<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:ynews="http://news.yahoo.com/rss/">
    <channel>
        <title>Nova Reader - Subject</title>
        <link>https://www.novareader.co</link>
        <description>Default RSS Feed</description>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <copyright>Newgen KnowledgeWorks</copyright>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Conversations that count: Cellular interactions that drive T cell fate]]></title>
            <media:thumbnail url="https://storage.googleapis.com/nova-demo-unsecured-files/unsecured/content-1766033704129-0c78d7e3-f1b6-4aa8-b46a-c8dfd1d2e47e/cover.png"></media:thumbnail>
            <link>https://www.novareader.co/book/isbn/10.1111/imr.12945</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<p class="para" id="N65542">The relationship between the extrinsic environment and the internal transcriptional network is circular. Naive T cells first engage with antigen‐presenting cells to set transcriptional differentiation networks in motion. In turn, this regulates specific chemokine receptors that direct migration into distinct lymph node niches. Movement into these regions brings newly activated T cells into contact with accessory cells and cytokines that reinforce the differentiation programming to specify T cell function. We and others have observed similarities in the transcriptional networks that specify both CD4+ T follicular helper (T<sub>FH</sub>) cells and CD8+ central memory stem‐like (T<sub>SCM</sub>) cells. Here, we compare and contrast the current knowledge for these shared differentiation programs, compared to their effector counterparts, CD4+ T‐helper 1 (T<sub>H1</sub>) and CD8+ short‐lived effector (T<sub>SLEC</sub>) cells. Understanding the interplay between cellular interactions and transcriptional programming is essential to harness T cell differentiation that is fit for purpose; to stimulate potent T cell effector function for the elimination of chronic infection and cancer; or to amplify the formation of humoral immunity and longevity of cellular memory to prevent infectious diseases.</p>]]></description>
            <pubDate><![CDATA[2021-02-14T00:00]]></pubDate>
        </item><item>
            <title><![CDATA[Regulatory B cells: TIM‐1, transplant tolerance, and rejection]]></title>
            <media:thumbnail url="https://storage.googleapis.com/nova-demo-unsecured-files/unsecured/content-1765999295442-0b13ba61-5484-48ee-b1e4-eeeb063ccff7/cover.png"></media:thumbnail>
            <link>https://www.novareader.co/book/isbn/10.1111/imr.12933</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<p class="para" id="N65542">Regulatory B cells (Bregs) ameliorate autoimmune disease and prevent allograft rejection. Conversely, they hinder effective clearance of pathogens and malignancies. Breg activity is mainly attributed to IL‐10 expression, but also utilizes additional regulatory mechanisms such as TGF‐β, FasL, IL‐35, and TIGIT. Although Bregs are present in various subsets defined by phenotypic markers (including canonical B cell subsets), our understanding of Bregs has been limited by the lack of a broadly inclusive and specific phenotypic or transcriptional marker. TIM‐1, a broad marker for Bregs first identified in transplant models, plays a major role in Breg maintenance and induction. Here, we expand on the role of TIM‐1<sup>+</sup> Bregs in immune tolerance and propose TIM‐1 as a unifying marker for Bregs that utilize various inhibitory mechanisms in addition to IL‐10. Further, this review provides an in‐depth assessment of our understanding of Bregs in transplantation as elucidated in murine models and clinical studies. These studies highlight the major contribution of Bregs in preventing allograft rejection, and their ability to serve as highly predictive biomarkers for clinical transplant outcomes.</p>]]></description>
            <pubDate><![CDATA[2021-01-22T00:00]]></pubDate>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>