔcspE. Most likely, the higher cspA amounts in ΔcspE reduced biofilm formation, which was corroborated using cspA over-expression studies. Further functional studies revealed that ΔcspE and ΔcspEΔcspA exhibited slow swimming but no swarming motility. Although cspA over-expression did not affect motility, cspE complementation restored the swarming motility of ΔcspE. The transcript levels of the major genes involved in motility in ΔcspE demonstrated lower expression of the class III (fliC, motA, cheY), but not class I (flhD) or class II (fliA, fliL), flagellar regulon genes. Overall, this study has identified the interplay of two CSPs in regulating two biological processes: CspE is essential for motility in a CspA-independent manner whereas biofilm formation is CspA-dependent.

No abstract