Abstract
Clonal expansion and development of immunological memory are two hallmarks of adaptive immune responses. Resolving the intricate pathways that regulate cell cycle activity and lead to the generation of diverse effector and memory T cell subsets is essential for improving our understanding of protective T cell immunity. A deeper knowledge of cell cycle regulation in T cells also has translational implications for adoptive cell therapies and vaccinations against infectious diseases. Here, we summarize recent evidence for an early diversification of effector and memory CD8+ T cell fates and discuss how this process is coupled to discrete changes in division speed. We further review technical advances in lineage tracing and cell cycle analysis and outline how these techniques have shed new light on the population dynamics of CD8+ T cell responses, thereby refining our current understanding of the developmental organization of the memory T cell pool.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Protective T cell immunity against intracellular pathogens critically depends on the activation of rare naïve CD8+ T cells, their subsequent clonal expansion and differentiation into functionally diverse effector and memory subsets [1, 2]. Naïve CD8+ T cells become activated when they first encounter their cognate antigen, presented on major histocompatibility complex-I (MHC-I) molecules on the cell surface of antigen-presenting cells, and integrate further activating signals via co-stimulatory molecules and inflammatory cytokines [2, 3]. Following activation, naïve T cells switch from a relatively quiescent to a highly active cell state, enabling them to complete up to 15–20 cell divisions within 7–8 days after infection [1]. During this process, proliferating T cells also differentiate into short-lived/terminal effector cells (SLECs/TEs) as well as long-lived memory precursors (MPs), encompassing central memory precursors (CMPs) and effector memory precursors (EMPs) [2, 4]. These subsets clearly differ in their epigenetic and transcriptional regulation, their migratory properties and functions [2, 4, 5]. TEs elaborate potent antimicrobial effector functions, are specialized in killing infected cells, but become apoptotic once the pathogen is cleared. In contrast, MPs may lack direct killing properties, but give rise to memory T cells that persist in absence of antigen through exceedingly rare homeostatic cell divisions, estimated to occur only once every 450 days in humans [6]. Upon antigen re-encounter memory T cells respond by rapid secondary proliferation and effector cell differentiation, thereby mediating enhanced immune protection against re-infection. The unique properties of memory T cells have made them prime targets for novel vaccination strategies [7] and adoptive T cell therapies (ACT) [8, 9]. However, our current understanding of the developmental pathways leading to effector and memory T cell formation remains incomplete. Here, we summarize how recent technological advances in in vivo fate mapping and cell cycle analysis provide new insights for better understanding the generation and maintenance of the memory T cell compartment.
Developmental relationship of effector and memory CD8+ T cells
Despite considerable efforts directed towards characterizing the cellular identities and functional roles of distinct CD8+ T cell subsets, controversy remains whether memory cells differentiate either from effector or naïve cells (Fig. 1A–B, left panels) [4, 10]. Depending on either developmental pathway, memory cells are predicted to adopt division histories that largely overlap with or fundamentally differ from those of effector cells (Fig. 1A–B, right panels) [10]. Based on these considerations, resolving the developmental relationships and proliferation activities of distinct T cell subsets not only sheds light on each of these processes separately, but also on how these influence one another, respectively.
Various observations originally favored a differentiation model from naïve to effector and finally memory cells. First, longitudinal analyses of antigen-specific CD8+ T cell populations have shown that cytotoxic effector functions are acquired during the early stages of clonal expansion [11, 12], whereas memory cells only begin to predominate and develop recall capacity when the bulk of effector T cells has contracted [13]. Second, fluorescent reporters of effector (Gzmb) [14] or SLEC/TE lineage defining genes (Klrg1) [15] indicated that a considerable fraction of memory T cells express effector properties at some point during their development. Based on these findings, it has been suggested that memory T cells derive linearly from an expanded pool of effector CD8+ T cells and start to emerge around the peak of a primary immune response [16, 17]. In support of this concept, it was recently shown that epigenetic remodeling facilitates the re-expression of naïve or memory-associated genes in antiviral CD8+ T cell populations after pathogen clearance [18]. However, it has also been shown that MPs are present throughout most of the primary expansion phase and only constitute a minor subset (e.g. 2–5% CMPs at day 8 after infection) of the overall expanded CD8+ T cell population [19,20,21]. Therefore, it is not clear in how far the epigenetic signatures of such numerically underrepresented subsets were adequately captured by means of bulk profiling. In contrast, novel single cell technologies hold the potential to measure multiple layers of gene regulation in an unbiased manner, while simultaneously capturing the full heterogeneity of antigen-specific T cell populations [22]. This can be used to identify characteristic gene expression signatures of distinct T cell subsets, thereby fostering a more comprehensive understanding of cellular identity and moving beyond simplified classifications based on a small set of established markers. Importantly, single cell profiling can also be applied to score cell cycle activity [23] or infer lineage relationships of developmentally connected subsets by means of trajectory inference [24]. This has for example revealed dynamic precursor–progeny relationships in chronic T cell responses [25,26,27]. Another informative approach is single cell in vivo fate mapping, where immune responses derived from individual naïve T cells are tracked with unique heritable labels (reviewed in [4]) that are passed on to all daughter cells during clonal expansion and effector/memory T cell differentiation. With this approach, initial studies have established that a single naïve T cell can generate a phenotypically diverse offspring, encompassing CMP, EMP and TE cells, in response to a bacterial infection [28, 29]. Despite such fundamental diversity of single cell-derived T cell responses, the overall magnitude of clonal expansion and the content of CMPs, EMPs and TEs within individual T cell families differed substantially [30, 31]. In particular, an increased clonal output of single T cells can be consistently linked to a relative decrease in CMP phenotype. Computational modeling incorporating the diverse response patterns of individual T cell families suggested two fundamental features of T cell diversification [30]: first, that naïve T cells initially differentiate into CMPs, which then progressively give rise to EMP, and finally TE cells (Fig. 1C). Notably, a similar developmental framework has been proposed for human CD8+ T cells [32] and has gained recent support through trajectory inference from parallel bulk mRNA and chromatin accessibility profiling [33]. While these findings conceptually argue for an early fate commitment of activated T cells toward the memory lineage, they do not preclude a transient progression through an effector state at some point during their development. However, some more recent results indeed suggest that central memory (CM) T cells develop without expressing cytotoxic effector functions [34]. The second interesting insight gained from modeling the single cell in vivo fate mapping data is a predicted slower cell cycle speed of CMPs, compared to a more rapid division activity of EMPs and TEs (Fig. 1C) [30], which has important implications for understanding the population dynamics of antigen-specific CD8+ T cell responses.
Diversification of cell cycle speeds occurs early after CD8+ T cell activation
The coordinated regulation of cell divisions is central for generating sufficient numbers of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells [1, 35] and, immediately after activation, ultra-rapid interdivision times of 2–4 h have been reported [36]. T cells thereby arguably rank among the fastest proliferating cell types in the mammalian organism. However, this rapid division activity has also made it challenging to link the earliest fate decisions of activated T cells to direct changes in their cell cycle. Seminal studies have established that activated T cells undergo up to eight rounds of cell divisions and differentiation into functional effector and memory cells, after few hours of TCR stimulation in vitro [37, 38]. This programmed proliferation activity can be extended in presence of further antigenic stimulation, as well as co-stimulation and cytokines. Elegant work has shown that distinct activating stimuli add linearly to amplify T cell proliferation through a mechanism by which synchronized rapid divisions are followed by an abrupt division cessation [39]. On a molecular level, this is achieved by the timed decay of the cell cycle regulator Myc, which mediates cell cycle exit once expression levels fall below a discrete threshold (Fig. 2A) [40]. These findings highlight the stimulatory requirements through which CD8+ T cells initiate and sustain clonal expansion shortly after activation. Additional insights into the subsequent stages of clonal expansion have recently been gained by continuous live cell imaging of single T cells over prolonged in vitro cultures of 4–5 days [41]. This revealed that the initial burst-like proliferation phase, with highly synchronized rapid divisions, is succeeded by a diversification phase, in which slower and faster dividing T cell subsets emerge (Fig. 2B). Interestingly, differential expression of the interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor alpha chain (CD25) during the burst phase foreshadowed the subsequent diversification of division speeds, with CD25high cells adopting faster cell cycle speeds than CD25low cells. This is notable, since CD25 has been implicated in facilitating effector T cell differentiation [42]. In contrast, more slowly dividing CD25low T cells express CD62L, a key marker of CMP cells (Fig. 2B) [41]. Collectively, these in vitro experiments implicate an intricate link between early cell cycle diversification and effector/memory T cell fate specification. However, the stimulatory conditions during an ongoing infection in vivo are more complex and activating stimuli, such as antigen and inflammation can persist throughout the larger parts of the expansion phase.
CD8+ T cell subsets emerging in response to infection adopt distinct cell cycle speeds
To gain further insights into the development of effector and memory T cell subsets, fluorescent reporter systems have been used to measure the cell cycle distribution of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in response to an influenza virus infection [43]. This revealed that a subset of proliferating CD8+ T cells can be identified one week after infection, which is characterized by reduced cell cycle activity ex vivo as well as a CMP phenotype. Moreover, novel techniques have recently been developed to measure cell cycle speed directly in vivo and have shed new light on developmental features of adaptive immune responses. One approach is based on administering one or two distinct nucleoside analogs (NAs), that are incorporated into newly synthesized DNA, and measuring total cellular DNA content at defined endpoints [21, 44, 45]. Whereas DNA analysis accurately delineates the current cell cycle position of individual cells, their differential NA profiles are used to resolve their preceding cell cycle stages relative to S-phase. Cells residing in G1 for the total time period between injecting the first NA and analysis (NA−DNA2N) can thereby be reliably distinguished from cells that progressed through S-phase and divided before entering a new G1-phase (NA+DNA2N). Moreover, cells with rapid or slow S phases can be distinguished when using two NAs, and only incorporate the first (NA1+NA2−) or both NAs (NA1+NA2+), respectively. Initial studies based on these considerations demonstrated that CD4+ T cells help accelerates the division speed of germinal center B cells [45] and that a faster cell cycle promotes the somatic hypermutation of B cell immunoglobulin genes [44]. A further technical advancement makes use of the very short bioavailability of NAs after a single injection in vivo, which amounts to ~ 0.5 h [21]. A deliberate delay in DNA content analysis after NA-pulsing can then be used to measure the fraction of dividing cells within a specific time frame (since injecting the NA). Such quantitative measurements can be used to infer average cell cycle durations of dividing T cell populations and refine the categorization of fast and slow dividing cells, by actually revealing how fast and how slow their cell divisions occur. For antigen-specific CD8+ T cells, the cell cycle durations of CMPs, and non-CMPs were thus measured four days after immunization with activated dendritic cells (DCs), presenting the cognate antigen, together with a systemic Listeria monocytogenes (L.m.) infection [21]. Remarkably, whereas non-CMPs divided every 6 h, CMPs divided only every 8 h and showed a delayed progression through the G1 phase (Fig. 2C, upper panel). These results highlight that all subsets overall proliferated very rapidly at the early stages during clonal expansion, however they also show that CMPs consistently adopted slower cell cycle speeds than non-CMPs [21]. Surprisingly, these distinct T cell subsets also showed differential sensitivities for changes in their stimulatory environment. CMPs have been shown to experience higher levels of TCR signaling in vivo [46] and premature depletion of antigen-presenting DCs led to a pronounced slow-down of the CMP cell cycle (Fig. 2C, lower panel), mediated by delayed G1 and S-phase progression [21]. The fact that non-CMPs better maintained their rapid division speeds in absence of antigen was instead linked to a higher inflammation-driven expression of CD25, which provides enhanced sensitivity to IL-2, as an antigen-independent growth factor [21]. This intricate regulation of division speeds by activating signals is relevant, since memory T cell responses were diminished when antigen availability during primary expansion was curtailed [21]. In a vaccination context, this argues for optimizing the kinetics of antigen release in order to generate optimal numbers of memory precursors that translate into enhanced memory responses to secondary stimulation. An additional layer of complexity is formed by the degree of homeostatic cell divisions that memory T cells undergo after primary expansion and pathogen clearance (Fig. 3). For measuring the long-term proliferation activity of CD8+ T cells, a genetic division recorder (DR) was recently developed that can chronicle replication history over prolonged time frames of several months [47]. This was achieved by coupling short tandem nucleotide repeats (STR) to an out-of-frame Cre recombinase, which can be retrovirally transduced into CD8+ T cells from mice expressing a lox-stop-lox red fluorescent protein (RFP) gene cassette. Slippage of DNA polymerase at the STRs occurs at a stable low rate in every cell division and can eventually generate in-frame Cre variants that mediate excision of the stop codon, resulting in genetically stable RFP expression in the dividing cell and all of its progeny. Combining the DR with single cell transcriptomics further revealed a surprising degree of heterogeneity in the CM T cell compartment. Remarkably, a subset of lowly-divided CM T cells showed enrichment for stemness-associated transcripts and preferentially fueled the proliferative response to secondary antigen stimulation (Fig. 3) [47]. By delineating the replicative histories of functionally distinct memory T cell subsets, these findings refine our current understanding of the developmental organization of the memory T cell pool.
Conclusion
Recent technological advances have provided unprecedented insights into the diversification of CD8+ T cell responses. This has allowed the scientific community to better understand the complex differentiation and proliferation processes that are essential for generating protective T cell immunity. In particular, it has become clear that the emergence of distinct T cell subsets is coupled to discrete changes in cell cycle speed, with CMPs cycling more slowly than non-CMPs. Interestingly, slower cell cycle speeds have recently been implicated in protecting dividing cells from genotoxic stress [48] and CMPs have indeed been shown to maintain a higher degree of DNA damage resistance, compared to non-CMPs [46]. It can thus be speculated that the slower cell cycles of CMPs act as a crucial safeguard to prevent critical genome damage, growth arrest and apoptosis, while promoting long-term persistence and functionality in a subset of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells. In line with this notion, CM T cells were shown to harbor stem-cell like functions [49] and elicit enhanced recall responses upon secondary antigen stimulation [17]. However, new insights indicate that stem-like properties are enriched in only a subset of weakly-divided, more quiescent CM T cells [47]. Targeting the cell cycle by genetic or pharmacological inhibition could therefore emerge as a promising strategy to produce more durable cell products for cellular therapies [50, 51]. In addition, it will be interesting to detail the intricate gene regulatory networks that control T cell identity and function, as many transcription factors simultaneously regulate the cell cycle (proliferation) and expression of memory/effector associated genes (differentiation) [27, 52,53,54,55]. In addition, measuring cell cycle activity during chronic infections and tumors might transform our concept of T cell fate diversification in settings where long-term immunity depends on active cellular turnover of functionally distinct subsets. Finally, improving and developing new tools to study the cell cycle may open up new avenues to understanding human immune responses and other cell types in the mammalian organism.
Data availability
No primary data was included in this review article.
Change history
21 June 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-023-00772-x
References
Williams MA, Bevan MJ (2007) Effector and memory CTL differentiation. Annu Rev Immunol 25:171–192
Kaech SM, Cui W (2012) Transcriptional control of effector and memory CD8+ T cell differentiation. Nat Rev Immunol 12:749–761
Mescher MF et al (2006) Signals required for programming effector and memory development by CD8+ T cells. Immunol Rev 211:81–92
Buchholz VR, Schumacher TN, Busch DH (2016) T cell fate at the single-cell level. Annu Rev Immunol 34:65–92
Montacchiesi G, Pace L (2022) Epigenetics and CD8(+) T cell memory. Immunol Rev 305:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.13057
Akondy RS et al (2017) Origin and differentiation of human memory CD8 T cells after vaccination. Nature 552:362–367
Kaech SM, Wherry EJ, Ahmed R (2002) Effector and memory T-cell differentiation: implications for vaccine development. Nat Rev Immunol 2:251–262
Klebanoff CA, Gattinoni L, Restifo NP (2006) CD8+ T-cell memory in tumor immunology and immunotherapy. Immunol Rev 211:214–224
Busch DH, Fräßle SP, Sommermeyer D, Buchholz VR and Riddell SR In: Seminars in immunology, Elsevier, pp 28–34
Restifo NP, Gattinoni L (2013) Lineage relationship of effector and memory T cells. Curr Opin Immunol 25:556–563
Joshi NS et al (2007) Inflammation directs memory precursor and short-lived effector CD8(+) T cell fates via the graded expression of T-bet transcription factor. Immunity 27:281–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2007.07.010
Sarkar S et al (2008) Functional and genomic profiling of effector CD8 T cell subsets with distinct memory fates. J Exp Med 205:625–640. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20071641
Kaech SM, Hemby S, Kersh E, Ahmed R (2002) Molecular and functional profiling of memory CD8 T cell differentiation. Cell 111:837–851
Bannard O, Kraman M, Fearon DT (2009) Secondary replicative function of CD8+ T cells that had developed an effector phenotype. Science 323:505–509
Herndler-Brandstetter D et al (2018) KLRG1+ effector CD8+ T cells lose KLRG1, differentiate into all memory T cell lineages, and convey enhanced protective immunity. Immunity 48(716–729):e718
Opferman JT, Ober BT, Ashton-Rickardt PG (1999) Linear differentiation of cytotoxic effectors into memory T lymphocytes. Science 283:1745–1748. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5408.1745
Wherry EJ et al (2003) Lineage relationship and protective immunity of memory CD8 T cell subsets. Nat Immunol 4:225–234
Youngblood B et al (2017) Effector CD8 T cells dedifferentiate into long-lived memory cells. Nature 552:404–409
Kaech SM et al (2003) Selective expression of the interleukin 7 receptor identifies effector CD8 T cells that give rise to long-lived memory cells. Nat Immunol 4:1191–1198
Huster KM et al (2004) Selective expression of IL-7 receptor on memory T cells identifies early CD40L-dependent generation of distinct CD8+ memory T cell subsets. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:5610–5615
Kretschmer L et al (2020) Differential expansion of T central memory precursor and effector subsets is regulated by division speed. Nat Commun 11:1–12
Stubbington MJ, Rozenblatt-Rosen O, Regev A, Teichmann SA (2017) Single-cell transcriptomics to explore the immune system in health and disease. Science 358:58–63
Scialdone A et al (2015) Computational assignment of cell-cycle stage from single-cell transcriptome data. Methods 85:54–61
Saelens W, Cannoodt R, Todorov H, Saeys Y (2019) A comparison of single-cell trajectory inference methods. Nat Biotechnol 37:547–554
Satpathy AT et al (2019) Massively parallel single-cell chromatin landscapes of human immune cell development and intratumoral T cell exhaustion. Nat Biotechnol 37:925–936
Grassmann S et al (2020) Early emergence of T central memory precursors programs clonal dominance during chronic viral infection. Nat Immunol 21:1563–1573
Tsui C et al (2022) MYB orchestrates T cell exhaustion and response to checkpoint inhibition. Nature 609:354–360
Stemberger C et al (2007) A single naive CD8+ T cell precursor can develop into diverse effector and memory subsets. Immunity 27:985–997
Gerlach C et al (2010) One naive T cell, multiple fates in CD8+ T cell differentiation. J Exp Med 207:1235–1246
Buchholz VR et al (2013) Disparate individual fates compose robust CD8+ T cell immunity. Science 340:630–635
Gerlach C et al (2013) Heterogeneous differentiation patterns of individual CD8+ T cells. Science 340:635–639
Gattinoni L, Klebanoff CA, Restifo NP (2012) Paths to stemness: building the ultimate antitumour T cell. Nat Rev Cancer 12:671–684
Giles JR et al (2022) Human epigenetic and transcriptional T cell differentiation atlas for identifying functional T cell-specific enhancers. Immunity 55(557–574):e557
Pais Ferreira D et al (2020) Central memory CD8+ T cells derive from stem-like Tcf7hi effector cells in the absence of cytotoxic differentiation. Immunity 53(985–1000):e1011
Heinzel S, Marchingo JM, Horton MB, Hodgkin PD (2018) The regulation of lymphocyte activation and proliferation. Curr Opin Immunol 51:32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2018.01.002
Yoon H, Kim TS, Braciale TJ (2010) The cell cycle time of CD8+ T cells responding in vivo is controlled by the type of antigenic stimulus. PLoS ONE 5:e15423
Kaech SM, Ahmed R (2001) Memory CD8+ T cell differentiation: initial antigen encounter triggers a developmental program in naive cells. Nat Immunol 2:415–422
van Stipdonk MJ, Lemmens EE, Schoenberger SP (2001) Naive CTLs require a single brief period of antigenic stimulation for clonal expansion and differentiation. Nat Immunol 2:423–429
Marchingo JM et al (2014) T cell signaling. Antigen affinity, costimulation, and cytokine inputs sum linearly to amplify T cell expansion. Science 346:1123–1127. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260044
Heinzel S et al (2017) A Myc-dependent division timer complements a cell-death timer to regulate T cell and B cell responses. Nat Immunol 18:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3598
Plambeck M et al (2022) Heritable changes in division speed accompany the diversification of single T cell fate. Proc Natl Acad Sci 119:e2116260119
Kalia V et al (2010) Prolonged interleukin-2Rα expression on virus-specific CD8+ T cells favors terminal-effector differentiation in vivo. Immunity 32:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2009.11.010
Kinjyo I et al (2015) Real-time tracking of cell cycle progression during CD8+ effector and memory T-cell differentiation. Nat Commun 6:1–13
Gitlin AD, Shulman Z, Nussenzweig MC (2014) Clonal selection in the germinal centre by regulated proliferation and hypermutation. Nature 509:637–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13300
Gitlin AD et al (2015) T cell help controls the speed of the cell cycle in germinal center B cells. Science 349:643–646. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4919
Johnnidis JB et al (2021) Inhibitory signaling sustains a distinct early memory CD8(+) T cell precursor that is resistant to DNA damage. Sci Immunol. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abe3702
Bresser K et al (2022) Replicative history marks transcriptional and functional disparity in the CD8(+) T cell memory pool. Nat Immunol 23:791–801. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-022-01171-9
Min M, Spencer SL (2019) Spontaneously slow-cycling subpopulations of human cells originate from activation of stress-response pathways. PLoS Biol 17:e3000178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000178
Graef P et al (2014) Serial transfer of single-cell-derived immunocompetence reveals stemness of CD8+ central memory T cells. Immunity 41:116–126
Heckler M et al (2021) Inhibition of CDK4/6 promotes CD8 T-cell memory formation. Cancer Discov 11:2564–2581. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-20-1540
Lelliott EJ et al (2021) CDK4/6 inhibition promotes antitumor immunity through the induction of T-cell memory. Cancer Discov 11:2582–2601. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-20-1554
Zhou X et al (2010) Differentiation and persistence of memory CD8(+) T cells depend on T cell factor 1. Immunity 33:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2010.08.002
Yao S et al (2013) Interferon regulatory factor 4 sustains CD8(+) T cell expansion and effector differentiation. Immunity 39:833–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2013.10.007
Xin A et al (2016) A molecular threshold for effector CD8(+) T cell differentiation controlled by transcription factors Blimp-1 and T-bet. Nat Immunol 17:422–432. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3410
Huang H, Long L, Zhou P, Chapman NM, Chi H (2020) mTOR signaling at the crossroads of environmental signals and T-cell fate decisions. Immunol Rev 295:15–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.12845
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all members in the laboratories of Prof. Dirk Busch and Dr. Veit Buchholz for their work, the helpful discussion, and for their contributions to the various findings presented in this review.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Edited by: Volkhard A. J. Kempf.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kretschmer, L., Fuchs, N., Busch, D.H. et al. Picking up speed: cell cycle regulation during effector CD8+ T cell differentiation. Med Microbiol Immunol 212, 253–260 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-023-00768-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-023-00768-7