Adenosine is an important regulator of inflammatory and immune responses, and recent studies have clearly shown that this includes regulation of T cell responses (
11,
12,
16,
17). Genetic ablation or pharmacologic blockade of A
2AAR or A
2BAR leads to overexuberant immune responses and pathology (
4,
7,
36). Conversely, adenosine analogs are protective in many models of inflammatory disease (
11–
15). While the direct effects of adenosine on T cells have been studied in some detail, substantially less is known about the indirect effects that occur due to the effects of adenosine on the function of DC. The present study demonstrates that A
2BAR modulates murine BMDC maturation such that their immunogenicity is altered.
Although previous efforts have been made to examine adenosine receptor expression and function on DC, these studies have proved incomplete, and in some cases conflicting. Panther et al. reported that adenosine impairs TNF-
α and IL-12 responses to LPS in human monocyte-derived DC, while enhancing IL-10 production (
26). However, adenosine did not affect LPS-induced CD86 or MHC-II expression, nor did adenosine treatment impair their capacity to promote CD4
+ T cell proliferation in an MLR. The authors suggest that the observed responses were mediated via the A
2AAR, whereas A
2BAR was not even expressed (
25). In contrast, Hofer et al. reported that adenosine slows the migration of human monocyte-derived DC, but has no effect on cytokine production or surface marker expression in cells stimulated with a cocktail of TNF-
α, IL-1
β, IL-6, and prostaglandin E
2 (
27). A
2BAR mRNA was detected in their cells, but at very low levels compared with A
2AAR or A
3AR. Differences in the stimuli used to mature the DC and/or in the protocols used to harvest and generate the DC may explain the conflicting results.
To investigate the role of adenosine receptors in regulating murine DC, we elected to study BMDC. These cells can be generated in large numbers by in vitro culture and are widely used as a model myeloid DC (
37). We found that the nonselective adenosine analog NECA had little measurable effect on TNF-
α, IL-12, IL-10, CD86, or MHC-II responses on resting, nonstimulated BMDC. However, in the context of an LPS stimulus, NECA significantly modulated these markers. Our data indicate that IL-10, but not TGF
β, is an important mediator in the regulation of IL-12 and CD86 responses by NECA. Interestingly, TNF-
α does not seem to be under the control of IL-10 in this system, suggesting that adenosine differentially regulates these responses. Our combined approach of using adenosine receptor knockout mice and pharmacologic inhibitors strongly suggests that A
2BAR is the predominant immunoregulatory receptor in BMDC. This observation is consistent with the report by Yang et al. indicating a prominent regulatory role for A
2BAR in another APC, the peritoneal macrophage (
7). This finding is also consistent with two recent reports demonstrating that A
2BAR modulates DC development and function (
38,
39). However, the A
2BAR finding does conflict with a previous study with DC. For instance, Desrosiers et al. concluded that adenosine regulates BMDC cytokine and CD86 expression via A
1AR (
29). Although we did not directly address A
1AR in our studies with A
1AR
−/− mice or selective antagonists to the A
1AR, A
1AR mRNA was not detectable in our BMDC, and moreover the observed effects of NECA seem to be entirely accounted for by the combined effects of A
2AAR and A
2BAR. One explanation for this discrepancy may be in the protocols used to generate or manipulate BMDC. For instance, our BMDC were cultivated with 20 ng/ml GM-CSF, in contrast to 3 ng/ml GM-CSF and 3 ng/ml IL-4 in the previous report. To address this we directly compared adenosine receptor expression in BMDC generated with both GM-CSF and IL-4 to our typical BMDC preparation. A
2BAR expression was found to be similar in both BMDC preparations, and the receptor continued to have a substantial functional role. However, it was interesting that both the expression and function of A
2AAR was enhanced in BMDC cultivated with GM-CSF and IL-4. Thus, while the data presented herein show that A
2BAR was predominantly responsible for immunoregulatory effects in the BMDC population we studied, we cannot exclude a role for other adenosine receptors in regulating DC prepared by other means or isolated from distinct tissues. Accordingly, while preliminary studies indicate that DC enriched from intestinal lamina propria express A
2BAR, it will be important in future studies to examine the functional role of A
2BAR in this DC population.
The data reported herein also suggest that BMDC are a heterogeneous population with varying capacity to respond to NECA. CD86 expression was clearly impaired in a subset of BMDC that were stimulated with LPS in the presence of NECA, but some BMDC still expressed elevated CD86. This heterogeneity may reflect the presence of unique DC subsets, or alternatively may indicate that BMDC are at different maturation stages before being treated with NECA. Although it is not evident why two different populations emerge, it is clear that the NECA-responsive CD86
low population expresses a unique adenosine receptor and cytokine expression “signature” and has reduced capacity to stimulate CD4
+ T cells, as compared with the comparably treated CD86
high cells. The NECA responsive CD86
low population, characterized as IL-12p40
low, IL-10
+, CD86
low, MHC-II
low, and with poor capacity to stimulate CD4
+ T cells, has features descriptive of a tolerogenic DC (
40,
41). It is not clear whether enhanced A
2BAR expression facilitates NECA impairment of CD86 in a subset of cells and/or whether A
2BAR is elevated as a result of NECA treatment. It also remains to be seen whether NECA confers a unique phenotype on stimulated BMDC, or whether NECA treatment selects for a preexisting population of BMDC with reduced immunogenicity. Another outstanding question is whether NECA responsive CD86
low BMDC favor regulatory T cells and thus active suppression, or whether deficient costimulation leads to anergic CD4
+ T cells. Future studies will characterize the role that adenosine receptors play in regulating other DC populations and determine whether adenosine favors tolerance in vivo through action on DC. Illumination of adenosine’s role in controlling host responses will have implications for the therapeutic use of adenosine agonists and antagonists to treat inflammatory disorders.