Single cell analysis of host response to helminth infection reveals the clonal breadth, heterogeneity, and tissue-specific programming of the responding CD4+ T cell repertoire
Le résumé fourni par la source
The CD4+ T cell response is critical to host protection against helminth infection. How this response varies across different hosts and tissues remains an important gap in our understanding. Using IL-4-reporter mice to identify responding CD4+ T cells to Nippostrongylus brasiliensis infection, T cell receptor sequencing paired with novel clustering algorithms revealed a broadly reactive and clonally diverse CD4+ T cell response. While the most prevalent clones and clonotypes exhibited some tissue selectivity, most were observed to reside in both the lung and lung-draining lymph nodes. Antigen-reactivity of the broader repertoires was predicted to be shared across both tissues and individual mice. Transcriptome, trajectory, and chromatin accessibility analysis of lung and lymph-node repertoires revealed three unique but related populations of responding IL-4+ CD4+ T cells consistent with T follicular helper, T helper 2, and a transitional population sharing similarity with both populations. The shared antigen reactivity of lymph node and lung repertoires combined with the adoption of tissue-specific gene programs allows for the pairing of cellular and humoral responses critical to the orchestration of anti-helminth immunity.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Single cell analysis of host response to helminth infection reveals the clonal breadth, heterogeneity, and tissue-specific programming of the responding CD4+ T cell repertoire
- Date Crossref
- 18/05/2021
- Éditeur
- Adaptive Biotechnologies
- Type
- dataset
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.