The second paper I am
going to review about tissue resident memory T cells comes from David
Masopust's lab.
The results in this paper (1) are so
straightforward and simple and sometimes confusing that it should
have been published in Journal of Immunology rather than in journal
Science.
To begin with, the
authors are mentioning abbreviation FRT, however, I was unable to
find what it stands for.
In this study, the
authors transferred naive OT-I or P14 CD8 T cells into recipients
infected one day later with VV-OVA or LCMV.
60 days later, tissue
resident CD8 T cells were re-activated with locally deposited cognate gp33 peptide. This led to IFN-gamma dependent VCAM-1 up-regulation on
local endothelial cells and VCAM-1 dependent recruitment of
non-specific OT-I cells
or B cells.
To test the biological
significance of this observation, the authors established tissue
resident pool of P14 CD8 memory T cells and then infected these mice
with unrelated VV-OVA in presence or absence of cognate gp33 peptide.
The authors found that re-activation of local gp33-specific P14
memory T cells greatly improved VV-OVA control, in contrast to VV-OVA
challenge only, or when IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, IL-2Rbeta were
neutralized.
In sum, the authors
concluded that local activation of local tissue resident memory CD8 T
cells with cognate peptide facilitates control of unrelated viral
infection through activation of innate cells (NK, DCs) and probably
priming of naive T cells specific for challenged virus.
Now, these results are
little bit confusing. First, it is not clear how initial i.v. viral
infection establishes local tissue resident CD8 T cells in cervix.
Second, it is not clear either how exactly local activation of
tissue resident memory CD8 T cells of one specificity “helps”
control unrelated virus. Third, if this “help” is antigen
non-specific, any type of innate cells may be able to do the same
upon viral infection. What is the advantage of memory CD8 T cells in
this regard?
David