The TCR and LCK: foundations for T-cell activation and therapeutic innovation

The T cell receptor (TCR)-CD3 complex is crucial to adaptive immunity, driving antigen recognition and intracellular signaling cascades. CD3 subunits harbor key cytoplasmic motifs that recruit signaling proteins like LCK. While distal αβ TCR signaling is well-understood, gaps persist in our understanding of proximal signaling, particularly the roles of free versus co-receptor CD4 or CD8-associated LCK and their impact on antigen sensitivity and activation thresholds. In contrast to αβ T cells, γδ T cells recognize diverse antigens, often independently of MHC or MHC-like molecules. Despite their shared CD3 signaling components, the proximal signaling mechanisms of γδ T cells remain poorly characterized, raising important questions about their activation pathways and kinase dependencies. Addressing these gaps is essential to unlock the unique therapeutic potential of γδ T cells in cancer immunotherapy. Recent advances in engineered T-cell therapies demonstrate how proximal TCR signaling can be leveraged for therapeutic innovation. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and chimeric-TCR designs that incorporate specific CD3 signaling motifs have shown improved anti-tumor activity, reduced exhaustion, and enhanced persistence, reflecting a shift beyond traditional ζ chain-dominated designs. In parallel, emerging small-molecule modulators targeting early TCR events offer new strategies to tune pathogenic T-cell responses in autoimmunity or to reset exhausted CAR T cells. This review explores the critical roles of CD3 motifs and LCK in TCR activation, with a focus on the underexplored γδ T cells. We also discuss how these insights could drive next-generation cancer immunotherapies and novel treatments for autoimmune diseases and immunopathologies.

Introduction

TCR signaling is fundamental to adaptive immunity, enabling precise recognition of antigens and the initiation of intracellular cascades that drive T-cell activation. This process is critical for mediating immune responses against infected or malignant cells, but also for the formation of self-tolerant and self-MHC-restricted T-cell repertoire by negative and positive selection of thymocytes. The TCR complex consists of ligand-binding αβ or γδ TCR heterodimers and the signal-transducing chains CD3γ, CD3δ, CD3ϵ, and ζ (also known as TCRζ, CD247 or CD3ζ), collectively known as the CD3 complex. The CD3 cytoplasmic tails harbor key motifs – immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motifs (ITAMs), basic-rich stretches (BRS), proline-rich sequences (PRS), and the receptor kinase (RK) motif – that coordinate the recruitment of kinases, scaffolds, and adaptors essential for signal transduction and amplification.

While distal signaling cascades downstream of the αβ TCR are well characterized, our understanding of how proximal signaling events are regulated remains incomplete. Much of what we know comes from studies using cell lines or transgenic and knockout (KO) mice. Although these models have been invaluable, mutations in the TCR components often disrupt TCR assembly or expression, potentially skewing the interpretation of the findings. Recent advances in chimeric receptor technology now allow for the functional testing of specific CD3 signaling motifs in isolation, offering a novel tool to dissect the mechanics of T-cell activation (1–4).

The very first biochemical step in the TCR signaling cascade is the phosphorylation of the ITAMs within the CD3 cytoplasmic tails by the lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase (LCK), creating docking sites for molecules like the ζ chain-associated protein kinase 70 (ZAP70) that facilitate downstream signal transduction. LCK is a SRC family tyrosine kinase (SFK) with a modular architecture comprising an N-terminal unique domain (UD), a SH3 and SH2 domain, a tyrosine kinase domain (KD), and a C-terminal negative regulatory domain (5, 6). The N−terminal membrane−anchoring domain targets LCK to the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane and allows association with CD4/CD8 coreceptors. The SH3 and SH2 domains mediate intramolecular interactions that maintains LCK in a closed, inactive conformation, whereas phosphorylation of Y394 in the activation loop of the KD drives its full enzymatic activation. Despite significant progress in understanding LCK’s role in αβ T-cell activation, key questions remain about how distinct pools of LCK – free versus co-receptor-associated – modulate signaling efficiency, antigen sensitivity, and activation thresholds. Deciphering these mechanisms is essential for unraveling the nuances of TCR signal initiation and propagation.

αβ and γδ TCRs differ significantly in their antigen recognition even though they share signaling subunits and motifs. The αβ TCR interacts with peptide-antigens presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules together with the co-receptors CD4 or CD8. In contrast, γδ TCRs recognize a broader spectrum of antigens, including non-peptide ligands such as phosphoantigens, lipids, and stress-induced self-molecules, often independently of MHC or MHC-like presentation (7). These fundamentally different ligands suggest that γδ TCRs may employ unique proximal signal mechanisms, a topic that remains largely unexplored. For decades, the αβ TCR has been considered the canonical model for TCR signaling, with little attention paid to whether γδ-TCR signaling diverges fundamentally. Understanding these distinctions is increasingly important given the emerging potential of γδ T cells in cancer immunotherapy.

Importantly, insights into proximal TCR signaling are no longer of purely mechanistic interest, but increasingly inform therapeutic innovation. Chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) have advanced significantly by incorporating diverse CD3 signaling motifs, optimizing persistence, reducing exhaustion, and enhancing anti-tumor activity of CAR T cells (1–3, 8). Similarly, chimeric TCRs that utilize the full repertoire of CD3 motifs offer new avenues to fine-tune immune responses (4). At the same time, pharmacologic agents that modulate early TCR signaling steps are emerging as precision immunotherapies. Examples include small-molecule inhibitors targeting the PRS-NCK interaction (such as AX-024) (9), the LCK-RK interaction (such as C10) (10), and kinase inhibitors (such as dasatinib), which can reversibly suppress CAR signaling to mitigate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and restore exhausted cells (11–13). Together, these strategies highlight the therapeutic potential of fine-tuning proximal TCR signaling in autoimmunity, GVHD, and cancer.

In this review, we will explore the roles of CD3 signaling motifs and LCK recruitment in TCR activation, with a focus on their distinct contributions to αβ and γδ T-cell signaling. By challenging the assumption of uniformity across TCR subtypes, we aim to highlight the diversity of signaling mechanisms. Furthermore, we will examine how this knowledge can be applied to improve cancer immunotherapy and to develop targeted therapies for autoimmune diseases and other immunopathologies.

Structure of the αβ TCR-CD3 complex

The αβ TCR is a heterodimeric protein complex composed of a single α- and a single β-chain, each containing a constant and variable domain. Together, the αβ heterodimer forms the binding site that recognizes peptide-antigens presented by MHC class I or II molecules (pMHC). The αβ TCR lacks intrinsic signaling capacity. In order to be expressed at the plasma membrane and to signal, the αβ TCR pairs with the CD3 complex, which includes two CD3ϵ, one CD3γ, one CD3δ chain, and a ζζ dimer (Figure 1). The CD3 subunits are equipped with distinct cytoplasmic signaling motifs, including ITAMs, BRSs, the PRS, and the RK motif (Figure 1). These motifs orchestrate the recruitment of tyrosine kinases LCK and ZAP70 and the adaptor protein NCK, facilitating the initiation and propagation of intracellular signaling cascades. The following sections will explore the unique features of these motifs and their role in αβ TCR signal transduction.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Key signaling motif of the TCR-CD3 complex. The sequences of the human CD3 cytoplasmic tails are shown, highlighting their signaling motifs. In addition, a detailed schematic of the TCR-CD3 complex, showing the αβ TCR chains and the associated CD3 subunits (CD3ϵ, CD3δ, CD3γ, and ζ (also known as TCRζ, CD247 or CD3ζ)) is depicted including the signaling motifs ITAM (red), BRS (yellow), PRS (purple), RK (blue), and their relative positions.

Key motifs of the CD3 complex

Immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motifs

Immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motifs (ITAMs) are crucial for TCR signal transduction. Each ITAM consists of a conserved YxxL/I-X6-8-YxxL/I motif, where the tyrosine residues play a central role in signal initiation (14–16). These tyrosines are phosphorylated upon TCR engagement, predominantly by LCK, creating docking sites for signaling molecules such as ZAP70 (Table 1). This phosphorylation is essential, as substituting tyrosine (Y) with phenylalanine (F), a residue that cannot be phosphorylated, renders the ITAM non-functional, effectively abolishing downstream signaling (17). Furthermore, ITAM phosphorylation must be reversible to allow dynamic regulation of TCR signaling. This has been demonstrated using phosphomimetic variants, where glutamic acid substitutions mimic the negative charge of phosphorylated tyrosines, impairing T-cell activation and highlighting the importance of dynamic phosphorylation (18).

Table 1

Table 1. Interaction partners of the distinct signaling motifs as described for the αβ TCR-CD3 complex.

The TCR-CD3 complex contains ten ITAMs, with one ITAM on the cytoplasmic tails of CD3ϵ, CD3δ, and CD3γ, and three ITAMs on each ζ chain (14–16). ITAMs are not unique to the TCR; various receptors on hematopoietic cells, including the B-cell receptor (BCR), several Fc receptors, and certain NK-cell receptors signal through cytoplasmic ITAMs (14, 19). Interestingly, receptors that bind abundant or polyvalent antigens, such as the BCR, typically contain two to four ITAMs (20). In contrast, the αβ TCR, which demonstrates extremely high antigen sensitivity by showing transient calcium signaling to even a single agonist pMHC ligand (21, 22), contains a much larger number of ITAMs. This might suggest that the presence of multiple ITAMs in the TCR-CD3 complex contribute to signal amplification. Indeed, studies in murine models have shown that reducing the number of ITAMs below seven per TCR-CD3 complex impairs TCR function during central tolerance in the thymus, leading to autoimmune disorders (23). However, recent findings suggest that modified TCR-CD3 complexes with only four functional ITAMs are more responsive to weak antigens than their wild-type (WT) counterparts with ten ITAMs, reflecting the nuanced roles of ITAMs in modulating signal strength (24).

Moreover, the exact amino acid sequences of each ITAM within the TCR-CD3 complex differ (Figure 1), resulting in different phosphorylation efficiency by kinases such as LCK and in varied binding affinities to downstream signaling molecules. This diversity renders ITAMs functionally non-equivalent, with distinct qualitative contributions to TCR signaling (23, 25). Evidence for this functional diversity comes from studies in mice engineered to have a single ITAM sequence across all ten positions. These mice exhibit impaired thymocyte development, failing to transition effectively from double-negative (DN) to double-positive (DP) stages, due to reduced TCR expression and signaling (25).

Interestingly, ITAMs are not limited to signal activation; some also play regulatory roles. For instance, monophosphorylation of the CD3ϵ ITAM (ϵITAM) recruits the C-terminal Src kinase (CSK) (1), while monophosphorylated ITAMs of CD3δ (δITAM) and ζ (ζITAM) recruit the SH2-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase-1 (SHP1) (3, 24) (Table 1). Both are negative regulators of TCR signaling, highlighting the dual role of ITAM phosphorylation in balancing activation with feedback inhibition to regulate T-cell activation. Although our understanding of the qualitative and quantitative roles of individual ITAMs within the TCR-CD3 complex remains incomplete, current data emphasize the importance of ITAM multiplicity and diversity during T-cell development, signaling and tolerance (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Mutations in key signaling motif affect αβ thymocyte development at check-points where pre-TCR and TCR signaling are required. Loss-of-function mutations of the BRS, PRS or RK motif of CD3ϵ lead to a partial arrest at the DN3-DN4 and the DP-SP transition (2, 38, 45, 46). Similarly, engineering a single ITAM sequence (from either ϵ, δ, γ, ζ1, ζ2 or ζ3) across all ten ITAM positions leads to limited DN to DP transition in thymocytes (25).

The unique properties of individual ITAMs are likely influenced by their interaction with other motifs within the CD3 cytoplasmic tails. However, the lack of structural data limits our understanding of these interactions. Cryo-electron microscopy (Cryo-EM) studies of the TCR-CD3 complex have yet to resolve the cytoplasmic tails, due to their high flexibility. This flexibility may facilitate a range of molecular interactions but could also constrain or modulate specific signaling events. Further research into the three-dimensional organization and dynamics of these tails is essential to elucidate how their configurations shape TCR signaling.

Basic rich stretch

Basic-rich stretch (BRS) motifs are arginine and lysine-enriched amino-acid sequences that mediate electrostatic interactions with nearby negatively charged molecules, such as acidic lipids (26). These motifs are present in several transmembrane proteins, including FcϵRIγ, CD43, CD44, CD28, 4-1BB (CD137) and ICAM1/2 (27), as well as cytosolic proteins (28, 29). Within the TCR-CD3 complex, BRS motifs are found in the cytoplasmic tails of CD3ϵ and ζ (Figure 1).

The BRS of CD3ϵ (ϵBRS) is located in the juxtamembrane region of its cytoplasmic tail (30, 31) (Figure 1). This motif binds to different acidic phospholipids found in the plasma membrane and various cellular organelles, anchoring CD3ϵ to the membrane (31). The ζ chain, in contrast, contains three BRS motifs: two between ζITAM1 and ζITAM2, and one between ζITAM2 and ζITAM3 (ζBRS1-3) (32).

Landmark studies propose that BRS motifs sequester and protect ITAMs from phosphorylation in the absence of TCR-ligand engagement by binding to phospholipids in the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane (33–36). However, contrary to this protective role, mutations that disrupt the ability of either the εBRS or ζBRSs to interact with the plasma membrane unexpectedly lead to reduced TCR signaling (31, 37). This apparent paradox highlights the complexity of BRS functions. Mice lacking a functional ϵBRS exhibit impaired DN3-DN4 thymocyte transition and defective positive selection, underscoring the importance of the ϵBRS in TCR signaling during T-cell development (38) (Figure 2).

Beyond lipid interactions, the ϵBRS has also been reported to interact with signaling proteins, such as GRK2, CAST, LCK and p85 (1, 30, 39, 40) (Table 1). However, no protein-protein interactions involving the ζBRSs have been identified to date.

The mechanisms underlying BRS functions remain incompletely understood. Whether their role in TCR signaling depends primarily on lipid binding, protein interactions, or a combination of both is still unclear. Loss-of-function mutations in the ϵBRS, for example, reduce TCR surface levels in both developing and peripheral T cells and impair TCR localization to the immunological synapse (31). These findings suggest a role for the ϵBRS in synapse formation, endosomal recycling, and TCR degradation. However, the precise molecular mechanisms governing these processes require further investigation.

Proline rich sequence

The TCR contains a Proline rich sequence (PRS) within the CD3ϵ cytoplasmic tail (Figure 1), which recruits the adaptor protein NCK through its first Src-homology 3 (SH3.1) domain, facilitating efficient TCR signaling (41) (Table 1). This interaction also stabilizes the association between LCK and the TCR, further enhancing signal propagation (42). Additionally, the PRS serves as a binding site for other signaling molecules, including NUMB (43) and EPS8 (44), underscoring its multifunctional role in TCR signaling (Table 1).

Studies in PRS-knock-in mice (PxxP to AxxA) revealed significant impairments in T-cell development. Thymocytes exhibited a partial arrest at the DN3-DN4 transition, reduced efficiency in both positive and negative selection at the DP stage, and defects in maturation into CD4 single positive (SP) and CD8 SP thymocytes. All these observations support a role for the PRS at check points where effective pre-TCR and TCR signaling is required (45, 46) (Figure 2). Interesting, immature thymocytes in these mice displayed increased TCR surface levels, likely as a compensatory mechanism to the reduced signaling output per TCR molecule.

Furthermore, it was demonstrated that PRS mutations in CD3ϵ selectively affect in vitro T-cell responses to weak but not strong antigenic peptides (47). This finding aligns with studies showing that the absence of NCK impairs T-cell activation under weak antigenic stimulation (48). Together, these results highlight the PRS as a key regulator of TCR signaling, particularly in modulating responses to antigens of low strength.

Receptor kinase motif

A unique feature of the TCR is the receptor kinase (RK) motif, located within the ITAM of the CD3ϵ cytoplasmic tail (Figure 1). This motif, defined by the sequence RKxQRxxY, directly recruits the kinase LCK by interacting with its SH3 domain (2) (Table 1). Structural studies revealed that the RK motif binds to the RT loop and n-SRC loop of LCK’s SH3 domain. Notably, most RT loop residues are not conserved in related kinases, providing a potential explanation for the unique role of LCK in T-cell development and activation (49, 50).

The specificity of the SH3(LCK)-RK(CD3ϵ) interaction is underscored by the rarity of similar motifs. To date, only two similar motifs have been identified: one in the adaptor protein SKAP1 (RKxx(Y)xxY) (51) and another in Candida albicans (52). These findings highlight the exceptional role of the RK motif in mediating TCR-specific recruitment of LCK. Functional studies demonstrate that mutations of the RK motif reduce TCR signaling and T-cell activation and negatively affect thymocyte development (2) (Figure 2). These results establish the RK motif as a critical regulator of TCR signaling and highlight its essential role in coordinating proximal T-cell activation.

Additional motifs

The cytoplasmic tail of CD3ε contains an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) retention motif (NQRRI) that plays a crucial role in regulating the assembly and surface levels of the TCR (53). This motif ensures that only fully assembled TCR-CD3 complexes are transported to the plasma membrane. Mutations in the ER retention sequence allow the surface expression of incomplete αβγϵ and αβδϵ complexes that lack the ζ chains, highlighting its critical quality-control function (54).

CD3γ holds a membrane proximal di-leucine motif involved in TCR downregulation after phosphorylation of the serine residue five amino acids prior by protein kinase C (PKC) (55, 56). This motif has been shown to be important for controlling T-cell homeostasis and the response to virus infections (57, 58). CD3δ also contains a di-leucine motif, which is however missing the precedent serine residue and is therefore currently being considered nonfunctional.

The diversity of motifs within the CD3 subunits highlights their specialized contributions to the TCR function. CD3ϵ stands out as being particularly enriched in signaling and regulatory motifs – including the BRS, PRS, RK, ITAM, and ER retention motif – suggesting a central role in both assembly and signal integration. In contrast, ζ, CD3γ and CD3δ seem to exhibit more singular functions: signal amplification (ζ), downregulating the TCR through the di-leucine motif (CD3γ) or by recruiting the negative regulator SHP1 (CD3δ and ζ). The reasons behind this asymmetry in motif distribution remain an open question. It is possible that evolutionary pressures have tailored CD3ϵ to act as a multifunctional hub, while ζ, CD3γ and CD3δ play more ancillary roles. Future studies focusing on the distinct contributions of these subunits may reveal new layers of complexity in TCR regulation.

Mechanisms of αβ TCR signal transduction

The precise mechanisms by which the TCR transmits signals upon ligand-engagement remain an area of active investigation and debate. Several models haven been proposed to explain this critical process (reviewed in (59–61)). Some models suggest intrinsic mechanisms within the TCR itself, such as conformational changes, mechanical force, or aggregation, as drivers of signaling. Others portray the TCR as a passive receptor, with activation controlled by tipping the balance between kinases and phosphatases near the engaged receptor, a concept known as kinetic segregation.

As with many other transmembrane receptors, cumulative evidence supports that the TCR functions as an allosteric receptor, cycling between various conformational states that dictate whether signaling cascades are initiated (62, 63). Upon binding to pMHC, the αβ TCR-CD3 complex transitions from its resting, unengaged state into an active state (ligand-engaged TCR; Figure 3). This engagement induces further conformational shifts, allowing the receptor to adopt phosphorylated states that were inaccessible before ligand binding. These sequential changes enable the TCR to initiate and propagate intracellular signaling with remarkable specificity and sensitivity.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Step-wise proposed model for TCR activation. 1. Unengaged and resting TCR in a closed and compacted conformation. The cytoplasmic tails of CD3ϵ and ζ are sequestered in the inner leaflet of the membrane through the BRS motifs and cholesterol (Chol) locks the TCR in an inactive conformation. CD45 freely diffuses in the membrane, dephosphorylating and preventing spurious activation. 2. Ligand-bound, un-phosphorylated TCR in an open conformation (primed TCR), the CD3 signaling motifs are exposed to recruit the adaptor protein NCK to the PRS motif (purple) as well as LCK to the RK motif (blue) and the BRS (yellow) of CD3ϵ. 3. Active, phosphorylated TCR recruits ZAP70 to the double-phosphorylated ITAMs (red) to mediate downstream signaling pathways. At which state the co-receptors CD8 or CD4, which are associated to LCK, are recruited to the TCR-pMHC complex is still unclear (see below).

Un-engaged TCR

In the absence of ligand binding, the αβ TCR-CD3 complex exists in a compact, resting conformation (Figure 3). Cryo-EM studies using nanodiscs aiming to mimic native lipid environments reveal that the TCRαβ ectodomains are tightly associated with the CD3 ectodomains and the transmembrane and juxtamembrane regions remain compacted, preserving the TCR in a closed conformation (64). This finding aligns with independent molecular dynamics simulations (65). It however contrasts with cryo-EM studies conducted in detergent environments, where this compact conformation was not observed (66–69), plausibly because detergents disrupt crucial lipid-TCR interactions. These interactions are essential for maintaining the receptor’s membrane dynamics and are insufficiently mimicked by detergents.

The importance of lipid interactions for TCR function is supported by both computational and experimental evidence. In silico molecular dynamics simulations suggest that TCR-lipid interactions stabilize the receptor’s resting state (70), while experimental studies using biophotonic approaches demonstrate that dephosphorylation of phosphoinositides in the plasma membrane releases the CD3ϵ cytoplasmic tail, enhancing its accessibility to LCK and facilitating signaling (71). Further evidence for the important roles of lipids for TCR functions was suggested by a study showing that cholesterol plays a key role in stabilizing the TCR’s resting state by interacting with the TCRβ transmembrane (TM) region (59, 72). This interaction is key in suppressing phosphorylation of the ζITAMs (73). In line with this, recent structural studies have identified two cholesterol molecules embedded within the TM regions of the TCR-CD3 complex (64, 67), further underscoring the importance of lipid interactions for the TCR.

Additional lipid interactions help guard the resting TCR state. For example, the BRS motifs in the CD3ϵ and ζ cytoplasmic tails bind the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane, shielding the ITAMs from premature phosphorylation and regulating their availability for downstream signaling (34, 35, 70, 71). These interactions provide a compelling regulatory mechanism, ensuring the TCR remains inactive in resting T cells. Interestingly, while some basal phosphorylation of the ζ chain can be detected in non-stimulated cells, the εITAMs appear to be fully protected from phosphorylation (35, 74). This differential “tonic” phosphorylation may be explained by the fact that the CD3ϵ cytoplasmic domain has a higher affinity for lipids than the ζ cytoplasmic domain (27). Thereby, specific tyrosines in ζ could become transiently accessible to kinases in a subset of resting TCRs (35). This basal phosphorylation of ζ is largely mediated by LCK (75).

Ligand-engaged TCR

Cumulative evidence support that the αβ TCR-CD3 complex undergoes conformational changes upon binding to activating pMHC (64, 76–78). This structural transition results in the exposure of critical motifs within the CD3 cytoplasmic tails, allowing the simultaneous recruitment of multiple signaling proteins (2, 37, 41, 59, 62, 72, 79, 80) (Figure 3). It has been proposed that mechanical forces generated during the TCR-pMHC binding induce the formation of so-called catch bonds that stabilize the interaction between the TCR and agonistic pMHC, prolonging signaling (81, 82).

Although, the key role of LCK in TCR phosphorylation is broadly accepted, the mechanism of LCK recruitment to the ligand-engaged but unphosphorylated TCR remains an active area of study. As LCK is the only SFK member associated with CD4 and CD8 co-receptors, the intuitive model proposes that LCK is recruited to TCR-pMHC class I and TCR-pMHC class II via CD8 and CD4, respectively (83). However, T-cell signaling can be induced in a co-receptor-independent manner, suggesting the existence of additional mechanisms of LCK docking at the TCR-CD3 complex.

Indeed, it has been shown that the RK motif within CD3ϵ recruits LCK via its SH3 domain to the ligand-engaged TCR (2). The ϵBRS motif further enhances this process by binding LCK’s unique domain, increasing the local concentration of LCK at the TCR (1). With each TCR-CD3 complex containing two CD3ϵ chains, the recruitment of two LCK molecules may promote trans-phosphorylation, further accelerating TCR activation. However, experimental evidence supporting this hypothesis is still lacking. Not all ITAM tyrosines are equally phosphorylated, and phosphorylation of individual tyrosines has distinct functional consequences (1). For example, phosphorylation of the first tyrosine in the ϵITAM stabilizes the LCK-CD3ϵ interaction, while phosphorylation at the second tyrosine disrupts it (18). The PRS motif within CD3ϵ also contributes to LCK recruitment by binding the adaptor protein NCK, which in turn stabilizes LCK localization at the TCR (41, 42, 47, 84, 85). NCK localization at the TCR is further stabilized when the NCK SH2 domain binds to the phosphorylated second tyrosine of CD3ϵ (86), while phosphorylation of the first CD3ϵ tyrosine disrupts NCK binding (44, 86). In addition, LCK interacts with phosphotyrosine motifs in the TCR-CD3-ZAP70 complex via its SH2 domain to further amplify the signaling (87–89). The importance of the LCK SH2 domain is highlighted by the observation that LCK with mutated SH2 does not trigger TCR signaling in Jurkat cells (90).

Together, these findings suggest that multiprotein interactions, which are highly dynamic and precisely regulated, control LCK concentration nearby the TCR upon ligand binding.

Meanwhile, large membrane proteins such as the phosphatases CD45 and CD148 are excluded from the close-contact zones of TCR-pMHC contact. This steric exclusion prevents premature dephosphorylation, ensuring efficient propagation of the TCR signal (61, 91–94).

Phosphorylated TCR and downstream signaling

Dual phosphorylation of the ITAMs by LCK creates high-affinity docking sites for the SH2 domains of ZAP70 (19, 95–97) (Figure 3). ZAP70’s binding follows a hierarchical pattern, with the highest affinity for the membrane-proximal ζITAM1, δITAM and γITAM (15), followed by the additional ITAMs of ζ (ζITAM2/3) and the lowest affinity for ϵITAM (97–99). Upon binding to dually phosphorylated ITAMs, ZAP70 undergoes a conformational change that repositions its SH2 domains and relieves autoinhibitory interactions within its linker region (100). This structural rearrangement primes ZAP70 for phosphorylation by LCK, fully activating ZAP70’s kinase activity (96, 97).

Once activated, ZAP70 phosphorylates the key scaffolding proteins LAT and SLP76 (101), creating platforms for recruiting additional signaling molecules necessary for downstream signal propagation (6, 102, 103). The efficiency of signal propagation depends on the stability of the TCR-pMHC interaction: a half-life long enough to sustain ITAM phosphorylation by ZAP70 is crucial for engaging downstream pathways, ultimately leading to T-cell activation, proliferation, and differentiation (104, 105).

These proximal signaling events do not occur in isolation, but rather within the specialized microenvironment of the immunological synapse. Upon TCR engagement, local calcium (Ca²⁺) concentrations surge due to the co-localization of TCRs and CRAC channels. Ca²⁺ can directly bind to lipid phosphate groups, neutralizing their charge and disrupting ionic interactions with the ϵBRS and ζBRSs. This disruption further exposes ITAM tyrosines for phosphorylation and enhances signal amplification (106). This Ca²⁺-dependent mechanism may allow bystander TCRs, not directly engaged with antigen, to become activated as well. Although monomeric pMHC alone might be sufficient to initiate proximal TCR signaling events (21, 107–109), TCR clustering within the synapse significantly enhances signal transduction by concentrating ITAMs, kinases, and other signaling molecules in close proximity (110, 111), ensuring effective downstream signal propagation.

Role of LCK in TCR signal initiation

The conformational change model provides insights into how TCR engagement with its cognate pMHC leads to the exposure of the ITAMs as substrates for tyrosine phosphorylation. SFKs, a group of non-receptor tyrosine kinases, play a pivotal role in this process. These kinases can be divided into two subgroups: SRC-A and SRC-B. Among them, LCK, a member of the SRC-B group, is the predominant SFK in T cells. FYN, an SRC-A member, can partially rescue LCK deficiency in T cells. Both LCK and FYN are myristoylated and palmitoylated, which mediates their association with the inner membrane leaflet (6). While FYN contributes to TCR signaling, its role is less prominent than LCK for ITAM phosphorylation (112, 113). The role of FYN is mostly highlighted in LCK-deficient mice, where it facilities residual TCR signaling during thymic development and partially rescues the formation of mature T cells (49, 50). Interestingly, FYN has been proposed as a potential negative regulator of TCR signaling, acting through phosphorylation of CSK-binding protein (CBP, also known as PAG) (114). Additionally, FYN has been reported to trigger cytoskeletal rearrangements following TCR triggering (115). Further experimental effort is needed to comprehend the overlapping and unique roles of LCK and FYN in T cells. In this review, we will further focus on LCK, which is the major SFK in TCR signal initiation.

The regulation of LCK

LCK activity is highly regulated by maintaining a balance between its active and auto-inhibited states. Two key tyrosine residues control this balance: the activating tyrosine in the catalytic domain (Y394 in humans), which must be phosphorylated for full kinase activity, and the inhibitory tyrosine in the C-terminal domain (Y505 in humans). Phosphorylation of Y505 facilitates an intramolecular bond with the SH2 domain, locking LCK in a closed, inactive conformation (116, 117).

The equilibrium between these active and inactive states is highly dynamic and regulated by a network of phosphatases and kinases, including the tyrosine kinase CSK, which phosphorylates Y505 (118), the membrane-bound protein tyrosine phosphatases CD45 and CD148 (75, 119, 120), as well as cytosolic phosphatases such as PTPN6 (SHP1) (121), PTPN22 (122), and the PEST domain-enriched tyrosine phosphatase (PEP) (123, 124). Furthermore, it has been recently proposed that LCK binds to the homodimeric receptor CD146, a cell-adhesion molecule, which leads to LCK’s trans-autophosphorylation and activation (125). Together, these regulatory mechanisms ensure that LCK activity, and consequently TCR phosphorylation, remains tightly controlled in the absence of ligand engagement, preventing unwanted activation.

However, it is unclear how TCR engagement would mechanistically instruct LCK’s catalytic activity beyond the recruitment of active LCK molecules close to the TCR. A substantial proportion of LCK is constitutively active in resting T cells (126–128). Some of this active LCK is located near the TCR, even in the receptor’s resting state, poised for immediate engagement when the TCR transitions to its prime state (Figure 3) (2). Whether TCR triggering increases the pool of active LCK and what the mechanism and kinetics would be is still a subject of debate (126, 129–131). A straightforward explanation, pending experimental confirmation, is that this pre-activated LCK directly phosphorylates the ligand-bound TCR without requiring further activation of additional LCK molecules. Such a mechanism would enable the rapid initiation of TCR signaling.

Co-receptor bound LCK is not essential for TCR signaling

LCK exists either as a free pool or in association with the co-receptors CD4 or CD8 (5, 132). As LCK is the dominant SFK in T-cell activation, and the only family member capable of interacting with the co-receptor CD4 and CD8, an intuitive model of TCR signaling postulated that CD4 or CD8 deliver LCK to the TCR-pMHC complex, serving as the primary trigger of TCR signaling (133).

However, this paradigm has evolved with evidence showing TCR signaling can occur independently of co-receptor engagement. Experiments using anti-CD3 antibodies, CARs, or MHC class I mutants with a 10-fold weaker CD8-affinity than WT (134), demonstrate that TCR signaling does not strictly require co-receptor interaction. Additionally, unconventional T cells, which recognize non-MHC antigens, naturally bypass co-receptor involvement. Collectively, these findings reveal that co-receptor aggregation of the TCR is not an essential mechanism for TCR signal initiation (Figure 4). While co-receptor-bound LCK is not strictly required for TCR triggering, it plays a significant role in enhancing the sensitivity of TCR signaling, especially in response to antigens with suboptimal affinity (135–138). Recent insights into the physiological roles of CD4-LCK and CD8-LCK were addressed in a landmark study using knock-in mice expressing a LCK CA mutant (C20A and C23A), which does not interact with CD4 or CD8 (137). Although these mice showed reduced positive selection, their phenotype was relatively mild especially in terms of cytotoxic responses to viral infections and tumors.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Different pools of LCK and their potential characteristics. Depicted is free LCK, CD4-associated LCK and CD8-associated LCK and their main contributions to αβ TCR-CD3 signal transduction.

In sharp contrast, LCK-deficient or kinase-dead LCK models exhibit severe impairments (49, 137, 139–141). This suggests that free LCK can largely compensate for the loss of co-receptor-associated LCK in vivo (137).

CD4-LCK: Co-receptor stabilization and fine-tuning of TCR signaling

LCK associates with CD4 through a zinc clasp formed by cysteine-rich motifs in the CD4 cytoplasmic tail and the N-terminal part of LCK (5, 132, 142). A large proportion of CD4 molecules are coupled with LCK in developing DP thymocytes (136), with a modest increase in CD4-LCK coupling observed during CD4⁺ T-cell maturation (143). This is likely due to the higher affinity of LCK for CD4 compared to CD8 (132) and the expression of a truncated CD8 isoform unable to bind LCK (144), leading to preferential sequestration of LCK to CD4 in the DP stage (145). Estimates from co-immunoprecipitation studies suggest that between 36% and 80% of CD4 is bound to LCK in primary murine CD4⁺ T cells from lymph nodes (143, 146). Given the relatively weak co-receptor-LCK interaction and possible artifacts upon cells lysis with detergents, methods that do not require cell lysis, such as in situ proximity ligation assays (PLA) or quantitative single-molecule microscopy may provide more accurate occupancy measurements.

Genetic disruption of the CD4-LCK interaction reduces CD4⁺ SP thymocyte numbers and impairs helper T-cell functions. However, some CD4⁺ T-cell functions can be rescued by kinase-dead CD4-bound LCK, suggesting a kinase-independent role for CD4-LCK in stabilizing CD4 localization at the plasma membrane (137). Similarly, chimeras formed by CD4 fused to kinase-deleted LCK were shown to be more efficient at supporting full activation of a CD4-dependent T-cell hybridoma than the full-length LCK chimeric fusion protein (147). This kinase-independent stabilization of CD4 by LCK is essential for regulating the surface levels and trafficking of CD4 in primary T cells, as previously demonstrated in transgenic non-lymphoid cell lines (148, 149). This suggests that CD4 has LCK-independent or at least kinase-independent roles in T-cell development and signaling.

While CD4-bound LCK is not strictly required for TCR signaling, it enhances signal transduction (136, 150), fine-tunes antigen sensitivity (137), and stabilizes CD4 at the cell surface (137, 148, 149). This underscores the modulatory role of co-receptor-associated LCK in antigen sensitivity and signal amplification.

CD8-LCK: TCR-pMHC stabilization and modulation of cytotoxic T-cell response

LCK associates with CD8 in a manner similar to CD4, though CD8 and CD4 differ structurally and functionally. CD8 exists in two isoforms, CD8α and CD8β, which form homo- or heterodimers. Conventional CD8⁺ αβ T cells express the CD8αβ heterodimer, while γδ T cells and NK cells primarily express the CD8αα homodimer (151). LCK associates with the CD8α subunit (152). Despite the potential for CD8αα to bind two LCK molecules, CD8β enhances the interaction between LCK and CD8α, raising questions about how much LCK associates with CD8αα homodimers (153).

In DP thymocytes, CD8-bound LCK is less abundant compared to CD4-bound LCK (136). However, during T-cell maturation, the proportion of CD8-bound LCK increases, correlating with enhanced homeostatic responses to self-antigens in mature CD8⁺ T cells (136, 143).

Although CD8-LCK is essential for fine-tuning cytotoxic T-cell responses to weak antigens in a kinase-dependent manner, CD8-bound LCK appears largely dispensable for the in vivo development of cytotoxic T cells and anti-viral/anti-tumor responses (137). However, supraphysiological CD8-LCK stoichiometry, in T cells expressing a chimeric CD8.4 co-receptor, consisting of the extracellular CD8α domain and the intracellular LCK-binding CD4 part, has relatively strong effects on enhancing the positive selection of very weakly self-reactive thymocytes (154), decreasing antigen affinity threshold for negative selection (136), and inducing antigen-independent memory-like T cells (also known as virtual memory T cells) (155). This suggests that the relatively minor role of the CD8-LCK interaction in vivo might be, at least partially, caused by the relatively low CD8-LCK stoichiometry, which makes free LCK dominant even in WT CD8⁺ T cells.

Implications for thymic selection and MHC restriction

LCK delivered to the TCR by CD4 or CD8 during thymic selection was proposed to impose MHC restriction on the developing αβ TCR repertoire (156). Supporting this theory, TCRs in mice lacking both, co-receptors and MHC (quad-deficient mice), develop non-pMHC-specificities resembling those of antibodies (145, 157) and are enriched for CD1d-restricted iNKT receptors (137). However, the co-receptor-LCK interaction is not strictly required for MHC restriction, as TCR transgenic monoclonal MHC class I- or II-restricted thymocytes develop normally in the LCK CA mice (137). Given the prominent role of CD8 and CD4 co-receptors in the lineage commitment, these observations reveal LCK-independent roles of the co-receptors in T-cell triggering, probably by stabilizing the pMHC-engaged TCR (158, 159). Although a role of CD4 in TCR-pMHCII stabilization has been strongly questioned based on its low affinity to isolated pMHCII complexes (150), recent evidence shows that the CD4-pMHCII affinity increases substantially when the pMHC is engaged by a cognate TCR (160).

Interplay between free LCK and co-receptor-bound LCK in TCR signal initiation

The role of free LCK versus co-receptor-bound LCK in TCR signaling has been a subject of significant interest. Current evidence suggests that free LCK is more efficient than CD8-bound LCK in initiating ITAM phosphorylation (161) and that CD8-bound LCK is recruited only later, stabilizing the whole TCR-pMHCI-CD8-LCK complex (158, 161). This model is supported by studies showing that free LCK moves faster and is more associated with the TCR at the steady-state in thymocytes than co-receptor-bound LCK (128). These findings indicate that free LCK may be particularly critical for triggering the ligand-engaged TCR in contexts where co-receptors do not interact with the ligand, such as during antibody stimulation, in CAR T cells, or in unconventional T cells that recognize non-MHC antigens. Mathematical modeling further emphasizes the role of co-receptor-bound LCK in signal amplification rather than signal initiation. Recruitment of CD4-LCK enhances TCR phosphorylation threefold compared to free LCK alone. However, when recruited to a pre-phosphorylated TCR, this effect is amplified 30- to 40-fold, additionally suggesting that co-receptors may act to boost signaling after the initial trigger has been established (162).

As mentioned above, co-receptor-bound LCK is crucial for signaling triggered by low-affinity ligands. These ligands bind shortly to the TCR and may require additional mechanisms to recruit sufficient LCK to complete all phosphorylation steps before the ligand dissociates. The kinetic proofreading model highlights the need for all proximal signaling steps to occur within the limited duration of the TCR-pMHC interaction to enable downstream signaling (104, 105, 135, 163–165). The cooperative engagement of free and co-receptor-bound LCK may reduce the time required for LCK to access and phosphorylate the ITAMs. This is supported by studies in compound heterozygous mice expressing the LCK CA mutant, which is unable to bind CD8 (free LCK only) and a kinase-dead LCK mutant bound to CD8. These mice exhibit weaker responses to suboptimal antigens than homozygous LCK WT or even LCK CA mice (137), suggesting that the kinase activity of CD8-LCK facilitates TCR signaling when the duration of the TCR-pMHC bond is the limiting factor.

During T-cell development, CD4 and CD8 co-receptors are highly expressed in DP thymocytes, ensuring preferential selection of TCRs recognizing MHC antigens and enabling discrimination between self and non-self MHC molecules. These high co-receptor levels reduce the availability of free LCK for TCRs that recognize non-MHC ligands, preventing the positive selection of DP thymocytes bearing such TCRs (166) and lowering the relative abundance of positively selected iNKT cells (137). In contrast to DP cells, SP thymocytes and mature T cells express only one co-receptor that matches the MHC-restriction of their TCR. In these cells, it is still not clear whether and how the roles of free LCK and co-receptor-bound LCK differ. Studies show that LCK-deficient primary T cells expressing only the LCK CA mutant, which cannot bind co-receptors, exhibit weaker ζ-chain phosphorylation than cells expressing WT LCK, suggesting that both free and co-receptor-bound LCK pools are critical for robust TCR-CD3 signal transduction (161).

Despite substantial advances, key aspects of free versus co-receptor-bound LCK remain unresolved. Open questions include the precise stoichiometry of CD8- and CD4-bound LCK specially in mature conventional T cells (136, 143, 167), potential differences in the kinase activities of free versus co-receptor-bound LCK (128, 168), and whether these pools perform distinct mechanistic roles during TCR signal initiation (137, 161). The balance between free and co-receptor-bound LCK reflects a finely tuned mechanism that ensures both sensitivity and efficiency in TCR signaling. Relative contributions of these LCK pools may depend on factors such as LCK and co-receptor expression levels, the proportion of LCK coupled to the co-receptors, ligand affinity, and the presence of phosphatases. Understanding this balance is critical for comprehending TCR signaling dynamics and could provide insights into therapeutic strategies for modulate immune responses in cancer immunotherapy and other immunomodulatory contexts.

Mechanism of γδ TCR signaling initiation

γδ T cells represent a unique subset of T lymphocytes, characterized by their expression of the γδ TCR, which is formed from diverse TCRγ (e.g., human Vγ2-5/7/8/11; mouse Vγ1-7) and TCRδ chains (e.g., human Vδ1-3/5; mouse Vδ1/2/4-6) (169). Although they make up only 0.5–5% of the peripheral blood T-cell population, γδ T cells are more abundant in peripheral tissues, where they play essential roles in immune surveillance and early responses to infections and tumors (170, 171).

In contrast to αβ T cells, which are restricted to recognizing pMHC complexes, γδ TCRs are capable of recognizing a broad range of antigens independently of MHC presentation (172–174). These antigens include phospho-antigens, lipids, and stress-induced molecules expressed by infected or cancerous cells (7, 175). This ability to engage non-peptide antigens without MHC involvement suggests that γδ TCRs initiate signaling through mechanisms that are distinct from those of αβ T cells, likely involving specialized kinases and signaling pathways. The following sections will examine these unique signaling mechanisms of γδ T cells, highlighting how they differ from the signal initiation seen in αβ T cells.

Structure of the γδ TCR-CD3 complex

Similar to αβ TCRs, γδ TCRs assemble with the CD3 signaling complex. In humans, this includes CD3ϵγ, CD3ϵδ, and ζζ dimers, while in mice, the complex features two CD3ϵγ dimers and ζζ (176). Structural and functional differences between human and mouse γδ T cells complicate direct translation of findings between species.

Key structural differences between αβ and γδ TCRs lie in their constant regions and connecting peptides, which influence receptor assembly, surface orientation, and charge distribution (177, 178). For example, the extracellular domains of γδ TCRs exhibit greater conformational flexibility compared to αβ TCRs (179, 180). This increased flexibility may enable γδ T cells to recognize a wider range of ligands with varying sizes and structures. A recent cryo-EM study uncovered variability in γδ TCR assembly based on the Vγ chain usage (179) (Figure 5). For instance, the Vγ9Vδ2 TCR appears monomeric and exhibits substantial conformational flexibility in its γδ TCR ectodomains and connecting peptides, resembling the dynamics of Fabs (fragment antigen-binding) regions and hinge linkers of membrane-bound Igs. FLIM-FRET analysis further supports this, showing that other γδ TCRs, such as Vγ4Vδ1, Vγ8Vδ3, and Vγ3Vδ1, also exist as monomers (179). In contrast, the Vγ5Vδ1 TCR forms a dimeric structure, which is crucial for its activation, and FLIM-FRET analysis indicates that Vγ2Vδ1 TCRs also assemble as dimers (179) (Table 2). These structural differences underscore the unique assembly mechanisms and flexibility of γδ TCRs compared to the more rigid αβ TCR complexes (Figure 5). While cryo-EM studies have provided valuable insights into γδ TCR assembly (179, 180), future studies employing native-like nanodiscs instead of detergent environments could further illuminate the diverse conformations of γδ TCRs. Although these structural variations suggest that the mechanisms of TCR activation may not be fully conserved between αβ and γδ TCRs, some parallels might exist. For instance, cholesterol has been shown to restrain signaling in both Vγ9Vδ2 and Vγ5Vδ1 TCRs, possibly by altering the conformation of the ζ chains (179). This suggests that certain regulatory processes may be shared between αβ and γδ TCRs, by conservation of key residues across TCR subtypes and species. The following sections will further explore both shared and unique mechanisms of activation between αβ TCRs and γδ TCRs.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Assembly of human αβ and γδ TCR-CD3 complexes. The αβ TCR-CD3 complex is tightly assembled, with the ectodomains of the TCRα and TCRβ chains closely packed against the ectodomains of CD3ε, CD3γ, and CD3δ. The Vγ9Vδ2 TCR, although maintaining the same stoichiometry as the αβ TCR-CD3 complex, exhibits notable conformational flexibility in its TCRγδ ectodomains and connecting peptides, akin to the dynamic behavior observed in Fabs and hinge regions of membrane-bound immunoglobulins. Evidence supports that Vγ4Vδ1, Vγ8Vδ3, and Vγ3Vδ1 TCRs also assemble as monomers (179, 180). In contrast, the Vγ5Vδ1 and Vγ2Vδ1 TCR assemble as dimers (179).

Table 2

Table 2. Summary of current knowledge on γδ T-cell subsets.

Conformational states of the γδ TCR

In αβ T cells, the binding of pMHC induces the stabilization of TCR conformational states exposing the signaling motifs within the CD3 complex. Mice with mutations in the CD3ϵ stalk region (ϵC80G), which prevents the exposure of the PRS motif upon αβ TCR engagement (181), demonstrate that this transition is essential for αβ T-cell development. Whether this mutation solely prevents PRS exposure or also impairs the switch of the αβ TCR to its active state is to date unknown. Interestingly, this mutation differentially affects γδ T-cell subsets, suggesting that γδ TCRs may not represent a single, uniform receptor, but rather a collection of receptors, each with distinct activation mechanisms (Table 2). For instance, Vγ1⁺, Vγ7⁺ and Vγ5⁺ (non-dentritic epidermal T cells (DETC)) γδ T cells develop normally in ϵC80G mice, while Vγ4⁺ and Vγ5⁺ (DETC) subsets are reduced (181). Additional evidence for this diversity among γδ TCRs comes from a study showing that the human Vγ9Vδ2 TCR, expressed in a Jurkat cell line, does not expose the PRS upon stimulation with its endogenous ligand (182), which was also true for the T22-specific murine G8 (Vγ4⁺) and KN6 γδ TCR (182, 183). Together, these findings highlighting the heterogeneous nature of γδ TCRs and their distinct activation mechanisms.

Proximal γδ TCR-CD3 signal transduction

γδ TCR signaling is also initiated by the phosphorylation of CD3 ITAMs, likely mediated by SFKs. Inhibition of CSK, a negative regulator of SFKs, enhances ERK phosphorylation in γδ T cells, underscoring the importance of SFKs in γδ TCR signaling (184). Unlike αβ TCR signaling, which predominantly relies on LCK, evidence suggests that different γδ T cell subsets may rely on distinct SFKs.

γδ T cells express significantly lower levels of LCK compared to αβ T cells (185). Moreover, γδ T cells are present in LCK-deficient mice, which lack αβ T cells, indicating that LCK is not essential for all γδ T-cell subsets (186). Supporting this, patients with loss-of-function mutations in LCK exhibit a drastic reduction in αβ T cells, yet a relative increase in γδ T cells, suggesting that certain γδ T-cell populations are LCK-independent (187, 188). Notably, in one patient, Vδ1⁺ γδ T cells accumulated, whereas Vδ2⁺ γδ T cells were reduced, indicating that Vδ2⁺, but not Vδ1⁺, γδ T cells may depend more on LCK (188).

In mice, IL-17-producing Vγ6⁺ and Vγ4⁺ γδ T cells lack LCK expression and can function without it, consistent with earlier findings that LCK is dispensable for the development of these subsets (189–191). In contrast, Vγ3⁺ T-cell development is severely impaired in Lck^-/-, Lck/Fyn^-/- and Cd45^-/- mice (49, 192) and murine CD27⁺ γδ thymocytes, which are primed to differentiate into IFNγ-producing γδ T cells, exhibit high LCK expression (190). Global gene expression analyses reveal that the B cell-specific lymphoid kinase (BLK) is expressed in murine γδ T cells but not in αβ T cells, mediating the development of Vγ6⁺ IL-17-producing γδ T cells (193, 194), indicating that other SFKs beyond LCK may play a role in γδ TCR signaling.

γδ TCR signaling strength has been linked to distinct effector fates in mice. Strong γδ TCR signaling promotes the differentiation of IFNγ-producing subsets, predominantly Vγ1⁺, Vγ5⁺, and Vγ7⁺ γδ T cells (195, 196), which likely depend on LCK. In contrast, weaker γδ TCR signaling favors the development of IL-17-producing subsets (majority of Vγ4⁺ and Vγ6⁺ γδ T cells) (195, 196), which may rely on alternative SFKs like BLK.

How SFKs are recruited to the γδ TCR presents an intriguing question, especially since most γδ T cells do not express the co-receptors CD4 or CD8 and recognize their ligands without the participation of CD4 or CD8. This suggests that alternative mechanisms, potentially involving CD3 cytoplasmic motifs such as the BRS or RK motif, facilitate the SFK recruitment. If these motifs are functional in γδ T-cell subsets needs to be addressed in the future. While ZAP70 is essential for αβ T-cell development, some γδ T cells persist in ZAP70-deficient mice, suggesting that ZAP70 is not universally required for all γδ subsets (197). Consistent with this, studies using Zap70^-/-, Sykb^-/-, and Zap70/Sykb^-/- double KO mice show that SYK is required for the generation of neonatal Vγ1⁺ and Vγ4⁺ γδ T cells, while Vγ5⁺ cells rely on either ZAP70 or SYK, and Vγ6⁺ cells depend on both (198). Given that SYK activation is less dependent than ZAP70 on SFKs (199, 200), it is likely that LCK-dependent γδ T-cell subsets preferentially use ZAP70, whereas SYK-dependent subsets do not rely on LCK. However, the γδ T cells existing in the different models do not fully support this (oversimplifying) idea (Table 2) and further investigation is needed.

It has been proposed that γδ TCR signal initiation by nonclassical MHC class 1b antigens requires the exclusion of phosphatases (CD45) from the vicinity of the TCR, as consequence of cell-cell close contact zones (183). This adds to the idea that tipping the equilibrium between kinases and phosphatases in the vicinity of the engaged-TCR aids to activation. Whether this is the case for all γδ TCRs and all γδ T-cell subsets needs to be elucidated.

Understanding the interplay between the different SFKs and γδ TCR downstream signaling pathways will be essential for fully elucidating the molecular mechanisms governing γδ T-cell function and their potential therapeutic applications.

γδ T cells in cancer

The role of γδ T cells in tumor surveillance is well-established. Studies in mice have shown that the absence of γδ TCRs increases susceptibility to certain cancers (201). In humans, the presence of γδ T cells is the most favorable survival predictor across 25 malignancies and most solid tumors (202). Their presence at tumor sites correlates with improved clinical outcomes in colorectal, gastric, and head and neck cancers (203–205). However, the role of human γδ T cells in cancer appears to be influenced by their subset-specific characteristics. Vδ1⁺ T cells, predominantly found in tissues, form diverse subsets by pairing with various Vγ chains. While some Vδ1⁺ T cells recognize glycolipids presented by CD1c and CD1d molecules (206, 207), the specific TCR antigens for most Vδ1⁺ T cells remain unknown. These cells exhibit potent anti-tumor activity in colorectal cancer, multiple myeloma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (208–210). However, they can also exert immunosuppressive effects (211–213). In contrast, the human Vδ2⁺ subset exclusively pairs with the Vγ9 chain to form Vγ9Vδ2 T cells, the predominant γδ T-cell population in peripheral blood. These cells recognize phosphoantigens derived from pathogens or tumor cells (214) and have been extensively studied in clinical settings due to their strong anti-tumor activity (215–220). The roles of human Vδ3⁺ and Vδ5⁺ γδ T cells in cancer remain less characterized (171, 221–224).

Emerging therapeutic strategies aim to leverage the unique properties of γδ T cells. These include the development of bispecific cell engagers, adoptive transfer of expanded Vδ1⁺ or Vδ2⁺ T-cell populations, and genetic engineering approaches such as CAR γδ T cells or αβ T cells engineered to express specific γδ TCRs (225). Recent clinical trials exploring γδ T cells in cancer immunotherapy have shown promising, but still modest, results emphasizing their potential as a tool in cancer treatment (171, 213, 226).

To fully harness the therapeutic potential of γδ T cells, a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying γδ TCR signaling is essential. In particular, the proximal signaling steps leading to γδ T-cell activation require further investigation. The following sections will examine how insights into proximal αβ TCR signaling events have driven the development of novel therapeutic approaches (4), providing a framework to inspire innovations in γδ T cell-based therapies.

Harnessing the TCR signaling potential for cancer immunotherapy

Discoveries in TCR signaling have the potential to profoundly influence the design of CARs and TCR-like chimeric receptors, advancing their effectiveness in cancer immunotherapy. To date, the approaches to improve T-cell activation and anti-tumor activity can be broadly categorized into three main strategies: (1) incorporating specific signaling motifs from CD3 chains into CAR designs, (2) using proximal kinases at part of a CAR construct, and (3) leveraging the complete TCR complex to optimize its signaling potential, including structural regulation and the diverse functions of the CD3 cytoplasmic domains (4) (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Harnessing proximal TCR-CD3 signaling mechanisms to improve cancer immunotherapy. Depicted are chimeric receptor constructs which in pre-clinical models have shown potent anti-tumor efficacy. Three strategies have been followed to improve FDA-approved second generation CARs containing a co-stimulatory domain derived from 4-1BB or CD28 and a signaling domain derived from the ζ chain: (1) Reducing ζITAMs (1XX), incorporating CD3ϵ in addition to ζ, or exchanging the ζ chain for CD3ϵ, CD3δ or CD3γ. (2) Using the kinase domain (KD) of ZAP70 alone or in combination with a co-stimulatory domain from CD28, and (3) generating TCR-like chimeric receptors to harness the complete CD3 complex with all its motif for signal transduction. The εTRuC where a single chain variable Fragment (scFv) is fused to the CD3ε ectodomain, the AbTCR, where the Fab fragment is fused to the ectodomains of the γδ heterodimer, as well as STAR/HIT designs where antibody-derived variable regions replace the variable regions of TCRαβ domains.

ζ-based second generation CARs

CARs are engineered receptors that redirect T cells to recognize and kill tumor cells. A CAR typically consists of three main components: an extracellular binding domain, generally a single-chain variable fragment (scFv) derived from an antibody, that recognizes the target antigen; a TM region anchoring the receptor in the membrane; and intracellular signaling domains responsible for activating the T cell. In the following section, we focus on different intracellular signaling domains, without delving into other structural advances such as in the binding domain or TM region of CAR designs.

Early CAR designs were based on the ζ chain of the TCR, known for its strong signaling capacity. These first-generation CARs successfully drove T-cell proliferation, cytokine production, and cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo (227, 228). However, their limited persistence in vivo hindered their therapeutic potential. To address this, second-generation CARs incorporated co-stimulatory domains originating from co-stimulatory receptors such as 4-1BB (also known as CD137 and TNFSFR9) or CD28, alongside the ζ chain (henceforth referred to as BBζ and 28ζ CARs, respectively; Figure 6). This innovation significantly improved CAR T-cell persistence and tumor-eradicating capability (229). Notably, CD28 contains two basic-rich stretches (BRSs) that interact with the plasma membrane and LCK, whereas 4-1BB has only one juxtamembrane BRS. It was shown that the higher signaling intensity of 28ζ CARs, compared to BBζ CARs, results from constitutive LCK association with CD28 (230). However, recent findings also revealed that 28ζ CAR signaling can occur independent of LCK, relying instead on the kinase FYN, whereas both TCR and BBζ CAR signaling are LCK-dependent (231).

Most CAR designs retain the ζ chain, assuming its multiple ITAMs would amplify signaling. However, it has become evident that reducing ITAM numbers may actually improve therapeutic outcomes. CARs with a single functional ζITAM (1XX CARs) demonstrated superior anti-tumor efficacy compared to those with two or three ITAMs in a CD19⁺ tumor in vivo model (232). These 1XX ITAM CARs promote a favorable memory T-cell phenotype with enhanced persistence (232), supporting the notion that reducing signaling potency can reduce activation-induced cell death (AICD) and exhaustion, particularly in cases of high tumor antigen expression. These promising findings have already inspired clinical trials using the 1XX CAR format (233, 234).

CARs employing alternative CD3 chains

Recent advances in CAR design have focused on incorporating signaling domains beyond the ζ chain ITAMs, particularly leveraging the unique functionalities of CD3 subunits such as CD3ϵ, CD3δ, and CD3γ (Figure 6). These efforts aim to enhance CAR T-cell efficacy, persistence, and safety.

For instance, BBεζ CARs, which combine a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain with CD3ϵ and ζ chains, exhibit superior anti-tumor activity in leukemia models compared to BBζ CARs (2, 8) by recruiting LCK through the RK motif (2). Similarly, the BRS motif of CD3ε modulates interactions with LCK and p85, reducing cytokine production while increasing T-cell persistence for a ε28ζ CAR (CD3ε, CD28, and ζ chain) relative to traditional 28ζ CARs (1). CARs incorporating the CD3ϵ cytoplasmic tail together with a CD28 co-stimulatory domain (28ϵCAR) showed increased efficacy in a solid tumor models while minimizing inflammatory cytokine release compared to a 28ζ CAR (235). Additionally, CD3ϵ-containing CARs regulate LCK activity through the recruitment of the kinase CSK via the mono-phosphorylated ITAM of CD3ϵ, providing negative feedback control (1). Mutations to the BRS, RK, or ITAM motifs in CD3ε-based CARs impaired CAR T-cell function in vitro, underscoring their critical role in optimizing CAR signaling (3).

Expanding on this, CARs incorporating signaling domains from CD3δ or CD3γ in the context of the 41BB co-stimulatory domain show enhanced anti-tumor efficacy, reduced tonic signaling, and lower cytokine secretion compared to BBζ CARs (3). CD3δ, for instance, recruits SHP1 through monophosphorylation of the second ITAM tyrosine, providing regulatory control and promoting stem-like T-cell properties and CAR functionality (3). Furthermore, mutations in the di-leucine motifs of δCARs and γCARs boost surface expression, T-cell cytotoxicity and activation, highlighting the role of this motif in regulating CAR functionality (3).

These findings underscore the critical importance of understanding proximal TCR signaling to guide the rational design of CARs. While current FDA-approved CAR therapies rely on second-generation ζ chain constructs, emerging evidence suggests that alternative designs incorporating CD3ϵ, δ, or γ signaling domains may provide significant advantages, including enhanced efficacy, reduced tonic signaling, and improved T-cell persistence (Figure 6). The next frontier in CAR T-cell optimization could lie in harnessing the unique properties of these underexplored CD3 subunits. Clinical trials will be essential to determine whether these novel CAR constructs can surpass the performance of current therapies. Moreover, the strategic combination of different CD3 signaling domains (1, 2) represents a promising avenue to further refine CAR designs, potentially unlocking more durable and effective cancer immunotherapies.

CARs coupled to downstream signaling proteins

Alternative CAR formats have been developed to bypass the earliest TCR signaling steps, ITAM phosphorylation, by directly integrating downstream signaling proteins (236, 237). These herein termed bypassCARs are coupled directly to molecules such as LCK, FYN, the kinase domain (KD) of ZAP70 (ZAP70_KD), LAT, SLP76, or PLCγ1, without including any co-stimulatory domains (238). Among these designs, the ZAP70_KD-bypassCAR (Figure 6) demonstrated superior tumor control in a solid-tumor mouse model compared to a conventional BBζ CAR (238). An additional study demonstrated that adding the CD28 signaling domain before the ZAP70_KD (Figure 6) resulted in a construct capable of inducing tumor remission comparable to a BBζ CAR and more durable than a 28ζ CAR in a Nalm6 tumor mouse model (239).

These findings highlight the potential of bypassCARs to overcome limitations in traditional designs, but further studies are needed to optimize their efficacy, evaluate possible undesired tonic signaling and thereby, premature exhaustion, and evaluate their clinical relevance across diverse tumor models.

TCR-like chimeric receptors

TCR-like chimeric receptors represent an exciting frontier in engineered T-cell therapies, leveraging the entire TCR-CD3 complex for signal transduction instead of isolated CD3 chains. Ideally, these receptors function independently of MHC.

One such approach, TCR-fusion constructs (TRuCs), involves fusing a scFv to the extracellular domain of CD3ϵ. TRuCs have shown superior efficacy in both hematopoietic and solid tumor models compared to second-generation BBζ and 28ζ CARs (240, 241) and are currently being investigated in clinical trials with promising interim results (242).

In another strategy, antibody-TCRs (AbTCRs), a full, anti-tumor Fab-fragment is fused to the constant domains of the TCRγ and TCRδ chains, creating new chimeric receptors that outperformed BBζ and 28ζ CARs in controlling B-cell tumors in vivo. These AbTCR-T cells also exhibited reduced cytokine production and exhaustion marker levels compared to 28ζ CAR T cells (243). Using the constant domains of TCRγ and TCRδ prevents undesired pairing with endogenous TCRα and TCRβ chains, reducing the risk of generating off-target specificities that could lead to autoimmunity. However, how these AbTCRs are coupled to proximal signaling pathways has yet to be elucidated, therefore, the exact mechanisms underlying their superior performance remain unclear.

Synthetic TCR and Antigen Receptors (STARs) (244) and HLA-independent TCRs (HITs) (245) replace the variable regions of TCRα and TCRβ with antibody-derived variable regions. In preclinical mouse models, STAR and HIT T cells provided superior tumor control compared to 28ζ CARs, especially in tumors with low antigen expression (245). STAR and HIT T cells were also more effective at infiltrating solid tumors, less prone to exhaustion, and persisted longer than BBζ and 28ζ CARs. Interestingly, STAR and HIT T cells produced similar or even higher amounts of cytokines than BBζ and 28ζ CARs upon tumor recognition, likely due to their enhanced sensitivity (243, 245, 246). This can eventually be a drawback for these receptors, as increased cytokine production could pose the risk for severe side effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) (247).

TCR-like chimeric receptors might represent a major advance in T cell-based therapies by leveraging the complete TCR complex to enhance proximal signaling and anti-tumor efficacy. Constructs such as TRuCs, AbTCRs, STARs, and HITs have demonstrated superior performance in preclinical models, particularly in targeting tumors with low antigen expression and addressing limitations of second-generation ζCARs. Their ability to persist longer, resist exhaustion, and infiltrate solid tumors underscores their potential for treating refractory cancers.

Early clinical evidence and bottlenecks of next-generation designs

Despite these promising preclinical data, clinical experience with most of these next-generation designs remains scarce: only a small number of early-phase trials currently evaluate 1XX CARs (NCT05757700), CD3ϵ-based CARs (NCT06373081), or TCR-like receptors such as TRuCs (NCT03907852), and STARs (NCT06321289, NCT03953599, NCT05548088, NCT05518357, NCT04508842) so their behavior in real-world settings is still largely unknown. In the clinic, mesothelin-targeting TRuC-T cells (NCT03907852 (242),) have shown objective responses in heavily pretreated solid tumors but also highlighted on-target/off-tumor and cytokine-mediated toxicities, illustrating both the promise and risks of engaging the full TCR-CD3 complex. Early CD19-targeting 1XX CAR T and STAR-T trials will similarly test whether tuning ζ ITAM content or harnessing complete TCR signaling can improve persistence and efficacy without exacerbating CRS, ICANS or antigen escape, but mature data are not yet available. Preclinical and first-in-human results therefore suggest that some constructs may mitigate challenges of conventional CAR T cells, yet broad implementation may be limited by manufacturing and regulatory complexity and by unresolved questions about long-term persistence, exhaustion and safety in heterogeneous tumors. Systematic head-to-head clinical evaluation of ζ-based CARs, CD3ϵ/δ/γ-containing CARs, bypassCARs and TCR-like receptors will be essential to define which designs offer the most favorable balance between efficacy, safety and feasibility, advancing the next generation of cancer immunotherapies.

Modulation of T-cell activation

Targeting early TCR signaling events presents a promising therapeutic strategy for precisely modulating T-cell activation in autoimmune diseases, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and adoptive T-cell therapies. Because proximal TCR signaling is specific to particular T-cell populations (e.g., αβ T cells versus γδ T cells, or even distinct γδ subsets), this approach enables selective modulation of the desired T-cell population without inducing broad immunosuppression. Thus, targeting proximal TCR signaling could reduce infection risks and improve the patients’ quality of life.

One interesting target is the interaction between the PRS motif of CD3ϵ and the adaptor protein NCK, which is crucial for T-cell activation in response to weak antigens (48, 248). The small molecule inhibitor AX-024 specifically disrupts this interaction, showing efficacy in preclinical models of psoriasis, asthma, and multiple sclerosis by selectively reducing T-cell activation without compromising responses to strong, pathogen-derived antigens (9). A new generation of this compound is currently undergoing phase 1 and 2 clinical trials for psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and other autoimmune diseases (249), underscoring its clinical relevance (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Emerging therapeutic strategies targeting proximal TCR signaling.

Another intervention point involves modulating LCK recruitment to the TCR. Co-receptor-associated LCK plays distinct roles in responding to high- versus low-affinity antigens (137) presenting a potential therapeutic window for autoimmune diseases. By targeting the interaction of the co-receptors with the unique domain of LCK, it might be possible to reduce LCK availability at the TCR, selectively impairing autoimmune T cells with low antigen affinity, while preserving high-affinity immune responses essential for pathogen defense (Table 3).

Alternatively, targeting the SH3 domain of LCK and its interaction with the RK motif of CD3ϵ provides another level of control. Mutating the RK motif has been shown to reduce TCR signaling, without fully abolishing it (2), making this strategy particularly appealing for conditions like GVHD, where dampening but not fully suppressing donor T-cell function is desirable. We have very recently identified a first-in-class small-molecule modulator targeting the SH3 domain of LCK (10). By reducing LCK’s interaction with CD3ϵ, this compound (named C10) attenuated allogeneic T-cell activation in an in vitro co-culture model, indicating potential utility in GVHD. In addition, C10 modulated the activity of CD3ϵ-containing CARs and TRuCs, lowering cytokine secretion and promoting a central-memory-like phenotype, which was associated with an improved anti-tumor response in an in vitro re-challenge assay (Table 3) (10).

By refining the signal transduction of these chimeric receptors, it may be possible to prevent adverse effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and T-cell exhaustion, while maintaining potent anti-tumor activity. Kinase inhibitors, such as dasatinib, have already demonstrated the ability to regulate CAR activity. Dasatinib inhibits ζ phosphorylation in 28ζ and BBζ CARs, reducing CRS development in vivo. Importantly, this inhibitory effect is reversible, allowing dasatinib to function as an “on/off switch” for CAR T cells without compromising their viability (250). Additionally, kinase inhibitors (UNC10225387B, UNC10225263A and UNC10112761A) have been shown to revive exhausted CAR T cells, restoring their anti-tumor functionality (Table 3) (12, 13). Inhibitors that target the initial phosphorylation steps of the CAR could achieve the same benefits while providing a more selective approach, potentially avoiding off-target effects of broad tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Together, these strategies highlight the potential of targeted TCR modulation to address both autoimmune diseases and cancer immunotherapy, providing new avenues for precision medicine.

Conclusion

Proximal TCR signaling, orchestrated by the interactions of the CD3 motifs with key signaling molecules such as the kinase LCK, is fundamental for T-cell activation and adaptive immune responses. Among the CD3 subunits, the CD3ϵ tail stands out as a master regulator, harboring four critical motifs – BRS, PRS, RK, and ITAM. These motifs coordinate membrane interactions, recruit essential proteins such as NCK and LCK, and facilitate ITAM phosphorylation. In contrast, the ζ chain seems to function as a signal amplifier, providing high-affinity docking sites for ZAP70 to propagate downstream signaling. CD3δ and CD3γ are less understood but appear to play regulatory roles, such as recruiting the negative regulator SHP1 and mediating TCR downregulation.

The interplay between free and co-receptor-associated pools of LCK further modulates TCR signaling dynamics. CD4-associated LCK predominantly supports helper T-cell function and stabilizes CD4, whereas CD8-associated LCK fine-tunes cytotoxic T-cell responses to weak antigens and sustains TCR-pMHC interactions during signal amplification. Co-receptors, which are not engaged by the agonist pMHC, reduce the pool of free LCK and thereby may reduce the signaling threshold.

Despite significant advancements in understanding αβ TCR signaling, γδ TCR signaling remains poorly understood. Current evidence suggests that different γδ T-cell subsets employ distinct kinases, including LCK and BLK, for signal initiation. Downstream signaling involves ZAP70 and/or SYK, but the mechanisms of kinase recruitment and the contributions of specific CD3 motifs in γδ T cells are unclear. Bridging this knowledge gap is essential for unlocking the therapeutic potential of γδ T cells, particularly in the context of tumor immunity, where their unique antigen-recognition properties could provide significant advantages.

Recent advances in CAR T-cell therapy highlight the potential of exploiting CD3 motifs to enhance therapeutic outcomes by improving anti-tumor efficacy and reducing exhaustion. Incorporating the cytoplasmic tails of CD3ϵ, CD3γ, and CD3δ into CAR constructs has been shown to improve anti-tumor responses, while lowering cytokine secretion and early exhaustion compared to second-generation ζCARs, challenging the current gold-standard of ζ-based CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, TCR-like chimeric receptors that leverage all CD3 motifs offer a promising approach to fine-tune T-cell responses for greater efficacy and persistence in cancer immunotherapy. Now studies comparing these new chimeric receptors among each other are necessary to further advance the flied of cancer immunotherapy.

Furthermore, targeting proximal TCR signaling components presents an upcoming strategy for therapeutic intervention. Modulating the recruitment of proximal signaling molecules, such as NCK and LCK, with novel small molecules could refine the activity of endogenous TCRs in autoimmune diseases and immunopathologies or improve the function of engineered receptors in cancer therapy, while overcoming off-target effects of classical kinase inhibitors, targeting conserved enzymatic activity rather than a specific protein-protein interaction. These approaches highlight the therapeutic versatility of proximal TCR signaling modulation.

Moving forward, advancing our understanding of TCR signal initiation and its regulatory networks is essential for driving the next generation of immunotherapies. By unraveling the distinct contributions of CD3 motifs, distinct LCK pools, and the unique proximal signaling pathways in both αβ and γδ T cells, we can unlock new therapeutic opportunities. These insights will be instrumental in developing tailored, next-generation treatments that maximize therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse effects.

Author contributions

NW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Conceptualization. VU: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. OS: Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. SM: Supervision, Visualization, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. SM is supported by the DFG under Germany’s Excellence Strategy - EXC-2189 - Project ID: 390939984 and under the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments - EXC-294, and in part by the Ministry for Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Württemberg. Further support is given by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under FOR2799 (MI1942/3-1 to SM), SFB1479 (Project ID: 441891347 - P15 to SM), SFB1160 (Project ID: 256073931 - B01 to SM), and projects MI1942/4-1 (Project ID: 501418856) and MI1942/5-1 (Project ID: 501436442) to SM, National Institute of Virology and Bacteriology (Programme EXCELES, LX22NPO5103), funded by the European Union, Next Generation EU, core funding provided by the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Czech Academy of Sciences (RVO 68378050) to OS, and Charles University Grant Agency (274323) to VU.

Conflict of interest

NW and SM are listed as inventors on a patent application filed with the European Patent office by the University of Freiburg 25174784.6, which is related to the use of the small molecules for use in therapy.

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Wu W, Zhou Q, Masubuchi T, Shi X, Li H, Xu X, et al. Multiple signaling roles of CD3ϵ and its application in CAR-T cell therapy. Cell. (2020) 182:855–871.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.07.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Hartl FA, Beck-Garcìa E, Woessner NM, Flachsmann LJ, Cárdenas R. M.-H. V., Brandl SM, et al. Noncanonical binding of Lck to CD3ϵ promotes TCR signaling and CAR function. Nat Immunol. (2020) 21:902–13. doi: 10.1038/s41590-020-0732-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Velasco Cárdenas RMH, Brandl S, Meléndez AV, Schlaak EA, Buschky A, Peters T, et al. Harnessing CD3 diversity to optimise CAR T cells. Nat Immunol. (2023) 24:2135–2149. doi: 10.1038/s41590-023-01658-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Minguet S, Maus MV, and Schamel WW. From TCR fundamental research to innovative chimeric antigen receptor design. Nat Rev Immunol. (2024) 25:212–224. doi: 10.1038/s41577-024-01093-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Boggon TJ and Eck MJ. Structure and regulation of Src family kinases. Oncogene. (2004) 23:7918–27. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1208081

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Palacios EH and Weiss A. Function of the Src-family kinases, Lck and Fyn, in T-cell development and activation. Oncogene. (2004) 23:7990–8000. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1208074

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Deseke M and Prinz I. Ligand recognition by the γδ TCR and discrimination between homeostasis and stress conditions. Cell Mol Immunol. (2020) 17:914–24. doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-0503-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Salter AI, Rajan A, Kennedy JJ, Ivey RG, Shelby SA, Leung I, et al. Comparative analysis of TCR and CAR signaling informs CAR designs with superior antigen sensitivity and in vivo function. Sci Signal. (2021) 14:eabe2606. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.abe2606

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Borroto A, Reyes-Garau D, Jiménez MA, Carrasco E, Moreno B, Martínez-Pasamar S, et al. First-in-class inhibitor of the T cell receptor for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Sci Transl Med. (2016) 8:370ra184–370ra184. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf2140

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Woessner NM, Chinestrad P, Rueckert T, Weiss L, Zintchenko M, Schaffer A-M, et al. and CAR activation by targeting LCK recruitment with a first-in-class small-molecule inhibitor. bioRxiv. (2025). doi: 10.64898/2025.12.10.693420

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Weber EW, Lynn RC, Sotillo E, Lattin J, Xu P, and Mackall CL. Pharmacologic control of CAR-T cell function using dasatinib. Blood Adv. (2019) 3:711–7. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018028720

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Weber EW, Parker KR, Sotillo E, Lynn RC, Anbunathan H, Lattin J, et al. Transient rest restores functionality in exhausted CAR-T cells through epigenetic remodeling. Sci (80-.). (2021) 372:eaba1786. doi: 10.1126/science.aba1786

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Song F, Tsahouridis O, Stucchi S, Walhart T, Mendell S, Hardy PB, et al. A multi-kinase inhibitor screen identifies inhibitors preserving stem-cell-like chimeric antigen receptor T cells. Nat Immunol. (2025) 26279–293. doi: 10.1038/s41590-024-02042-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Reth M. Antigen receptor tail clue. Nature. (1989) 338:383–4. doi: 10.1038/338383b0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Osman N, Turner H, Lucas S, Reif K, and Cantrell DA. The protein interactions of the immunoglobulin receptor family tyrosine-based activation motifs present in the T cell receptor t, subunits and the CD3 y,6 and E chains. Eur J Immunol. (1996) 26:1063–8. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830260516

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Cambier JC. Antigen and Fc receptor signaling. The awesome power of the immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motif (ITAM). J Immunol. (1995) 155:3281–5. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.155.7.3281

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Guirado M, De Aós I, Orta T, Sancho J, Rivas L, Terhorst C, et al. Phosphorylation of the N-terminal and C-terminal CD3-ϵ-ITAM tyrosines is differentially regulated in T cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2002) 291:574–81. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6492

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Woessner NM, Brandl SM, Hartmann S, Schamel WW, Hartl FA, and Minguet S. Phospho-mimetic CD3 e variants prevent TCR and CAR signaling. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1–14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1392933

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Weiss A and Littman DR. Signal transduction by lymphocyte antigen receptors. Nature. (1994) 76:263–74. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90334-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Berry R and Call ME. Modular activating receptors in innate and adaptive immunity. Biochemistry. (2017) 56:1383–402. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b01291

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Irvine DJ, Purbhoo MA, Krogsgaard M, and Davis MM. Direct observation of ligand recognition by T cells. Nature. (2002) 419:845–9. doi: 10.1038/nature01076

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Purbhoo MA, Irvine DJ, Huppa JB, and Davis MM. T cell killing does not require the formation of a stable mature immunological synapse. Nat Immunol. (2004) 5:524–30. doi: 10.1038/ni1058

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Holst J, Wang H, Eder KD, Workman CJ, Boyd KL, Baquet Z, et al. Scalable signaling mediated by T cell antigen receptor-CD3 ITAMs ensures effective negative selection and prevents autoimmunity. Nat Immunol. (2008) 9:658–66. doi: 10.1038/ni.1611

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Gaud G, Achar S, Bourassa FXP, Davies J, Hatzihristidis T, Choi S, et al. CD3ζ ITAMs enable ligand discrimination and antagonism by inhibiting TCR signaling in response to low-affinity peptides. Nature Immunol. (2023) 24:2121–2134. doi: 10.1038/s41590-023-01663-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Bettini ML, Chou P-C, Guy CS, Lee T, Vignali KM, and Vignali DAA. Cutting edge: CD3 ITAM diversity is required for optimal TCR signaling and thymocyte development. J Immunol. (2017) 199:1555–60. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1700069

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Shi X, He X, and Xu C. Charge-based immunoreceptor signalling in health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol. (2024) 25:298–311. doi: 10.1038/s41577-024-01105-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Sigalov AB, Aivazian DA, Uversky VN, and Stern LJ. Lipid-binding activity of intrinsically unstructured cytoplasmic domains of multichain immune recognition receptor signaling subunits. Biochemistry. (2006) 51:15731–9. doi: 10.1021/bi061108f

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Kagan JC, Su T, Horng T, Chow A, Akira S, and Medzhitov R. TRAM couples endocytosis of Toll-like receptor 4 to the induction of interferon-β. Nat Immunol. (2008) 9:361–8. doi: 10.1038/ni1569

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Liou J, Kim ML, Won DH, Jones JT, Myers JW, Ferrell JE, et al. STIM is a Ca2+ sensor essential for Ca2+-store- depletion-triggered Ca2+ influx. Curr Biol. (2005) 15:1235–41. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.055

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. DeFord-Watts LM, Young JA, Pitcher LA, and Van Oers NSC. The membrane-proximal portion of CD3 ϵ associates with the serine/threonine kinase GRK2. J Biol Chem. (2007) 282:16126–34. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M609418200

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. DeFord-Watts LM, Tassin TC, Becker AM, Medeiros JJ, Albanesi JP, Love PE, et al. The cytoplasmic tail of the T cell receptor CD3 subunit contains a phospholipid-binding motif that regulates T cell functions. J Immunol. (2009) 183:1055–64. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0900404

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. DeFord-Watts LM, Dougall DS, Belkaya S, Johnson BA, Eitson JL, Roybal KT, et al. The CD3 ζ subunit contains a phosphoinositide-binding motif that is required for the stable accumulation of TCR/CD3 c1. Walker, M., J.G. Kublin, and J.R. Zunt. 2011. The CD3 ζ subunit contains a phosphoinositide-binding motif that is required for the stab. J Immunol. (2011) 42:115–25. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1002721

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Aivazian D and Stern LJ. Phosphorylation of T cell receptor ζ is regulated by a lipid dependent folding transition. Nat Struct Biol. (2000) 7:1023–6. doi: 10.1038/80930

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Kuhns MS and Davis MM. The safety on the TCR trigger. Cell. (2008) 135:594–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.10.033

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Xu C, Gagnon E, Call ME, Schnell JR, Schwieters CD, Carman CV, et al. Regulation of T cell receptor activation by dynamic membrane binding of the CD3ϵ Cytoplasmic tyrosine-based motif. Cell. (2008) 135:702–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.044

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Lee MS, Glassman CR, Deshpande NR, Badgandi HB, Parrish HL, Uttamapinant C, et al. A mechanical switch couples T cell receptor triggering to the cytoplasmic juxtamembrane regions of CD3ζζ. Immunity. (2015) 43:227–39. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.06.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Zhang H, Cordoba S-P, Dushek O, and van der Merwe PA. Basic residues in the T-cell receptor ζ cytoplasmic domain mediate membrane association and modulate signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2011) 108:19323–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108052108

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Bettini ML, Guy C, Dash P, Vignail KM, Hamm DE, Dobbins J, et al. Membrane association of the CD3ϵ signaling domain is required for optimal T cell development and function. J Immunol. (2014) 23:258–67. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1400322

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Yamazaki T, Hamano Y, Tashiro H, Itoh K, Nakano H, Miyatake S, et al. CAST, a novel CD3ϵ-binding protein transducing activation signal for interleukin-2 production in T cells. J Biol Chem. (1999) 274:18173–80. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.26.18173

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Li X, Shi X, Li C, Wu W, Yan C, Wang H, et al. Ionic CD3–Lck interaction regulates the initiation of T-cell receptor signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2017) 114:E5891–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701990114

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Gil D, Schamel WWA, Montoya M, Sánchez-Madrid F, and Alarcón B. Recruitment of Nck by CD3 epsilon reveals a ligand-induced conformational change essential for T cell receptor signaling and synapse formation. Cell. (2002) 109:901–12. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00799-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Hartl FA, Ngoenkam J, Beck-Garcìa E, Cerqueirs L, Wipa P, Paensuwan P, et al. Cooperative interaction of nck and lck orchestrates optimal TCR sgnaling. Cells. (2021) 10:834. doi: 10.3390/cells10040834

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Martin-Blanco N, Teja DJ, Bretones G, Borroto A, Caraballo M, Screpanti I, et al. CD3ϵ recruits Numb to promote TCR degradation. Int Immunol. (2016) 28:127–37. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxv060

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Kesti T, Ruppelt A, Wang J-H, Liss M, Wagner R, Taskén K, et al. Reciprocal regulation of SH3 and SH2 domain binding via tyrosine phosphorylation of a common site in CD3ϵ. J Immunol. (2007) 179:878–85. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.2.878

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Mingueneau M, Sansoni A, Grégoire C, Roncagalli R, Aguado E, Weiss A, et al. The proline-rich sequence of CD3ϵ controls T cell antigen receptor expression on and signaling potency in preselection CD4+CD8+ thymocytes. Nat Immunol. (2008) 9:522–32. doi: 10.1038/ni.1608

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Borroto A, Arellano I, Dopfer EP, Prouza M, Suchànek M, Fuentes M, et al. Nck recruitment to the TCR required for ZAP70 activation during thymic development. J Immunol. (2013) 190:1103–12. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202055

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Tailor P, Tsai S, Shameli A, Serra P, Wang J, Robbins S, et al. The proline-rich sequence of CD3 as an amplifier of low-avidity TCR signaling. J Immunol. (2008) 181:243–55. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.1.243

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Roy E, Togbe D, Holdorf AD, Trubetskoy D, Nabti S, Küblbeck G, et al. Nck adaptors are positive regulators of the size and sensitivity of the T-cell repertoire. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2010) 107:15529–34. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1009743107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Van Oers NSC, Lowin-Kropf B, Finlay D, Connolly K, and Weiss A. αβ T cell development is abolished in mice lacking both Lck and Fyn protein tyrosine kinases. Immunity. (1996) 5:429–36. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80499-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Groves T, Smiley P, Cooke MP, Forbush K, Perlmutter RM, and Guidos CJ. Fyn can partially substitute for Lck in T lymphocyte development. Immunity. (1996) 5:417–28. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80498-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Kang H, Freund C, Duke-Cohan JS, Musacchio A, Wagner G, and Rudd CE. SH3 domain recognition of a proline-independent tyrosine-based RKxxYxxY motif in immune cell adaptor SKAP55. EMBO J. (2000) 19:2889–99. doi: 10.1093/emboj/19.12.2889

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Gkourtsa A, van den Burg J, Avula T, Hochstenbach F, and Distel B. Binding of a proline-independent hydrophobic motif by the Candida albicans Rvs167–3 SH3 domain. Microbiol Res. (2016) 190:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2016.04.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Brodeur JF, Li S, Damlaj O, and Dave VP. Expression of fully assembled TCR-CD3 complex on double positive thymocytes: Synergistic role for the PRS and ER retention motifs in the intra-cytoplasmic tail of CD3ϵ. Int Immunol. (2009) 21:1317–27. doi: 10.1093/intimm/dxp098

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Delgado P and Alarcón B. An orderly inactivation of intracellular retention signals controls surface expression of the T cell antigen receptor. J Exp Med. (2005) 201:555–66. doi: 10.1084/jem.20041133

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Dietrich J, Hou X, Wegener AM, and Geisler C. CD3 gamma contains a phosphoserine-dependent di-leucine motif involved in down-regulation of the T cell receptor. EMBO J. (1994) 13:2156–66. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1994.tb06492.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. von Essen M, Menne C, Nielsen BL, Lauritsen JPH, Dietrich J, Andersen PS, et al. The CD3 leucine-based receptor-sorting motif is required for efficient ligand-mediated TCR down-regulation. J Immunol. (2002) 168:4519–23. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.9.4519

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Boding L, Bonefeld CM, Nielsen BL, Lauritsen JPH, von Essen MR, Hansen AK, et al. TCR down-regulation controls T cell homeostasis. J Immunol. (2009) 183:4994–5005. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0901539

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Bonefeld CM, Haks M, Nielsen B, von Essen M, Boding L, Hansen AK, et al. TCR down-regulation controls virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses. J Immunol. (2009) 181:7786–99. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.11.7786

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Schamel W, Alarcon B, Höfer T, and Minguet S. The allostery model of TCR regulation. J Immunol. (2017) 198:47–52. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601661

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Courtney AH, Lo WL, and Weiss A. TCR signaling: mechanisms of initiation and propagation. Trends Biochem Sci. (2018) 43:108–23. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2017.11.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Chang VT, Fernandes RA, Ganzinger KA, Lee SF, Siebold C, McColl J, et al. Initiation of T cell signaling by CD45 segregation at “close contacts. Nat Immunol. (2016) 17:574–82. doi: 10.1038/ni.3392

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Schamel WW, Alarcon B, and Minguet S. The TCR is an allosterically regulated macromolecular machinery changing its conformation while working. Immunol Rev. (2019) 291:8–25. doi: 10.1111/imr.12788

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Alarcon B and Schamel WW. Allosteric changes underlie the outside-in transmission of activatory signals in the TCR. Immunol Rev. (2025) 329:1–11. doi: 10.1111/imr.13438

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Notti RQ, Yi F, Heissel S, Bush MW, Molvi Z, Das P, et al. The resting and ligand-bound states of the membrane-embedded human T-cell receptor– CD3 complex. bioRxiv. Nature Communications. (2024) 16:1–58. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-66939-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. van Eerden FJ, Sherif AA, Llamas-Covarrubias MA, Millius A, Lu X, Ishizuka S, et al. TCR-pMHC complex formation triggers CD3 dynamics. Elife. (2023) 12:1–35. doi: 10.7554/eLife.88065.1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Dong D, Zheng L, Lin J, Zhang B, Zhu Y, Li N, et al. Structural basis of assembly of the human T cell receptor–CD3 complex. Nature. (2019) 573:546–52. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1537-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Chen Y, Zhu Y, Li X, Gao W, Zhen Z, Dong D, et al. Cholesterol inhibits TCR signaling by directly restricting TCR-CD3 core tunnel motility. Mol Cell. (2022) 82:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2022.02.017

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Sušac L, Vuong MT, Thomas C, von Bülow S, O’Brien-Ball C, Santos AM, et al. Structure of a fully assembled tumor-specific T cell receptor ligated by pMHC. Cell. (2022) 185:3201–3213.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.07.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Saotome K, Dudgeon D, Colotti K, Moore MJ, Jones J, Zhou Y, et al. Structural analysis of cancer-relevant TCR-CD3 and peptide-MHC complexes by cryoEM. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:2401. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37532-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Prakaash D, Cook GP, Acuto O, and Kalli AC. Multi-scale simulations of the T cell receptor reveal its lipid interactions, dynamics and the arrangement of its cytoplasmic region. PLoS Comput Biol. (2021) 17:1–22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009232

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Chouaki-Benmansour N, Ruminski K, Sartre AM, Phelipot MC, Salles A, Bergot E, et al. Phosphoinositides regulate the TCR/CD3 complex membrane dynamics and activation. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:1–16. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23109-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Swamy M, Beck-Garcia K, Beck-Garcia E, Hartl FA, Morath A, Yousefi OS, et al. Article A cholesterol-based allostery model of T cell receptor phosphorylation article A cholesterol-based allostery model of T cell receptor phosphorylation. Immunity. (2016) 44:1091–101. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.04.011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Wang F, Beck-García K, Zorzin C, Schamel WWA, and Davis MM. Inhibition of T cell receptor signaling by cholesterol sulfate, a naturally occurring derivative of membrane cholesterol. Nat Immunol. (2016) 17:844–50. doi: 10.1038/ni.3462

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Kersh EN, Shaw AS, and Allen PM. Fidelity of T cell activation through multistep T cell receptor ζ phosphorylation. Sci (80-.). (1998) 281:572–5. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5376.572

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

75. McNeill L, Salmond RJ, Cooper JC, Carret CK, Cassady-Cain RL, Roche-Molina M, et al. The differential regulation of lck kinase phosphorylation sites by CD45 is critical for T cell receptor signaling responses. Immunity. (2007) 27:425–37. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.07.015

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Rudolph MG, Stanfield RL, and Wilson IA. How TCRs bind MHCs, peptides, and coreceptors. Annu Rev Immunol. (2006) 24:419–66. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115658

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Xu X, Li H, and Xu C. Structural understanding of T cell receptor triggering. Cell Mol Immunol. (2020) 17:193–202. doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-0367-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Risueño RM, Gil D, Fernández E, Sánchez-Madrid F, and Alarcón B. Ligand-induced conformational change in the T-cell receptor associated with productive immune synapses. Blood. (2005) 106:601–8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2004-12-4763

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Martínez-Martín N, Risueño RM, Morreale A, Zaldívar I, Fernández-Arenas E, Herranz F, et al. Immunology: Cooperativity between T cell receptor complexes revealed by conformational mutants of CD3ϵ. Sci Signal. (2009) 2:1–12. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2000402

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Minguet S, Swamy M, Alarcón B, Luescher IF, and Schamel WWA. Full activation of the T cell receptor requires both clustering and conformational changes at CD3. Immunity. (2007) 26:43–54. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2006.10.019

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Sibener LV, Fernandes RA, Kolawole EM, Carbone CB, Liu F, Mcaffee D, et al. Isolation and visualization of a structural trigger that uncouples TCR signaling from pMHC binding. Cell. (2018) 174:672–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.017

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Liu Y, Blanchfield L, Pui-Yan Ma V, Andargachew R, Galior K, Liu Z, et al. DNA-based nanoparticle tension sensors reveal that T-cell receptors transmit defined pN forces to their antigens for enhanced fidelity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2016) 113:5610–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1600163113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Rudd CE. How the discovery of the CD4/CD8-p56lck complexes changed immunology and immunotherapy. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2021) 9:1–20. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.626095

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Szymczak AL, Workman CJ, Gil D, Dilioglou S, Vignali KM, Palmer E, et al. The CD3 proline-rich sequence, and its interaction with nck, is not required for T cell development and function. J Immunol. (2005) 175:270–5. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.1.270

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Hem CD, Sundvold-Gjerstad V, Granum S, Koll L, Abrahamsen G, Buday L, et al. T cell specific adaptor protein (TSAd) promotes interaction of Nck with Lck and SLP-76 in T cells. Cell Commun Signal. (2015) 13:1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12964-015-0109-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Paensuwan P, Hartl FA, Yousefi OS, Ngoenkam J, Wipa P, Beck-Garcia E, et al. Nck binds to the T cell antigen receptor using its SH3.1 and SH2 domains in a cooperative manner, promoting TCR functioning. J Immunol. (2016) 196:4833–3. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1600551

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Thome M, Germain V, and Disanto JP. The p56lck SH2 domain mediates recruitment of CD8/p56lck to the activated T cell receptor/CD3/zeta complex. Eur J Immunol. (1996) 26:2093–100. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830260920

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Thome M, Duplay P, Guttinger M, and Acuto O. Syk and ZAP-70 mediate recruitment of p56lck/CD4 to the activated T cell receptor/CD3/ζ complex. J Exp Med. (1995) 181:1997–2006. doi: 10.1084/jem.181.6.1997

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Gao M and Skolnick J. Predicting protein interactions of the kinase Lck critical to T cell modulation. Structure. (2024) 32:2168–2179.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2024.09.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Straus DB, Chan AC, Patai B, and Weiss A. SH2 domain function is essential for the role of the Lck tyrosine kinase in T cell receptor signal transduction. J Biol Chem. (1996) 271:9976–81. doi: 10.1074/jbc.271.17.9976

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Choudhuri K, Wiseman D, Brown MH, Gould K, and van der Merwe PA. T-cell receptor triggering is critically dependent on the dimensions of its peptide-MHC ligand. Nature. (2005) 436:578–82. doi: 10.1038/nature03843

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

92. Fernandes RA, Ganzinger KA, Tzou JC, Jönsson P, Lee SF, Palayret M, et al. A cell topography-based mechanism for ligand discrimination by the T cell receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2019) 116:14002–10. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817255116

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

93. Davis SJ and van der Merwe PA. The kinetic-segregation model: TCR triggering and beyond. Nat Immunol. (2006) 7:803–9. doi: 10.1038/ni1369

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Lin J and Weiss A. The tyrosine phosphatase CD148 is excluded from the immunologic synapse and down-regulates prolonged T cell signaling. J Cell Biol. (2003) 162:673–82. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200303040

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

95. Chan AC, Irving BA, Fraser JD, and Weiss A. The zeta chain is associated with a tyrosine kinase and upon T-cell antigen receptor stimulation associates with ZAP-70, a 70-kDa tyrosine phosphoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (1991) 88:9166–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.20.9166

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

96. Wange RL, Malek SN, Desiderio S, and Samelson LE. Tandem SH2 domains of ZAP-70 bind to T cell antigen receptor z and CD3e from activated jurkat T cells. J Biol Chem. (1993) 268:19797–801. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)36584-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

97. Isakov N, Wange RL, Burgess WH, Watts JD, Aebersold R, and Samelson LE. ZAP-70 binding specificity to T cell receptor tyrosine-based activation motifs: the tandem SH2 domains of ZAP-70 bind distinct tyrosine-based activation motifs with varying affinity. J Exp Med. (1995) 182:20–2. doi: 10.1084/jem.181.1.375

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

98. Zenner G, Vorherr T, Mustelin T, and Burn P. Differential and multiple binding of signal transducing molecules to the ITAMs of the TCR-ζ chain. J Cell Biochem. (1996) 63:94–103. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4644(199610)63:1<94::AID-JCB8>3.0.CO;2-V

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

99. Love PE and Hayes SM. ITAM-mediated signaling by the T-cell antigen receptor. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect Biol. (2010) 2:1–11. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002485

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

100. Deindl S, Kadlecek TA, Brdicka T, Cao X, Weiss A, and Kuriyan J. Structural basis for the inhibition of tyrosine kinase activity of ZAP-70. Cell. (2007) 129:735–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.039

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

101. Smith-Garvin JE, Koretzky GA, and Jordan MS. T cell activation. Annu Rev Immunol. (2009) 27:591–619. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.021908.132706

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

102. Samelson LE. Signal transduction mediated by the T cell antigen receptor: the role of adaptor proteins. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. (2002) 20:371–94. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.20.092601.111357

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

103. Wange RL and Samelson LE. Complex complexes: Signaling at the TCR. Immunity. (1996) 5:197–205. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80315-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

104. McKeithan TW. Kinetic proofreading in T-cell receptor signal transduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (1995) 92:5042–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.11.5042

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

105. Yousefi OS, Günther M, Hörner M, Chalupsky J, Wess M, Brandl SM, et al. Optogenetic control shows that kinetic proofreading regulates the activity of the t cell receptor. Elife. (2019) 8:1–33. doi: 10.7554/eLife.42475

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

106. Shi X, Bi Y, Yang W, Guo X, Jiang Y, Wan C, et al. Ca 2+ regulates T-cell receptor activation by modulating the charge property of lipids. Nature. (2013) 493:111–5. doi: 10.1038/nature11699

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

107. Lanz AL, Masi G, Porciello N, Cohnen A, Cipria D, Prakaash D, et al. Allosteric activation of T cell antigen receptor signaling by quaternary structure relaxation. Cell Rep. (2021) 36:109375. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109375

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

108. Platzer R, Hellmeier J, Göhring J, Perez ID, Schatzlmaier P, Bodner C, et al. Monomeric agonist peptide/MHCII complexes activate T-cells in an autonomous fashion. EMBO Rep. (2023) 24:1–39. doi: 10.15252/embr.202357842

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

109. Delon J, Grégoire C, Malissen B, Darche S, Lemaître F, Kourilsky P, et al. CD8 expression allows T cell signaling by monomeric peptide-MHC complexes. Immunity. (1998) 9:467–73. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80630-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

110. Cochran JR, Aivazian D, Cameron TO, and Stern LJ. Receptor clustering and transmembrane signaling in T cells. Trends Biochem Sci. (2001) 26:304–10. doi: 10.1016/S0968-0004(01)01815-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

111. Boniface JJ, Rabinowtiz JD, Wulfing C, Hampi J, Reich Z, Altman JD, et al. Erratum: Initiation of signal transduction through the T cell receptor requires the multivalent engagement of peptide/MHC ligands (Immunity 9 (459- 466)). Immunity. (1998) 9:891. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80629-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

112. Filby A, Seddon B, Kleczkowska J, Salmond R, Tomlinson P, Smida M, et al. Fyn regulates the duration of TCR engagement needed for commitment to effector function. J Immunol. (2007) 179:4635–44. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.7.4635

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

113. Zamoyska R, Basson A, Filby A, Legname G, Lovatt M, and Seddon B. The influence of the src-family kinases, Lck and Fyn, on T cell differentiation, survival and activation. Immunol Rev. (2003) 191:107–18. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-065X.2003.00015.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

114. Yasuda K, Nagafuku M, Shima T, Okada M, Yagi T, Yamada T, et al. Cutting edge: fyn is essential for tyrosine phosphorylation of csk-binding protein/phosphoprotein associated with glycolipid-enriched microdomains in lipid rafts in resting T cells. J Immunol. (2002) 169:2813–7. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.6.2813

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

115. Badour K, Zhang J, Shi F, Leng Y, Collins M, and Siminovitch KA. Fyn and PTP-PEST-mediated regulation of wiskott-aldrich syndrome protein (WASp) tyrosine phosphorylation is required for coupling T cell antigen receptor engagement to WASp effector function and T cell activation. J Exp Med. (2004) 199:99–111. doi: 10.1084/jem.20030976

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

116. Bommhardt U, Schraven B, and Simeoni L. Beyond TCR signaling: Emerging functions of Lck in cancer and immunotherapy. Int J Mol Sci. (2019) 20:1–18. doi: 10.3390/ijms20143500

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

117. Bozso SJ, Kang JJH, and Nagendran J. The role of competing mechanisms on Lck regulation. Immunol Res. (2020) 68:289–95. doi: 10.1007/s12026-020-09148-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

118. Schoenborn JR, Tan YX, Zhang C, Shokat KM, and Weiss A. Feedback circuits monitor and adjust basal Lck-dependent events in T cell receptor signaling. Sci Signal. (2011) 4:1–13. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2001893

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

119. Furlan G, Minowa T, Hanagata N, Kataoka-Hamai C, and Kaizuka Y. Phosphatase CD45 both positively and negatively regulates T cell receptor phosphorylation in reconstituted membrane protein clusters. J Biol Chem. (2014) 289:28514–25. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.574319

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

120. Stepanek O, Kalina T, Draber P, Skopcova T, Svojgr K, Angelisova P, et al. Regulation of Src family kinases involved in T cell receptor signaling by protein-tyrosine phosphatase CD148. J Biol Chem. (2011) 286:22101–12. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.196733

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

121. Chiang GG and Sefton BM. Specific dephosphorylation of the lck tyrosine protein kinase at tyr-394 by the SHP-1 protein-tyrosine phosphatase. J Biol Chem. (2001) 276:23173–8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M101219200

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

122. Wu J, Katrekar A, Honigberg LA, Smith AM, Conn MT, Tang J, et al. Identification of substrates of human protein-tyrosine phosphatase PTPN22. J Biol Chem. (2006) 281:11002–10. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M600498200

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

123. Arimura Y, Vang T, Tautz L, Williams S, and Mustelin T. TCR-induced downregulation of protein tyrosine phosphatase PEST augments secondary T cell responses. Mol Immunol. (2008) 45:3074–84. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2008.03.019

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

124. Hasegawa K, Martin F, and Huang G. PEST domain – enriched tyrosine phosphatase (PEP) regulation of effector/memory T cells. Sci (80-.). (2009) 685:685–90. doi: 10.1126/science.1092138

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

125. Duan H, Jing L, Jiang X, Ma Y, Wang D, Xiang J, et al. CD146 bound to LCK promotes TCR signaling and anti-tumor immune response in mice. J Clin Invest. (2021) 131:e148568. doi: 10.1172/jci148568

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

126. Nika K, Soldani C, Salek M, Paster W, Gray A, Etzensperger R, et al. Article constitutively active lck kinase in T cells drives antigen receptor signal transduction. Immunity. (2010) 32:766–77. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.05.011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

127. Wan R, Wu J, Ouyang M, Lei L, Wei J, Peng Q, et al. Biophysical basis underlying dynamic Lck activation visualized by ZapLck FRET biosensor. Sci Adv. (2019) 5:eaau2001. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau2001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

128. Wei Q, Brzostek J, Sankaran S, Casas J, Hew LS-Q, Yap J, et al. Lck bound to coreceptor is less active than free Lck. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2020) 117:15809–15817. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913334117

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

129. Paster W, Paar C, Eckerstorfer P, Jakober A, Drbal K, Schu GJ, et al. Genetically encoded förster resonance energy transfer sensors for the conformation of the src family kinase lck. J Immunol. (2009) 182:2160–7. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0802639

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

130. Ballek O, Valečka J, Manning J, and Filipp D. The pool of preactivated Lck in the initiation of T-cell signaling: A critical re-evaluation of the Lck standby model. Immunol Cell Biol. (2015) 93:384–95. doi: 10.1038/icb.2014.100

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

131. Philipsen L, Reddycherla AV, Hartig R, Gumz J, Kästle M, Kritikos A, et al. De novo phosphorylation and conformational opening of the tyrosine kinase Lck act in concert to initiate T cell receptor signaling. Sci Signal. (2017) 10:1–14. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aaf4736

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

132. Kim PW, Sun ZYJ, Blacklow SC, Wagner G, and Eck MJ. A zinc clasp structure tethers Lck to T cell coreceptors CD4 and CD8. Sci (80-.). (2003) 301:1725–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1085643

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

133. Van Der Merwe PA and Dushek O. Mechanisms for T cell receptor triggering. Nat Rev Immunol. (2011) 11:47–55. doi: 10.1038/nri2887

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

134. Hutchinson SL, Wooldridge L, Tafuro S, Laugel B, Glick M, Boulter JM, et al. The CD8 T cell coreceptor exhibits disproportionate biological activity at extremely low binding affinities. J Biol Chem. (2003) 278:24285–93. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M300633200

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

135. Pettmann J, Huhn A, Shah EA, Kutuzov MA, Wilson DB, Dustin ML, et al. The discriminatory power of the T cell receptor. Elife. (2021) 10:1–42. doi: 10.7554/eLife.67092

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

136. Stepanek O, Prabhakar AS, Osswald C, King CG, Bulek A, Naeher D, et al. Coreceptor scanning by the T cell receptor provides a mechanism for T cell tolerance. Cell. (2014) 159:333–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.042

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

137. Horkova V, Drobek A, Paprckova D, Niederlova V, Prasai A, Uleri V, et al. Unique roles of co-receptor-bound LCK in helper and cytotoxic T cells. Nat Immunol. (2023) 24:174–185. doi: 10.1038/s41590-022-01366-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

138. Clement M, Pearson JA, Gras S, Van Den Berg HA, Lissina A, Llewellyn-Lacey S, et al. Targeted suppression of autoreactive CD8+ T-cell activation using blocking anti-CD8 antibodies. Sci Rep. (2016) 6:1–14. doi: 10.1038/srep35332

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

139. Chiang YJ and Hodes RJ. T-cell development is regulated by the coordinated function of proximal and distal Lck promoters active at different developmental stages. Eur J Immunol. (2016) 46:2401–8. doi: 10.1002/eji.201646440

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

140. Levin SD, Anderson SJ, Forbush KA, and Perlmutter RM. A dominant-negative transgene defines a role for p56lck in thymopoiesis. EMBO J. (1993) 12:1671–80. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1993.tb05812.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

141. Molina TJ, Kishihara K, Siderovski DP, van Ewijk W, Narendran A, Timms E, et al. Profound block in thymocyte development in mice lacking p56lck. Nature. (1992) 357:161–4. doi: 10.1038/357161a0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

142. Veillette A, Bookman MA, Horak EM, and Bolen JB. The CD4 and CD8 T cell surface antigens are associated with the internal membrane tyrasine-protein kinase p56lck. Cell. (1988) 55:301–8. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(88)90053-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

143. Horkova V, Drobek A, Mueller D, Gubser C, Niederlova V, Wyss L, et al. Dynamics of the coreceptor-LCK interactions during T cell development shape the self-reactivity of peripheral CD4 and CD8 T cells. Cell Rep. (2020) 30:1504–1514.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.01.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

144. Zamoyska R, Derham P, Gorman SD, van Hoegen P, Bolen JB, Veillette A, et al. Inability of CD8a’ polypeptides to associate with p56lck correlates with impaired function. Vitro lack Expression vivo. Lett to Nat. (1989) 342:278–81. doi: 10.1038/342278a0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

145. Van Laethem F, Sarafova SD, Park JH, Tai X, Pobezinsky L, Guinter TII, et al. Deletion of CD4 and CD8 coreceptors permits generation of αβT cells that recognize antigens independently of the MHC. Immunity. (2007) 27:735–50. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.10.007

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

146. Carmo AM, Mason DW, and Beyers AD. Physical association of the cytoplasmic domain of CD2 with the tyrosine kinases p56lck and p59fyn. Eur J Immunol. (1993) 23:2196–201. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830230922

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

147. Xu H and Littman DR. A kinase-independent function of Lck in potentiating antigen-specific T cell activation. Cell. (1993) 74:633–43. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90511-N

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

148. Foti M, Phelouzat MA, Holm Å., Rasmusson BJ, and Carpentier JL. P56Lck anchors CD4 to distinct microdomains on microvilli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2002) 99:2008–13. doi: 10.1073/pnas.042689099

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

149. Pelchen-Matthews A, Boulet I, Littman DR, Fagard R, and Marsh M. The protein tyrosine kinase p56lck inhibits CD4 endocytosis by preventing entry of CD4 into coated pits. J Cell Biol. (1992) 117:279–90. doi: 10.1083/jcb.117.2.279

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

150. Artyomov MN, Lis M, Devadas S, Davis MM, and Chakraborty AK. CD4 and CD8 binding to MHC molecules primarily acts to enhance Lck delivery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2010) 107:16916–21. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010568107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

151. Cheroutre H and Lambolez F. Doubting the TCR coreceptor function of CD8αα. Immunity. (2008) 28:149–59. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.01.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

152. Turner JM, Brodsky MH, Irving BA, Levin SD, Permutter RM, and Littman DR. Interaction of the unique N-terminal region of tyrosine kinase p56lck with cytoplasmic domains of CD4 and CD8 is mediated by cysteine motifs. Cell. (1990) 60:755–65. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90090-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

153. Bosselut R, Kubo S, Guinter T, Kopacz JL, Altman JD, Feigenbaum L, et al. Role of CD8β domains in CD8 coreceptor function: Importance for MHC I binding, signaling, and positive selection of CD8+ T cells in the thymus. Immunity. (2000) 12:409–18. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80193-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

154. Erman B, Alag AS, Dahle O, Van Laethem F, Sarafova SD, Guinter TI, et al. Coreceptor signal strength regulates positive selection but does not determine CD4/CD8 lineage choice in a physiologic. In Vivo Model J Immunol. (2006) 177:6613–25. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.10.6613

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

155. Drobek A, Moudra A, Mueller D, Huranova M, Horkova V, Pribikova M, et al. Strong homeostatic TCR signals induce formation of self-tolerant virtual memory CD8 T cells. EMBO J. (2018) 37:1–17. doi: 10.15252/embj.201798518

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

156. Van Laethem F, Tikhonova AN, and Singer A. MHC restriction is imposed on a diverse T cell receptor repertoire by CD4 and CD8 co-receptors during thymic selection. Trends Immunol. (2012) 33:437–41. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2012.05.006

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

157. Tikhonova AN, Van Laethem F, Hanada KI, Lu J, Pobezinsky LA, Hong C, et al. αβ T cell receptors that do not undergo major histocompatibility complex-specific thymic selection possess antibody-like recognition specificities. Immunity. (2012) 36:79–91. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.11.013

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

158. Jiang N, Huang J, Edwards LJ, Liu B, Zhang Y, Beal CD, et al. Two-stage cooperative T cell receptor-peptide major histocompatibility complex-CD8 trimolecular interactions amplify antigen discrimination. Immunity. (2011) 34:13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.12.017

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

159. Wooldridge L, Van Den Berg HA, Glick M, Gostick E, Laugel B, Hutchinson SL, et al. Interaction between the CD8 coreceptor and major histocompatibility complex class I stabilizes T cell receptor-antigen complexes at the cell surface. J Biol Chem. (2005) 280:27491–501. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M500555200

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

160. Rushdi MN, Pan V, Li K, Choi HK, Travaglino S, Hong J, et al. Cooperative binding of T cell receptor and CD4 to peptide-MHC enhances antigen sensitivity. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:7055. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34587-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

161. Casas J, Brzostek J, Zarnitsyna VI, Hong JS, Wei Q, Hoerter JAH, et al. Ligand-engaged TCR is triggered by Lck not associated with CD8 coreceptor. Nat Commun. (2014) 5:5624. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6624

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

162. Jönsson P, Southcombe JH, Mafalda Santos A, Huo J, Fernandes RA, McColl J, et al. Remarkably low affinity of CD4/peptide-major histocompatibility complex class II protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2016) 113:5682–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513918113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

163. Voisinne G, Locard-Paulet M, Froment C, Maturin E, Menoita MG, Girard L, et al. Kinetic proofreading through the multi-step activation of the ZAP70 kinase underlies early T cell ligand discrimination. Nat Immunol. (2022) 23:1355–64. doi: 10.1038/s41590-022-01288-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

164. Goyette J, Depoil D, Yang Z, Isaacson SA, Allard J, van der Merwe PA, et al. Dephosphorylation accelerates the dissociation of ZAP70 from the T cell receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2022) 119:e2116815119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2116815119

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

165. Britain DM, Town JP, and Weiner OD. Progressive enhancement of kinetic proofreading in T cell antigen discrimination from receptor activation to DAG generation. Elife. (2022) 11:1–25. doi: 10.7554/eLife.75263

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

166. Van Laethem F, Tikhonova AN, Pobezinsky LA, Tai X, Kimura MY, Le Saout C, et al. Lck availability during thymic selection determines the recognition specificity of the T cell repertoire. Cell. (2013) 154:1326. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

167. Morch AM, Schneider F, Jenkins E, Mafalda Santos A, Fraser SE, Davis SJ, et al. The kinase occupancy of T cell coreceptors reconsidered. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2022) 120:2017. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2213538119

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

168. Liaunardy-Jopeace A, Murton BL, Mahesh M, Chin JW, and James JR. Encoding optical control in LCK kinase to quantitatively investigate its activity in live cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol. (2017) 24:1155–63. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.3492

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

169. Heilig JS and Tonegawa S. Diversity of murine gamma genes and expression in fetal and adult T lymphocytes. Lett to Nat. (1986) 322:836–40. doi: 10.1038/322836a0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

170. Hayday AC. γδ T cell update: adaptate orchestrators of immune surveillance. J Immunol. (2019) 203:311–20. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1800934

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

171. Zhao Y, Niu C, and Cui J. Gamma-delta (γδ) T cells: friend or foe in cancer development. J Transl Med. (2018) 16:1–13. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513918113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

172. Groh V, Steinle A, Bauer S, and Spies T. Recognition of stress-induced MHC molecules by intestinal epithelial γδ T cells. Sci (80-.). (1998) 279:1737–40. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5357.1737

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

173. Le Nours J, Gherardin NA, Ramarathinam SH, Awad W, Wiede F, Gully BS, et al. A class of gd T cell receptors recognize the underside of the antigen-presenting molecule MR1. Sci (80-.). (2019) 366:1522–7. doi: 10.1126/science.aav3900

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

174. Luoma AM, Castro CD, Mayassi T, Bembinster LA, Bai L, Picard D, et al. Crystal structure of Vδ1T cell receptor in complex with CD1d-sulfatide shows MHC-like recognition of a self-lipid by human γδ T cells. Immunity. (2013) 39:1032–42. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.11.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

175. Herrmann T and Karunakaran MM. Butyrophilins: γδ T cell receptor ligands, immunomodulators and more. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.876493

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

176. Siegers GM, Swamy M, Fernández-Malavé E, Minguet S, Rathmann S, Guardo AC, et al. Different composition of the human and the mouse γδ T cell receptor explains different phenotypes of CD3γ and CD3δ immunodeficiencies. J Exp Med. (2007) 204:2537–44. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070782

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

177. Allison TJ, Winter CC, Fournié J-J, Bonneville M, and Garboczi DN. Structure of the human gd T-cell antigen receptor. Nature. (2001) 411:820–4. doi: 10.1038/35081115

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

178. Morath A and Schamel WW. αβ and γδ T cell receptors: Similar but different. J Leukoc. Biol. (2020) 107:1045–55. doi: 10.1002/JLB.2MR1219-233R

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

179. Xin W, Huang B, Chi X, Liu Y, Xu M, Zhang Y, et al. Structures of human γδ T cell receptor–CD3 complex. Nature. (2024) 630:222–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07439-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

180. Gully BS, Ferreira Fernandes J, Gunasinghe SD, Vuong MT, Lui Y, Rice MT, et al. Structure of a fully assembled γδ T-cell antigen receptor. Nature. (2024) 634:729–736. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07920-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

181. Blanco R, Borroto A, Schamel W, Pereira P, and Alarcon B. Conformational changes in the T cell receptor differentially determine T cell subset development in mice. Sci Signal. (2014) 7:1–16. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2005650

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

182. Dopfer EP, Hartl FA, Oberg HH, Siegers GM, Yousefi OS, Kock S, et al. The CD3 conformational change in the γδ T cell receptor is not triggered by antigens but can be enforced to enhance tumor killing. Cell Rep. (2014) 7:1704–15. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.04.049

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

183. Li F, Roy S, Niculcea J, Gould K, Adams EJ, Van Der PA, et al. Ligand-induced segregation from large cell-surface phosphatases is a critical step in γδ TCR triggering. Cell Rep. (2024) 43:114761. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114761

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

184. Tan YX, Manz BN, Freedman TS, Zhang C, Shokat KM, and Weiss A. Inhibition of the kinase Csk in thymocytes reveals a requirement for actin remodeling in the initiation of full TCR signaling. Nat Immunol. (2014) 15:186–94. doi: 10.1038/ni.2772

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

185. Fiala GJ, Schaffer A-M, Merches K, Morath A, Swann J, Herr LA, et al. Proximal lck promoter–driven cre function is limited in neonatal and ineffective in adult γδ T cell development. J Immunol. (2019) 203:569–79. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1701521

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

186. Negishi I, Motoyama N, Nakayama KI, Nakayama K, Senju S, Hatakeyama S, et al. Essential role for ZAP-70 in both positive and negative selection of thymocytes. Nature. (1995) 376:435–8. doi: 10.1038/376435a0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

187. Keller B, Kfir-Erenfeld S, Matusewicz P, Hartl F, Lev A, Lee YN, et al. Combined immunodeficiency caused by a novel nonsense mutation in LCK. J Clin Immunol. (2024) 44:4. doi: 10.1007/s10875-023-01614-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

188. Hauck F, Randriamampita C, Martin E, Gerart S, Lambert N, Lim A, et al. Primary T-cell immunodeficiency with immunodysregulation caused by autosomal recessive LCK deficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2012) 130:1144–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.07.029

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

189. Spidale NA, Sylvia K, Narayan K, Miu B, Frascoli M, Melichar HJ, et al. Interleukin-17-producing γδ T cells originate from SOX13+ Progenitors that are independent of γδTCR signaling. Immunity. (2018) 49:857–872.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.09.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

190. Tan L, Sandrock I, Odak I, Aizenbud Y, Wilharm A, Barros-Martins J, et al. Single-cell transcriptomics identifies the adaptation of scart1+ Vγ6+ T cells to skin residency as activated effector cells. Cell Rep. (2019) 27:3657–3671.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.064

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

191. Fujise S, Matsuzaki G, Kishihara K, Kadena T, Molina T, and Nomoto K. The role of p56lck in the development of gamma delta T cells and their function during an infection by Listeria monocytogenes. J Immunol. (1996) 157:247–54. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.157.1.247

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

192. Kawai K, Kishihara K, Molina TJ, Wallace VA, Mak TW, and Ohashi PS. Impaired development of V3/3 dendritic epidermal T cells in p56/ok protein tyrosine kinase-deficient and CD45 protein tyrosine phosphatase-deficient mice. J Exp Med. (1995) 181:345–9. doi: 10.1084/jem.181.1.345

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

193. Laird RM, Laky K, and Hayes SM. Unexpected role for the B cell-specific src family kinase B lymphoid kinase in the development of IL-17–producing γδ T cells. J Immunol. (2010) 185:6518–27. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1002766

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

194. Prinz I, Silva-santos B, and Pennington DJ. Functional development of γδ T cells. Eur J Clin Invest. (2013) 43:1988–94. doi: 10.1002/eji.201343759

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

195. Jensen KDC, Su X, Shin S, Li L, Youssef S, Yamasaki S, et al. Thymic selection determines γδ T cell effector fate: antigen-naive cells make interleukin-17 and antigen-experienced cells make interferon γ. Immunity. (2008) 29:90–100. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.04.022

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

196. Fahl SP, Coffey F, Kain L, Zarin P, Dunbrack RL, Teyton L, et al. Role of a selecting ligand in shaping the murine γδ-TCR repertoire. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2018) 115:1889–94. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1718328115

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

197. Endo Y, Ishikawa O, and Negishi I. Zeta-chain-associated protein-70 molecule is essential for the proliferation and the final maturation of dendritic epidermal T cells. Exp Dermatol. (2005) 14:188–93. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-6705.2005.00264.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

198. Muro R, Nitta T, Nakano K, Okamura T, Takayanagi H, and Suzuki H. γδTCR recruits the Syk/PI3K axis to drive proinflammatory differentiation program. J Clin Invest. (2018) 128:415–26. doi: 10.1172/JCI95837

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

199. Borna S, Fabisik M, Ilievova K, Dvoracek T, and Brdicka T. Mechanisms determining a differential threshold for sensing Src family kinase activity by B and T cell antigen receptors. J Biol Chem. (2020) 295:12935–45. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA120.013552

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

200. Stepanek O, Draber P, Drobek A, Horejsi V, and Brdicka T. Nonredundant roles of src-family kinases and syk in the initiation of B-cell antigen receptor signaling. J Immunol. (2013) 190:1807–18. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202401

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

201. Girardi M, Oppenheim DE, Steele CR, Lewis JM, Glusac E, Filler R, et al. Regulation of cutaneous Malignancy by γδ T cells. J Immunol. (2018) 200:3031–5. doi: 10.1093/jimmunol/200.9.3031

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

202. Gentles AJ, Newman AM, Liu CL, Bratman SV, Feng W, Kim D, et al. The prognostic landscape of genes and infiltrating immune cells across human cancers. Nat Med. (2015) 21:938–45. doi: 10.1038/nm.3909

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

203. Lu H, Dai W, Guo J, Wang D, Wen S, Yang L, et al. High abundance of intratumoral γδ T cells favors a better prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A bioinformatic analysis. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:1–14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.573920

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

204. Wang J, Lin C, Li H, Li R, Wu Y, Liu H, et al. Tumor-infiltrating γδT cells predict prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapeutic benefit in patients with gastric cancer. Oncoimmunology. (2017) 6:e1353858. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1353858

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

205. Meraviglia S, Lo Presti E, Tosolini M, La Mendola C, Orlando V, Todaro M, et al. Distinctive features of tumor-infiltrating γδ T lymphocytes in human colorectal cancer. Oncoimmunology. (2017) 6:e1347742. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1347742

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

206. Castro CD, Boughter CT, Broughton AE, Ramesh A, and Adams EJ. Diversity in recognition and function of human γδ T cells. Immunol Rev. (2020) 298:134–52. doi: 10.1111/imr.12930

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

207. Van Rhijn I and Le Nours J. CD1 and MR1 recognition by human γδ T cells. Mol Immunol. (2021) 133:95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2020.12.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

208. Mikulak J, Oriolo F, Bruni E, Roberto A, Colombo FS, Villa A, et al. NKp46-expressing human gut-resident intraepithelial Vδ1 T cell subpopulation exhibits high antitumor activity against colorectal cancer. JCI Insight. (2019) 4:e125884. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.125884

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

209. Knight A, MacKinnon S, and Lowdell MW. Human Vdelta1 gamma-delta T cells exert potent specific cytotoxicity against primary multiple myeloma cells. Cytotherapy. (2012) 14:1110–8. doi: 10.3109/14653249.2012.700766

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

210. Siegers GM, Dhamko H, Wang XH, Mathieson AM, Kosaka Y, Felizardo TC, et al. Human Vδ1 γδ T cells expanded from peripheral blood exhibit specific cytotoxicity against B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia-derived cells. Cytotherapy. (2011) 13:753–64. doi: 10.3109/14653249.2011.553595

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

211. Daley D, Zambirinis CP, Seifert L, Akkad N, Mohan N, Werba G, et al. γδ T cells support pancreatic oncogenesis by restraining αβ T cell activation. Cell. (2016) 166:1485–1499.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.07.046

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

212. Kühl AA, Pawlowski NN, Grollich K, Blessenohl M, Westermann J, Zeitz M, et al. Human peripheral γ;δ; T cells possess regulatory potential. Immunology. (2009) 128:580–8.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

213. Li Y, Li G, Zhang J, Wu X, and Chen X. The dual roles of human γδ T cells: anti-tumor or tumor-promoting. Front Immunol. (2021) 11:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.619954

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

214. Adams EJ, Gu S, and Luoma AM. Human gamma delta T cells: evolution and ligand recognition. Cell Immunol. (2015) 296:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2015.04.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

215. Alnaggar M, Xu Y, Li J, He J, Chen J, Li M, et al. Allogenic Vγ9Vδ2 T cell as new potential immunotherapy drug for solid tumor: A case study for cholangiocarcinoma. J Immunother. Cancer. (2019) 7:1–7.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

216. Meraviglia S, Eberl M, Vermijlen D, Todaro M, Buccheri S, Cicero G, et al. In vivo manipulation of V9V2 T cells with zoledronate and low-dose interleukin-2 for immunotherapy of advanced breast cancer patients. Clin Exp Immunol. (2010) 161:290–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04167.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

217. Di Carlo E, Bocca P, Emionite L, Cilli M, Cipollone G, Morandi F, et al. Mechanisms of the antitumor activity of human Vγ9Vδ2 T cells in combination with zoledronic acid in a preclinical model of neuroblastoma. Mol Ther. (2013) 21:1034–43. doi: 10.1038/mt.2013.38

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

218. Joalland N, Chauvin C, Oliver L, Vallette FM, Pecqueur C, Jarry U, et al. IL-21 increases the reactivity of allogeneic human Vγ9Vδ2 T cells against primary glioblastoma tumors. J Immunother. (2018) 41:224–31. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000225

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

219. Lai D, Wang F, Chen Y, Wang C, Liu S, Lu B, et al. Human ovarian cancer stem-like cells can be efficiently killed by γδ T lymphocytes. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2012) 61:979–89. doi: 10.1007/s00262-011-1166-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

220. Nishio N, Fujita M, Tanaka Y, Maki H, Zhang R, Hirosawa T, et al. Zoledronate sensitizes neuroblastoma-derived tumor-initiating cells to cytolysis mediated by human γδ T cells. J Immunother. (2012) 35:598–606. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e31826a745a

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

221. Bartkowiak J, Kulczyck-Wojdala D, Blonski J, and Robak T. Molecular diversity of gammadelta T cells in peripheral blood from patients with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Neuplasma. (2002) 49:86–90.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

222. Kenna T, Golden-Mason L, Norris S, Hegarty JE, O’Farrelly C, and Doherty DG. Distinct subpopulations of γδ T cells are present in normal and tumor-bearing human liver. Clin Immunol. (2004) 113:56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2004.05.003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

223. Petrasca A, Melo AM, Breen EP, and Doherty DG. Human Vδ3 + γδ T cells induce maturation and IgM secretion by B cells. Immunol Lett. (2018) 196:126–34. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2018.02.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

224. Mangan BA, Dunne MR, O’Reilly VP, Dunne PJ, Exley MA, O’Shea D, et al. Cutting edge: CD1d restriction and th1/th2/th17 cytokine secretion by human Vδ3 T cells. J Immunol. (2013) 191:30–4. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1300121

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

225. Schamel WW, Zinchenko M, Nguyen T, Fehse B, Briquez PS, and Minguet S. The potential of γδ CAR and TRuC T cells: An unearthed treasure. Eur J Immunol. (2024) 54:1–10. doi: 10.1002/eji.202451074

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

226. Hayday A, Dechanet-Merville J, Rossjohn J, and Silva-Santos B. Cancer immunotherapy by gd T cells. Sci (80-.). (2024) 386:eabq7248. doi: 10.1126/science.abq7248

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

227. Eshhar Z, Waks T, Gross G, and Schindler DG. Specific activation and targeting of cytotoxic lymphocytes through chimeric single chains consisting of antibody-binding domains and the gamma or zeta subunits of the immunoglobulin and T-cell receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (1993) 90:720–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.2.720

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

228. McGuinness RP, Ge Y, Patel SD, Kashmiri SVS, Lee HS, Hand PH, et al. Anti-tumor activity of human T cells expressing the CC49-ζ chimeric immune receptor. Hum Gene Ther. (1999) 10:165–73. doi: 10.1089/10430349950018968

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

229. June CH, O’Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, and Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Sci (80-.). (2018) 359:1361–5.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

230. Salter AI, Ivey RG, Kennedy JJ, Voillet V, Rajan A, Alderman EJ, et al. Phosphoproteomic analysis of chimeric antigen receptor signaling reveals kinetic and quantitative differences that affect cell function. Sci Signal. (2018) 11:1–17. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aat6753

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

231. Wu L, Brzostek J, Sakthi Vale PD, Wei Q, Koh CKT, Ong JXH, et al. CD28-CAR-T cell activation through FYN kinase signaling rather than LCK enhances therapeutic performance. Cell Rep Med. (2023) 4:100917. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.100917

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

232. Feucht J, Sun J, Eyquem J, Ho YJ, Zhao Z, Leibold J, et al. Calibration of CAR activation potential directs alternative T cell fates and therapeutic potency. Nat Med. (2019) 25:82–8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0290-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

233. A. Atara Bio. EBV-specific allogenic 1XX CAR-T cells. Available online at: https://www.atarabio.com/ (Accessed September 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

234. F. Fate Therapeutica. FT819, iPSC-derived CAR T-cell product, which incorporates a novel 1XX CAR targeting CD19. Available online at: https://www.fatetherapeutics.com/ (Accessed September 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

235. Wang P, Wang Y, Zhao X, Zheng R, Zhang Y, Meng R, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor with novel intracellular modules improves antitumor performance of T cells. London, England: Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 10 (2025). doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-02096-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

236. Kolanus W, Romeo C, and Seed B. T cell activation by clustered tyrosine kinases. Cell. (1993) 74:171–83. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90304-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

237. Fitzer-Attas CJ, Schindler DG, Waks T, and Eshhar Z. Harnessing syk family tyrosine kinases as signaling domains for chimeric single chain of the variable domain receptors: optimal design for T cell activation. J Immunol. (1998) 160:145–54. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.160.1.145

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

238. Tousley AM, Rotiroti MC, Labanieh L, Rysavy LW, Kim WJ, Lareau C, et al. Co-opting signalling molecules enables logic-gated control of CAR T cells. Nature. (2023) 615:507–16. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05778-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

239. Balagopalan L, Moreno T, Qin H, Angeles BC, Kondo T, Yi J, et al. Generation of antitumor chimeric antigen receptors incorporating T cell signaling motifs. Sci Signal. (2024) 17:eadp8569. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.adp8569

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

240. Baeuerle PA, Ding J, Patel E, Thorausch N, Horton H, Gierut J, et al. Synthetic TRuC receptors engaging the complete T cell receptor for potent anti-tumor response. Nat Commun. (2019) 10:1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10097-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

241. Ding J, Guyette S, Schrand B, Geirut J, Horton H, Guo G, et al. Mesothelin-targeting T cells bearing a novel T cell receptor fusion construct (TRuC) exhibit potent antitumor efficacy against solid tumors. Oncoimmunology. (2023) 12:2182058. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2023.2182058

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

242. Hassan R, Butler M, O’Cearbhaill RE, Oh DY, Johnson M, Zikaras K, et al. Mesothelin-targeting T cell receptor fusion construct cell therapy in refractory solid tumors: phase 1/2 trial interim results. Nat Med. (2023) 29:2099–109. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02452-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

243. Xu Y, Yang Z, Horan LH, Zhang P, Liu L, Zimdahl B, et al. A novel antibody-TCR (AbTCR) platform combines Fab-based antigen recognition with gamma/delta-TCR signaling to facilitate T-cell cytotoxicity with low cytokine release. Cell Discov. (2018) 4:62. doi: 10.1038/s41421-018-0066-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

244. Liu Y, Liu G, Wang J, Zheng ZY, Jia L, Rui W, et al. Chimeric STAR receptors using TCR machinery mediate robust responses against solid tumors. Sci Transl Med. (2021) 13:eabb5191. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abb5191

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

245. Mansilla-Soto J, Eyquem J, Haubner S, Hamieh M, Feucht J, Paillon N, et al. HLA-independent T cell receptors for targeting tumors with low antigen density. Nat Med. (2022) 28:345–52. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01621-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

246. Burton J, Siller-Farfán JA, Pettmann J, Salzer B, Kutuzov M, van der Merwe PA, et al. Inefficient exploitation of accessory receptors reduces the sensitivity of chimeric antigen receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2023) 120:1–10.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

247. Morris EC, Neelapu SS, Giavridis T, and Sadelain M. Cytokine release syndrome and associated neurotoxicity in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. (2022) 22:85–96. doi: 10.1038/s41577-021-00547-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

248. Tailor P, Tsai S, Schameli A, Serra P, Wang J, Robbins S, et al. The Proline-Rich Sequence of CD3ϵ as an amplifier of low-avidity TCR signaling. J Immunol. (2008) 181:243–55. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.1.243

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

249. A. Artax BioPharma. Resetting the immune system to restore healthy responses. website Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (2025). Available online at: https://artaxbiopharma.com/ (Accessed September 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

250. Mestermann K, Giavridis T, Weber J, Rydzek J, Frenz S, Nerreter T, et al. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor dasatinib acts as a pharmacologic on/off switch for CAR T cells. Sci Transl Med. (2019) 11:eaau5907. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau5907

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar