4.6 Article

Increased Frequency of Suppressive Regulatory T Cells and T Cell-Mediated Antigen Loss Results in Murine Melanoma Recurrence

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 189, 期 2, 页码 767-776

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1103822

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Grant [CA080964]
  2. Chiles Foundation
  3. Safeway Foundation
  4. Providence Portland Medical Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Therapeutic treatment of large established tumors using immunotherapy has yielded few promising results. We investigated whether adoptive transfer of tumor-specific CD8(+) T cells, together with tumor-specific CD4(+) T cells, would mediate regression of large established B16BL6-D5 melanomas in lymphopenic Rag1(-/-) recipients devoid of regulatory T cells. The combined adoptive transfer of subtherapeutic doses of both TRP1-specific TCR transgenic Rag1(-/-) CD4(+) T cells and gp100-specific TCR transgenic Rag1(-/-) CD8(+) T cells into lymphopenic recipients, who received vaccination, led to regression of large (100-400 mm 2) melanomas. The same treatment strategy was ineffective in lymphoreplete wild-type mice. Twenty-five percent of mice (15/59) had tumors recur (15-180 d postregression). Recurrent tumors were depigmented and had decreased expression of gp100, the epitope targeted by the CD8(+) T cells. Mice with recurrent melanoma had increased CD4(+) Foxp3(+) TRP1-specific T cells compared with mice that did not show evidence of disease. Importantly, splenocytes from mice with recurrent tumor were able to suppress the in vivo therapeutic efficacy of splenocytes from tumor-free mice. These data demonstrate that large established tumors can be treated by a combination of tumor-specific CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cells. Additionally, recurrent tumors exhibited decreased Ag expression, which was accompanied by conversion of the therapeutic tumor-specific CD4(+) T cell population to a Foxp3(+) CD4(+) regulatory T cell population. The Journal of Immunology, 2012, 189: 767-776.

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

4.6
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