The Journal of Experimental Medicine
VeriKine-HS Human IFN-Beta
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Published online
doi:10.1084/jem.2046fta
The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 204, No. 6, 1243-
The Rockefeller University Press, 0022-1007 $30.00
© Bashyam
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 478K)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JEM
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bashyam, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bashyam, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

FROM THE ARCHIVE

CTLA-4: From conflict to clinic

Hema Bashyam, JEM News Editor

hbashyam{at}rockefeller.edu


ABSTRACT
CTLA-4 was first identified in 1991 as a second receptor for the T cell costimulation ligand B7. Uncertainties about its biological function plagued the early years after its discovery until 1995, when it was confirmed to be an inhibitor of T cell responses. CTLA-4 has since scored in the clinic as a target for antitumor therapy and as a soluble inhibitor of autoimmunity.


Figure 1
Jeffrey Ledbetter (left) and James Allison

By the late 1980s, it was clear that naive T cells require two signals through two different receptors to spark to life. Tickling the T cell receptors (TCRs) alone with antigenic ligands makes the cells anergic. But a second signal from the B7 ligand on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) to the CD28 coreceptor goads T cells into action (1). As researchers pursued the mechanism of B7-CD28–mediated T cell costimulation, another T cell surface molecule was generating interest due to its homology with CD28.


Another T cell switch...
In 1987, researchers hunting for cytotoxic cell surface molecules isolated a cDNA from activated CD8+ T cells and called it cytotoxic T cell antigen (CTLA)-4 (2). Genetic studies provided a clue that connected CTLA-4 to T cell costimulation: CTLA-4 and CD28 both mapped to the same chromosomal neighborhood and shared a high degree of sequence similarity (3).

This information caught the attention of Jeffrey Ledbetter and Peter Linsley at the Bristol-Myers Squibb Research Institute (Seattle, WA). At the time, their group was studying B7-CD28 interactions using a soluble version of CD28 that lacked transmembrane and intracellular domains. The soluble CD28 protein worked just as well as the cell-attached version in binding B7 (4). So when CTLA-4 appeared on the radar, Linsley constructed a soluble CTLA-4 protein. The team hedged their bets on the similarities between CTLA-4 and CD28 and tested whether CTLA-4 also bound B7.

Soluble CTLA-4 turned out to bind B7 with 20-fold higher avidity than the soluble CD28 protein, establishing CTLA-4 as a second receptor for B7. The group published these results in The Journal of Experimental Medicine in 1991 (5). It now seemed that CTLA-4 was a third switch in what was previously thought to be a two-switch circuit for T cell activation. But whether it promoted or jammed the circuit was a contentious issue for several more years.


...but on or off?
The debate arose because in vitro assays of costimulation-dependent T cell proliferation offered multiple interpretations. T cells normally proliferate in vitro when cultured with B7-expressing APCs. But when soluble CTLA-4 was added to the mix, this proliferation was strongly inhibited (5).

One interpretation of this finding was that the soluble CTLA-4 blocked the binding of B7 to the CTLA-4 on the T cells. In this model, the T cell CTLA-4 was needed for proliferation, along with CD28. This conclusion was supported when the group showed that antibodies to CTLA-4 enhanced CD28-stimulated proliferation (6).

A second interpretation, however, was that soluble CTLA-4 might block proliferation by gumming up B7's interaction with CD28. And the CTLA-4 antibody might enhance proliferation not because it stimulates CLTA-4's proliferative power, but because it blocks CTLA-4's negative signal.

This alternative role for CTLA-4 was supported by the work of James Allison and his team at the University of California (Berkeley, CA), which was also published in the JEM (7). This group studied cross-talk among TCR, CD28, and CTLA-4 by cross-linking these receptors. T cells proliferated when the TCR was linked to CD28, but not with CTLA-4. T cell proliferation was greatly reduced when all three receptors were cross-linked simultaneously, suggesting that CTLA-4 inhibits CD28 costimulation.

The generation of CTLA-4 knock-out mice finally put the conflict to rest. These animals develop a fatal T cell proliferative disorder, as their T cells lack the brakes to hold them in check (8). CTLA-4 was thus established as a negative regulator of T cell function and proliferation.


CTLA-4 in the clinic
One benefit of enhancing T cell responses via CTLA-4 blockade is the strengthening of antitumor immunity. Allison's team found that tumor-transplanted mice injected with antibodies that block CTLA-4 activity rejected several different types of tumors and had long-lasting antitumor immunity (9). Human anti-CTLA-4 mAbs are now in phase III clinical trials against melanoma and renal carcinomas. CTLA-4 has also been called into service to turn off dangerous immune responses. The T cell–inhibiting soluble CTLA-4 originally defined by Linsley and Ledbetter is now used to treat autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis.



REFERENCES

1 Chambers, C.A., et al. 2001. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 19:565–594.[CrossRef][Medline]

2 Brunet, J.F., et al. 1987. Nature. 328:267–270.[CrossRef][Medline]

3 Dariavach, P., et al. 1988. Eur. J. Immunol. 18:1901.[Medline]

4 Linsley, P.S., et al. 1991. J. Exp. Med. 173:721.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5 Linsley, P.S., et al. 1991. J. Exp. Med. 174:561–569.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6 Linsley, P.S., et al. 1992. J. Exp. Med. 176:1595–1604.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7 Krummel, M.F., and J.P. Allison. 1995. J. Exp. Med. 182:459–465.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8 Tivol, E.A., et al. 1995. Immunity. 3:541–547.[CrossRef][Medline]

9 Leach, D., et al. 1996. Science. 271:1734–1736.[Abstract]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 478K)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JEM
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bashyam, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bashyam, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search
TABLE OF CONTENTS