Article | Published:

Sensing and alarm function of resident memory CD8+ T cells

Nature Immunology volume 14, pages 509513 (2013) | Download Citation

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 19 July 2013

This article has been updated

Abstract

CD8+ T cells eliminate intracellular infections through two contact-dependent effector functions: cytolysis and secretion of antiviral cytokines. Here we identify the following additional function for memory CD8+ T cells that persist at front-line sites of microbial exposure: to serve as local sensors of previously encountered antigens that precipitate innate-like alarm signals and draw circulating memory CD8+ T cells into the tissue. When memory CD8+ T cells residing in the female mouse reproductive tract encountered cognate antigen, they expressed interferon-γ (IFN-γ), potentiated robust local expression of inflammatory chemokines and induced rapid recruitment of circulating memory CD8+ T cells. Anamnestic responses in front-line tissues are thus an integrated collaboration between front-line and circulating populations of memory CD8+ T cells, and vaccines should establish both populations to maximize rapid responses.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 08 April 2013

    In the version of this article initially published, a label in Figure 2b and the scale size for Figure 5a were incorrect. The left label under the left image in Figure 2b should be CXCL9 (in red); the legend for Figure 5a should end "Scale bars, 20 μm." The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of this article.

References

  1. 1.

    , & Central memory and effector memory T cell subsets: function, generation, and maintenance. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 22, 745–763 (2004).

  2. 2.

    & T-cell function and migration. Two sides of the same coin. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 1020–1034 (2000).

  3. 3.

    & Similarities and differences in CD4+ and CD8+ effector and memory T cell generation. Nat. Immunol. 4, 835–842 (2003).

  4. 4.

    , & Endogenous naive CD8+ T cell precursor frequency regulates primary and memory responses to infection. Immunity 28, 859–869 (2008).

  5. 5.

    , & Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell 124, 783–801 (2006).

  6. 6.

    , , , & Two subsets of memory T lymphocytes with distinct homing potentials and effector functions. Nature 401, 708–712 (1999).

  7. 7.

    et al. Lineage relationship and protective immunity of memory CD8 T cell subsets. Nat. Immunol. 4, 225–234 (2003).

  8. 8.

    , , & Preferential localization of effector memory cells in nonlymphoid tissue. Science 291, 2413–2417 (2001).

  9. 9.

    et al. Memory T cells in nonlymphoid tissue that provide enhanced local immunity during infection with herpes simplex virus. Nat. Immunol. 10, 524–530 (2009).

  10. 10.

    , & Memory T cells persisting within the brain after local infection show functional adaptations to their tissue of residence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 17872–17879 (2010).

  11. 11.

    & E-cadherin promotes accumulation of a unique memory CD8 T-cell population in murine salivary glands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 16741–16746 (2011).

  12. 12.

    et al. Dynamic T cell migration program provides resident memory within intestinal epithelium. J. Exp. Med. 207, 553–564 (2010).

  13. 13.

    et al. Skin infection generates non-migratory memory CD8+ TRM cells providing global skin immunity. Nature 483, 227–231 (2012).

  14. 14.

    , , & Peripheral tissue surveillance and residency by memory T cells. Trends Immunol. 34, 27–32 (2013).

  15. 15.

    & Hidden memories: frontline memory T cells and early pathogen interception. J. Immunol. 188, 5811–5817 (2012).

  16. 16.

    et al. Cutting edge: tissue-retentive lung memory CD4 T cells mediate optimal protection to respiratory virus infection. J. Immunol. 187, 5510–5514 (2011).

  17. 17.

    & Guarding the perimeter: protection of the mucosa by tissue-resident memory T cells. Mucosal Immunol. 6, 14–23 (2013).

  18. 18.

    & A vaccine strategy that protects against genital herpes by establishing local memory T cells. Nature 491, 463–467 (2012).

  19. 19.

    , , , & Dendritic cell-induced memory T cell activation in nonlymphoid tissues. Science 319, 198–202 (2008).

  20. 20.

    et al. Tissue-resident memory CD8+ T cells continuously patrol skin epithelia to quickly recognize local antigen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 19739–19744 (2012).

  21. 21.

    Memory T cells as an occupying force. Eur. J. Immunol. 41, 1192–1195 (2011).

  22. 22.

    et al. Long-lived epithelial immunity by tissue-resident memory T (TRM) cells in the absence of persisting local antigen presentation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7037–7042 (2012).

  23. 23.

    , & Dendritic cell entrapment within the pregnant uterus inhibits immune surveillance of the maternal/fetal interface in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 119, 2062–2073 (2009).

  24. 24.

    , & Orchestrating the orchestrators: chemokines in control of T cell traffic. Nat. Immunol. 9, 970–980 (2008).

  25. 25.

    , , & CD8+ T lymphocyte mobilization to virus-infected tissue requires CD4+ T-cell help. Nature 462, 510–513 (2009).

  26. 26.

    The role of chemokines in linking innate and adaptive immunity. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 14, 129–135 (2002).

  27. 27.

    , , & Cutting edge: local recall responses by memory T cells newly recruited to peripheral nonlymphoid tissues. J. Immunol. 181, 5837–5841 (2008).

  28. 28.

    et al. Intravaginal immunization with HPV vectors induces tissue-resident CD8+ T cell responses. J. Clin. Invest. 122, 4606–4620 (2012).

  29. 29.

    et al. Memory CD4+ T cells induce innate responses independently of pathogen. Nat. Med. 16, 558–564 (2010).

  30. 30.

    et al. Antigen-independent differentiation and maintenance of effector-like resident memory T cells in tissues. J. Immunol. 188, 4866–4875 (2012).

  31. 31.

    et al. Comprehensive assessment of chemokine expression profiles by flow cytometry. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 907–923 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Mescher (University of Minnesota) for IFN-γ-deficient OT-I mice, and S. Jameson for discussions. Supported by the US National Institutes of Health (R01AI084913-01 to D.M., DP2OD006467 (by the Office of The Director) to D.M., and T32AI007313 to J.M.S.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, Center for Immunology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

    • Jason M Schenkel
    • , Kathryn A Fraser
    • , Vaiva Vezys
    •  & David Masopust

Authors

  1. Search for Jason M Schenkel in:

  2. Search for Kathryn A Fraser in:

  3. Search for Vaiva Vezys in:

  4. Search for David Masopust in:

Contributions

J.M.S., V.V. and D.M. designed the experiments; J.M.S. and K.A.F. did the experiments; and J.M.S. and D.M. wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Masopust.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–5

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.2568

Further reading