GAD-alum immunotherapy in type 1 diabetes expands bifunctional Th1/Th2 autoreactive CD4 T cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims/hypothesis Antigen-specific therapy aims to modify inflammatory T cell responses in type 1 diabetes and restore immune tolerance. One strategy employs GAD65 conjugated to aluminium hydroxide (GAD-alum) to take advantage of the T helper (Th)2-biasing adjuvant properties of alum and thereby regulate pathological Th1 autoimmunity. We explored the cellular and molecular mechanism of GAD-alum action in the setting of a previously reported randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted by Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet. Methods In the clinical trial conducted by Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet, participants were immunised with 20 μg GAD-alum (twice or three times) or alum alone and peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples were banked at baseline and post treatment. In the present study, GAD-specific T cell responses were measured in these samples and GAD-specific T cell lines and clones were generated, which were then further characterised. Results At day 91 post immunisation, we detected GAD-specific IL-13 + CD4 T cell responses significantly more frequently in participants immunised with GAD-alum (71% and 94% treated twice or three times, respectively) compared with those immunised with alum alone (38%; p = 0.003 and p = 0.0002, respectively) accompanied by high secreted levels of IL-13, IL-4 and IL-5, confirming a GAD-specific, GAD-alum-induced Th2 response. Of note, GAD-specific, IL-13 + CD4 T cells observed after immunisation co-secreted IFN-γ, displaying a bifunctional Th1/Th2 phenotype. Single-cell transcriptome analysis identified IL13 and IFNG expression in concert with the canonical Th2 and Th1 transcription factor genes GATA3 and TBX21 , respectively. T cell receptor β-chain (TCRB) CDR3 regions of GAD-specific bifunctional T cells were identified in circulating naive and central memory CD4 T cell pools of non-immunised participants with new-onset type 1 diabetes and healthy individuals, suggesting the potential for bifunctional responses to be generated de novo by GAD-alum immunisation or via expansion from an existing public repertoire. Conclusions/interpretation GAD-alum immunisation activates and propagates GAD-specific CD4 T cells with a distinctive bifunctional phenotype, the functional analysis of which might be important in understanding therapeutic responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".