Lymphatic endothelial cells prime naïve CD8+ T cells into memory cells under steady-state conditions

Lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) chemoattract naïve T cells and promote their survival in the lymph nodes, and can cross-present antigens to naïve CD8+ T cells to drive their proliferation despite lacking key costimulatory molecules. However, the functional consequence of LEC priming of CD8+ T cells is unknown. Here, we show that while many proliferating LEC-educated T cells enter early apoptosis, the remainders comprise a long-lived memory subset, with transcriptional, metabolic, and phenotypic features of central memory and stem cell-like memory T cells. In vivo, these memory cells preferentially home to lymph nodes and display rapid proliferation and effector differentiation following memory recall, and can protect mice against a subsequent bacterial infection. These findings introduce a new immunomodulatory role for LECs in directly generating a memory-like subset of quiescent yet antigen-experienced CD8+ T cells that are long-lived and can rapidly differentiate into effector cells upon inflammatory antigenic challenge.


Reporting Summary
Nature Research wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency in reporting. For further information on Nature Research policies, seeAuthors & Referees and theEditorial Policy Checklist .

Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.

n/a Confirmed
The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.

Software and code
Policy information about availability of computer code Data collection

Data analysis
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

Data
Policy information about availability of data All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable: -Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets -A list of figures that have associated raw data -A description of any restrictions on data availability Field-specific reporting Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection. Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.
The number of animals chosen per experiment was based on previous publications using similar models and addressing similar questions, as well as on previous studies performed in our lab when statistical significance was actually achieved. To account for data reproducibility, the experiments were performed at least twice. (Online Methods/ Statistical analysis section) Animals were excluded from flow cytometric analysis only in case the number of events was extremely low, generating outliers or falsepositive data.
Generally, expleriments were repeated 2-3x. In the RNAseq experiment, the costs were prohibitive enough to prevent replication of this study, so this data was based off one experimental repeat. However, the setup of the RNAseq study matches the setup used in the flow cytometry studies in Figures 2-3 -just that the method of data acquisition/characterization was different.
In all the animal studies, mice were randomly assigned to the different groups and treated in a random order. Individual cages included mice across multiple groups in order to reduce the likelihood of cage effects.
The investigators were not blinded to group allocation during experiment setup or data analysis. However, in between the setup and the actual endpoint (i.e., while the animals were alive), since individual cages contain mice across multiple treatment groups, investigators were partially blind to which mouse belonged to which treatment group, especially when performing daily or routine checks for pain/suffering/body condition according to ethical guidelines. Bleeding and organ collections/harvest were often collected in containers that at the very least, contained mouse ID#, but the actual treatments/experimental conditions that corresponded to the individual ID#s were kept by the same investigators in lab notebooks that were not always within immediate reach until the data analysis stage.