The goal of this protocol is to allow for detection of in vivo antigen-specific killing of a target cell in a murine model.
Current methodologies for antigen-specific killing are limited to in vitro use or utilized in infectious disease models. However, there is not a protocol specifically intended to measure antigen-specific killing without an infection. This protocol is designed and describes methods to overcome these limitations by allowing for the detection of antigen-specific killing of a target cell by CD8+ T cells in vivo. This is accomplished by merging a vaccination model with a traditional CFSE-labeled target killing assay. This combination allows the researcher to assess the antigen-specific CTL potential directly and quickly as the assay is not dependent upon tumor growth or infection. In addition, the readout is based on flow cytometry and so should be readily accessible to most researchers. The major limitation of the study is identifying the timeline in vivo that is appropriate to the hypothesis being tested. Variations in antigen strength and mutations in the T cells that may result in differential cytolytic function need to be carefully assessed to determine the optimal time for cell harvest and assessment. The appropriate concentration of peptide for vaccination has been optimized for hgp10025-33 and OVA257-264, but further validation would be needed for other peptides that may be more appropriate to a given study. Overall, this protocol allows a quick assessment of killing function in vivo and can be adapted to any given antigen.
Multiple protocols exist to assess the cytolytic (CTL) potential of a CD8+ or CD4+ T-cell. This assessment can be readily done in vitro under controlled conditions1,2,3. In addition, infectious disease models, such as LCMV, have classically examined CTL function through the use of differentially CFSE (5-(and 6)-Carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester) labeled target cells where the CFSEhi-labeled cells are pulsed with a peptide and CFSElo-labeled target cells are left unpulsed. The cells are then injected at a 1:1 ratio and assessed for loss of the CFSEhi-labeled pulsed targets by flow cytometry4. Vaccine and rejection models have also used similar strategies for assessment of in vivo killing by both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells as well as NK cells5,6. This is a powerful assay, but requires the use of infectious agents that prime the immune system prior to target injection.
This protocol, on the other hand, requires no prior infection of the host and instead utilizes a vaccination strategy to prime the immune system prior to target injection. This vaccination is comprised of a water-based formulation of peptide vaccine which requires provision of an immunostimulatory cocktail called covax7, consisting of a Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonist (imiquimod cream), an agonistic anti-CD40 antibody, and interleukin-2 (IL-2) leading to synergistic combination of immunostimulatory agents for the elicitation of peptide-specific priming and robust immune response. As such, this assay provides a quick readout of CTL function as the vaccine is administered along with the cells for assessment of function only three days prior to injection of the target cells. In addition, the covax priming is strong enough that the killing capacity of the primed antigen-specific T cell can be seen between 4 and 24 h after injection.
The major limitation of this protocol is identifying the timeline in vivo for the detection of target killing that is appropriate to both the antigen and the hypothesis being tested. Careful assessment must be performed, as variations in antigen strength as well as genetic alterations being tested in T-cells could result in differential CTL function that would require a different timing detection of target killing. In addition, while the appropriate concentration of peptide for vaccination has been optimized for human melanoma antigen glycopeptide 100 (hgp10025-33) and ovalbumin257-264 (OVA257-264)8,9, use of another antigen model that may be more appropriate to a given study would require further validation. Because of anticipated differences in a target antigens' capacity to stimulate CTL effector function in combination with the covax as an adjuvant, optimization of IL-2 dose concentration and dose frequency may be essential to achieve the desired goal. Overall, this protocol allows for a quick assessment of killing function in vivo and can be adapted to any given antigen.
All methods described here have been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
1. Preparation of Peptide for the Vaccine
2. Isolation of Splenocytes from Transgenic Mouse
NOTE: Cell isolation from the spleen must be performed in a sterile manner.
3. Injection of Splenocytes from Transgenic Mice
4. Covax Administration
NOTE: If cells are injected in the afternoon, covax should be administered the following morning within 18 h of cell injection.
5. Isolation of Target Splenocytes for Labeling with CFSE
NOTE: Cell isolation from the spleen must be performed in a sterile manner.
6. Peptide Pulsing of Target Splenocytes
NOTE: Peptide pulsing must be performed in a sterile manner.
7. Preparation of CFSE for Labeling Target Splenocytes
8. Labeling of Target Splenocytes with CFSE
NOTE: CFSE labeling must be performed in a sterile manner.
9. Injection of Target Cells
NOTE: Keep CFSE-labeled cells protected from light prior to and during the injection as much as possible.
10. Re-isolation of Target Cells
NOTE: The timing of this step is critical and dependent upon the CTL cytotoxicity and the strength of the antigen for stimulation. For assessment of killing an OVA257–264 pulsed target, the cells need to be harvested 4 – 6 h after injection. Since CFSE-labeled cells are light sensitive, process spleens in the dark.
11. Gating Logic to Determine CTL Activity by Flow Cytometry
Prior to injection of CFSE-labeled target cells, the 1:1 cell mixture is run on a flow cytometer to determine the baseline frequencies of both the CFSEhi and CFSElo target cells. Figure 1A shows the gating strategy to detect changes in the CFSE populations, an initial gate is made using FSC and SSC parameters. The total CFSE-positive cells are then subgated prior to assessing changes in frequency, as this population is relatively small when compared to the unlabeled endogenous splenocytes. The relative frequency of the CFSEhi and CFSElo populations is the calculated by setting the total CFSE-positive population at 100%. This analysis can be done using a histogram or dot plot format. An example of the relative frequency of the CFSE populations prior to injection is shown in Figure 1B. This ratio will rarely be exactly 1:1 but should be reasonably close. The necessity of the covax priming is shown in Figure 1C where no killing of the antigen pulsed, CFSEhi target cells is observed at 24 h post injection. Figure 1D demonstrates the effective killing of the antigen pulsed, CFSEhi-labeled target cells as the peak that was observed prior to injection is almost undetected and the ratio is dramatically shifted from 50% to 1% detection. The figure also shows the kinetics of antigen pulsed, CFSEhi-labeled target cell killing by assessing loss of this population at both 6 h and 24 h post injection.
Figure 1: Comparison of labeled cells at baseline and following injection of CFSE-labeled target cells. (A) The gating strategy for assessment of CTL function is shown. Briefly, live lymphocytes are gated using forward scatter (FSC) vs side scatter (SSC) parameters. Total CSFE-positive cells are subgated within the live cell gate. The ratio of CFSEhi and CFSElo is based on their respective frequency within the total CFSE-positive population. (B) Following CFSE labeling, target cells are mixed 1:1 and assessed for the ratio of CFSEhi and CFSElo cells by flow cytometry. The numbers indicate frequency of the respective peaks on both a histogram (left) and CFSE vs SSC dot plot (right) formats. (C) This demonstrates the lack of target cells killing without prior vaccination with covax regimen. Splenocytes were harvested 24 h after injection. (D) This demonstrates the killing of the antigen-pulsed CFSEhi target cells at 6 h (top graphs) and 24 h (bottom graphs) post injection. The numbers indicate the frequency of the CFSE-labeled peaks on both a histogram (left) and CFSE vs SSC dot plot (right) format. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
While this protocol is straightforward, there are a few critical steps that must be carefully performed. The covax priming following injection of the antigen-specific T-cell being tested is necessary to see any killing of the pulsed targets. While it is possible that the water-based covax vaccination creates an acute inflammatory condition, for the chronic inflammatory phase, replacing the short-lived water-based formulation with a slow-antigen release oil-based approach may produce a better outcome7,12.
In addition, the CFSE-labeling of the target cells following antigen pulsing needs to be uniform for an ideal flow cytometry readout. The labeling of the CFSEhi with 5 µM and the CFSElo with 0.5 µM was found to be ideal in this system to provide a log difference in the populations that could be easily distinguished.
This protocol is simple to modify for the specific antigen system being tested. First, the concentration of peptide administered as part of the covax should be confirmed. A simple way to determine this appropriate concentration is to vaccinate and track the expansion of the injected, antigen-specific T cells in the blood. In this case, a weak antigen (hgp10025-33) requires twice as much peptide as a strong antigen (OVA257–264). The validated concentrations used in this protocol would be a reasonable starting point for testing other antigens based on strength of stimulation. One point of modification would be to simply immunize the wild-type mouse with an antigen of interest followed by peptide pulsed targets for assessing CTL-function. However, this modification would rely on the activation and expansion of endogenous antigen-specific responses and so the timing of the target cell transfer would likely need to occur 7 – 14 days after immunization. In addition, the level of antigen-specific killing may be greatly reduced as compared to that observed when transferring transgenic T cells. A caveat with this modification is that the level of CTL response to the target may be too low to be detected.
In addition to the amount of antigen required for T-cell priming, the timing of the re-isolation of the CFSE-labeled target cells must be optimized for a given hypothesis. Modifications to the T-cell being tested that result in differential killing capabilities may require adjustments in the timing of the re-isolation. A T-cell with an enhanced killing function will need to have targets assessed much faster than its wild-type counterpart. This kinetic profile should be carefully explored to determine the optimal timepoint to address the tested hypothesis. In general, we have found this to vary between 4 and 24 h after injection of the target cells.
One limitation of the assay is that the effector cells have not been chronically stimulated to induce an exhausted state. Therefore, CTL function is restricted to recently activated effector cells. It is possible that this method could be modified to assess recall function of a memory population or killing capability of a chronically activated antigen-specific T cell subset, which would be interesting for future applications.
This method of testing CTL function in vivo allows for fast detection of in vivo killing that overcomes some of the limitations of an in vitro setting. An intact immune system is in place and the priming of the transferred T cells via the covax method relies on peptide presentation and co-stimulation by endogenous antigen-presenting cells. Unlike other in vivo killing assays, this method does not require an infection or the presence of a tumor target. However, the addition of a tumor target would provide an additional comparator and could be added to the assay prior to the injection of antigen-specific T cells and covax administration for future applications of this method.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work is supported by NIH research (A1R03AI120027 (RN) and 1R21AI20012 (RN)), Institutional Research Grant (RN), start-up grant (RN), and MD Anderson CIC seed grant (RN).
6- to 12-week old female C57BL/6 mice | Charles River | 027 | C57 Black 6 mice |
OT-1 6-12-week old female mice | Jackson Labs | 003831 | |
hgp10025–33 | CPCScientific | 834139 | KVPRNQDWL |
OVA 257–264 | CPCScientific | MISC-012 | SIINFEKL |
Imiquimod cream 5% | Fougera | 51672-4145-6 | Aldara Cream |
CD40-specific mAb | BioXcell | BE0016-2 | clone FGK4.5 |
rhIL-2 protein | Hoffman LaRoche Inc | 136 | Recombinant human IL-2 protein |
70% isopropyl alcohol Prep | Kendall | S-17474 | |
PBS | Life Technologies | 10010-023 | Phosphate Buffered Saline |
FBS | Life Technologies | 26140-079 | fetal bovine serum |
RBC lysis buffer | Life Technologies | A10492-01 | red blood cell lysis buffer |
RPMI 1640 Media | Life Technologies | 11875119 | |
L-Glutamine | Life Technologies | 25030081 | |
Pen/Strep | Life Technologies | 15140122 | penicillin/streptomycin |
CFSE | Life Technologies | C34554 | 5-(and 6)-Carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester |
Bovine serum albumin (BSA) | Sigma | A4503 | |
1.5 mL MCT graduated natural | Fisher | 05-408-129 | microcentrifuge tube |
70% ethanol | Fisher | BP8201500 | EtOH |
Trypan blue solution, 0.4% | Life Technologies | 15250-061 | |
Hemocytometer | Fisher | 267110 | |
27 gauge needle | BD | 305109 | |
1 mL syringe | BD | 309659 |