4.6 Article

Extended Co-Expression of Inhibitory Receptors by Human CD8 T-Cells Depending on Differentiation, Antigen-Specificity and Anatomical Localization

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030852

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, United States of America
  2. Cancer Research Institute, United States of America
  3. Cancer Vaccine Collaborative, United States of America
  4. OPO-Stiftung, Switzerland [2010/11-0039]
  5. Swiss Cancer League [02279-08-2008]
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation [3200B0-118123]
  7. Swiss National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR) Molecular Oncology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inhibitory receptors mediate CD8 T-cell hyporesponsiveness against cancer and infectious diseases. PD-1 and CTLA-4 have been extensively studied, and blocking antibodies have already shown clinical benefit for cancer patients. Only little is known on extended co-expression of inhibitory receptors and their ligands. Here we analyzed the expression of eight inhibitory receptors by tumor-antigen specific CD8 T-cells. We found that the majority of effector T-cells simultaneously expressed four or more of the inhibitory receptors BTLA, TIM-3, LAG-3, KRLG-1, 2B4, CD160, PD-1 and CTLA-4. There were major differences depending on antigen-specificity, differentiation and anatomical localization of T-cells. On the other hand, naive T-cells were only single or double positive for BTLA and TIM-3. Extended co-expression is likely relevant for effector T-cells, as we found expression of multiple ligands in metastatic lesions of melanoma patients. Together, our data suggest that naive T-cells are primarily regulated by BTLA and TIM-3, whereas effector cells interact via larger numbers of inhibitory receptors. Blocking multiple inhibitory receptors simultaneously or sequentially may improve T-cell based therapies, but further studies are necessary to clarify the role of each receptor-ligand pair.

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