Author response:
Puvlic Reviews:
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
Dr. Santamaria's group previously utilized antigen-specific nanomedicines to induce immune tolerance in treating autoimmune diseases. The success of this therapeutic strategy has been linked to expanded regulatory mechanisms, particularly the role of T-regulatory type-1 (TR1) cells. However, the differentiation program of TR1 cells remained largely unclear. Previous work from the authors suggested that TR1 cells originate from T follicular helper (TFH) cells. In the current study, the authors aimed to investigate the epigenetic mechanisms underlying the transdifferentiation of TFH cells into IL-10-producing TR1 cells. Specifically, they sought to determine whether this process involves extensive chromatin remodeling or is driven by preexisting epigenetic modifications. Their goal was to understand the transcriptional and epigenetic changes facilitating this transition and to explore the potential therapeutic implications of manipulating this pathway.
The authors successfully demonstrated that the TFH-to-TR1 transdifferentiation process is driven by pre-existing epigenetic modifications rather than extensive new chromatin remodeling. The comprehensive transcriptional and epigenetic analyses provide robust evidence supporting their conclusions.
Strengths:
(1) The study employs a broad range of bulk and single-cell transcriptional and epigenetic tools, including RNA-seq, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, and DNA methylation analysis. This comprehensive approach provides a detailed examination of the epigenetic landscape during the TFH-to-TR1 transition.
(2) The use of high-throughput sequencing technologies and sophisticated bioinformatics analyses strengthens the foundation for the conclusions drawn.
(3) The data generated can serve as a valuable resource for the scientific community, offering insights into the epigenetic regulation of T-cell plasticity.
(4) The findings have significant implications for developing new therapeutic strategies for autoimmune diseases, making the research highly relevant and impactful.
We thank the reviewer for providing constructive feedback on the manuscript.
Weaknesses:
(1) While the scope of this study lies in transcriptional and epigenetic analyses, the conclusions need to be validated by future functional analyses.
We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. The current study provides a foundational understanding of how the epigenetic landscape of TFH cells evolves as they transdifferentiate into TR1 progeny in response to chronic ligation of cognate TCRs using pMHCII-NPs. Functional validation is indeed the focus of our current studies, where we are carrying out extensive perturbation studies of the TFH-TR1 transdifferentiation pathway in conditional transcription factor gene knock-out mice. In these ongoing studies, genes coding for a series of transcription factors expressed along the TFH-TR1 pathway are selectively knocked out in T cells, to ascertain (i) the specific roles of key transcription factors in the various cell conversion events and transcriptional changes that take place along the TFH-TR1 cell axis; (ii) the roles that such transcription factors play in the chromatin re-modeling events that underpin the TFH-TR1 transdifferentiation process; and (iii) the effects of transcription factor gene deletion on phenotypic and functional readouts of TFH and regulatory T cell function.
(2) This study successfully identified key transcription factors and epigenetic marks. How these factors mechanistically drive chromatin closure and gene expression changes during the TFH-to-TR1 transition requires further investigation.
Agreed. Please see our response to point #1 above.
(3) The study provides a snapshot of the epigenetic landscape. Future dynamic analysis may offer more insights into the progression and stability of the observed changes.
We have previously shown that the first event in the pMHCII-NP-induced TFH-TR1 transdifferentiation process involves proliferation of cognate TFH cells in the splenic germinal centers. This event is followed by immediate conversion of the proliferated TFH cells into transitional and terminally differentiated TR1 subsets. Although the snapshot provided by our single cell studies reported herein documents the simultaneous presence of the different subsets composing the TFH-TR1 cell pathway upon the termination of treatment, the transdifferentiation process itself is extremely fast, such that proliferated TFH cells already transdifferentiate into TR1 cells after a single pMHCII-NP dose (Sole et al., 2023a). This makes it extremely challenging to pursue dynamic experiments. Notwithstanding this caveat, ongoing studies of cognate T cells post treatment withdrawal, coupled to single cell studies of the TFHTR1 pathway in transcription factor gene knockout mice exhibiting perturbed transdifferentiation processes are likely to shed light into the progression and stability of the epigenetic changes reported herein.
We will revise the manuscript accordingly, to address the three concerns raised by the reviewer, in the context of the ongoing studies mentioned above.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
This study, based on their previous findings that TFH cells can be converted into TR1 cells, conducted a highly detailed and comprehensive epigenetic investigation to answer whether TR1 differentiation from TFH is driven by epigenetic changes. Their evidence indicated that the downregulation of TFH-related genes during the TFH to TR1 transition depends on chromatin closure, while the upregulation of TR1-related genes does not depend on epigenetic changes.
Strengths:
(1) A significant advantage of their approach lies in its detailed and comprehensive assessment of epigenetics. Their analysis of epigenetics covers chromatin open regions, histone modifications, DNA methylation, and using both single-cell and bulk techniques to validate their findings. As for their results, observations from different epigenetic perspectives mutually supported each other, lending greater credibility to their conclusions. This study effectively demonstrates that (1) the TFH-to-TR1 differentiation process is associated with massive closure of OCRs, and (2) the TR1-poised epigenome of TFH cells is a key enabler of this transdifferentiation process. Considering the extensive changes in epigenetic patterns involved in other CD4+ T lineage commitment processes, the similarity between TFH and TR1 in their epigenetics is intriguing.
(2) They performed correlation analysis to answer the association between "pMHC-NPinduced epigenetic change" and "gene expression change in TR1". Also, they have made their raw data publicly available, providing a comprehensive epigenomic database of pMHC-NPinduced TR1 cells. This will serve as a valuable reference for future research.
We thank the reviewer for his/her constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
Weaknesses:
(1) A major limitation is that this study heavily relies on a premise from the previous studies performed by the same group on pMHC-NP-induced T-cell responses. This significantly limits the relevance of their conclusion to a broader perspective. Specifically, differential OCRs between Tet+ and naïve T cells were limited to only 821, as compared to 10,919 differential OCRs between KLH-TFH and naïve T cells (Figure 2A), indicating that the precursors and T cell clonotypes that responded to pMHC-NP were extremely limited. This limitation should be clearly discussed in the Discussion section.
We agree that this study focuses on a very specific, previously unrecognized pathway discovered in mice treated with pMHCII-NPs. Despite this apparent narrow perspective, we now have evidence that this is a naturally occurring pathway that also develops in other contexts (i.e., in mice that have not been treated with pMHCII-NPs). Furthermore, this pathway affords a unique opportunity to further understand the transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms underpinning T cell plasticity; the findings reported here can help guide/inform not only upcoming translational studies of pMHCII-NP therapy in humans, but also other research in this area. We will discuss the limitations and opportunities that this research provides more explicitly in a revised manuscript to provide a clearer context for the scope and applicability of our findings.
We acknowledge that, in the bulk ATAC-seq studies, the differences in the number of OCRs found in tetramer+ cells or KLH-induced TFH cells vs. naïve T cells may be influenced by the intrinsic oligoclonality of the tetramer+ T cell pool arising in response to repeated pMHCII-NP challenge (Sole et al., 2023a). However, we note that scATAC-seq studies of the tetramer+ T cell pool found similar differences between the oligoclonal tetramer+ TFH subpool and its (also oligoclonal) tetramer+ TR1 counterparts (i.e., substantially higher number of OCRs in the former vs. the latter relative to naïve T cells). This will be clarified in a revised version of the manuscript.
(2) This article uses peak calling to determine whether a region has histone modifications, claiming that the regions with histone modifications in TFH and TR1 are highly similar. However, they did not discuss the differences in histone modification intensities measured by ChIP-seq. For example, as shown in Figure 6C, IL10 H3K27ac modification in Tet+ cells showed significantly higher intensity than KLH-TFH, while in this article, it may be categorized as "possessing same histone modification region". This will strengthen their conclusions.
We appreciate your suggestion to discuss differences in histone modification intensities as measured by ChIP-seq. However, we respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s interpretation of these data.
Our study primarily focuses on the identification of epigenetic similarities and differences between pMHCII-NP-induced tetramer+ cells and KLH-induced TFH cells relative to naive T cells. The outcome of direct comparisons of histone deposition (ChIP-seq) between these cell types is summarized in the lower part of Figure 4B and detailed in Datasheet 5. Throughout this section, we report the number of differentially enriched regions, their overlap with OCRs shared between tetramer+ TFH and tetramer+ TR1 cells based on scATAC-seq data, and the associated genes. Clearly, most of the epigenetic modifications that TR1 cells inherit from TFH cells had already been acquired by TFH cells upon differentiation from naïve T cell precursors.
Regarding the specific point raised by the reviewer on differences in the intensity of the H3K27Ac peaks linked to Il10 in Figure 6C, we note that the genomic tracks shown are illustrative. However, thorough statistical analyses involving signal background for each condition and p-value adjustment did not support differential enrichment for H3K27Ac deposition around the Il10 gene between pMHCII-NP-induced tetramer+ T cells and KLHinduced TFH cells.
We acknowledge that peak calling alone does not account for intensity variations of histone modifications. However, our analysis includes both qualitative and quantitative assessments to ensure robust conclusions. We will edit the relevant sections of the manuscript to clarify these points and better communicate our methodology and findings to the readers.
(3) Last, the key findings of this study are clear and convincing, but some results and figures are unnecessary and redundant. Some results are largely a mere confirmation of the relationship between histone marks and chromatin status. I propose to reduce the number of figures and text that are largely confirmatory. Overall, I feel this paper is too long for its current contents.
We understand this reviewer’s concern about the potential redundancy of some results and figures. The goal of including these analyses is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationships between epigenetic features and transcriptomic differences. We believe that a detailed examination of these relationships is crucial for several reasons: (i) the breadth of the data allows for a thorough exploration of the relationships between histone marks, chromatin accessibility and transcriptional differences. This comprehensive approach helps ensure that our conclusions are robust and well-supported by the data; (ii) some of the results that may appear confirmatory are, in fact, important for validating and reinforcing the consistency of our findings across different contexts. These details intend to provide a nuanced understanding of the interactions between epigenetic features and gene expression; and (iii) by presenting a detailed analysis, we aim to offer a solid foundation for future research in this area. The extensive datasets that are presented in this paper will serve as a valuable resource for others in the field who may seek to build upon our findings.
That said, we will carefully review the manuscript to identify and streamline any elements that may be overly redundant. We will consider consolidating figures and refining the text to ensure that the paper remains concise and focused while retaining the depth of analysis that we believe is essential.
