The described protocol enables the robust induction of human CD4+FOXP3+ iTregs from human naïve CD4+ T cells. It includes a new protocol that we described recently, using a combination of TGF-β, ATRA and rapamycin, for induction of iTregs with superior in vitro suppressive function22. Compared to other published protocols, another advantage is the induction of different iTreg populations in parallel by different protocols, which enables the direct comparison of effects of certain iTreg-inducing factors, along with control cells that are activated in the presence of IL-2 alone. The described protocols enable reproducible induction of FOXP3 with low donor variation. Naïve CD4+ T cells in this protocol are isolated by magnetic-activated cell sorting, but fluorescence-activated cell sorting is also possible. The expected yield of naïve CD4+ T cells with this protocol is typically between 5-10%, but strongly depends on the donor (age) and appears also lower when high fractions of erythrocytes are present. If an estimate is needed, PBMCs can be stained (see step 1.4) during the monocyte depletion step. Typically, the yield of naïve CD4+ T cells is about half of the "percentage naïve CD4+ T cells of the lymphocyte gate" in the PBMC stain. This protocol uses limited amounts of CD25 beads to obtain CD25-high (nTreg) cells29. However, these are not pure Tregs, but these are just enriched in Tregs to be used as positive control. If pure Tregs are needed, other kits should be used (such as combined with CD4 enrichment and CD127-depletion) or alternatively, CD25+ cells pre-enriched with 8 µl CD25 beads per 107 cells and stained and sorted by fluorescence-activated cell sorting with stringent CD4+CD25++ gating. Also inclusion of other markers, such as CD127 exclusion, should be considered.
It is important to consider that FOXP3 is necessary, but not sufficient to confer Treg identity30. While iTregs can be used to study certain aspects of, for example, FOXP3 regulation, it is important however to note that iTregs differ from nTregs in several aspects. It is therefore crucial to culture nTregs (ideally derived from the same donor) in parallel to iTregs in all assays for comparison. The difference between nTregs and iTregs is exemplified by only partial overlap of the nTreg and iTreg transcriptome as measured in murine iTregs31. Other Treg signature genes in addition to FOXP3 should be measured for this reason, and to ensure discrimination from activation-induced FOXP3 expression in human cells. For example, iTregs should display higher expression of CD25, CTLA-4 and EOS compared to activated T cells while expression of IFN-γ and SATB1 should be low in nTregs and iTregs induced by the protocols described here, as published previously22. Another important major difference between nTregs and iTregs is the lack of stable FOXP3 expression in iTregs, which most likely corresponds to methylation of the TSDR region in the FOXP3 locus in iTregs13. Also on a genome-wide scale, it was described that epigenetic patterns of DNA methylation and histone modifications in murine iTregs do not reflect the patterns found in nTregs30. We previously described that iTregs induced by the here described protocols, in contrast to nTregs, did not exhibit TSDR demethylation. Accordingly, iTregs lost FOXP3 when restimulated, but maintained FOXP3 expression when further cultured in the presence of IL-2 and without restimulation22. Interestingly, iTregs induced by an alternative protocol using M2 macrophage supernatants displayed enhanced FOXP3 stability, despite lack of TSDR demethylation and TGF-β being causative for FOXP3 induction27.
Modification of iTreg-inducing protocols by addition of compounds (such as Vitamin C or hydrogen sulfide) that influence Ten-eleven Translocation (TET) methylcytosine dioxygenase enzymes, as described very recently32-34, may add in stabilizing FOXP3 by affecting DNA methylation. Also, the stimulation strength and timing has an influence on FOXP3 expression and stability35. Along these lines, the use of bead-coupled CD3/CD28 antibodies instead of plate-bound antibodies was shown to increase murine iTreg in vivo suppressive function and stability albeit independent of TSDR demethylation36. Another factor that needs to be considered as a potential source of variation is the use of serum, which contains undefined factors including TGF-β which even from bovine source is 100% cross-reactive with human cells. Also, the source and activity of IL-2 can drastically influence the results of FOXP3 induction.
An important feature of Tregs is their suppressive ability, which needs to be tested subsequently with iTregs generated in this protocol. It should be noted that suppression assays with iTregs are not trivial and the literature about suppressive abilities of iTregs is controversial. Several methods and protocols to assess suppressive function of human Tregs have been published elsewhere22,37-41, with in vitro proliferation assays based on flow cytometry readouts such as dilution of Carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester (CFSE) being the most commonly used. It is important to wash and rest iTregs before use in suppression assays, and it needs to be considered that iTregs, in contrast to nTregs, may not be anergic but proliferate themselves during suppression assays. We consider it extremely important to use `mock´ stimulated T cells as control suppressor cells to identify the degree of unspecific suppression (such as through CTLA-4 expression, IL-2 consumption and culture overgrowth by activated T cells) that is unrelated to FOXP3+ Treg-specific effects, and the frequent lack of this control may contribute to some controversies in the literature. Using this control, we defined that only TGF-β/ATRA/Rapa-induced iTregs displayed suppressive activity in vitro22. Thus, we conclude that regarding suppressive activity (albeit not highest fraction of FOXP3+ cells), TGF-β/ATRA/Rapa is the best combination of factors of the described protocols to induce iTregs. Nevertheless, suppressive activity in vitro does not necessarily reflect suppressive activity in vivo, and indeed we determined that human iTregs generated by these protocols did not suppress in a xenogeneic graft-versus-host disease model at least under the conditions tested22. This may be related to instable FOXP3 expression which was lost in iTregs upon restimulation, in line with a lack of TSDR demethylation22.
Depending on which aspect of iTreg features (high fraction of FOXP3+ cells, superior suppressive activity, FOXP3 stability) is most important for a particular research question, different protocols may be most suitable to study these questions, rendering it difficult to define the generally 'best' protocol for Treg induction. Furthermore, several above-described subtle experimental differences can influence results and may contribute to controversies with respect to phenotype and suppressive function of TGF-β-induced iTregs that appear between reports even with apparently similar protocols for iTreg generation42. For example, even within one laboratory, we observed that iTregs induced with TGF-β and IL-2 in serum-containing RPMI medium displayed some suppressive activity compared to control cells27, while TGF-β/IL-2-induced iTregs generated in defined, serum-free T cell culture medium did not22, despite similar levels of FOXP3.
Future applications based on these protocols should strive to further optimize Treg induction conditions to achieve a phenotype with stable FOXP3 expression, TSDR demethylation, stable phenotype without conversion to cytokine-producing effector T cells and optimal suppressive activity. Further development of iTreg induction protocols may be useful for adoptive transfer approaches in the future, in which therapy by Treg transfer is highly promising for the potential treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.