4.7 Article

Dominant immunosuppression of dendritic cell function by prostate-cancer-derived exosomes

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/20013078.2017.1368823

Keywords

Prostate cancer; exosomes; antigen cross-presentation; PGE(2); adenosine; dendritic cells

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research Wales

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exosomes are a distinct population of extracellular vesicles of endocytic origin with a protein repertoire similar to the parent cell. Although tumour-derived exosomes harbour immunosuppressive characteristics, they also carry tumour antigens and thus potentially contribute to immune activation. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of prostate cancer exosomes on tumour antigen cross-presentation. DU145 cells, transduced with shRNA to knockdown Rab27a (DU145(KD)) that inhibits exosome secretion, triggered significantly stronger tumour-antigen-specific T cell responses when loaded onto dendritic cells (DC) than control DU145 cells. Enhanced T cell response was prevented by adding purified exogenous DU145 exosomes to DU145(KD) cells, demonstrating that the dominant effect of tumour exosomes is immunosuppression and not antigen delivery. CD8(+) T cell responses were impaired via exosomal regulation of DC function; exosomes triggered the expression of CD73, an ecto-5-nucleotidase responsible for AMP to adenosine hydrolysis, on DC. CD73 induction on DC that constitutively express CD39 resulted in an ATP-dependent inhibition of TNF alpha- and IL-12-production. We identified exosomal prostaglandin E-2 (PGE(2)) as a potential driver of CD73 induction, as inhibition of PGE(2) receptors significantly reduced exosome-dependent CD73 induction. The results reveal a hitherto unknown suppression of DC function via exosomal PGE(2), adding a new element to tumour exosome-immune cell cross-talk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available