Search

Individual elements within a superenhancer can act in a cooperative or temporal manner, but the underlying mechanisms remain obscure. We recently identified anIrf8superenhancer, within which different elements act at distinct stages of type 1 classical dendritic cell (cDC1) development. The +41-kbIrf8enhancer is required for pre-cDC1 specification, while the +32-kbIrf8enhancer acts to support subsequent cDC1 maturation. Here, we found that compound heterozygous Δ32/Δ41 mice, lacking the +32- and +41-kb enhancers on different chromosomes, show normal pre-cDC1 specification but, surprisingly, completely lack mature cDC1 development, suggestingcisdependence of the +32-kb enhancer on the +41-kb enhancer. Transcription of the +32-kbIrf8enhancer-associated long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) Gm39266 is also dependent on the +41-kb enhancer. However, cDC1 development in mice remained intact when Gm39266 transcripts were eliminated by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated deletion of lncRNA promoters and when transcription across the +32-kb enhancer was blocked by premature polyadenylation. We showed that chromatin accessibility and BATF3 binding at the +32-kb enhancer were dependent on a functional +41-kb enhancer located incis. Thus, the +41-kbIrf8enhancer controls the subsequent activation of the +32-kbIrf8enhancer in a manner that is independent of associated lncRNA transcription.

The central nervous system (CNS) antigen-presenting cell (APC) that primes antitumor CD8+ T-cell responses remains undefined. Elsewhere in the body, the conventional dendritic cell 1 (cDC1) performs this role. However, steady-state brain parenchyma cDC1 are extremely rare; cDCs localize to the choroid plexus and dura. Thus, whether the cDC1 play a function in presenting antigen derived from parenchymal sources in the tumor setting remains unknown. Using preclinical glioblastoma (GBM) models and cDC1-deficient mice, we explored the presently unknown role of cDC1 in CNS antitumor immunity. We determined that, in addition to infiltrating the brain tumor parenchyma itself, cDC1 prime neoantigen-specific CD8+ T cells against brain tumors and mediate checkpoint blockade-induced survival benefit. We observed that cDC, including cDC1, isolated from the tumor, the dura, and the CNS-draining cervical lymph nodes harbored a traceable fluorescent tumor antigen. In patient samples, we observed several APC subsets (including the CD141+ cDC1 equivalent) infiltrating glioblastomas, meningiomas, and dura. In these same APC subsets, we identified a tumor-specific fluorescent metabolite of 5-aminolevulinic acid, which fluorescently labeled tumor cells during fluorescence-guided GBM resection. Together, these data elucidate the specialized behavior of cDC1 and suggest that cDC1 play a significant role in CNS antitumor immunity.

The divergence of the common dendritic cell progenitor

Supplementary Figures and Tables.

As a cell-based cancer vaccine, dendritic cells (DC), derived from peripheral blood monocytes or bone marrow (BM) treated with GM-CSF (GMDC), were initially thought to induce antitumor immunity by presenting tumor antigens directly to host T cells. Subsequent work revealed that GMDCs do not directly prime tumor-specific T cells, but must transfer their antigens to host DCs. This reduces their advantage over strictly antigen-based strategies proposed as cancer vaccines. Type 1 conventional DCs (cDC1) have been reported to be superior to GMDCs as a cancer vaccine, but whether they act by transferring antigens to host DCs is unknown. To test this, we compared antitumor responses induced by GMDCs and cDC1 in Irf8 +32–/– mice, which lack endogenous cDC1 and cannot reject immunogenic fibrosarcomas. Both GMDCs and cDC1 could cross-present cell-associated antigens to CD8+ T cells in vitro. However, injection of GMDCs into tumors in Irf8 +32–/– mice did not induce antitumor immunity, consistent with their reported dependence on host cDC1. In contrast, injection of cDC1s into tumors in Irf8 +32–/– mice resulted in their migration to tumor-draining lymph nodes, activation of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells, and rejection of the tumors. Tumor rejection did not require the in vitro loading of cDC1 with antigens, indicating that acquisition of antigens in vivo is sufficient to induce antitumor responses. Finally, cDC1 vaccination showed abscopal effects, with rejection of untreated tumors growing concurrently on the opposite flank. These results suggest that cDC1 may be a useful future avenue to explore for antitumor therapy.See related Spotlight by Hubert et al., p. 918

The central nervous system (CNS) antigen-presenting cell (APC) that primes antitumor CD8+ T-cell responses remains undefined. Elsewhere in the body, the conventional dendritic cell 1 (cDC1) performs this role. However, steady-state brain parenchyma cDC1 are extremely rare; cDCs localize to the choroid plexus and dura. Thus, whether the cDC1 play a function in presenting antigen derived from parenchymal sources in the tumor setting remains unknown. Using preclinical glioblastoma (GBM) models and cDC1-deficient mice, we explored the presently unknown role of cDC1 in CNS antitumor immunity. We determined that, in addition to infiltrating the brain tumor parenchyma itself, cDC1 prime neoantigen-specific CD8+ T cells against brain tumors and mediate checkpoint blockade-induced survival benefit. We observed that cDC, including cDC1, isolated from the tumor, the dura, and the CNS-draining cervical lymph nodes harbored a traceable fluorescent tumor antigen. In patient samples, we observed several APC subsets (including the CD141+ cDC1 equivalent) infiltrating glioblastomas, meningiomas, and dura. In these same APC subsets, we identified a tumor-specific fluorescent metabolite of 5-aminolevulinic acid, which fluorescently labeled tumor cells during fluorescence-guided GBM resection. Together, these data elucidate the specialized behavior of cDC1 and suggest that cDC1 play a significant role in CNS antitumor immunity.

Supplementary Figure from cDC1 Vaccines Drive Tumor Rejection by Direct Presentation Independently of Host cDC1

The events that initiate autoimmune diabetes in nonobese diabetic (NOD) mice remain poorly understood. CD4 + and CD8 + T cells are both required to develop disease, but their relative roles in initiating disease are unclear. To test whether CD4 + T cell infiltration into islets requires damage to β cells induced by autoreactive CD8 + T cells, we inactivated Wdfy4 in nonobese diabetic (NOD) mice (NOD. Wdfy4 −/−- ) using CRISPR/Cas9 targeting to eliminate cross-presentation by type 1 conventional dendritic cells (cDC1s). Similar to C57BL/6 Wdfy4 −/− mice, cDC1 in NOD. Wdfy4 −/− mice are unable to cross-present cell-associated antigens to prime CD8 + T cells, while cDC1 from heterozygous NOD. Wdfy4 +/− mice cross-present normally. Further, NOD. Wdfy4 −/− mice fail to develop diabetes while heterozygous NOD. Wdfy4 +/− mice develop diabetes similarly to wild-type NOD mice. NOD. Wdfy4 −/− mice remain capable of processing and presenting major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II)-restricted autoantigens and can activate β cell-specific CD4 + T cells in lymph nodes. However, disease in these mice does not progress beyond peri-islet inflammation. These results indicate that the priming of autoreactive CD8 + T cells in NOD mice requires cross-presentation by cDC1. Further, autoreactive CD8 + T cells appear to be required not only to develop diabetes, but to recruit autoreactive CD4 + T cells into islets of NOD mice, perhaps in response to progressive β cell damage.

The clinical success of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) has produced explosive growth in tumor immunology research because ICT was discovered through basic studies of immune regulation. Much of the current translational efforts are aimed at enhancing ICT by identifying therapeutic targets that synergize with CTLA4 or PD1/PD-L1 blockade and are solidly developed on the basis of currently accepted principles. Expanding these principles through continuous basic research may help broaden translational efforts. With this mindset, we focused this review on three threads of basic research directly relating to mechanisms underlying ICT. Specifically, this review covers three aspects of dendritic cell (DC) biology connected with antitumor immune responses but are not specifically oriented toward therapeutic use. First, we review recent advances in the development of the cDC1 subset of DCs, identifying important features distinguishing these cells from other types of DCs. Second, we review the antigen-processing pathway called cross-presentation, which was discovered in the mid-1970s and remains an enigma. This pathway serves an essential in vivo function unique to cDC1s and may be both a physiologic bottleneck and therapeutic target. Finally, we review the longstanding field of helper cells and the related area of DC licensing, in which CD4 T cells influence the strength or quality of CD8 T cell responses. Each topic is connected with ICT in some manner but is also a fundamental aspect of cell-mediated immunity directed toward intracellular pathogens.

CD40 signaling in classical type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1s) is required for CD8 T cell-mediated tumor rejection, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. Here, we identified CD40-induced genes in cDC1s, including Cd70, Tnfsf9, Ptgs2 and Bcl2l1, and examined their contributions to anti-tumor immunity. cDC1-specific inactivation of CD70 and COX-2, and global CD27 inactivation, only partially impaired tumor rejection or tumor-specific CD8 T cell expansion. Loss of 4-1BB, alone or in Cd27(−/−) mice, did not further impair anti-tumor immunity. However, cDC1-specific CD40 inactivation reduced cDC1 mitochondrial transmembrane potential and increased caspase activation in tumor-draining lymph nodes, reducing migratory cDC1 numbers in vivo. Similar impairments occurred during in vitro antigen presentation by Cd40(−/−) cDC1s to CD8(+) T cells, which were reversed by re-expression of Bcl2l1. Thus, CD40 signaling in cDC1s not only induces costimulatory ligands for CD8(+) T cells but also induces Bcl2l1 that sustains cDC1 survival during priming of anti-tumor responses.

The events that initiate autoimmune diabetes in NOD mice remain poorly understood. CD4 and CD8 T cells are both required but whether either cell initiates disease is unclear. To test whether CD4 T cell infiltration into islet required damage to β cells induced by autoreactive CD8 T cells, we selectively inactivated Wdfy4 in NOD mice (NOD.Wdfy4-/-) using CRISPR/Cas9 targeting. Similar to C57BL/6 Wdfy4-/- mice NOD.Wdfy4-/- mice develop type 1 conventional dendritic cells (cDC1) that are unable to cross-present cell-associated antigens required to activate CD8 T cells. By contrast, cDC1 from heterozygous Wdfy4+/- mice can cross-present normally. Heterozygous NOD.Wdfy4+/- mice develop diabetes similar to NOD mice, but NOD.Wdfy4-/- mice neither develop diabetes nor prime autoreactive CD8 T cells in vivo. By contrast, NOD.Wdfy4-/- mice can process and present MHC-II-restricted autoantigens and can activate β cell specific CD4 T cells in lymph nodes, and yet do not develop CD4 T cell infiltration in islets. These results indicate that the priming of autoreactive CD8 T cells in NOD mice requires cross-presentation by cDC1. Further, autoreactive CD8 T cells are required not only to develop diabetes, but to recruit autoreactive CD4 T cells into islets of NOD mice, perhaps in response to progressive β cell damage.

The transcriptional repressor Bcl6 has been reported as required for development of a subset of classical dendritic cell (cDCs) called cDC1, which is responsible for cross-presentation. However, mechanisms and in vivo functional analysis have been lacking. We generated a system for conditional deletion of Bcl6 in mouse cDCs. We confirmed the reported in vitro requirement for Bcl6 in cDC1 development and the general role for Bcl6 in cDC development in competitive settings. However, deletion of Bcl6 did not abrogate the in vivo development of cDC1. Instead, Bcl6 deficiency caused only a selective reduction in CD8α expression by cDC1 without affecting XCR1 or CD24 expression. Normal cDC1 development was confirmed in Bcl6cKO mice by development of XCR1+ Zbtb46-GFP+ cDC1 by rejection of syngeneic tumors and by priming of tumor-specific CD8 T cells. In summary, Bcl6 regulates a subset of cDC1-specific markers and is required in vitro but not in vivo for cDC1 development.

Dendritic cells (DCs) develop in the bone marrow from haematopoietic progenitors that have numerous shared characteristics between mice and humans. Human counterparts of mouse DC progenitors have been identified by their shared transcriptional signatures and developmental potential. New findings continue to revise models of DC ontogeny but it is well accepted that DCs can be divided into two main functional groups. Classical DCs include type 1 and type 2 subsets, which can detect different pathogens, produce specific cytokines and present antigens to polarize mainly naive CD8+ or CD4+ T cells, respectively. By contrast, the function of plasmacytoid DCs is largely innate and restricted to the detection of viral infections and the production of type I interferon. Here, we discuss genetic models of mouse DC development and function that have aided in correlating ontogeny with function, as well as how these findings can be translated to human DCs and their progenitors.

Conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1)1 are thought to perform antigen cross-presentation, which is required to prime CD8+ T cells2,3, whereas cDC2 are specialized for priming CD4+ T cells4,5. CD4+ T cells are also considered to help CD8+ T cell responses through a variety of mechanisms6–11, including a process whereby CD4+ T cells ‘license’ cDC1 for CD8+ T cell priming12. However, this model has not been directly tested in vivo or in the setting of help-dependent tumour rejection. Here we generated an Xcr1Cre mouse strain to evaluate the cellular interactions that mediate tumour rejection in a model requiring CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. As expected, tumour rejection required cDC1 and CD8+ T cell priming required the expression of major histocompatibility class I molecules by cDC1. Unexpectedly, early priming of CD4+ T cells against tumour-derived antigens also required cDC1, and this was not simply because they transport antigens to lymph nodes for processing by cDC2, as selective deletion of major histocompatibility class II molecules in cDC1 also prevented early CD4+ T cell priming. Furthermore, deletion of either major histocompatibility class II or CD40 in cDC1 impaired tumour rejection, consistent with a role for cognate CD4+ T cell interactions and CD40 signalling in cDC1 licensing. Finally, CD40 signalling in cDC1 was critical not only for CD8+ T cell priming, but also for initial CD4+ T cell activation. Thus, in the setting of tumour-derived antigens, cDC1 function as an autonomous platform capable of antigen processing and priming for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells and of the direct orchestration of their cross-talk that is required for optimal anti-tumour immunity. Conventional type 1 dendritic cells perform antigen processing and priming of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells against tumour antigens, orchestrating their cross-talk to effect anti-tumour immunity.

The local microenvironment shapes macrophage differentiation in each tissue. We hypothesized that in the peritoneum, local factors in addition to retinoic acid can support GATA6-driven differentiation and function of peritoneal large cavity macrophages (LCMs). We found that soluble proteins produced by mesothelial cells lining the peritoneal cavity maintained GATA6 expression in cultured LCMs. Analysis of global gene expression of isolated mesothelial cells highlighted mesothelin (Msln) and its binding partner mucin 16 (Muc16) as candidate secreted ligands that potentially regulate GATA6 expression in peritoneal LCMs. Mice deficient for either of these molecules showed diminished GATA6 expression in peritoneal and pleural LCMs that was most prominent in aged mice. The more robust phenotype in older mice suggested that monocyte-derived macrophages were the target of Msln and Muc16. Cell transfer and bone marrow chimera experiments supported this hypothesis. We found that lethally irradiated Msln−/− and Muc16−/− mice reconstituted with wild-type bone marrow had lower levels of GATA6 expression in peritoneal and pleural LCMs. Similarly, during the resolution of zymosan-induced inflammation, repopulated peritoneal LCMs lacking expression of Msln or Muc16 expressed diminished GATA6. These data support a role for mesothelial cell–produced Msln and Muc16 in local macrophage differentiation within large cavity spaces such as the peritoneum. The effect appears to be most prominent on monocyte-derived macrophages that enter into this location as the host ages and also in response to infection.

Last year was the 10th anniversary of Ralph Steinman’s Nobel Prize awarded for his discovery of dendritic cells (DCs), while next year brings the 50th anniversary of that discovery. Current models of anti-viral and anti-tumor immunity rest solidly on Steinman’s discovery of DCs, but also rely on two seemingly unrelated phenomena, also reported in the mid-1970s: the discoveries of “help” for cytolytic T cell responses by Cantor and Boyse in 1974 and “cross-priming” by Bevan in 1976. Decades of subsequent work, controversy, and conceptual changes have gradually merged these three discoveries into current models of cell-mediated immunity against viruses and tumors.

Conventional dendritic cells (cDCs), cDC1 and cDC2, act both to initiate immunity and maintain self-tolerance. The tryptophan metabolic enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is used by cDCs in maintaining tolerance, but its role in different subsets remains unclear. At homeostasis, only mature CCR7sup+/supcDC1 expressed IDO1 that was dependent on IRF8. Lipopolysaccharide treatment induced maturation and IDO1-dependent tolerogenic activity in isolated immature cDC1, but not isolated cDC2. However, both human and mouse cDC2 could induce IDO1 and acquire tolerogenic function when co-cultured with mature cDC1 through the action of cDC1-derived l-kynurenine. Accordingly, cDC1-specific inactivation of IDO1 in vivo exacerbated disease in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. This study identifies a previously unrecognized metabolic communication in which IDO1-expressing cDC1 cells extend their immunoregulatory capacity to the cDC2 subset through their production of tryptophan metabolite l-kynurenine. This metabolic axis represents a potential therapeutic target in treating autoimmune demyelinating diseases.

CD40 signaling in classical type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1s) is required for CD8 T cell-mediated tumor rejection, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. Here, we identified CD40-induced genes in cDC1s, including Cd70, Tnfsf9, Ptgs2 and Bcl2l1, and examined their contributions to anti-tumor immunity. cDC1-specific inactivation of CD70 and COX-2, and global CD27 inactivation, only partially impaired tumor rejection or tumor-specific CD8 T cell expansion. Loss of 4-1BB, alone or in Cd27

Tumors are populated by antigen-presenting cells (APCs) including macrophage subsets with distinct origins and functions. Here, we examined how cancer impacts mononuclear phagocytic APCs in a murine model of breast cancer. Tumors induced the expansion of monocyte-derived tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and the activation of type 1 dendritic cells (DC1s), both of which expressed and required the transcription factor interferon regulatory factor-8 (IRF8). Although DC1s mediated cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) priming in tumor-draining lymph nodes, TAMs promoted CTL exhaustion in the tumor, and IRF8 was required for TAMs' ability to present cancer cell antigens. TAM-specific IRF8 deletion prevented exhaustion of cancer-cell-reactive CTLs and suppressed tumor growth. Tumors from patients with immune-infiltrated renal cell carcinoma had abundant TAMs that expressed IRF8 and were enriched for an IRF8 gene expression signature. Furthermore, the TAM-IRF8 signature co-segregated with CTL exhaustion signatures across multiple cancer types. Thus, CTL exhaustion is promoted by TAMs via IRF8.

As a cell-based cancer vaccine, dendritic cells (DC), derived from peripheral blood monocytes or bone marrow (BM) treated with GM-CSF (GMDC), were initially thought to induce antitumor immunity by presenting tumor antigens directly to host T cells. Subsequent work revealed that GMDCs do not directly prime tumor-specific T cells, but must transfer their antigens to host DCs. This reduces their advantage over strictly antigen-based strategies proposed as cancer vaccines. Type 1 conventional DCs (cDC1) have been reported to be superior to GMDCs as a cancer vaccine, but whether they act by transferring antigens to host DCs is unknown. To test this, we compared antitumor responses induced by GMDCs and cDC1 in Irf8 +32–/– mice, which lack endogenous cDC1 and cannot reject immunogenic fibrosarcomas. Both GMDCs and cDC1 could cross-present cell-associated antigens to CD8+ T cells in vitro. However, injection of GMDCs into tumors in Irf8 +32–/– mice did not induce antitumor immunity, consistent with their reported dependence on host cDC1. In contrast, injection of cDC1s into tumors in Irf8 +32–/– mice resulted in their migration to tumor-draining lymph nodes, activation of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells, and rejection of the tumors. Tumor rejection did not require the in vitro loading of cDC1 with antigens, indicating that acquisition of antigens in vivo is sufficient to induce antitumor responses. Finally, cDC1 vaccination showed abscopal effects, with rejection of untreated tumors growing concurrently on the opposite flank. These results suggest that cDC1 may be a useful future avenue to explore for antitumor therapy. See related Spotlight by Hubert et al., p. 918

The central nervous system (CNS) antigen presenting cell (APC) which primes anti-tumor CD8+ T cell responses remains undefined. Elsewhere, the conventional dendritic cell 1 (cDC1) performs this role. However, steady-state brain cDC1 are rare; cDC localize to choroid plexus and dura. Using preclinical glioblastoma models and cDC1-deficient mice, we explored the role of cDC1 in CNS anti-tumor immunity. We determined that cDC1 mediate checkpoint blockade-induced survival benefit and prime neoantigen-specific CD8+ T cells against brain tumors. We observed that cDC, including cDC1, isolated from the tumor, the dura, and the CNS-draining cervical lymph nodes harbored a traceable fluorescent tumor-antigen. In patient samples, we observed several APC subsets (including the CD141+ cDC1-equivalent) infiltrating glioblastomas, meningiomas, and dura. In these same subsets, we identified a tumor-specific fluorescent metabolite of 5- aminolevulinic acid, which labels tumor cells during fluorescence-guided glioblastoma resection. Together, these data elucidate the specialized behavior of cDC1 and suggest cDC1 play a significant role in CNS anti-tumor immunity.One Sentence SummaryCNS cDC1 engage in previously undefined behavior to establish immune responses against brain tumors.

SummaryShortly after priming, the fate of activated CD4 T cells is segregated into BCL6+ follicular helper T (Tfh) and BCL6− effector (Teff) cells. However, it remains unknown how these subsets are sustained in the presence of chronic antigen stimulation. Using a combination of single cell- and population-based approaches, we show that in chronic viral infection, activated CD4 T cells differentiate into BCL6-dependent TCF-1+ progenitor cells with superior capacity to expand and give rise to both Teff and Tfh. They share properties with progenitor-exhausted CD8 T cells and are required for the continued generation of Teff cells as antigen persists. In response to tumors, an analogous CD4 T cell population develops in draining lymph nodes. Our study reveals the heterogeneity and plasticity of CD4 T cells upon encountering persistent antigen and highlights their population dynamics through a stable bipotent intermediate state.

Soon after activation, CD4

Innate immunity and adaptive immunity consist of highly specialized immune lineages that depend on transcription factors for both function and development. In this review, we dissect the similarities between two innate lineages, innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) and dendritic cells (DCs), and an adaptive immune lineage, T cells. ILCs, DCs, and T cells make up four functional immune modules and interact in concert to produce a specified immune response. These three immune lineages also share transcriptional networks governing the development of each lineage, and we discuss the similarities between ILCs and DCs in this review.

Induction of the transcription factor Irf8 in the common dendritic cell progenitor (CDP) is required for classical type 1 dendritic cell (cDC1) fate specification, but the mechanisms controlling this induction are unclear. In the present study Irf8 enhancers were identified via chromatin profiling of dendritic cells and CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing was used to assess their roles in Irf8 regulation. An enhancer 32 kilobases (kb) downstream of the Irf8 transcriptional start site (+32-kb Irf8) that was active in mature cDC1s was required for the development of this lineage, but not for its specification. Instead, a +41-kb Irf8 enhancer, previously thought to be active only in plasmacytoid dendritic cells, was found to also be transiently accessible in cDC1 progenitors, and deleting this enhancer prevented the induction of Irf8 in CDPs and abolished cDC1 specification. Thus, cryptic activation of the +41-kb Irf8 enhancer in dendritic cell progenitors is responsible for cDC1 fate specification. The transcription factor IRF8 is essential for classical type 1 dendritic cell (cDC1) development. Murphy and colleagues investigate in detail the molecular control of cDC1 fate specification by systematically unpicking the IRF8 enhancer regions.

During dendritic cell (DC) development, Myc expression in progenitors is replaced by Mycl in mature DCs, but when and how this transition occurs is unknown. We evaluated DC development using reporters for MYC, MYCL, and cell cycle proteins Geminin and CDT1 in wild-type and various mutant mice. For classical type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1s) and plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs), the transition occurred upon their initial specification from common dendritic cell progenitors (CDPs) or common lymphoid progenitors (CLPs), respectively. This transition required high levels of IRF8 and interaction with PU.1, suggesting the use of EICEs within Mycl enhancers. In pDCs, maximal MYCL induction also required the +41kb Irf8 enhancer that controls pDC IRF8 expression. IRF8 also contributed to repression of MYC. While MYC is expressed only in rapidly dividing DC progenitors, MYCL is most highly expressed in DCs that have exited the cell cycle. Thus, IRF8 levels coordinate the Myc-Mycl transition during DC development.

Generation of tolerogenic peripheral regulatory T (pTreg) cells is commonly thought to involve CD103+ gut dendritic cells (DCs), yet their role in commensal-reactive pTreg development is unclear. Using two Helicobacter-specific T cell receptor (TCR) transgenic mouse lines, we found that both CD103+ and CD103– migratory, but not resident, DCs from the colon-draining mesenteric lymph node presented Helicobacter antigens to T cells ex vivo. Loss of most CD103+ migratory DCs in vivo using murine genetic models did not affect the frequency of Helicobacter-specific pTreg cell generation or induce compensatory tolerogenic changes in the remaining CD103– DCs. By contrast, activation in a Th1-promoting niche in vivo blocked Helicobacter-specific pTreg generation. Thus, these data suggest a model where DC-mediated effector T cell differentiation is ‘dominant’, necessitating that all DC subsets presenting antigen are permissive for pTreg cell induction to maintain gut tolerance.

CD40 signaling in conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1s) is required for CD8 T cell-mediated tumor rejection, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. Here, we identified CD40-induced genes in cDC1 and examined their contributions to anti-tumor immunity. cDC1-specific inactivation of CD70 and COX-2, and global CD27 inactivation, only partially impaired tumor rejection or tumor-specific CD8 T-cell expansion. Loss of 4-1BB, alone or in Cd27−/− mice, did not further impair anti-tumor immunity. However, cDC1-specific CD40 inactivation reduced cDC1 mitochondrial transmembrane potential and increased apoptosis in tumor-draining lymph nodes, reducing migratory cDC1 numbers in vivo. Similar impairments occurred during in vitro antigen presentation, which were reversed by re-expression of Bcl-xL. Thus, CD40 signaling in cDC1 not only induces co-stimulatory ligands for CD8 T cells, but also induces Bcl2l1 that sustains cDC1 survival during priming of anti-tumor responses. This work was supported by grants from the NIH (R01AI150297, R01CA248919, and R21AI164142 to K.M.M., and F30CA247262 to R.W.).

Efforts to determine the unique functions of the two types of classical dendritic cells, cDC1 and cDC2, are hindered by limited understanding of the divergence of the common dendritic cell progenitor (CDP). Some transcription factors act in commitment of already specified progenitors, such as Batf3 which stabilizes Irf8 autoactivation at the +32 kb Irf8 enhancer, but how other factors control CDP divergence remains unknown. Here, we report the transcriptional mechanism of CDP divergence and describe the first requirements for pre-cDC2 specification. Genetic epistasis analysis suggested that Nfil3 acts upstream of Id2, Batf3, and Zeb2 in cDC1 development but has not revealed its mechanism or targets. Analysis of newly generated NFIL3 reporter mice showed extremely transient NFIL3 expression during cDC1 specification. CUT&RUN and ChIP-seq analysis identified NFIL3 binding in the −165 kb Zeb2 enhancer at sites that also bind CCAAT-enhancer-binding proteins (C/EBPs). Mutation of these NFIL3/C/EBP sites by in vivo CRISPR/Cas9 targeting revealed functional redundancy, with C/EBPs and NFIL3 competing in binding these sites to support or repress Zeb2 expression, respectively. Mutation of these three NFIL3/C/EBP sites eliminated Zeb2 expression in myeloid, but not lymphoid progenitors, producing mice that completely lacked pre-cDC2 specification and mature cDC2 in vivo. These mice failed to make an appropriate TH2 response against H. polygyrus infection, consistent with cDC2 supporting TH2 responses to helminths. Notably, Zeb2 expression is not required to maintain cDC2 identity, but acts only to block cDC1 specification. Thus, the competition between C/EBPs and NFIL3 binding at the −165 kb Zeb2 enhancer determines CDP divergence.

The transcriptional repressor ZEB2 regulates development of many cell fates among somatic, neural and hematopoietic lineages, but the basis for its requirement in these diverse lineages is unclear. Here, we identified a 400 basepair (bp) region located 165 kilobases (kb) upstream of the Zeb2 transcriptional start site (TSS) that binds the E proteins at several E-box motifs and was active in hematopoietic lineages. Germline deletion of this 400bp region (Zeb2(Δ−165) mice) specifically prevented Zeb2 expression in hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) derived lineages. Zeb2(Δ−165) mice lacked development of plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), monocytes, and B cells. All macrophages in Zeb2(Δ−165) mice were exclusively of embryonic origin. Using single-cell chromatin profiling, we identified a second Zeb2 enhancer located at +164-kb that was selectively active in embryonically derived lineages, but not hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) derived ones. Thus, Zeb2 expression in adult, but not embryonic, hematopoiesis is selectively controlled by the −165kb Zeb2 enhancer.

The Btla inhibitory receptor limits innate and adaptive immune responses, both preventing the development of autoimmune disease and restraining anti-viral and anti-tumor responses. It remains unclear how the functions of Btla in diverse lymphocytes contributes to immunoregulation. Here, we show that Btla inhibits activation of genes regulating proliferation and cytokine signaling including the transcription factor Myc, indicating a regulatory role in humoral immunity. Within mucosal Peyer’s Patches, we found T cell-expressed Btla regulated Tfh, while Btla in T or B cells regulated GC B cell numbers. Treg-expressed Btla was required for cell-intrinsic Treg homeostasis, that subsequently controlled GC B cells. Loss of Btla in lymphocytes resulted in increased IgA bound to intestinal bacteria, correlating with altered microbial homeostasis and elevations in commensal and pathogenic bacteria. Together our studies provide important insights into how Btla functions as a checkpoint in diverse conventional and regulatory lymphocyte subsets to influence systemic immune responses.

Dendritic cells (DCs) develop in the bone marrow from haematopoietic progenitors that have numerous shared characteristics between mice and humans. Human counterparts of mouse DC progenitors have been identified by their shared transcriptional signatures and developmental potential. New findings continue to revise models of DC ontogeny but it is well accepted that DCs can be divided into two main functional groups. Classical DCs include type 1 and type 2 subsets, which can detect different pathogens, produce specific cytokines and present antigens to polarize mainly naive CD8

The omentum in the peritoneal cavity contains fat associated lymphoid clusters (FALCs) whose role in the response to microbial challenge are poorly understood. After intraperitoneal immunization with Toxoplasma gondii, type I dendritic cells (cDC1) were critical to induce innate sources of IFN-γ required to recruit monocytes to the FALCs. The migration of infected peritoneal macrophages into T and B cell rich areas of the FALCs allowed the TCR-induced activation of parasite-specific T cells. Unexpectedly, cDC1 were not required for T cell priming but rather supported the expansion of parasite-specific CD8+ T cells. An agent-based mathematical model predicted that the lack of cDC1 would impact the early proliferative burst, and we confirmed that cDC1 were required for optimal T cell expression of nutrient uptake receptors and cell survival. These studies highlight that cDC1 in the FALCs have distinct roles in the co-ordination of the innate and adaptive responses to microbial challenge.