Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2023;8(16):e161812. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.161812.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Low-dose anti–thymocyte globulin (ATG) transiently preserves C-peptide and lowers HbA1c in individuals with recent-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, the mechanisms of action and features of the response remain unclear. Here, we characterized the post hoc immunological outcomes of ATG administration and their potential use as biomarkers of metabolic response to therapy (i.e., improved preservation of endogenous insulin production).METHODS We assessed gene and protein expression, targeted gene methylation, and cytokine concentrations in peripheral blood following treatment with ATG (n = 29), ATG plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (ATG/G-CSF, n = 28), or placebo (n = 31).RESULTS Treatment with low-dose ATG preserved regulatory T cells (Tregs), as measured by stable methylation of FOXP3 Treg-specific demethylation region (TSDR) and increased proportions of CD4+FOXP3+ Tregs (P < 0.001) identified by flow cytometry. While treatment effects were consistent across participants, not all maintained C-peptide. Responders exhibited a transient rise in IL-6, IP-10, and TNF-α (P < 0.05 for all) 2 weeks after treatment and a durable CD4+ exhaustion phenotype (increased PD-1+KLRG1+CD57– on CD4+ T cells [P = 0.011] and PD1+CD4+ Temra MFI [P < 0.001] at 12 weeks, following ATG and ATG/G-CSF, respectively). ATG nonresponders displayed higher proportions of senescent T cells (at baseline and after treatment) and increased methylation of EOMES (i.e., less expression of this exhaustion marker).CONCLUSION Altogether in these exploratory analyses, Th1 inflammation-associated serum and CD4+ exhaustion transcript and cellular phenotyping profiles may be useful for identifying signatures of clinical response to ATG in T1D.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02215200.FUNDING The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (2019PG-T1D011), the NIH (R01 DK106191 Supplement, K08 DK128628), NIH TrialNet (U01 DK085461), and the NIH NIAID (P01 AI042288).
Authors
Laura M. Jacobsen, Kirsten Diggins, Lori Blanchfield, James McNichols, Daniel J. Perry, Jason Brant, Xiaoru Dong, Rhonda Bacher, Vivian H. Gersuk, Desmond A. Schatz, Mark A. Atkinson, Clayton E. Mathews, Michael J. Haller, S. Alice Long, Peter S. Linsley, Todd M. Brusko
Usage data is cumulative from March 2024 through March 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,568 | 394 |
| 197 | 107 | |
| Figure | 196 | 21 |
| Table | 69 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 91 | 25 |
| Citation downloads | 72 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,193 | 547 |
| Total Views | 2,740 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
