The macrophage F4/80 receptor is required for the induction of antigen-specific efferent regulatory T cells in peripheral tolerance

We show that the mouse macrophage-restricted F4/80 protein is not required for the development and distribution of tissue macrophages but is involved in the generation of antigen-specific efferent regulatory T (T reg) cells that suppress antigen-specific immunity. In the in vivo anterior chamber (a.c.)–associated immune deviation (ACAID) model of peripheral tolerance, a.c. inoculation of antigen into F4/80−/− mice was unable to induce efferent T reg cells and suppress delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses. Moreover, the use of anti-F4/80 mAb and F4/80−/− APCs in an in vitro ACAID model showed that all APC cells in the culture must be able to express F4/80 protein if efferent T reg cells were to be generated. In a low-dose oral tolerance model, WT but not F4/80−/− mice generated an efferent CD8+ T reg cell population that suppressed an antigen-specific DTH response. Peripheral tolerance was restored in F4/80−/− mice by adoptive transfer of F4/80+ APCs in both peripheral tolerance models, indicating a central role for the F4/80 molecule in the generation of efferent CD8+ T reg cells

Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology

Even though there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the risks of nanotechnology, many scholars have argued that policy-making cannot be placed on hold until risk assessments are complete (Faunce, Med J Aust 186(4):189–191, 2007; Kuzma, J Nanopart Res 9(1):165–182, 2007; O’Brien and Cummins, Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568–592, 2008; Powell et al., Environ Manag 42(3):426–443, 2008). In the absence of risk assessment data, decision makers often rely on scientists’ input about risks and regulation to make policy decisions. The research we present here goes beyond the earlier descriptive studies about nanotechnology regulation to explore the heuristics that the leading U.S. nanoscientists use when they make policy decisions about regulating nanotechnology. In particular, we explore the relationship between nanoscientists’ risk and benefit perceptions and their support for nanotech regulation. We conclude that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks; yet, their perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotech regulation. We also find some gender and disciplinary differences among the nanoscientists. Males are less supportive of nanotech regulation than their female peers and materials scientists are more supportive of nanotechnology regulation than scientists in other fields. Lastly, our findings illustrate that the leading U.S. nanoscientists see the areas of surveillance/privacy, human enhancement, medicine, and environment as the nanotech application areas that are most in need of new regulations