Two mechanisms that account for major histocompatibility complex restriction of T cells

In recent studies, two distinct mechanisms have been proposed to account for major histocompatibility complex (MHC) restriction of T-cell activity: (a) evolution-driven interactions between T-cell receptor (TCR) variable regions and MHC, and (b) a requirement for CD4 or CD8 binding to MHC to initiate signalling through the TCR complex. Both mechanisms are likely to be essential, but for different reasons

T Cells Use Rafts for Survival

T cell homeostasis must be tightly controlled. In this issue of Immunity, Cho et al. (2010) describe results that begin to define the roles of the T cell receptor, self-peptide-MHC ligands, cytokines, and membrane rafts in this dynamic process

Interaction of Streptavidin-Based Peptide-MHC Oligomers (Tetramers) with Cell-Surface T Cell Receptors

he binding of oligomeric peptide–MHC (pMHC) complexes to cell surface TCR can be considered to approximate TCR–pMHC interactions at cell-cell interfaces. In this study, we analyzed the equilibrium binding of streptavidin-based pMHC oligomers (tetramers) and their dissociation kinetics from CD8[superscript pos] T cells from 2C-TCR transgenic mice and from T cell hybridomas that expressed the 2C TCR or a high-affinity mutant (m33) of this TCR. Our results show that the tetramers did not come close to saturating cell-surface TCR (binding only 10–30% of cell-surface receptors), as is generally assumed in deriving affinity values (K[subscript D]), in part because of dissociative losses from tetramer-stained cells. Guided by a kinetic model, the oligomer dissociation rate and equilibrium constants were seen to depend not only on monovalent association and dissociation rates (k[subscript off] and k[subscript on]), but also on a multivalent association rate (μ) and TCR cell-surface density. Our results suggest that dissociation rates could account for the recently described surprisingly high frequency of tetramer-negative, functionally competent T cells in some T cell responses.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant P01 CA097296)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant R01 GM55767)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant PO1-AI071195)National Institutes of Health (U.S.). Pioneer Awar

Contrasting reactive and proactive control of emotional distraction

peer reviewedAttending to emotional stimuli is often beneficial, because they provide important social and environmental cues. Sometimes, however, current goals require that we ignore them. To what extent can we control emotional distraction? Here we show that the ability to ignore emotional distractions depends on the type of cognitive control that is engaged. Participants completed a simple perceptual task at fixation while irrelevant images appeared peripherally. In 2 experiments, we manipulated the proportion of trials in which images appeared, to encourage use of either reactive control (rare distractors) or proactive control (frequent distractors). Under reactive control, both negative and positive images were more distracting than neutral images, even though they were irrelevant and appeared in unattended locations. However, under proactive control, distraction by both emotional and neutral images was eliminated. Proactive control was triggered by the meaning, and not the location, of distracting images. Our findings argue against simple bottom-up or top-down explanations of emotional distraction, and instead show how the flexible use of cognitive control supports adaptive processing of emotional distractors. (PsycINFO Database Recor

TCR-engineered adoptive cell therapy effectively treats intracranial murine glioblastoma

BACKGROUND: Adoptive cellular therapies with chimeric antigen receptor T cells have revolutionized the treatment of some malignancies but have shown limited efficacy in solid tumors such as glioblastoma and face a scarcity of safe therapeutic targets. As an alternative, T cell receptor (TCR)-engineered cellular therapy against tumor-specific neoantigens has generated significant excitement, but there exist no preclinical systems to rigorously model this approach in glioblastoma. METHODS: We employed single-cell PCR to isolate a TCR specific for the Imp3 RESULTS: We isolated and characterized the 3×1.1C TCR that displayed a high affinity for mImp3 but no wild-type cross-reactivity. To provide a source of mImp3-specific T cells, we generated the MISTIC mouse. In a model of adoptive cellular therapy, the infusion of activated MISTIC T cells resulted in rapid intratumoral infiltration and profound antitumor effects with long-term cures in a majority of GL261-bearing mice. The subset of mice that did not respond to the adoptive cell therapy showed evidence of retained neoantigen expression but intratumoral MISTIC T cell dysfunction. The efficacy of MISTIC T cell therapy was lost in mice bearing a tumor with heterogeneous mImp3 expression, showcasing the barriers to targeted therapy in polyclonal human tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We generated and characterized the first TCR transgenic against an endogenous neoantigen within a preclinical glioma model and demonstrated the therapeutic potential of adoptively transferred neoantigen-specific T cells. The MISTIC mouse provides a powerful novel platform for basic and translational studies of antitumor T-cell responses in glioblastoma