Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Plasmacytoid dendritic cells develop from Ly6D+ lymphoid progenitors distinct from the myeloid lineage

Nature Immunology volume 20, pages 852–864 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Dendritic cells (DC) are currently classified as conventional DCs (cDCs) and plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs). Through a combination of single-cell transcriptomic analysis, mass cytometry, in vivo fate mapping and in vitro clonal assays, here we show that, at the single-cell level, the priming of mouse hematopoietic progenitor cells toward the pDC lineage occurs at the common lymphoid progenitor stage, indicative of early divergence of the pDC and cDC lineages. We found the transcriptional signature of a pDC precursor stage, defined here, in the IL-7Rα+ common lymphoid progenitor population and identified Ly6D, IL-7Rα, CD81 and CD2 as key markers of pDC differentiation, which distinguish pDC precursors from cDC precursors. In conclusion, pDCs developed in the bone marrow from a Ly6DhiCD2hi lymphoid progenitor cell and differentiated independently of the myeloid cDC lineage.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Pre-DC heterogeneity reveals distinct pDC and cDC progenitors.
Fig. 2: CD115− CDPs are highly primed for pre-pDCs.
Fig. 3: Heterogeneity among early progenitors reveals early priming for pre-cDC versus pre-pDC differentiation.
Fig. 4: Ly6D expression defines early lymphoid pDC progenitors.
Fig. 5: Ly6D+CD115− CDPs and Ly6D+ CLPs are early pDC-committed progenitors.
Fig. 6: CD2 expression identifies pDC-committed progenitors.
Fig. 7: Unbiased reconstruction of BM progenitors supports pDC differentiation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. The single-cell RNA-seq data generated in the current study are available in the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus database under accession code GSE130966.

Change history

  • 04 July 2019

    The Supplementary Information file initially published online was corrupted and was replaced on 4-Jul-2019.

References

  1. Merad, M., Sathe, P., Helft, J., Miller, J. & Mortha, A. The dendritic cell lineage: ontogeny and function of dendritic cells and their subsets in the steady state and the inflamed setting. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 31, 563–604 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Merad, M., Ginhoux, F. & Collin, M. Origin, homeostasis and function of langerhans cells and other langerin-expressing dendritic cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 8, 935–947 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoeffel, G. & Ginhoux, F. Ontogeny of tissue-resident macrophages. Front. Immunol. 6, 486 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoeffel, G. et al. Adult langerhans cells derive predominantly from embryonic fetal liver monocytes with a minor contribution of yolk sac-derived macrophages. J. Exp. Med. 209, 1167–1181 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Guilliams, M. et al. Unsupervised high-dimensional analysis aligns dendritic cells across tissues and species. Immunity 45, 669–684 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Swiecki, M. & Colonna, M. The multifaceted biology of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 15, 471–485 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hadeiba, H. et al. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells transport peripheral antigens to the thymus to promote central tolerance. Immunity 36, 438–450 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dress, R. J., Wong, A. Y. & Ginhoux, F. Homeostatic control of dendritic cell numbers and differentiation. Immunol. Cell Biol. 96, 463–476 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bauer, J. et al. Cutting edge: IFN-beta expression in the spleen is restricted to a subpopulation of plasmacytoid dendritic cells exhibiting a specific immune modulatory transcriptome signature. J. Immunol. 196, 4447–4451 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Alculumbre, S. G. et al. Diversification of human plasmacytoid predendritic cells in response to a single stimulus. Nat. Immunol. 19, 63–75 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Guilliams, M. et al. Dendritic cells, monocytes and macrophages: a unified nomenclature based on ontogeny. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 14, 571–578 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Onai, N. et al. A clonogenic progenitor with prominent plasmacytoid dendritic cell developmental potential. Immunity 38, 943–957 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Naik, S. H. et al. Diverse and heritable lineage imprinting of early haematopoietic progenitors. Nature 496, 229–232 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Naik, S. H. et al. Development of plasmacytoid and conventional dendritic cell subtypes from single precursor cells derived in vitro and in vivo. Nat. Immunol. 8, 1217–1226 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shortman, K. & Naik, S. H. Steady-state and inflammatory dendritic-cell development. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 7, 19–30 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paul, F. et al. Transcriptional heterogeneity and lineage commitment in myeloid progenitors. Cell 163, 1663–1677 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shigematsu, H. et al. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells activate lymphoid-specific genetic programs irrespective of their cellular origin. Immunity 21, 43–53 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Harman, B. C., Miller, J. P., Nikbakht, N., Gerstein, R. & Allman, D. Mouse plasmacytoid dendritic cells derive exclusively from estrogen-resistant myeloid progenitors. Blood 108, 878–885 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Herman, J. S., Sagar & Grun, D. FateID infers cell fate bias in multipotent progenitors from single-cell RNA-seq data. Nat. Methods 15, 379–386 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodrigues, P. F. et al. Distinct progenitor lineages contribute to the heterogeneity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Nat. Immunol. 19, 711–722 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. See, P. et al. Mapping the human DC lineage through the integration of high-dimensional techniques. Science 356, eaag3009 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schlitzer, A. et al. Identification of cDC1- and cDC2-committed DC progenitors reveals early lineage priming at the common DC progenitor stage in the bone marrow. Nat. Immunol. 16, 718–728 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lamb, J. et al. The connectivity map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 313, 1929–1935 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Becht, E. et al. Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using UMAP. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 38–44 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen, J., Schlitzer, A., Chakarov, S., Ginhoux, F. & Poidinger, M. Mpath maps multi-branching single-cell trajectories revealing progenitor cell progression during development. Nat. Commun. 7, 11988 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Melville, J. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for dimension reduction. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426 (2018).

  27. Cisse, B. et al. Transcription factor E2-2 is an essential and specific regulator of plasmacytoid dendritic cell development. Cell 135, 37–48 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghosh, H. S., Cisse, B., Bunin, A., Lewis, K. L. & Reizis, B. Continuous expression of the transcription factor e2-2 maintains the cell fate of mature plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Immunity 33, 905–916 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy, T. L. et al. Transcriptional control of dendritic cell development. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 34, 93–119 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Reizis, B., Bunin, A., Ghosh, H. S., Lewis, K. L. & Sisirak, V. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells: recent progress and open questions. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 29, 163–183 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Matsui, T. et al. CD2 distinguishes two subsets of human plasmacytoid dendritic cells with distinct phenotype and functions. J. Immunol. 182, 6815–6823 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bryant, C. et al. A CD2 high-expressing stress-resistant human plasmacytoid dendritic-cell subset. Immunol. Cell Biol. 94, 447–457 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Siegemund, S., Shepherd, J., Xiao, C. & Sauer, K. hCD2-iCre and Vav-iCre mediated gene recombination patterns in murine hematopoietic cells. PLoS One 10, e0124661 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Matten, L. J. P. & Hinton, G. E. Visualizing high-dimensional data using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 2579–2605 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sanyal, M., Fernandez, R. & Levy, S. Enhanced B cell activation in the absence of CD81. Int. Immun. 21, 1225–1237 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Matsumoto, A. K. et al. Functional dissection of the CD21/CD19/TAPA-1/Leu-13 complex of B lymphocytes. J. Exp. Med. 178, 1407–1417 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Jaitin, D. A. et al. Massively parallel single-cell RNA-seq for marker-free decomposition of tissues into cell types. Science 343, 776–779 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Giladi, A. et al. Single-cell characterization of haematopoietic progenitors and their trajectories in homeostasis and perturbed haematopoiesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 836–846 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, K. et al. In vivo analysis of dendritic cell development and homeostasis. Science 324, 392–397 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Onai, N. et al. Identification of clonogenic common Flt3+M-CSFR+ plasmacytoid and conventional dendritic cell progenitors in mouse bone marrow. Nat. Immunol. 8, 1207–1216 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Soumelis, V. & Liu, Y. J. From plasmacytoid to dendritic cell: morphological and functional switches during plasmacytoid pre-dendritic cell differentiation. Eur. J. Immunol. 36, 2286–2292 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Schlitzer, A. et al. Identification of CCR9- murine plasmacytoid DC precursors with plasticity to differentiate into conventional DCs. Blood 117, 6562–6570 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sathe, P., Vremec, D., Wu, L., Corcoran, L. & Shortman, K. Convergent differentiation: myeloid and lymphoid pathways to murine plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Blood 121, 11–19 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kondo, M., Weissman, I. L. & Akashi, K. Identification of clonogenic common lymphoid progenitors in mouse bone marrow. Cell 91, 661–672 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Inlay, M. A. et al. Ly6d marks the earliest stage of B-cell specification and identifies the branchpoint between B-cell and T-cell development. Genes Dev. 23, 2376–2381 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Briseno, C. G., Murphy, T. L. & Murphy, K. M. Complementary diversification of dendritic cells and innate lymphoid cells. Curr. Opin Immunol. 29, 69–78 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Chow, K. T., Schulz, D., McWhirter, S. M. & Schlissel, M. S. Gfi1 and gfi1b repress rag transcription in plasmacytoid dendritic cells in vitro. PloS One 8, e75891 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Baerenwaldt, A. et al. Flt3 ligand regulates the development of innate lymphoid cells in fetal and adult mice. J. Immunol. 196, 2561–2571 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Becher, B. et al. High-dimensional analysis of the murine myeloid cell system. Nat. Immunol. 15, 1181–1189 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Street, K. Slingshot: cell lineage and pseudotime inference for single-cell transcriptomics. BMC Genom. 19, 477 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Robinson of Insight Editing London for critical review and editing of the manuscript. F.G. is an EMBO YIP awardee and is supported by Singapore Immunology Network (SIgN) core funding, as well as Singapore National Research Foundation Senior Investigatorship (NRFI) NRF2016NRF-NRFI001-02. The CyTOF, bioinformatics and immunogenomics platforms are part of the SIgN Immunomonitoring platform (supported by a BMRC IAF 311006 grant and BMRC transition funds H16/99/b0/011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore Immunology Network, Agency for Science Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore

    Regine J. Dress, Charles-Antoine Dutertre, Andreas Schlitzer, Ivy Low, Nurhidaya Binte Shadan, Alicia Tay, Josephine Lum, Muhammad Faris Bin Mohd Kairi, You Yi Hwang, Etienne Becht, Yang Cheng, Marion Chevrier, Anis Larbi, Evan W. Newell, Jinmiao Chen & Florent Ginhoux

  2. Program in Emerging Infectious Disease, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    Charles-Antoine Dutertre

  3. Department of Immunology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Amir Giladi & Ido Amit

  4. Myeloid Cell Biology, Life and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Andreas Schlitzer

  5. Singhealth Translational Immunology and Inflammation Centre, Singapore, Singapore

    Florent Ginhoux

Authors
  1. Regine J. Dress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles-Antoine Dutertre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amir Giladi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Schlitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivy Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nurhidaya Binte Shadan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alicia Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Josephine Lum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Muhammad Faris Bin Mohd Kairi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. You Yi Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Etienne Becht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yang Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Marion Chevrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Anis Larbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Evan W. Newell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ido Amit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Jinmiao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Florent Ginhoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.J.D., A.S., I.L., N.B.S., A.T., A.G., Y.Y.H., J.L. and M.F.B.M.K. performed experiments. R.J.D., C.-A.D., A.G., E.B., Y.C., J.C., E.W.N., M.C. and F.G. analyzed data. J.C., A.L., E.W.N. and I.A. provided intellectual guidance. R.J.D. and F.G. wrote the paper. F.G. conceptualized the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florent Ginhoux.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Journal Peer Review Information: Ioana Visan was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Workflow and Quality Control of sorted single pre-DCs and pre-DC subsets.

a Experimental approach for analysis of gene expression in single pre-DCs and pre-DC subsets (as identified by expression of SiglecH and Ly6C) using the Fluidigm C1 autoprep system. b Violin plot and c bar plot for number of genes detected in each single cell. Violin plots for nUMI d and percentage of mitochondrial genes e in the sorted single cell populations. f Workflow for CMap analysis of pDC- and cDC-primed single cells using transcriptomic signatures derived from conventional transcriptome analysis combined with CMap analysis. g CMap analysis of BM pDCs, BM pre-DCs, and BM pre-DC subsets before trimming. a–g Data are representative for one experiment with 96 single BM pre-DCs, 16 single blood pre-DCs 70 single SiglecH-Ly6C-, 68 single SiglecH-Ly6C+, 70 single SiglecH+Ly6C-, and 45 single SiglecH+Ly6C+ pre-DCs and 26 single pDCs.

Supplementary Figure 2 Workflow and Quality Control for sorted single CDP populations.

a Experimental approach for analysis of gene expression in single CD115- CDPs and single CD115+ CDPs using the Fluidigm C1 autoprep system. Violin plots for b number of genes detected in each single cell, c nUMI and d and percentage of mitochondrial genes in the sorted single cell populations. e Bar plot of number of expressed genes in individual sorted single cells. f CMap analysis of enrichment of pDC-signature genes versus cDC-signature genes in CD115- CDPs and CD115+ CDPs. a–f Data are representative for one experiment with 96 single BM CD115+ CDPs and 58 single CD115- CDPs. g Quantification of the cDC and pDC progeny of cultured CD115+ CDPs on day 7 of culture with rh-Flt3L. h Flow cytometry analysis of the progeny of sorted, cultured Ly6D+CD81-, Ly6D+CD81+, Ly6D-CD81+, and Ly6D-CD81- CD115- CDPs on day 7 of in vitro stimulation with rh-Flt3L. g,h Data are representative for three experiments with one replicate per culture condition. i Percentage of Ly6D+CD81-, Ly6D+CD81+, Ly6D-CD81+, and Ly6D-CD81- CD115- CDPs and SiglecH-/+ pre-pDCs in the BM. j Percentage, absolute numbers and percentage of apoptotic BM LMPP, CMP, GMP, Ly6D- CLP, Ly6D-CD115- CLP, Ly6D- pre-pDC, CD115+ CDP, Ly6D+CD115- CDP, Ly6D+ pre-pDC and Ly6D+ pre-cDC. k Percentage, absolute numbers and percentage of apoptotic BM pDCs. l Percentage of proliferating cells among analyzed cell populations. m Flow cytometry analysis of percentage of Annexin V vs. DAPI stained cells among the indicated cell populations. n Flow cytometry analysis of percentage of Annexin V vs. DAPI stained BM pDCs. h–n Mean ± s.e.m. Data are representative for three independent experiments with three mice each.

Supplementary Figure 3 Workflow and Quality Control for sorted single BM progenitors.

a Experimental approach for analysis of gene expression in single CLPs, GMPs, LMPPs, and MDPs using the Fluidigm C1 autoprep system. Violin plots for b number of genes detected in each single cell, c nUMI and d and percentage of mitochondrial genes in the sorted single cell populations. e Bar plot of number of expressed genes in individual sorted single cells. Data are representative for one experiment with 63 single LMPPs, 51 single GMPs, 48 single CLPs, 59 single MDPs. f Flow cytometry analysis of surface molecule expression of CD81 and Ly6D on Ly6C-SiglecH- pre-DCs, Ly6C+SiglecH- pre-DCs, SiglecH+Ly6C+ pre-DCs, and SiglecH+Ly6C- pre-DCs. Data are representative of three independent experiments with three mice. g Venn diagram comparison of pre-pDC primed DEGs shared between CLPs and SiglecH+Ly6C- pre-DCs for g least 50 % or h 10% of cells per population. g,h Data are representative for one experiment with 48 single CLPs, and 70 single SiglecH+Ly6C- pre-DCs.

Supplementary Figure 4 UMAP analysis of the murine BM compartment.

a UMAP analysis of CyTOF data of murine BM cells. Mayor cell populations as indicated in the UMAP plot (and by the key on the right margin) and relative expression of selected markers among the total BM cell compartment. Data are representative for one experiment with 5 mice.

Supplementary Figure 5 Progeny of CLPs on day 5.

a tSNE analyses (as in Fig. 5) for progeny of index-sorted single CD115− CDPs showing their expression levels of CD81 and Ly6D and analyses of pDC vs. cDC offspring for index-sorted single Ly6D+CD81− (identified with “1”) or Ly6D+CD81+ (identified with “2”) or Ly6D−CD81+ (identified with “3”) or Ly6D−CD81− (identified with “4”) CD115− CDPs. Data are representative for one experiment with 48 single cells per sorted CDP population. b Progeny of index-sorted single CLPs on day 5 of co-culture with OP9 stromal feeder cells in complete medium supplemented with rh-Flt3L (pDC progeny = red; cDC progeny = blue; bipotent progeny = yellow; no progeny = grey). Data are representative for one experiment with 96 single CLPs. c Percentage of pDC or cDC progeny from transferred sorted CD45.2+ BM progenitors in BM and spleen on day 14 post transfer, d percentage of T cell- NK cell- and ILC progeny from transferred sorted CD45.2+ BM progenitors in spleen and thymus on day 7 post transfer, e percentage of neutrophil progeny from transferred sorted CD45.2+ BM progenitors in blood, BM and spleen on day 7 post transfer and f percentage of pDC and B cell progeny from transferred sorted CD45.2+ BM progenitors in BM and spleen on day 7 post transfer. c–f Mean ± s.e.m. Data are representative of six experiments with one mouse per group for day 7, for three experiments with one mouse per group for day 3, and for three experiments with one mouse per group for day 14.

Supplementary Figure 6 Workflow and Quality Control of sorted single pre-pro B cells.

a Experimental approach for analysis of gene expression in single pre-pro B cells using the Fluidigm C1 autoprep system. Violin plots for b number of genes detected in each single cell, c nUMI and d and percentage of mitochondrial genes in the sorted single cell populations. e Bar plot of number of expressed genes in individual sorted single cells. f Expression of Rag1 in single BM progenitor cells. Data are representative for one experiment with 26 single pre-pro B cells.

Supplementary Figure 7 pDC ontogeny revised.

a A heatmap of the top differentially expressed genes from the reference map of 8,395 bone marrow myeloid progenitor cells. b Expression of important lineage markers along the differentiation axis from LMPPs to pDCs. Color-bar indicate cluster association as in Fig. 7e. Data are representative of one experiment with 8,395 bone marrow myeloid progenitors and 63 single LMPPs, 51 single GMPs, 48 single CLPs, 59 single MDPs, 96 single CD115+ CDPs, 58 single CD115− CDPs, 96 single BM pre-DCs, 16 single blood pre-DCs 70 single SiglecH−Ly6C−, 68 single SiglecH−Ly6C+, 70 single SiglecH+Ly6C−, and 45 single SiglecH+Ly6C+ pre-DCs and 26 single pDCs. c,d Schematic trees of pDC (pILC) differentiation depicting the c current model and d a model highlighting the findings of our study.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–7 and Supplementary Tables 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dress, R.J., Dutertre, CA., Giladi, A. et al. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells develop from Ly6D+ lymphoid progenitors distinct from the myeloid lineage. Nat Immunol 20, 852–864 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0420-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0420-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing