Table_1_The Transcriptional Differences of Avian CD4+CD8+ Double-Positive T Cells and CD8+ T Cells From Peripheral Blood of ALV-J Infected Chickens Revealed by Smart-Seq2.docx
It is well known that chicken CD8+ T cell response is vital to clearing viral infections. However, the differences between T cell subsets expressing CD8 receptors in chicken peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) have not been compared. Herein, we used Smart-Seq2 scRNA-seq technology to characterize the difference of chicken CD8high+, CD8high αα+, CD8high αβ+, CD8medium+, and CD4+CD8low+ T cell subsets from PBMCs of avian leukosis virus subgroup J (ALV-J)-infected chickens. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) and Trend analysis revealed that genes enriched in the “Cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction” pathway were most highly expressed in the CD8high αα+ T cell population, especially T cell activation or response-related genes including CD40LG, IL2RA, IL2RB, IL17A, IL1R1, TNFRSF25, and TNFRSF11, suggesting that CD8high αα+ T cells rather than other CD8 subpopulations were more responsive to ALV-J infections. On the other hand, genes involved in the “FoxO signaling pathway” and “TGF-beta signaling pathway” were most highly expressed in the CD4+CD8low+ (CD8low+) T cell population and the function of CD4+CD8low+ T cells may play roles in negatively regulating the functions of T cells based on the high expression of CCND1, ROCK1, FOXO1, FOXO3, TNFRSF18, and TNFRSF21. The selected gene expressions in CD8+ T cells and CD4+CD8low+ double-positive T cells confirmed by qRT-PCR matched the Smart-Seq2 data, indicating the reliability of the smart-seq results. The high expressions of Granzyme K, Granzyme A, and CCL5 indicated the positive response of CD8+ T cells. Conversely, CD4+CD8+ T cells may have the suppressor activity based on the low expression of activation molecules but high expression of T cell activity suppressor genes. These findings verified the heterogeneity and transcriptional differences of T cells expressing CD8 receptors in chicken PBMCs.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-981-32-9717-3_1
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00432-017-2431-5
- https://doi.org//10.1002/jcb.24974
- https://doi.org//10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560
- https://doi.org//10.3390/v12010114
- https://doi.org//10.1038/ni1084
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1471-2105-7-191
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.03.024
- https://doi.org//10.1093/nar/28.1.27
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.immuni.2010.12.002
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nmeth.3317
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1471-2105-9-559
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nmeth.1923
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.virol.2018.06.014
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1471-2105-12-323
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1074-7613(01)00162-5
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106685
- https://doi.org//10.1006/meth.2001.1262
- https://doi.org//10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0573
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8
- https://doi.org//10.1002/eji.1830270128
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12885-019-5595-3
- https://doi.org//10.1182/blood-2007-11-125039
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nature11581
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nature25442
- https://doi.org//10.4161/sgtp.28208
- https://doi.org//10.4049/jimmunol.1800906
- https://doi.org//10.1101/gr.1239303
- https://doi.org//10.1002/eji.201141477
- https://doi.org//10.1093/nar/gku1003
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-1-4939-9728-2_16
- https://doi.org//10.1093/nar/gkx1098