Control of In Vivo Collateral Damage Generated by T Cell Immunity

Abstract

An ongoing dilemma faced during an immune response is generating an effective, often proinflammatory response to eliminate pathogens and/or infected cells while also minimizing collateral damage to adjacent noninfected tissues. The factors limiting bystander cell injury during an Ag-specific immune response in vivo are largely unknown. In this study, using an in vivo model of islet transplants in TCR transgenic mice, we show that both CD4 and CD8 T cells do have the capacity to inflict adjacent tissue damage and that this injury is greatly enhanced in sensitized hosts. CD4 T cell–mediated killing of specific and bystander cells occurred via different mechanisms. Unlike specific target cell killing, CD4-mediated bystander injury required tissue Fas expression and was inhibited with anti–IFN-γ Ab treatment in vivo. Moreover, bystander cell injury was not entirely nonspecific but rather required, in naive recipients, that the MHC allele expressed by the bystanders was self. Importantly, the coinhibitor programmed death-1 plays an important role in restraining bystander cell injury mediated either by defined TCR transgenic T cells or by polyclonal T cell populations. Thus, the differential requirements for specific versus bystander cell injury suggest that there are opportunities for inhibiting immune pathology without compromising Ag-specific immunity in vivo.

Exploiting autoimmunity unleashed by low‐dose immune checkpoint blockade to treat advanced cancer

“…In addition, the ability of TCRs to interact with tonic self‐peptide/MHC ligands opens the possibility that a co‐inhibitor blockade causes T cell effector activity to spill over onto nearby healthy cells or tumour cells that have down‐regulated tumour antigens. Increased collateral damage is indeed seen during immune responses where a co‐inhibitor is lacking . Altogether, the above concepts suggest that all T cells are temporarily activated, expressing co‐inhibitors such as CTLA‐4 that can then be targeted by anti‐CTLA‐4 antibodies.…”

“…If this balance is perturbed, autoimmune reactions occur. To avoid collateral damage of normal tissues, natural inhibitory feedback loops, generated by co‐inhibitory signals, and also referred to as immune checkpoints, reduce inflammation following immune activation …”

To drive or be driven: the path of a mouse model of recurrent pregnancy loss

“…Another possibility, that includes naturally occurring T regs, is that these cells exist to limit “collateral damage” (Thangavelu, et al 2013) or ‘bystander effect (Anderson 2006)”. In this vein the original Danger model dealt with the generation of auto-reactive T cells in the context of an immune response to infection by suggesting that tissues, especially large and fast growing tissues could essentially “out run” the effects of auto-reactive T cells (Matzinger 1994), while small, slow growing tissues could not (Anderson, et al 2001).…”

Progress and opportunities for enhancing the delivery and efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors for cancer immunotherapy

“…During T cell response to infection, PD-1 functions to restrain collateral tissue damage [24]. Accordingly, therapeutic PD-1 blockade in the context of tumor immunotherapy is thought to work predominantly within the tumor microenvironment, where PD-1 is highly expressed on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes [25,26] and both tumor cells and tumor infiltrating leukocytes often over express its ligands [27].…”