4.7 Article

Hospicells derived from ovarian cancer stroma inhibit T-cell immune responses

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 126, 期 9, 页码 2143-2152

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24881

关键词

T cells; ovarian carcinoma; immune regulation; tumor microenvironment

类别

资金

  1. Institut National du Cancer (INCa) [07/3D1616/IABC-23-8/NC-NG]
  2. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM)
  3. Universite Paul Sabatier
  4. Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (ARC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With metastatic disease at diagnosis for 70% of patients, ovarian cancer represents the most lethal gynecological malignancy. Ovarian carcinomas are aggressive malignancies that can evade immune surveillance and frequently develop into metastases. The tumor microenvironment is decisive for preventing immune attack but, in the case of ovarian carcinoma, the mechanisms are unclear. We recently isolated a novel type of stromal cell from the ascitis of patients with ovarian carcinoma that interacts with epithelial ovarian cancers conferring them chemoresistance. These cells, called Hospicells, have the cell surface markers CD9, CD10, CD29, CD146 and CD166. Here, we investigated whether Hospicells also have immunomodulatory functions that might interfere with immunity to cancer. We report that Hospicells inhibit the proliferation of human CD4(+), CD8(+) and Vy9V62 T cells in vitro and the production of cytokines by these immune cells. The immunosuppression of CD4(+) T cells is independent of direct contact with the Hospicells and is mainly due to nitric oxide produced by the inducible nitric oxide synthase and to products of the tryptophan degradation by indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase. We proposed that Hospicells in the microenvironment of the tumor mediate immunosuppression of T cells and thus allow ovarian cancers to evade immune surveillance. Targeting of Hospicells could be an alternative to strong chemotherapy through the recovery of immune responses against tumor cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据