Towards a unified model of naive T cell dynamics across the lifespan

  1. Sanket Rane
  2. Thea Hogan
  3. Edward Lee
  4. Benedict Seddon  Is a corresponding author
  5. Andrew J Yates  Is a corresponding author
  1. Columbia University, United States
  2. University College London, United Kingdom
  3. Yale University, United States

Abstract

Naive CD4 and CD8 T cells are cornerstones of adaptive immunity, but the dynamics of their establishment early in life and how their kinetics change as they mature following release from the thymus are poorly understood. Further, due to the diverse signals implicated in naive T cell survival, it has been a long-held and conceptually attractive view that they are sustained by active homeostatic control as thymic activity wanes. Here we employ multiple experimental systems to identify a unified model of naive CD4 and CD8 T cell population dynamics in mice, across their lifespan. We infer that both subsets divide rarely and progressively increase their survival capacity with cell age. Strikingly, this simple model is able to describe naive CD4 T cell dynamics throughout life. In contrast, we find that newly generated naive CD8 T cells are lost more rapidly during the first 3-4 weeks of life, likely due to increased recruitment into memory. We find no evidence for elevated division rates in neonates, or for feedback regulation of naive T cell numbers at any age. We show how confronting mathematical models with diverse datasets can reveal a quantitative and remarkably simple picture of naive T cell dynamics in mice from birth into old age.

Data availability

All code and data used in this study are available at https://github.com/sanketrane/T_cell_dynamics_birth-death

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sanket Rane

    Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Thea Hogan

    Institute of Immunity and Transplantation, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Edward Lee

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University, Newhaven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Benedict Seddon

    Institute of Immunity and Transplantation, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    benedict.seddon@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4352-3373
  5. Andrew J Yates

    Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    andrew.yates@columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4606-4483

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01AI093870)

  • Andrew J Yates

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gabrielle T Belz, The University of Queensland, Australia

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All of the animals were handled according to UK home office regulations (licence PPL PP2330953) and institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols at University College London

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: January 8, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: February 25, 2022
  3. Accepted: June 8, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: June 9, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 10, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: August 3, 2022 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2022, Rane et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,630
    views
  • 412
    downloads
  • 9
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sanket Rane
  2. Thea Hogan
  3. Edward Lee
  4. Benedict Seddon
  5. Andrew J Yates
(2022)
Towards a unified model of naive T cell dynamics across the lifespan
eLife 11:e78168.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78168

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78168

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Natalie R Davidson, Casey S Greene
    Research Article

    Science journalism is a critical way for the public to learn about and benefit from scientific findings. Such journalism shapes the public’s view of the current state of science and legitimizes experts. Journalists can only cite and quote a limited number of sources, who they may discover in their research, including recommendations by other scientists. Biases in either process may influence who is identified and ultimately included as a source. To examine potential biases in science journalism, we analyzed 22,001 non-research articles published by Nature and compared these with Nature-published research articles with respect to predicted gender and name origin. We extracted cited authors’ names and those of quoted speakers. While citations and quotations within a piece do not reflect the entire information-gathering process, they can provide insight into the demographics of visible sources. We then predicted gender and name origin of the cited authors and speakers. We compared articles with a comparator set made up of first and last authors within primary research articles in Nature and a subset of Springer Nature articles in the same time period. In our analysis, we found a skew toward quoting men in Nature science journalism. However, quotation is trending toward equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing. Gender disparity in Nature quotes was dependent on the article type. We found a significant over-representation of names with predicted Celtic/English origin and under-representation of names with a predicted East Asian origin in both in extracted quotes and journal citations but dampened in citations.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Chananchida Sang-aram, Robin Browaeys ... Yvan Saeys
    Research Article

    Spatial transcriptomics (ST) technologies allow the profiling of the transcriptome of cells while keeping their spatial context. Since most commercial untargeted ST technologies do not yet operate at single-cell resolution, computational methods such as deconvolution are often used to infer the cell type composition of each sequenced spot. We benchmarked 11 deconvolution methods using 63 silver standards, 3 gold standards, and 2 case studies on liver and melanoma tissues. We developed a simulation engine called synthspot to generate silver standards from single-cell RNA-sequencing data, while gold standards are generated by pooling single cells from targeted ST data. We evaluated methods based on their performance, stability across different reference datasets, and scalability. We found that cell2location and RCTD are the top-performing methods, but surprisingly, a simple regression model outperforms almost half of the dedicated spatial deconvolution methods. Furthermore, we observe that the performance of all methods significantly decreased in datasets with highly abundant or rare cell types. Our results are reproducible in a Nextflow pipeline, which also allows users to generate synthetic data, run deconvolution methods and optionally benchmark them on their dataset (https://github.com/saeyslab/spotless-benchmark).