Dioszeghy Vincent, Mondoulet Lucie, Puteaux Emilie, Dhelft Véronique, Ligouis Mélanie, Plaquet Camille, Dupont Christophe, Benhamou Pierre-Henri
Research Department, DBV Technologies, Paris, 92220, France.
Pédiatrie-Gastroentérologie, Université Paris Descartes &APHP-Hôpital Necker, Paris, 75743, France.
Cell Mol Immunol. 2017 Sep;14(9):770-782. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2016.14. Epub 2016 Apr 11.
Allergen-specific immunotherapy has been proposed as an attractive strategy to actively treat food allergy using the following three different immunotherapy routes: oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT) and epicutaneous (EPIT) immunotherapy. Regulatory T cells (Tregs) have been shown to have a pivotal role in the mechanisms of immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the phenotype and function of Tregs induced in peanut-sensitized BALB/c mice using these three routes of treatment. We show that although EPIT, OIT and SLIT were all able to effectively desensitize peanut-sensitized mice, they induced different subsets of Tregs. Foxp3+ Tregs were induced by the three treatment routes but with greater numbers induced by EPIT. EPIT and OIT also increased the level of LAP+ Tregs, whereas SLIT induced IL-10+ cells. The suppressive activity of EPIT-induced Tregs did not depend on IL-10 but required CTLA-4, whereas OIT acted through both mechanisms and SLIT was strictly dependent on IL-10. Moreover, the three routes influenced the homing properties of induced Tregs differently, with a larger repertoire of chemokine receptors expressed by EPIT-induced Tregs compared with OIT- and SLIT- induced cells, resulting in different protective consequences against allergen exposure. Furthermore, whereas OIT- or SLIT-induced Tregs lost their suppressive activities after treatment was discontinued, the suppressive activities of EPIT-induced Tregs were still effective 8 weeks after the end of treatment, suggesting the induction of a more long-lasting tolerance. In summary, EPIT, OIT and SLIT mediated desensitization through the induction of different subsets of Tregs, leading to important differences in the subsequent protection against allergen exposure and the possible induction of tolerance.
变应原特异性免疫疗法已被提出作为一种有吸引力的策略,通过以下三种不同的免疫疗法途径来积极治疗食物过敏:口服(OIT)、舌下(SLIT)和经皮(EPIT)免疫疗法。调节性T细胞(Tregs)已被证明在免疫疗法机制中起关键作用。本研究的目的是比较使用这三种治疗途径在花生致敏的BALB/c小鼠中诱导的Tregs的表型和功能。我们发现,尽管EPIT、OIT和SLIT都能有效使花生致敏小鼠脱敏,但它们诱导了不同亚群的Tregs。三种治疗途径均诱导了Foxp3+ Tregs,但EPIT诱导的数量更多。EPIT和OIT还增加了LAP+ Tregs的水平,而SLIT诱导了IL-10+细胞。EPIT诱导的Tregs的抑制活性不依赖于IL-10,但需要CTLA-4,而OIT通过两种机制起作用,SLIT则严格依赖于IL-10。此外,这三种途径对诱导的Tregs的归巢特性影响不同,与OIT和SLIT诱导的细胞相比,EPIT诱导的Tregs表达的趋化因子受体种类更多,导致对变应原暴露的保护结果不同。此外,OIT或SLIT诱导的Tregs在治疗停止后失去其抑制活性,而EPIT诱导的Tregs的抑制活性在治疗结束8周后仍然有效,这表明诱导了更持久的耐受性。总之,EPIT、OIT和SLIT通过诱导不同亚群的Tregs介导脱敏,导致随后对变应原暴露的保护以及可能的耐受性诱导方面存在重要差异。