PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of wtpaEurope PMCEurope PMC Funders GroupSubmit a Manuscript
 
Curr Opin Organ Transplant. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 November 3.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3815495
EMSID: EMS55416

Pathways of major histocompatibility complex allorecognition

Abstract

Purpose of review

Here, we review the pathways of allorecognition and their potential relevance to the balance between regulatory and effector responses following transplantation.

Recent findings

Transplantation between nonidentical members of the same species elicits an immune response that manifests as graft rejection or persistence. Presentation of foreign antigen to recipient T cells can occur via three nonmutually exclusive routes, the direct, indirect and semi-direct pathways. Allospecific T cells can have effector or regulatory functions, and the relative proportions of the two populations activated following alloantigen presentation are two of the factors that determine the clinical outcome. Regulatory T cells have been the subject of significant research, and there is now greater understanding of their recruitment and function in the context of allorecognition.

Summary

A greater understanding of the mechanisms underlying allorecognition may be fundamental to appreciating how these different populations are recruited and could in turn inform novel strategies for immunomodulation.

Keywords: allorecognition, direct, human, indirect, mouse, regulatory T cells, semi-direct, transplantation

Introduction

Allorecognition is the term used to define immunological recognition of histoincompatible antigens between genetically disparate individuals within the same species. In the context of transplantation, the consequence of allorecognition is the initiation of an adaptive immune response with recruitment of allospecific T cells. This response is known as the alloresponse. In a nontolerant recipient and in the absence of immunosuppressive drugs, the consequence of an alloresponse is invariably rejection of transplanted tissue. During pregnancy, however, in which semi-allogeneic foetal tissues are present, and in transplant recipients that have developed tolerance to donor antigens, allorecognition does not result in rejection, indicating that effector immune responses are controlled by mechanisms of developing tolerance. The relative magnitude of these opposing responses recruited through allorecognition determines the outcome following clinical transplantation.

Central to both effector and regulatory responses are allospecific T cells, some of which have predominantly inflammatory and some of which regulatory phenotypes. Here, we review the pathways of alloantigen presentation and their relevance to activating effector and regulatory T cells. Given the long-term adverse effects associated with clinical immunosuppression, including increased mortality from infectious diseases and malignancy, an increasing understanding of the mechanisms of allorecognition may afford novel targets for immunomodulation in the context of transplantation that may obviate some of the current requirements for long-term immunosuppression.

To date, three nonmutually exclusive and concurrent mechanisms of allorecognition have been demonstrated (Fig. 1 [1]): the direct [2], indirect [3] and semi-direct [4] pathways that differ in the origin of antigen-presenting cells (APCs), kinetics and contribution to the alloresponse over time.

Figure 1
Direct, indirect and semi-direct pathways of allorecognition

Direct allorecognition

The direct pathway is the mechanism by which recipient T cells recognize determinants on intact donor major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecule–peptide complexes displayed on the surface of transplanted cells [2] (Fig. 1a) without the requirement for antigen processing by recipient APCs. The primacy of direct allorecognition is emphasized by the uniquely high frequency of T cell reactivity against alloantigens [5,6] compared with other nominal antigens [7].

The direct response can most readily be demonstrated in vitro by the mixed lymphocyte reaction in which only direct allopresentation can occur and in vivo by transplanted Rag −/− MHC class II −/− mice reconstituted with syngeneic CD4+ T cells. These mice lack CD8+ T cells and the capacity to present antigen via the indirect pathway (see below) but have the ability to reject cardiac allografts, demonstrating that direct pathway CD4 cells are sufficient to mediate graft rejection [8].

That donor dendritic cells are the cells that primarily trigger the recipient immune response via the direct pathway is suggested by observations that depletion of donor dendritic cells by an intermediate parking strategy leads to loss of immunogenicity that is only restored following addition of dendritic cells of donor strain [3]. Under the influence of proinflammatory signals engendered by the transplantation procedure, donor dendritic cells traffic to secondary lymphoid tissues of the recipient [6,9] and initiate direct responses at these sites. Indeed, responses to engrafted tissues can be greatly reduced in animals lacking secondary lymphoid tissues [10,11].

Thymic education of T cells ensures the selective survival of those lymphocytes capable of recognizing self-MHC. As a result, the mature T cell repertoire is biased towards recognition of foreign peptides restricted by self-MHC [12]. The high frequency of direct antidonor alloreactivity within the T cell repertoire [13,14] is, therefore, counterintuitive; this apparent paradox is explained by significant T cell receptor (TCR) cross-reactivity (between self and allogeneic MHC–peptide complexes) [15-17]. There are at least two theories that further delineate the molecular characteristics of the high frequency of direct alloreactivity, the ‘high determinant density’ and the ‘multiple binary complex’ models that differ on whether alloreactive T cells directly recognize polymorphisms in allogeneic MHC or presented peptide in the MHC peptide-binding groove (reviewed in Ref. [17]). In practice, it is probable that both mechanisms contribute to direct allorecognition, the overall contribution of each being related to the site and magnitude of the structural differences in MHC molecules between responder and stimulator cells.

Indirect allorecognition

The indirect pathway refers to recognition of processed peptides of allogeneic histocompatibility antigens presented by self-MHC in a self-restricted manner [3,18] (Fig. 1b) and is akin to recognition of nominal antigens. Indirect alloantigen presentation (in the context of self-MHC class II) invariably results in alloresponses that are dominated by CD4+ T cells. As T cell help for B cells to class switch and differentiate into antibody secreting plasma cells is provided by CD4+ T cells that recognize peptides derived from antigens internalized by B cell surface immunoglobulins, the presence of class-switched alloantibodies is indicative of help provided by indirect pathway T cells [19,20].

In mice, presentation of peptides from allogeneic MHC by self-MHC can be inferred by the demonstration that dendritic cells of H-2Ab recipients (not expressing the H-2E antigen) injected with H-2k B cells (expressing H-2E) can be isolated from draining lymph nodes and stained positively with an antibody specific for complexes of H-2Ab occupied by peptides of H-2E [21] and that CD8-depleted or MHC class I-deficient recipients of MHC class II-negative skin grafts (presenting foreign MHC class I via self-MHC class II to CD4+ cells) rapidly reject their transplants [22]. Furthermore, immunization of animals with peptides of allogeneic MHC (by definition able to elicit only indirect rather than direct responses) results in vigorous allograft rejection [23] whereas intrathymic injection of similar peptides down-modulates the indirect response sufficiently to prolong survival of subsequent allografts of the same MHC type [24].

In humans, there is ample evidence for the involvement of this pathway in graft rejection [25-28], including in-vitro detection of amplified indirect responses in recipients of heart, kidney and liver allografts with the clinical features of chronic rejection [25,27,29].

The requirement for antigen processing in the indirect pathway, despite considerable amplification of this response through epitope spreading, naturally correlates with slower responses than those engendered via the direct pathway. Additionally, the lower frequency of T cells in the normal repertoire with indirect, compared with direct, allospecificity [30] suggests that the direct response dominates the early posttransplant period, whereas the indirect pathway plays a role in long(er)-term alloantigen presentation when passenger (donor) APCs have been exhausted [13,31-33]. Although there is significant evidence in support of this assertion [29,33,34], it is important to note that, in the absence of direct responses, the indirect pathway alone can also result in rapid acute graft rejection [22].

Semi-direct allorecognition

The traditional dogma of cross-talk between CD4+ and CD8+ T cells during the generation of an immune response relies on a ‘three-cell’ or ‘linked’ model, whereby both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are activated by the same APCs [35]. In the context of transplantation, observations of cross-talk between the direct and indirect pathways (that CD4+ T cells with indirect allospecificity can amplify [36] or regulate [37] directly allospecific CD8+ T cells), in contrast, represent an apparent paradox to this model, as it would appear that direct pathway CD8+ cells and indirect pathway CD4+ T cells are activated through different (donor vs. recipient) APCs and, by definition, appear to necessitate a ‘four-cell’ or ‘unlinked’ model (Fig. 2).

Figure 2
The three and four cell models of T cell cross-talk

Immunological cells have the capacity to exchange surface molecules (reviewed in Ref. [38•]). Specifically, dendritic cells are able to acquire intact MHC–peptide complexes from other dendritic cells and endothelial cells and to present them to alloreactive T cells [4,39]. This observation helps to resolve the four-cell problem and is the basis of the semi-direct pathway of allorecognition [40], which proposes that recipient APCs acquire intact allogeneic MHC–peptide complexes through MHC transfer (and stimulate CD8+ T cells through the direct pathway), as well as presenting peptides of allogeneic histocompatibility antigens from phagocytosed necrotic cell material (which are internalized, processed and presented by self-MHC class II to indirect pathway CD4+ T cells). In this way, both allospecific CD4+ and CD8+ cells are activated by the same APC and linked help or linked suppression can occur via a three-cell model (Fig. 1c). The mode of acquisition of intact MHC can be by direct cell-to-cell contact [4,41,42] or via release and uptake of small vesicles (‘exosomes’) [43,44].

Although there is no direct evidence for an in-vivo role of this pathway in the context of allograft rejection, it does provide an alternative explanation for other previously published observations. For example, embryonic thymic epithelium, which naturally lacks bone marrow-derived APC, can still be acutely rejected in the absence of the indirect pathway [45], presumably through semi-direct presentation of allogeneic MHC acquired by recipient dendritic cells (to otherwise directly allospecific T cells). Similarly, reports of MHC class II-deficient recipients (i.e. lacking the indirect pathway) rejecting costimulation-deficient (CD80−/−CD86−/−) allogeneic cardiac grafts as rapidly as wild-type transplants [46] could be attributed to semi-direct presentation of MHC from the graft rather than to trans co-stimulation. An additional implication of the semi-direct pathway is that it could lead to sustained stimulation of directly reactive allospecific T cells even after donor APCs have been exhausted. In the context of viral infection, it is also possible that presentation of antigen via the semi-direct pathway might ensure a more faithful delivery of antigen to lymph node-resident T cells than would be the case through antigen processing and presentation alone.

Allorecognition and regulatory T cells

Allorecognition through any of the pathways described above, particularly in an environment that favours inflammation (as would be the case following transplantation) in which APCs are activated to express co-stimulatory molecules and migrate to secondary lymphoid tissue (and possibly enhance MHC transfer [4]), leads to activation of allospecific T cells. The nature of those T cells, their interaction with each other, the graft and the recipient’s immune system and microenvironment determine the clinical outcome.

Many cells with regulatory properties have been described in both mouse and humans. These include interleukin-10-secreting T-regulatory 1 (Tr1) cells [47], transforming growth factor (TGF)-β-secreting Th3 cells [48], Qa-1-restricted CD8+ cells [49], CD8+CD28 T cells [50], CD8+CD122+ T cells [51], CD3+CD4CD8 cells [52] and naturally occurring CD4+CD25hi T cells [53]. Given the development of severe autoimmune diseases in both humans and mice in the absence of CD4+CD25hi cells [54,55], these cells are considered to be the most important naturally occurring regulatory T cells identified to date and have been the focus of attention in the literature (they will be referred to as Tregs in this article).

The presence of Tregs in tolerant grafts suggests that they play a role in persistence of transplanted organs [56,57], an assertion that is supported by adoptive transfer experiments that demonstrate their capacity to mediate tolerance to engrafted tissue [58,59]. Positive selection of naturally occurring Tregs in the thymus, on the basis of reactivity to self-MHC [60,61], ensures a high frequency of self-specificity [62,63] in this population and, as with other self-MHC-restricted T cells, significant alloreactivity [64].

The question is whether the pathways of allorecognition discussed above participate in the induction of tolerance by presentation to Tregs with specificity for antigens on the allograft. The presence of allospecificity among Tregs and their accumulation within tolerated grafts [57] is certainly suggestive and there is also evidence to support this assertion. A significant barrier to successful pregnancy, for instance, is foetal carriage of paternally derived histocompatibility antigens (50% of foetal alloantigens are paternal in origin). Nevertheless, in contrast to partially matched transplanted allografts, foetal tissues are tolerated [65] despite the persistence of maternal T cells alloreactive to paternal antigens throughout pregnancy [65]. This situation is the result of a complex interaction between foeto-maternal immune systems (reviewed in Ref. [66]) that includes a significant increase in the proportion of Tregs, both locally (uterine) and systemically (spleen and lymph node) [67]. Indeed, the role of Tregs cannot be underestimated as Treg deficiency leadsto termination of pregnancy between genetically disparate, but not genetically identical, parents [67] and their increment is temporally related to the frequent amelioration of many human (maternal) autoimmune diseases during pregnancy [68,69].

In the context of experimental transplantation, the allospecific Tregs of anti-bm12 (ABM) mice [transgenic for a TCR specific for an intact class II molecule (I-Abm12)] can completely suppress rejection of cardiac allografts that bear their cognate, but not third-party, antigens [70]. These observations suggest that recognition of cognate antigens on transplanted tissues by allospecific Tregs confers a potent capacity to promote tolerance. Indeed, real-time studies in autoimmune models show that stable associations between Tregs and dendritic cells precede inhibition of helper T cells [71], suggesting that the APC, and cognate specificity, is central to the in-vivo function of Tregs.

Induction of tolerance to fully allogeneic grafts by recruitment of regulatory (CD4+) T cells can also be achieved by administration of allogeneic splenocytes or MHC molecules via the mucosal (intratracheal, intranasal or oral) route [72-75]. Absence of administered (labelled) splenocytes from local lymph nodes (and the similarity of tolerance achieved when administering peptides of MHC instead of splenocytes) in these experiments suggests presentation via the indirect (or, indeed, semi-direct) pathway [73]. Although indirect antidonor allospecificity is a feature of Tregs that mediate transplantation tolerance in experimental animals [37,76-78] and there are reports of similar populations in human renal allograft recipients [79], Tregs cannot be exclusively dependent on the indirect pathway of presentation, however, as they are capable of suppressing the in-vitro mixed lymphocyte reaction in which only direct allopresentation is available. Recent data resolve some of this dilemma by showing that Tregs have both direct and indirect allospecificity in vivo, but that their regulatory function is several orders of magnitude more pronounced in allograft responses driven by the indirect pathway [80•]. In addition, peripherally inducible (thymically independent) Tregs [81], although by no means fully characterized, might be dependent on indirect allopresentation for their generation [82].

Similarly, human data in stable renal transplant recipients demonstrate that Tregs do not significantly contribute to direct pathway hyporesponsiveness [83] and have a suppressive effect predominantly on the indirect antidonor alloresponse [84]. This fact is not surprising given the three-cell model described above but, as a result, expanded populations of allospecific Tregs [64] would not be expected to alter significantly the clinical response to the graft in the short term following transplantation without additional suppression of the direct pathway. Fortuitously, the immunosuppressive agent rapamycin is nontoxic to Tregs [85] and transplantation with this agent could pharmacologically inhibit the early (direct) response while preserving infused/induced Tregs that have the capacity to suppress the indirect response and improve longer term graft outcome.

Conclusion

Alloantigen barriers prevent successful transplantation between nontolerant individuals of the same species through at least three nonmutually exclusive pathways. Recipient direct pathway T cells can recognize intact MHC–peptide complexes directly on the surface of donor cells whereas trafficking of recipient APCs through transplanted tissues leads to acquisition of dead and necrotic material and presentation of processed peptides of histocompatibility antigens to recipient T cells in a manner equivalent to well characterized immune responses to micro-organisms (the indirect response). A third pathway, the semi-direct, resolves the four-cell dilemma through presentation of both intact donor MHC (acquired by membrane transfer or the exosomal route) and peptides of processed donor histocompatibility antigens (acquired through phagocytosis) by recipient APCs.

The consequence of allopresentation is the activation of allospecific T cells, some of which will have effector function and mediate graft rejection and others that have regulatory function and will attempt to prevent graft rejection. The relative proportions of these two populations are two of the factors that determine the clinical outcome. From the therapeutic perspective, the predominantly indirect allospecificity of Tregs and their principally suppressive effect on the indirect alloresponse makes it unlikely that their adoptive transfer in the early post-transplant period will have significant effect on tolerance induction; other methods of inhibiting rejection at this time point are, therefore, required. What is clear is that a greater understanding of the mechanisms of allorecognition and the methods by which cells with an effector phenotype and cells with a regulatory phenotype are recruited will offer insights into how to alter the balance between these two populations and provide novel targets for immunomodulatory intervention.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

• of special interest

•• of outstanding interest

Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current World Literature section in this issue (pp. 453–476).

1. Afzali B, Lechler RI, Hernandez-Fuentes MP. Allorecognition and the alloresponse: clinical implications. Tissue Antigens. 2007;69:545–556. [PubMed]
2. Warrens AN, Lombardi G, Lechler RI. Presentation and recognition of major and minor histocompatibility antigens. Transpl Immunol. 1994;2:103–107. [PubMed]
3. Lechler RI, Batchelor JR. Restoration of immunogenicity to passenger cell-depleted kidney allografts by the addition of donor strain dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 1982;155:31–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Herrera OB, Golshayan D, Tibbott R, et al. A novel pathway of alloantigen presentation by dendritic cells. J Immunol. 2004;173:4828–4837. [PubMed]
5. Whitelegg AM, Oosten LE, Jordan S, et al. Investigation of peptide involvement in T cell allorecognition using recombinant HLA class I multimers. J Immunol. 2005;175:1706–1714. [PubMed]
6. Lindahl KF, Wilson DB. Histocompatibility antigen-activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes. II. Estimates of the frequency and specificity of precursors. J Exp Med. 1977;145:508–522. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Ford D, Burger D. Precursor frequency of antigen-specific T cells: effects of sensitization in vivo and in vitro. Cell Immunol. 1983;79:334–344. [PubMed]
8. Pietra BA, Wiseman A, Bolwerk A, et al. CD4 T cell-mediated cardiac allograft rejection requires donor but not host MHC class II. J Clin Invest. 2000;106:1003–1010. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Sandner SE, Salama AD, Houser SL, et al. New TCR transgenic model for tracking allospecific CD4 T-cell activation and tolerance in vivo. Am J Transplant. 2003;3:1242–1250. [PubMed]
10. Larsen CP, Steinman RM, Witmer-Pack M, et al. Migration and maturation of Langerhans cells in skin transplants and explants. J Exp Med. 1990;172:1483–1493. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Lakkis FG, Arakelov A, Konieczny BT, Inoue Y. Immunologic ‘ignorance’ of vascularized organ transplants in the absence of secondary lymphoid tissue. Nat Med. 2000;6:686–688. [PubMed]
12. Zinkernagel RM, Doherty PC. Restriction of in vitro T cell-mediated cytotoxicity in lymphocytic choriomeningitis within a syngeneic or semiallogeneic system. Nature. 1974;248:701–702. [PubMed]
13. Baker RJ, Hernandez-Fuentes MP, Brookes PA, et al. The role of the allograft in the induction of donor-specific T cell hyporesponsiveness. Transplantation. 2001;72:480–485. [PubMed]
14. Suchin EJ, Langmuir PB, Palmer E, et al. Quantifying the frequency of alloreactive T cells in vivo: new answers to an old question. J Immunol. 2001;166:973–981. [PubMed]
15. Lombardi G, Sidhu S, Batchelor JR, Lechler RI. Allorecognition of DR1 by T cells from a DR4/DRw13 responder mimics self-restricted recognition of endogenous peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86:4190–4194. [PubMed]
16. Malissen M, Trucy J, Letourneur F, et al. A T cell clone expresses two T cell receptor alpha genes but uses one alpha beta heterodimer for allorecognition and self MHC-restricted antigen recognition. Cell. 1988;55:49–59. [PubMed]
17. Archbold JK, Macdonald WA, Miles JJ, et al. Alloreactivity between disparate cognate and allogeneic pMHC-I complexes is the result of highly focused, peptide-dependent structural mimicry. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:34324–34332. [PubMed]
18. Shoskes DA, Wood KJ. Indirect presentation of MHC antigens in transplantation. Immunol Today. 1994;15:32–38. [PubMed]
19. Taylor AL, Negus SL, Negus M, et al. Pathways of helper CD4 T cell allorecognition in generating alloantibody and CD8 T cell alloimmunity. Transplantation. 2007;83:931–937. [PubMed]
20. Steele DJ, Laufer TM, Smiley ST, et al. Two levels of help for B cell alloantibody production. J Exp Med. 1996;183:699–703. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Inaba K, Turley S, Yamaide F, et al. Efficient presentation of phagocytosed cellular fragments on the major histocompatibility complex class II products of dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 1998;188:2163–2173. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Auchincloss H, Jr, Lee R, Shea S, et al. The role of ‘indirect’ recognition in initiating rejection of skin grafts from major histocompatibility complex class II-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:3373–3377. [PubMed]
23. Fangmann J, Dalchau R, Fabre JW. Rejection of skin allografts by indirect allorecognition of donor class I major histocompatibility complex peptides. J Exp Med. 1992;175:1521–1529. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Sayegh MH, Perico N, Imberti O, et al. Thymic recognition of class II major histocompatibility complex allopeptides induces donor-specific unresponsiveness to renal allografts. Transplantation. 1993;56:461–465. [PubMed]
25. Tugulea S, Ciubotariu R, Colovai AI, et al. New strategies for early diagnosis of heart allograft rejection. Transplantation. 1997;64:842–847. [PubMed]
26. Liu Z, Braunstein NS, Suciu-Foca N. T cell recognition of allopeptides in context of syngeneic MHC. J Immunol. 1992;148:35–40. [PubMed]
27. Liu Z, Colovai AI, Tugulea S, et al. Indirect recognition of donor HLA-DR peptides in organ allograft rejection. J Clin Invest. 1996;98:1150–1157. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Dalchau R, Fangmann J, Fabre JW. Allorecognition of isolated, denatured chains of class I and class II major histocompatibility complex molecules. Evidence for an important role for indirect allorecognition in transplantation. Eur J Immunol. 1992;22:669–677. [PubMed]
29. Vella JP, Spadafora-Ferreira M, Murphy B, et al. Indirect allorecognition of major histocompatibility complex allopeptides in human renal transplant recipients with chronic graft dysfunction. Transplantation. 1997;64:795–800. [PubMed]
30. Benichou G, Valujskikh A, Heeger PS. Contributions of direct and indirect T cell alloreactivity during allograft rejection in mice. J Immunol. 1999;162:352–358. [PubMed]
31. Mason PD, Robinson CM, Lechler RI. Detection of donor-specific hyporesponsiveness following late failure of human renal allografts. Kidney Int. 1996;50:1019–1025. [PubMed]
32. Hornick PI, Mason PD, Yacoub MH, et al. Assessment of the contribution that direct allorecognition makes to the progression of chronic cardiac transplant rejection in humans. Circulation. 1998;97:1257–1263. [PubMed]
33. Hornick PI, Mason PD, Baker RJ, et al. Significant frequencies of T cells with indirect antidonor specificity in heart graft recipients with chronic rejection. Circulation. 2000;101:2405–2410. [PubMed]
34. Frasca L, Amendola A, Hornick P, et al. Role of donor and recipient antigen-presenting cells in priming and maintaining T cells with indirect allospecificity. Transplantation. 1998;66:1238–1243. [PubMed]
35. Ridge JP, Di Rosa F, Matzinger P. A conditioned dendritic cell can be a temporal bridge between a CD4+ T-helper and a T-killer cell. Nature. 1998;393:474–478. [PubMed]
36. Lee RS, Grusby MJ, Glimcher LH, et al. Indirect recognition by helper cells can induce donor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes in vivo. J Exp Med. 1994;179:865–872. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Wise MP, Bemelman F, Cobbold SP, Waldmann H. Linked suppression of skin graft rejection can operate through indirect recognition. J Immunol. 1998;161:5813–5816. [PubMed]
38. Smyth LA, Afzali B, Tsang J, et al. Intercellular transfer of MHC and immunological molecules: molecular mechanisms and biological significance. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:1442–1449. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
A review article highlighting the immunological and molecular characteristics of transfer of membrane components between different cell types through cell-to-cell contact and the exosomal route.
39. Bedford P, Garner K, Knight SC. MHC class II molecules transferred between allogeneic dendritic cells stimulate primary mixed leukocyte reactions. Int Immunol. 1999;11:1739–1744. [PubMed]
40. Smyth LA, Herrera OB, Golshayan D, et al. A novel pathway of antigen presentation by dendritic and endothelial cells: implications for allorecognition and infectious diseases. Transplantation. 2006;82:S15–S18. [PubMed]
41. Game DS, Rogers NJ, Lechler RI. Acquisition of HLA-DR and costimulatory molecules by T cells from allogeneic antigen presenting cells. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:1614–1625. [PubMed]
42. Harshyne LA, Watkins SC, Gambotto A, Barratt-Boyes SM. Dendritic cells acquire antigens from live cells for cross-presentation to CTL. J Immunol. 2001;166:3717–3723. [PubMed]
43. Morelli AE, Larregina AT, Shufesky WJ, et al. Endocytosis, intracellular sorting, and processing of exosomes by dendritic cells. Blood. 2004;104:3257–3266. [PubMed]
44. Denzer K, van Eijk M, Kleijmeer MJ, et al. Follicular dendritic cells carry MHC class II-expressing microvesicles at their surface. J Immunol. 2000;165:1259–1265. [PubMed]
45. Pimenta-Araujo R, Mascarell L, Huesca M, et al. Embryonic thymic epithelium naturally devoid of APCs is acutely rejected in the absence of indirect recognition. J Immunol. 2001;167:5034–5041. [PubMed]
46. Mandelbrot DA, Kishimoto K, Auchincloss H, Jr, et al. Rejection of mouse cardiac allografts by costimulation in trans. J Immunol. 2001;167:1174–1178. [PubMed]
47. Roncarolo MG, Gregori S, Battaglia M, et al. Interleukin-10-secreting type 1 regulatory T cells in rodents and humans. Immunol Rev. 2006;212:28–50. [PubMed]
48. Weiner HL. Induction and mechanism of action of transforming growth factor-beta-secreting Th3 regulatory cells. Immunol Rev. 2001;182:207–214. [PubMed]
49. Lu L, Werneck MBF, Cantor H. The immunoregulatory effects of Qa-1. Immunol Rev. 2006;212:51–59. [PubMed]
50. Cortesini R, LeMaoult J, Ciubotariu R, Cortesini NSF. CD8 CD28 T suppressor cells and the induction of antigen-specific, antigen-presenting cell-mediated suppression of Th reactivity. Immunol Rev. 2001;182:201–206. [PubMed]
51. Rifa’i M, Kawamoto Y, Nakashima I, Suzuki H. Essential roles of CD8+CD122+ regulatory T cells in the maintenance of T cell homeostasis. J Exp Med. 2004;200:1123–1134. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52. Zhang ZX, Yang L, Young KJ, et al. Identification of a previously unknown antigen-specific regulatory T cell and its mechanism of suppression. Nat Med. 2000;6:782–789. [PubMed]
53. Sakaguchi S, Sakaguchi N, Asano M, et al. Immunologic self-tolerance maintained by activated T cells expressing IL-2 receptor alpha-chains (CD25). Breakdown of a single mechanism of self-tolerance causes various autoimmune diseases. J Immunol. 1995;155:1151–1164. [PubMed]
54. Sakaguchi S, Toda M, Asano M, et al. T cell-mediated maintenance of natural self-tolerance: its breakdown as a possible cause of various autoimmune diseases. J Autoimmun. 1996;9:211–220. [PubMed]
55. Wildin RS, Ramsdell F, Peake J, et al. X-linked neonatal diabetes mellitus, enteropathy and endocrinopathy syndrome is the human equivalent of mouse scurfy. Nat Genet. 2001;27:18–20. [PubMed]
56. Wood KJ, Sakaguchi S. Regulatory T cells in transplantation tolerance. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003;3:199–210. [PubMed]
57. Graca L, Cobbold SP, Waldmann H. Identification of regulatory T cells in tolerated allografts. J Exp Med. 2002;195:1641–1646. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Graca L, Thompson S, Lin CY, et al. Both CD4(+)CD25(+) and CD4(+)CD25(−) regulatory cells mediate dominant transplantation tolerance. J Immunol. 2002;168:5558–5565. [PubMed]
59. Hall BM, Pearce NW, Gurley KE, Dorsch SE. Specific unresponsiveness in rats with prolonged cardiac allograft survival after treatment with cyclosporine. III. Further characterization of the CD4+ suppressor cell and its mechanisms of action. J Exp Med. 1990;171:141–157. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
60. Jordan MS, Boesteanu A, Reed AJ, et al. Thymic selection of CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells induced by an agonist self-peptide. Nat Immunol. 2001;2:301–306. [PubMed]
61. Apostolou I, Sarukhan A, Klein L, von Boehmer H. Origin of regulatory T cells with known specificity for antigen. Nature Immunol. 2002;3:756–763. [PubMed]
62. Romagnoli P, Hudrisier D, van Meerwijk JP. Preferential recognition of self antigens despite normal thymic deletion of CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cells. J Immunol. 2002;168:1644–1648. [PubMed]
63. Hsieh CS, Liang Y, Tyznik AJ, et al. Recognition of the peripheral self by naturally arising CD25+ CD4+ T cell receptors. Immunity. 2004;21:267–277. [PubMed]
64. Jiang S, Camara N, Lombardi G, Lechler RI. Induction of allopeptide-specific human CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells ex vivo. Blood. 2003;102:2180–2186. [PubMed]
65. Tafuri A, Alferink J, Moller P, et al. T cell awareness of paternal alloantigens during pregnancy. Science. 1995;270:630–633. [PubMed]
66. Hunt JS. Stranger in a strange land. Immunol Rev. 2006;213:36–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
67. Aluvihare VR, Kallikourdis M, Betz AG. Regulatory T cells mediate maternal tolerance to the fetus. Nat Immunol. 2004;5:266–271. [PubMed]
68. Nelson JL, Ostensen M. Pregnancy and rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1997;23:195–212. [PubMed]
69. Confavreux C, Hutchinson M, Hours MM, et al. Rate of pregnancy-related relapse in multiple sclerosis. Pregnancy in Multiple Sclerosis Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:285–291. [PubMed]
70. Sanchez-Fueyo A, Sandner S, Habicht A, et al. Specificity of CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cell function in alloimmunity. J Immunol. 2006;176:329–334. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
71. Tang Q, Adams JY, Tooley AJ, et al. Visualizing regulatory T cell control of autoimmune responses in nonobese diabetic mice. Nat Immunol. 2006;7:83–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
72. Aramaki O, Shirasugi N, Akiyama Y, et al. Induction of operational tolerance and generation of regulatory cells after intratracheal delivery of alloantigen combined with nondepleting anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody. Transplantation. 2003;76:1305–1314. [PubMed]
73. Shirasugi N, Ikeda Y, Akiyama Y, et al. Induction of hyporesponsiveness to fully allogeneic cardiac grafts by intratracheal delivery of alloantigen. Transplantation. 2001;71:561–564. [PubMed]
74. Chai JG, James E, Dewchand H, et al. Transplantation tolerance induced by intranasal administration of HY peptides. Blood. 2004;103:3951–3959. [PubMed]
75. Sayegh MH, Khoury SJ, Hancock WW, et al. Induction of immunity and oral tolerance with polymorphic class II major histocompatibility complex allopeptides in the rat. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89:7762–7766. [PubMed]
76. van Maurik M, Herber M, Wood KJ, Jones ND. Cutting edge: CD4+CD25+ alloantigen-specific immunoregulatory cells that can prevent CD8+ T cell-mediated graft rejection: implications for anti-CD154 immunotherapy. J Immunol. 2002;169:5401–5404. [PubMed]
77. Quezada SA, Fuller B, Jarvinen LZ, et al. Mechanisms of donor-specific transfusion tolerance: preemptive induction of clonal T-cell exhaustion via indirect presentation. Blood. 2003;102:1920–1926. [PubMed]
78. Yamada A, Chandraker A, Laufer TM, et al. Recipient MHC class II expression is required to achieve long-term survival of murine cardiac allografts after costimulatory blockade. J Immunol. 2001;167:5522–5526. [PubMed]
79. Spadafora-Ferreira M, Caldas C, Fae KC, et al. CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ indirect alloreactive T cells from renal transplant patients suppress both the direct and indirect pathways of allorecognition. Scand J Immunol. 2007;66:352–361. [PubMed]
80. Sanchez-Fueyo A, Domenig CM, Mariat C, et al. Influence of direct and indirect allorecognition pathways on CD4+CD25+ regulatory T-cell function in transplantation. Transpl Int. 2007;20:534–541. [PubMed]
Adoptive transfer experiments demonstrating that Tregs can suppress both direct and indirect pathway responses, but that suppression is more efficient when indirect allorecognition is the only pathway of presentation.
81. Karim M, Kingsley CI, Bushell AR, et al. Alloantigen-induced CD25+CD4+ regulatory T cells can develop in vivo from CD25-CD4+ precursors in a thymus-independent process. J Immunol. 2004;172:923–928. [PubMed]
82. Ochando JC, Homma C, Yang Y, et al. Alloantigen-presenting plasmacytoid dendritic cells mediate tolerance to vascularized grafts. Nat Immunol. 2006;7:652–662. [PubMed]
83. Game DS, Hernandez-Fuentes MP, Chaudhry AN, Lechler RI. CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells do not significantly contribute to direct pathway hyporesponsiveness in stable renal transplant patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:1652–1661. [PubMed]
84. Salama AD, Najafian N, Clarkson MR, et al. Regulatory CD25+ T cells in human kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:1643–1651. [PubMed]
85. Zheng XX, Sanchez-Fueyo A, Sho M, et al. Favorably tipping the balance between cytopathic and regulatory T cells to create transplantation tolerance. Immunity. 2003;19:503–514. [PubMed]