The A2B Adenosine Receptor Promotes Th17 Differentiation via Stimulation of Dendritic Cell IL-6

doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1100117

J Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 June 15.

Published in final edited form as:

J Immunol. 2011 June 15; 186(12): 6746–6752.

Published online 2011 May 18. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100117

PMCID: PMC3365485

NIHMSID: NIHMS376714

The A_2B Adenosine Receptor Promotes Th17 Differentiation via Stimulation of Dendritic Cell IL-6

Jeffrey M. Wilson,^* Courtney C. Kurtz,^* Steven G. Black,^* William G. Ross,^* Mohammed S. Alam,^* Joel Linden,^† and Peter B. Ernst^*

^*Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908

^†La Jolla Institute of Allergy and Immunology, La Jolla, CA 92037

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Peter B. Ernst, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 100708, Charlottesville, VA 22908. Email: pernst/at/virginia.edu

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available free at J Immunol

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Abstract

Adenosine is an endogenous metabolite produced during hypoxia or inflammation. Previously implicated as an anti-inflammatory mediator in CD4⁺ T cell regulation, we report that adenosine acts via dendritic cell (DC) A_2B adenosine receptor (A_2BAR) to promote the development of Th17 cells. Mouse naive CD4⁺ T cells cocultured with DCs in the presence of adenosine or the stable adenosine mimetic 5′-(N-ethylcarboximado) adenosine resulted in the differentiation of IL-17– and IL-22–secreting cells and elevation of mRNA that encode signature Th17-associated molecules, such as IL-23R and RORγt. The observed response was similar when DCs were generated from bone marrow or isolated from small intestine lamina propria. Experiments using antagonists and cells from A_2BAR^−/− adenosine receptor or A_2AAR^−/−/A_2BAR^−/− mice indicated that the DC A_2BAR promoted the effect. IL-6, stimulated in a cAMP-independent manner, is an important mediator in this pathway. Hence, in addition to previously noted direct effects of adenosine receptors on regulatory T cell development and function, these data indicated that adenosine also acts indirectly to modulate CD4⁺ T cell differentiation and suggested a mechanism for putative proinflammatory effects of A_2BAR.

Discrete populations of CD4⁺ T lymphocytes with unique cytokine-expression signatures are important for host health and immunity in the face of a diverse array of pathogenic and commensal microorganisms. Classically divided into just two subsets (1), more recent findings indicated a broader diversity in CD4⁺ T cell heterogeneity. For instance, it is now well accepted that, in addition to Th1 and Th2 cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) and Th17 cells represent functionally unique cells that develop from a common naive precursor (2, 3). Development into these subsets is controlled largely by cues derived from APCs during activation of Ag-inexperienced CD4⁺ T cells. Elaborating the factors and processes that govern the differentiation of CD4⁺ T cells remains a fundamental goal of cellular immunology.

Adenosine is a purine nucleoside with multitudinous physiological effects. Accumulating during hypoxia and inflammation, it is now clear that adenosine acts on both innate and adaptive immune cells, with the outcome depending on the combinatorial expression of four unique G protein-coupled receptors (reviewed in Refs. 4–6). Signaling via the G_s-coupled A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR), adenosine regulates T cell activation directly (7–11) and has been implicated in the development and function of Tregs (12–14). Indeed, the protective effect of adenosine analogs in many inflammatory disease models has been largely attributed to anti-inflammatory actions on T cells (15, 16). Adenosine receptor (AR) expression in APCs is more diverse, although A_2AAR and the G_s/G_q-coupled A_2BAR predominate (17–19). Previous reports suggested that the effects of adenosine on APCs are also largely anti-inflammatory, as exemplified by attenuated TNF-α and augmented IL-10 (18, 20). Because Gs-coupled responses induce cAMP in both T cells and APCs, current hypotheses suggest that the accumulation of cAMP accounts for many of the inhibitory effects of adenosine (6, 21, 22). However, in some in vivo models, interference with the A_2BAR protected animals from various forms of intestinal inflammation, suggesting that these receptors are proinflammatory (23, 24). These potential proinflammatory effects of adenosine are not well understood.

Because adenosine acts on both APCs and T cells and is abundant at inflammatory sites, it could represent a physiological mediator that influences CD4⁺ T cell differentiation. Previous reports indicated that adenosine acts directly on T cells to inhibit Th1 cytokine responses (25) and promote Treg development (14). However, the role of adenosine in controlling CD4⁺ T cell differentiation in the context of APCs has not been comprehensively examined, especially in light of the broader heterogeneity of CD4⁺ T cell responses now appreciated. To determine the effects of adenosine on the fate of APC-primed naive CD4⁺ T cells, highly purified FACS-sorted CD4⁺CD62L^hiCD44^loCD25^lo T cells were cocultured with dendritic cells (DCs) in the presence of adenosine or a stable nonselective adenosine mimetic. In this article, we report that under these conditions, adenosine preferentially favored CD4⁺ T cells with a Th17 cytokine and transcription factor signature. Induction of Th17 cells was predominantly controlled by DC A_2BAR and was conserved, even in the presence of TGF-β1. IL-6 is an important mediator of the response, as revealed by neutralizing Ab to IL-6–gp130. A_2BAR stimulation of DC IL-6 required the phospholipase C (PLC)β/protein kinase C (PKC) pathway, but cAMP was dispensable. These data collectively indicated that, under some circumstances, adenosine acts via A_2BARs expressed on DCs to alter the cytokine microenvironment and favor the development of Th17 cells. Thus, adenosine represents a biological mediator that controls CD4⁺ T cell differentiation.

Materials and Methods

Mice

C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. A_2AAR^−/−, A_2BAR^−/−, and A_2AAR^−/−/A_2BAR^−/− double knockout mice on a C57BL/6 background were bred and maintained at the University of Virginia (17). All mice were housed and handled in accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Virginia.

Reagents

Adenosine, the adenosine mimetic 5′-(N-ethylcarboximado) adenosine (NECA), the cAMP inhibitor protein kinase inhibitor, and the exchange proteins directly activated by cAMP (EPAC) agonist 8-pCPT-2′-O-Me-cAMP were purchased from Sigma. The AR antagonists ZM241385 and SCH58261 were purchased from Tocris, and ATL692 was kindly provided by PGxHealth, a division of Clinical Data (Charlottesville, VA). The following cell-signaling inhibitors were purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology: 2′, 5′-dideoxyadenosine, PD98059, SB203580, U-73122, LY294002, and bisindolylmaleimide I.

Cell purification

Naive CD4⁺ T cells were isolated from spleen by physical disaggregation, followed by RBC lysis with ACK buffer and enrichment with CD4 microbeads and LS columns (Miltenyi Biotec), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Resultant cells were stained with anti-mouse CD4-FITC (BD Biosciences), CD44-PE (eBioscience), CD62L-PE/Cy5.5 (eBioscience), and CD25-allophycocyanin (BD Biosciences), and CD4⁺ CD44^loCD62L^hiCD25^lo cells were sorted with a BD FACSVantage cell sorter. In some cases, CD4⁺ or CD4⁺CD62L⁺ T cells were enriched with CD4⁺ or CD4⁺CD62L⁺ MACS kits (Miltenyi Biotec), according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Bone marrow-derived DCs (BMDCs) were generated as described previously (17). Briefly, bone marrow was flushed from femurs and tibias and RBCs were lysed with ACK buffer and cultured in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 50 μM 2-ME, 25 mM HEPES, 2 mM sodium pyruvate, and 20 ng/ml GM-CSF (PeproTech). After 6 d, nonadherent/semiadherent cells were harvested and enriched with CD11c microbeads and LS columns (Miltenyi Biotec). Cells were incubated overnight with 5 ng/ml GM-CSF and used the following day in coculture experiments.

APCs from small intestine lamina propria were isolated, as described previously (17, 26). Briefly, small intestines were removed from euthanized donor c57BL/6 mice, opened longitudinally to flush out feces, cut into 5-mm pieces, and incubated for 20 min at 37°C on a shaker in HBSS supplemented with 5% heat-inactivated FBS and 2 mM EDTA. After passing the preparation through a metal filter, intestinal fragments were collected, and the step was repeated. Then intestinal fragments were minced and incubated for 20 min at 37°C on a shaker in HBSS supplemented with 5% heat-inactivated FBS and 1 mg/ml type VIII collagenase (Sigma). After straining debris and washing once with complete DC media, cells were incubated with FcBlock, and APCs were enriched by a MACS kit using both CD11b and CD11c microbeads. Resultant cells were stained with CD11b (eBioscience) and CD11c (BD Biosciences) Ab, and APCs were sorted with a BD FACSVantage cell sorter.

CD4⁺ T cell stimulation

DCs (1 × 10⁴) and naive CD4⁺ T cells (1 × 10⁵) were cultured in 200 μl T cell media in 96-well plates in the presence of 1 μg/ml soluble anti-CD3ε. Cells were treated with 500 nM NECA or vehicle control and, in some cases, with 5 or 100 μM adenosine. Other experiments were conducted with TGF-β1 (R&D Systems), 5 μg/ml neutralizing Ab to IL-6–gp130 (R&D Systems), or 250 nM AR antagonists. Supernatant and cell lysates for real-time RT-PCR were collected at 72 h. Supernatant was assayed using commercial kits, according to manufacturer’s instructions, for IL-17 (BioLegend), IFN-γ (BD Biosciences), IL-22 (R&D Systems), IL-10 (BD Biosciences), and IL-6 (BD Biosciences).

Intracellular cell staining and flow cytometry

For flow cytometric analysis of intracellular markers, cells were harvested on day 4 and washed three times. After resting overnight in complete T cell media, cells were stimulated with 50 ng/ml PMA, 750 ng/ml ionomycin, and GolgiStop (BD Biosciences) for 4–5 h. Cells were incubated for 15 min with FcBlock, stained with anti-CD4 (BD Biosciences), permeabilized, and stained with anti–IL-17, anti–IFN-γ, and anti-Foxp3 using a Cytofix/Cytoperm kit (BD Biosciences). Samples were assayed with a BD FACSCalibur flow cytometer, and data were analyzed with FlowJo (TreeStar) software.

Semiquantitative real-time RT-PCR

Cells from coculture were collected and lysed, and total RNA was isolated with Qiagen mini-prep kits and reverse transcribed into cDNA with Superscript II (Invitrogen), according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Transcripts were measured by real-time RT-PCR with primer and dual-labeled probes (Il4, Mm00445259_m1; Il6, Mm00446190_m1; Il10, Mm00439616_m1; Il17a, Mm00439619_m1; Il21, Mm00517640_m1; Il22, Mm00444241_m1; Il23r, Mm00519943_m1; Tnf, Mm00443258_m1; Ifng Mm00801778_m1; Rorc, Mm01261022_m1; and Foxp3, Mm00475156_m1) (all from Applied Biosystems) detected in a Smart Cycler (Cepheid) and normalized against 18s rRNA. The fold change in the expression of a given gene of interest was determined using the ΔΔC_T method (27).

Statistical analysis

Data are reported as the mean ± SEM. Unless indicated, all data were pooled from three or more independent experiments. The two-tailed Student t test, assuming unequal variance, was performed using Microsoft Excel software. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Adenosine promotes differentiation of Th17 cells

To determine the role of ARs in controlling CD4⁺ T cell differentiation, naive CD4⁺ T cells were activated with DCs and anti-CD3, treated with a stable nonselective adenosine mimetic (NECA) or vehicle control, and assayed for factors associated with different Th lineages. Real-time RT-PCR indicated that NECA preferentially upregulated Il17 compared with transcripts associated with other Th cell subsets (Fig. 1A). This IL-17 response was confirmed by ELISA analysis of 72-h supernatant and intracellular cytokine staining following restimulation (Fig. 1B, 1C). IFN-γ responses were modestly augmented by NECA, but to a lesser extent than IL-17. Importantly, adenosine itself also increased the frequency of IL-17–expressing CD4⁺ T cells (Fig. 1D). Together, these results demonstrated that, in the presence of DCs, adenosine favors the development of IL-17–secreting CD4⁺ T cells. Further studies were conducted to determine whether these cells had characteristics consistent with a bona fide Th17 cell. Indeed, IL-22 protein, as well as Il21, Il22, Il23r, and Rorc (RORγt), was significantly elevated (Fig. 2).

FIGURE 1

AR activation promotes differentiation of IL-17–secreting CD4⁺ T cells. A, Naive CD62L^hiCD44^loCD25^loCD4⁺ T cells were activated with BMDCs and anti-CD3 in the presence of 500 nM NECA or vehicle control. After 72 h, cells were harvested, and mRNA (more ...)

FIGURE 2

An adenosine mimetic promotes development of bona fide Th17 cells. Naive CD4⁺ T cells were activated with BMDCs and anti-CD3 in the presence of 500 nM NECA or vehicle control. A, After 72 h, cells were harvested, and mRNA was assessed by real-time RT-PCR, (more ...)

Published studies suggest that adenosine is an important molecule in Treg development and function (6). To assess whether ARs promote Tregs in the DC coculture model, we assessed Foxp3 transcript and intracellular protein in cells treated with NECA or vehicle control. NECA treatment had little effect on either Foxp3 levels or intracellular Foxp3 protein in CD4⁺ T cells (Figs. 1A, ,3).3). To address the possibility that adenosine acts in concert with TGF-β1 to favor Tregs, some coculture experiments were conducted with exogenous TGF-β1. Although TGF-β1 alone is sufficient to promote the development of Foxp3-expressing cells, this response was impaired in the presence of NECA (Fig. 3). Moreover, IL-17–expressing CD4⁺ T cells emerged concomitantly with the diminution of TGF-β1–induced Foxp3⁺ Tregs.

FIGURE 3

An adenosine mimetic favors Th17 cells in the presence of TGF-β1. Naive CD4⁺ T cells were activated with BMDCs and anti-CD3 in the presence of TGF-β1 and 500 nM NECA or vehicle control. Day 4 cells were harvested, washed, and replated (more ...)

Th17 response depends on DC A_2BAR

Adenosine signals via four G protein-coupled receptors, A₁AR, A_2AAR, A_2BAR, and A₃AR, which are all expressed, albeit unequally, by different hematopoietic-derived cells. We conducted experiments using various pharmacological antagonists to determine which receptor(s) contributed to the observed Th17 response. ZM241385, an antagonist to both A_2AAR and A_2BAR, effectively abolished the NECA-mediated IL-17 induction, thus indicating that some combination of the two receptors is likely involved (Fig. 4A). The response was similarly impaired by ATL692, an A_2BAR selective antagonist, whereas the A_2AAR selective inhibitor SCH58261 had little effect, showing that the Th17 response is predominantly mediated via A_2BAR. Because previous work demonstrated an important role for A_2BAR in the control of DC function, coculture experiments were conducted with DCs derived from A_2BAR^−/− mice or mice lacking both A_2BAR and A_2AAR. NECA induction of IL-17 was minimal in these cocultures, suggesting that Th17 differentiation in this model requires A_2BAR expressed by the DCs (Fig. 4B). In contrast, NECA still promoted a significant IL-17 response in cocultures of wild-type DCs with CD4⁺ T cells lacking A_2AAR or both A_2BAR and A_2AAR. Further reinforcing the importance of DCs in this system, NECA did not affect IL-17 when naive CD4⁺ T cells were stimulated with anti-CD3/28 in the absence of APCs (data not shown).

FIGURE 4

Th17 response depends on DC A_2BARs. Naive CD4⁺ T cells were activated with BMDCs and anti-CD3 in the presence of 500 nM NECA or vehicle control. Seventy-two–hour supernatant was collected and assessed by ELISA for IL-17. A, AR-selective antagonists (more ...)

A_2BAR promotes IL-6 to favor Th17, and IL-6 response is cAMP independent

The development of Th17 cells is controlled largely via factors derived from innate immune cells, such as IL-6 and TGF-β1. Previous reports showed that adenosine could promote IL-6 in a variety of cell types, including DCs (28, 29). To assess the role of IL-6 in the A_2BAR-mediated Th17 response, cocultures were conducted in the presence of a neutralizing Ab to the IL-6–gp130 receptor. NECA induction of IL-17 was abrogated in the presence of the IL-6–gp130 inhibitor, thus demonstrating that IL-6 is indeed an important mediator of the Th17 response (Fig. 5A, 5B). Although NECA decreased the number of cells expressing Foxp3 as Th17 cells increased, the decrease in Foxp3 did not occur when IL-6-gp130 was blocked. These findings suggested that IL-6 concentrations are a key determinant of the effects of adenosine in the reciprocal control of Th17 and Treg development (Fig. 5B). Experiments with a neutralizing Ab to TGF-β1 also impaired Th17 development, thus suggesting that TGF-β1 is also important in this system (data not shown).

FIGURE 5

IL-6, stimulated in a cAMP-independent manner, is important in A_2BAR-mediated Th17 responses. A, Naive CD4⁺ T cells were activated with BMDCs and anti-CD3 in the presence of a neutralizing Ab to IL-6–gp130 and 500 nM NECA or vehicle control. Day (more ...)

To test whether IL-6 in this system is derived from DC A_2BAR, we conducted experiments with DCs generated from wild-type, A_2AAR^−/−, or A_2BAR^−/− mice. A_2BAR^−/− DCs produced little IL-6 upon NECA treatment, whereas wild-type and A_2AAR^−/− DCs produced significant amounts of IL-6 in response to NECA (Fig. 5C). Importantly, A_2BAR^−/− DCs did not have an intrinsic defect in IL-6 production, because LPS provoked abundant IL-6 (data not shown). Pharmacologic blockade with AR-selective antagonists corroborated that the IL-6 response depended on A_2BAR (data not shown). A role for A_2BAR in TGF-β1 induction was also assessed, but NECA treatment of DCs did not elevate TGF-β1 protein or mRNA, as assayed by ELISA or real-time RT-PCR (data not shown). This suggested that low levels of TGF-β1 are constitutively produced by DCs or, alternatively, that TGF-β1 is residually present in the FBS used in cocultures.

As introduced previously, the anti-inflammatory effects of adenosine are often attributed to signaling pathways involving A_2AAR and the intracellular mediator cAMP. This is consistent with the general anti-inflammatory effects of other cAMP-elevating agents, such as prostaglandin E₂ and vasoactive intestinal peptide (30). However, in our model, which incorporates both CD4⁺ T cells and APCs, we describe a putative proinflammatory effect of adenosine on CD4⁺ T cells that is A_2BAR dependent. A_2BAR differs from A_2AAR and the other ARs in that it can couple to both G_s and G_q, enabling it to activate both adenylyl cyclase and PLC, respectively (6). Thus, we sought to determine whether A_2BAR relied on cAMP or whether other signaling modalities were important.

To elucidate key pathways that control the NECA-mediated responses observed in our study, we treated DCs with NECA in the presence of various pharmacologic inhibitors known to inhibit G protein pathways and assessed IL-6 production. At the concentrations studied, the inhibitors did not impair DC viability, as assessed by trypan blue exclusion (data not shown). Inhibition of two distinct targets of the adenylyl cyclase/cAMP axis had no effect on NECA-mediated IL-6 induction, whereas inhibition of the PLC/PKC axis with either U-73122 or bisindolylmaleimide I impaired the IL-6 response significantly (Fig. 5D). Because MAPKs, including p38 and ERK, also play a role in mediating A_2BAR effects in some cells, additional inhibitors targeting other pathways were used. We found that the ERK inhibitor PD98509 and the PI3K inhibitor LY294002 both blocked NECA-mediated IL-6, but the p38 inhibitor SB203580 had little effect. Lastly, treating DCs with the cAMP-elevating agent forskolin or the EPAC agonist 8-pCPT-2′-O-Me-cAMP provoked little IL-6, suggesting that stimulating cAMP or EPAC pathways is not sufficient to drive DC production of IL-6 (data not shown). Taken together, this indicated that NECA promoted IL-6 in DCs independently of cAMP but that PLC/PKC, ERK, and PI3K are involved, and it explains why A_2BAR, but not A_2AAR, stimulates IL-6.

Intestinal DCs support NECA-mediated Th17 response

Th17 cells are especially abundant at mucosal sites, such as the small intestine, where they are important in controlling neutrophil accumulation and epithelial barrier integrity (31). The intestine is subject to frequent hypoxia and, thus, is thought to be an adenosine-rich site (32). Therefore, to model the effects of adenosine on T cell activation in the gut, we isolated highly purified subsets of gut APCs and cultured them with naive CD4⁺ T cells (Fig. 6). We found that the adenosine mimetic NECA significantly enhanced IL-17 in cocultures containing a population of CD11c^hi CD11b⁺ gut DCs, a subset previously associated with Th17 responses (26). Additionally Il22 was significantly upregulated by NECA treatment with this DC subset. Conversely, NECA had no such effect in cultures with a population of CD11c^loCD11b⁺ macrophages, which is consistent with previous studies suggesting this population of APCs promotes Tregs (26). Foxp3 was not altered in any of the NECA-treated groups.

FIGURE 6

Gut CD11c⁺CD11b⁺ DCs, but not macrophages, support adenosine mimetic-mediated Th17 T cell response. A, Small intestinal lamina propria APCs were isolated by FACS based on forward light scatter/side scatter and CD11c/CD11b expression. B, MACS-naive CD4CD62L-enriched (more ...)

Discussion

Previous work showed that direct engagement of A_2AAR on T cells inhibited proliferation, as well as Th1 and Th2 responses (9–11). A_2AAR also contributes to the generation and function of Tregs (10, 12–14, 33). However, T cell activation and differentiation do not occur in isolation but require APCs and a cadre of extracellular factors. Moreover, the accumulation of endogenous adenosine at inflammatory sites does not exclusively target A_2AAR; it stimulates other available AR subtypes. To more faithfully model how adenosine impacts CD4⁺ T cell differentiation, we studied the effects of a nonselective adenosine mimetic in cocultures with DCs and highly purified naive CD4⁺ T cells. In this study, we found that adenosine preferentially promoted de novo differentiation of CD4⁺ T cells that express IL-17 and IL-22 and have a transcriptional profile consistent with Th17 cells (i.e., upregulation of genes encoding for IL-23R and the transcription factor RORγt) (34). Our data indicated that activation of A_2BAR on DCs stimulated IL-6 production in a cAMP-independent manner, and this IL-6 is an important intermediary that favors the Th17 response. Thus, adenosine represents a biological mediator that can enhance the development of Th17 cells.

In the murine system, TGF-β1 and proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, are critical for Th17 differentiation, whereas a host of other cytokines, such as IL-2 and IFN-γ, are negative regulators (35). The data reported in this article suggest that adenosine alters the balance of these cytokines in a way that favors Th17 differentiation at the expense of Treg development. For instance, adenosine directly impairs IL-2 and IFN-γ production by Th cells (9–11, 14), and we previously showed that an adenosine mimetic impaired IL-12 by DCs (17). Conversely, adenosine was reported to promote or remain permissive for DC production of TGF-β1 and IL-6 (29). The importance of specific cytokines in controlling adenosine-mediated Th17 differentiation is evidenced by the fact that A_2BAR stimulates IL-6 and that neutralization of the IL-6–gp130 receptor abrogates the Th17 response. The necessary role for IL-6 in this system implies that Th17 cells are induced in a Stat3-dependent mechanism (36); however, that has yet to be confirmed. The role of TGF-β1 in this system is less clear, because we did not find direct evidence that A_2BAR stimulation was sufficient to generate TGF-β1. However, the fact that neutralizing Ab to TGF-β1 diminished IL-17 production indicated that adenosine-mediated Th17 differentiation requires the presence of TGF-β1.

Although NECA favors Th17 cells and not Tregs, upon IL-6 neutralization, the opposite result was observed: Th17 expansion was abrogated as was the decrease in cells expressing Foxp3. These data suggested that IL-6 induced by NECA was predominantly, if not solely, responsible for the decrease in Foxp3-producing Th cells and that it is a key intermediate controlling the effects of adenosine on Th17 and Treg development. Stimulation of A_2AAR was implicated in the expansion of Tregs (14) when T cells were stimulated in the absence of APCs. However, A_2AAR activation did not inhibit Th17 cells when a source of APCs was provided (14).

The finding that A_2BAR acts on DCs to promote Th17 cell development conflicts with the conclusions of other investigators that adenosine signaling favors a Th2-biasing DC (37, 38). These groups studied human monocyte-derived DCs and restricted their investigation to Th1 and Th2 markers in MLR, specifically IFN-γ and IL-4 and/or IL-5 (37, 38). Thus, these investigators studied DCs with characteristics unique from BMDCs and did not assess markers associated with other Th phenotypes, such as IL-17 or IL-22. A potentially important distinction between the studies is the difference in the human and mouse systems. However, in addition to species variation, there are other factors that may be important. In the single study that compared the effects of adenosine, in the presence or absence of LPS, on DC-polarizing capacity, anti-Th1/pro-Th2 skewing was only observed in the group with LPS (37, 38). In our model system, no LPS was required to achieve the striking upregulation of IL-17 and IL-22.

The data obtained with BMDCs were consistent with observations made using DCs isolated from the intestinal lamina propria, a site rich in Th17 cells. When used in coculture experiments, the CD11c⁺CD11b⁺ DC subset preferentially increased IL-17 and IL-22 mRNA in the presence of the adenosine mimetic. These findings indicated that ARs modulate CD11c⁺CD11b⁺ lamina propria DCs and suggested that endogenous adenosine acts via lamina propria DCs to control intestinal Th responses, which agrees with other studies on intestinal DCs (26). The difference in A_2BAR-mediated effects between these two intestinal APC populations may reflect the fact that resting macrophages express fewer A_2BAR (17), and this receptor leads to the production of IL-6, whereas the A_2AAR does not. Although we showed that adenosine is one factor that can promote Th17 development, there are clearly redundant pathways that contribute to the in vivo response. For instance, A_2BAR^−/− mice have numbers of Th17 cells in small intestine lamina propria comparable to wild-type controls; moreover, the abundance of Th17 cells in our A_2BAR^−/− mice could be augmented by manipulating commensal flora (data not shown), presumably due to segmented filamentous bacteria (SFB), which persist in some, but not all, mouse facilities (39). Although ruling out a necessary role for A_2BAR in the SFB-mediated Th17 response, this does not discount the possibility that local accumulation of adenosine can act to promote Th17 cells.

The role of A_2BAR in the promotion of Th17 cells, and possibly inflammation, is somewhat surprising but not entirely unexpected. For example, some studies implicated A_2BAR in pulmonary inflammation (40). This is at least consistent with other evidence suggesting that intestinal inflammation is reduced in the absence of normal A_2BAR function (23, 24). However, it is important to note that another group investigating adenosine in the gut found the exact opposite (41). One interpretation of the conflicting results of A_2BAR regulation on intestinal inflammation is that the microbiome differs in the animal facilities of the respective investigators. Although the A_2BAR-dependent induction of Th17 could be consistent with these receptors promoting inflammation, emerging thought suggests that Th17 cells may confer protective/anti-inflammatory responses. For example, mice harboring SFB have a marked increase in intestinal Th17 cells but no disease (39). In addition, the coexpression of IL-22 by Th17 cells can be protective (42). Similarly, IL-17R knockout mice have worse intestinal disease in some models (43). Because Th1, Th2, and Th17 cells contribute to the protection of the host, which is why they exist, their contribution to the pathogenesis of disease may require the presence of other factors. For example, in Crohn’s disease, Th17 responses are implicated in the pathogenesis but usually are the result of their heightened activation by accessory cytokines, such as IL-23 (44). Thus, the presence of IL-17–producing cells in the absence of other cues may not be sufficient for inflammation to ensue.

Factors that calibrate the magnitude and quality of CD4⁺ T cell responses are critical for host health. Although previous work emphasized an inhibitory role for adenosine in controlling CD4⁺ Th cells, the current study suggests that adenosine promotes Th17 cells. Thus, adenosine represents a biological mediator that regulates CD4⁺ T cell development and function, albeit in a manner that was not predicted. Adenosine shares its pleiotropic functions with other factors, such as IL-2 and TGF-β1. For example, IL-2 drives the expansion of effector T cells, but it is required for the maintenance of Tregs (45). Similarly, TGF-β1 is important for the induction of Foxp3 and the accumulation of induced Tregs, and it contributes to Th17 cell development (46). The relative concentration of a nucleoside, the types of cells that it targets, and the specific ARs available for engagement may be important determinants of the final outcome. The current study is significant because it adds to the regulatory effects of adenosine and expands the current thinking on its role in the control of host responses.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants AI 070491 and AI 079145 (to P.B.E.).

We thank Elizabeth Wiznerowicz, Joanne Lannigan, and Michael Solga for technical assistance.

Abbreviations used in this article


A_2AAR	A_2A adenosine receptor

AR	adenosine receptor

BMDC	bone marrow-derived dendritic cell

DC	dendritic cell

EPAC	exchange proteins directly activated by cAMP

NECA	5′-(N-ethylcarboximado) adenosine

PKC	protein kinase C

PLC	phospholipase C

SFB	segmented filamentous bacteria

Treg	regulatory T cell

Footnotes

Disclosures

J.L. has a financial interest in PGxHealth. P.B.E. is the principal investigator on a grant from the National Institutes of Health that includes a subcontract with PGxHealth.

References

1. Mosmann TR, Cherwinski H, Bond MW, Giedlin MA, Coffman RL. Two types of murine helper T cell clone. I. Definition according to profiles of lymphokine activities and secreted proteins. J Immunol. 1986;136:2348–2357. [PubMed]

2. Harrington LE, Hatton RD, Mangan PR, Turner H, Murphy TL, Murphy KM, Weaver CT. Interleukin 17-producing CD4+ effector T cells develop via a lineage distinct from the T helper type 1 and 2 lineages. Nat Immunol. 2005;6:1123–1132. [PubMed]

3. Park H, Li Z, Yang XO, Chang SH, Nurieva R, Wang YH, Wang Y, Hood L, Zhu Z, Tian Q, Dong C. A distinct lineage of CD4 T cells regulates tissue inflammation by producing interleukin 17. Nat Immunol. 2005;6:1133–1141. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

4. Haskó G, Cronstein BN. Adenosine: an endogenous regulator of innate immunity. Trends Immunol. 2004;25:33–39. [PubMed]

5. Sitkovsky MV, Lukashev D, Apasov S, Kojima H, Koshiba M, Caldwell C, Ohta A, Thiel M. Physiological control of immune response and inflammatory tissue damage by hypoxia-inducible factors and adenosine A2A receptors. Annu Rev Immunol. 2004;22:657–682. [PubMed]

6. Ernst PB, Garrison JC, Thompson LF. Much ado about adenosine: adenosine synthesis and function in regulatory T cell biology. J Immunol. 2010;185:1993–1998. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

7. Huang S, Apasov S, Koshiba M, Sitkovsky M. Role of A2a extracellular adenosine receptor-mediated signaling in adenosine-mediated inhibition of T-cell activation and expansion. Blood. 1997;90:1600–1610. [PubMed]

8. Ohta A, Sitkovsky M. Role of G-protein-coupled adenosine receptors in downregulation of inflammation and protection from tissue damage. Nature. 2001;414:916–920. [PubMed]

9. Koshiba M, Rosin DL, Hayashi N, Linden J, Sitkovsky MV. Patterns of A2A extracellular adenosine receptor expression in different functional subsets of human peripheral T cells. Flow cytometry studies with anti-A2A receptor monoclonal antibodies. Mol Pharmacol. 1999;55:614–624. [PubMed]

10. Naganuma M, Wiznerowicz EB, Lappas CM, Linden J, Worthington MT, Ernst PB. Cutting edge: Critical role for A2A adenosine receptors in the T cell-mediated regulation of colitis. J Immunol. 2006;177:2765–2769. [PubMed]

11. Lappas CM, Rieger JM, Linden J. A2A adenosine receptor induction inhibits IFN-gamma production in murine CD4+ T cells. J Immunol. 2005;174:1073–1080. [PubMed]

12. Kobie JJ, Shah PR, Yang L, Rebhahn JA, Fowell DJ, Mosmann TR. T regulatory and primed uncommitted CD4 T cells express CD73, which suppresses effector CD4 T cells by converting 5′-adenosine monophosphate to adenosine. J Immunol. 2006;177:6780–6786. [PubMed]

13. Deaglio S, Dwyer KM, Gao W, Friedman D, Usheva A, Erat A, Chen JF, Enjyoji K, Linden J, Oukka M, et al. Adenosine generation catalyzed by CD39 and CD73 expressed on regulatory T cells mediates immune suppression. J Exp Med. 2007;204:1257–1265. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

14. Zarek PE, Huang CT, Lutz ER, Kowalski J, Horton MR, Linden J, Drake CG, Powell JD. A2A receptor signaling promotes peripheral tolerance by inducing T-cell anergy and the generation of adaptive regulatory T cells. Blood. 2008;111:251–259. [PubMed]

15. Okusa MD, Linden J, Macdonald T, Huang L. Selective A2A adenosine receptor activation reduces ischemia-reperfusion injury in rat kidney. Am J Physiol. 1999;277:F404–F412. [PubMed]

16. Lappas CM, Day YJ, Marshall MA, Engelhard VH, Linden J. Adenosine A2A receptor activation reduces hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury by inhibiting CD1d-dependent NKT cell activation. J Exp Med. 2006;203:2639–2648. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

17. Wilson JM, Ross WG, Agbai ON, Frazier R, Figler RA, Rieger J, Linden J, Ernst PB. The A2B adenosine receptor impairs the maturation and immunogenicity of dendritic cells. J Immunol. 2009;182:4616–4623. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

18. Kreckler LM, Wan TC, Ge ZD, Auchampach JA. Adenosine inhibits tumor necrosis factor-alpha release from mouse peritoneal macrophages via A2A and A2B but not the A3 adenosine receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006;317:172–180. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

19. Yang D, Zhang Y, Nguyen HG, Koupenova M, Chauhan AK, Makitalo M, Jones MR, St Hilaire C, Seldin DC, Toselli P, et al. The A2B adenosine receptor protects against inflammation and excessive vascular adhesion. J Clin Invest. 2006;116:1913–1923. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

20. Csóka B, Németh ZH, Virág L, Gergely P, Leibovich SJ, Pacher P, Sun CX, Blackburn MR, Vizi ES, Deitch EA, Haskó G. A2A adenosine receptors and C/EBPbeta are crucially required for IL-10 production by macrophages exposed to. Escherichia coli Blood. 2007;110:2685–2695. [PubMed]

21. Haskó G, Csóka B, Németh ZH, Vizi ES, Pacher P. A(2B) adenosine receptors in immunity and inflammation. Trends Immunol. 2009;30:263–270. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

22. Sitkovsky MV, Ohta A. The ‘danger’ sensors that STOP the immune response: the A2 adenosine receptors? Trends Immunol. 2005;26:299–304. [PubMed]

23. Kolachala V, Ruble B, Vijay-Kumar M, Wang L, Mwangi S, Figler H, Figler R, Srinivasan S, Gewirtz A, Linden J, et al. Blockade of adenosine A2B receptors ameliorates murine colitis. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;155:127–137. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

24. Kolachala VL, Vijay-Kumar M, Dalmasso G, Yang D, Linden J, Wang L, Gewirtz A, Ravid K, Merlin D, Sitaraman SV. A2B adenosine receptor gene deletion attenuates murine colitis. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:861–870. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

25. Csóka B, Himer L, Selmeczy Z, Vizi ES, Pacher P, Ledent C, Deitch EA, Spolarics Z, Németh ZH, Haskó G. Adenosine A2A receptor activation inhibits T helper 1 and T helper 2 cell development and effector function. FASEB J. 2008;22:3491–3499. [PubMed]

26. Denning TL, Wang YC, Patel SR, Williams IR, Pulendran B. Lamina propria macrophages and dendritic cells differentially induce regulatory and interleukin 17-producing T cell responses. Nat Immunol. 2007;8:1086–1094. [PubMed]

27. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001;25:402–408. [PubMed]

28. Sun Y, Wu F, Sun F, Huang P. Adenosine promotes IL-6 release in airway epithelia. J Immunol. 2008;180:4173–4181. [PubMed]

29. Novitskiy SV, Ryzhov S, Zaynagetdinov R, Goldstein AE, Huang Y, Tikhomirov OY, Blackburn MR, Biaggioni I, Carbone DP, Feoktistov I, Dikov MM. Adenosine receptors in regulation of dendritic cell differentiation and function. Blood. 2008;112:1822–1831. [PubMed]

30. Koga K, Takaesu G, Yoshida R, Nakaya M, Kobayashi T, Kinjyo I, Yoshimura A. Cyclic adenosine monophosphate suppresses the transcription of proinflammatory cytokines via the phosphorylated c-Fos protein. Immunity. 2009;30:372–383. [PubMed]

31. Kolls JK, McCray PB, Jr, Chan YR. Cytokine-mediated regulation of antimicrobial proteins. Nat Rev Immunol. 2008;8:829–835. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

32. Eltzschig HK, Rivera-Nieves J, Colgan SP. Targeting the A2B adenosine receptor during gastrointestinal ischemia and inflammation. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2009;13:1267–1277. [PubMed]

33. Friedman DJ, Künzli BM, A-Rahim YI, Sevigny J, Berberat PO, Enjyoji K, Csizmadia E, Friess H, Robson SC. From the Cover: CD39 deletion exacerbates experimental murine colitis and human polymorphisms increase susceptibility to inflammatory bowel disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:16788–16793. [PubMed]

34. Zhu J, Paul WE. Heterogeneity and plasticity of T helper cells. Cell Res. 2010;20:4–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

35. Bettelli E, Korn T, Kuchroo VK. Th17: the third member of the effector T cell trilogy. Curr Opin Immunol. 2007;19:652–657. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

36. Yang XO, Panopoulos AD, Nurieva R, Chang SH, Wang D, Watowich SS, Dong C. STAT3 regulates cytokine-mediated generation of inflammatory helper T cells. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:9358–9363. [PubMed]

37. Panther E, Corinti S, Idzko M, Herouy Y, Napp M, la Sala A, Girolomoni G, Norgauer J. Adenosine affects expression of membrane molecules, cytokine and chemokine release, and the T-cell stimulatory capacity of human dendritic cells. Blood. 2003;101:3985–3990. [PubMed]

38. Yang M, Ma C, Liu S, Shao Q, Gao W, Song B, Sun J, Xie Q, Zhang Y, Feng A, et al. HIF-dependent induction of adenosine receptor A2b skews human dendritic cells to a Th2-stimulating phenotype under hypoxia. Immunol Cell Biol. 2010;88:165–171. [PubMed]

39. Ivanov II, de Frutos RL, Manel N, Yoshinaga K, Rifkin DB, Sartor RB, Finlay BB, Littman DR. Specific microbiota direct the differentiation of IL-17-producing T-helper cells in the mucosa of the small intestine. Cell Host Microbe. 2008;4:337–349. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

40. Sun CX, Zhong H, Mohsenin A, Morschl E, Chunn JL, Molina JG, Belardinelli L, Zeng D, Blackburn MR. Role of A2B adenosine receptor signaling in adenosine-dependent pulmonary inflammation and injury. J Clin Invest. 2006;116:2173–2182. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

41. Frick JS, MacManus CF, Scully M, Glover LE, Eltzschig HK, Colgan SP. Contribution of adenosine A2B receptors to inflammatory parameters of experimental colitis. J Immunol. 2009;182:4957–4964. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

42. Zenewicz LA, Yancopoulos GD, Valenzuela DM, Murphy AJ, Karow M, Flavell RA. Interleukin-22 but not interleukin-17 provides protection to hepatocytes during acute liver inflammation. Immunity. 2007;27:647–659. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

43. O’Connor W, Jr, Kamanaka M, Booth CJ, Town T, Nakae S, Iwakura Y, Kolls JK, Flavell RA. A protective function for interleukin 17A in T cell-mediated intestinal inflammation. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:603–609. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

44. Kobayashi T, Okamoto S, Hisamatsu T, Kamada N, Chinen H, Saito R, Kitazume MT, Nakazawa A, Sugita A, Koganei K, et al. IL23 differentially regulates the Th1/Th17 balance in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2008;57:1682–1689. [PubMed]

45. Nelson BH. IL-2, regulatory T cells, and tolerance. J Immunol. 2004;172:3983–3988. [PubMed]

46. Wahl SM. Transforming growth factor-beta: innately bipolar. Curr Opin Immunol. 2007;19:55–62. [PubMed]