Here we describe a step-by-step protocol inducing colonic inflammation in mice by adoptive transfer of CD4+CD45RB+ T cells into immunodeficient mice. We used C57BL/6 donor spleens and syngeneic Rag1-/- recipient mice, although other strains (e.g., BALB/c, 129S6/SvEv, non-obese diabetic (NOD)) and genetic models of immunodeficiency (e.g., SCID, Rag2-/-) may also be used4,14-16. It is well established that background strain affects experimental colitis severity in mice1. Furthermore, the enteric microbiota in a murine population varies widely between facilities, even between those within the same institution6,17. While Figures 2 and 3 do not show the development of colitis in Rag1-/- mice at 4 weeks post-transfer, in our and others’ experiences Rag1-/- recipients develop clinical disease between 6 and 9 weeks after transfer of CD4+CD45RBhigh T cells18-23. This variability in clinical course and disease expression and should be taken into account when establishing this model of experimental colitis to minimize intra- and inter-experimental inconsistency.
A critical step for the reproducibility of this experiment is FACS isolation of pure populations of CD4+CD45RBhigh cells without residual activated/memory/regulatory T cells. This involves a proficient understanding of flow cytometry. It is important to first negatively select non-viable and CD4- cells. Then, using a simple histogram for CD45RB-PE cells, select the highest 40% of cells to represent the CD45RBhigh T cells and the lowest 20% as the CD45RBlow T cells. Other markers to consider using for isolation of naïve CD4+ T cells are CD62L and CD25, although in our experience CD45RBhigh and CD45RBlow separation is sufficient and reproducible5. Additionally, it is possible to vary the ratio of CD45RBhigh to CD45RBlow T cells transferred into recipients to study the effects of regulatory T cell populations on disease phenotype. Work with someone who is familiar with flow cytometry initially to set up the FACS protocol and then using that protocol in future experiments. Additionally, a step where significant variation may impact results in this protocol is the intraperitoneal injection of T cells into recipient mice. Here, the intra- and inter-experimenter variability can greatly impact the outcome of the experiment. It is suggested that the person performing this step is comfortable with handling mice and with the injection technique so as to minimize variability in quality and quantity of cells adoptively transferred. Additionally, it is important to change needles between mice, as needle dulling can affect the efficacy of the intraperitoneal injection.
Steps of the protocol that require optimization include Section 3: Enrichment of CD4+ T cells and Section 4: Labeling and Sorting Cells. Optimization of the CD4+ T cell enrichment depends on the magnetic system used and should follow the manufacturers’ instructions. Options for magnetic cell separation systems are listed in the Table of Specific Reagents/Equipment. It is advisable to enrich for CD4+ T cells by negative selection, as directly labeling this population can affect the phenotype of the cells. There are many antibody clones available for labeling cells for FACS. The antibody concentration (step 4.4) should be optimized to ensure specific staining and to obtain an adequate separation of CD4+CD45RB T cell populations during FACS.
Development of this protocol may require trouble-shooting. First, the success of each experiment depends on the proficiency of the researcher and will increase with improved skill in these methods. However, consistently obtaining low numbers of T cells for adoptive transfer may be caused by not keeping cells on ice during isolation, resuspending centrifuged cells too aggressively, or the use of splenocytes from young mice with small spleens. Additionally, optimize the concentration of anti-CD4 and anti-CD45RB labeling antibodies for staining to avoid deficient or non-specific cell staining (see above). If recipients develop widely varying degrees of intestinal inflammation, the most likely cause is imprecise intraperitoneal injection technique. This should improve with practice and can be monitored by immunohistologic staining of CD3+ cells in the intestines of recipient mice. Additional things to consider include the gender of donor and recipient mice and normal variations in disease penetration. When male recipient mice are used, either male or female donor mice are appropriate. However, if female recipient mice are to be used, the donor mice must be female5. In our and others’ experiences, penetration of disease in this model is 85-90%5. Thus it is expected that some mice may not develop intestinal inflammation, given other causes of marked variability in disease severity have been ruled out. Keep in mind there is marked variability in phenotypes between facilities within an organization and outside it with regard to murine gastrointestinal microbiota and practices that influence the microbiota6,17. Thus, the robustness of phenotype or kinetics of disease in Rag1-/- recipient mice may vary widely based on one’s location. Therefore, it is important to determine the best parameters for these experiments based on the timeline and results obtained from each individual facility.
Here we describe the methodology of the well-characterized adaptive transfer murine model of chronic small bowel and colonic inflammation that resembles human IBD5. This step-by-step protocol illustrates key techniques for the successful development of this method for research purposes. This is a particularly useful animal model of human IBD, as it allows for synchronization of disease and manipulation of various cell populations. However, the immunodeficient recipient mice are genetically modified to develop without mature adaptive immune cells, which likely affect downstream disease outcomes. Despite this, the method described here will be very useful in future studies determining the impact of the enteric microbiota, innate immune cells, and adaptive immune regulatory cells in the pathogenesis of human IBD.