4.8 Article

Baseline tumor growth and immune control in laboratory mice are significantly influenced by subthermoneutral housing temperature

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1304291110

关键词

murine tumor models; metabolism

资金

  1. National Institute of Heath [R01 CA135368, R01 CA140622, T32 CA085183]
  2. Roswell Park Cancer Institute Alliance Foundation
  3. James L. Desiderio Endowment Fund
  4. Roswell Park Cancer Institute's Comprehensive Cancer Center Support Grant [CA016056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We show here that fundamental aspects of antitumor immunity in mice are significantly influenced by ambient housing temperature. Standard housing temperature for laboratory mice in research facilities is mandated to be between 20-26 degrees C; however, these subthermoneutral temperatures cause mild chronic cold stress, activating thermogenesis to maintain normal body temperature. When stress is alleviated by housing at thermoneutral ambient temperature (30-31 degrees C), we observe a striking reduction in tumor formation, growth rate and metastasis. This improved control of tumor growth is dependent upon the adaptive immune system. We observe significantly increased numbers of antigen-specific CD8(+) T lymphocytes and CD8(+) T cells with an activated phenotype in the tumor microenvironment at thermoneutrality. At the same time there is a significant reduction in numbers of immunosuppressive MDSCs and regulatory T lymphocytes. Notably, in temperature preference studies, tumor-bearing mice select a higher ambient temperature than non-tumor-bearing mice, suggesting that tumor-bearing mice experience a greater degree of cold-stress. Overall, our data raise the hypothesis that suppression of antitumor immunity is an outcome of cold stress-induced thermogenesis. Therefore, the common approach of studying immunity against tumors in mice housed only at standard room temperature may be limiting our understanding of the full potential of the antitumor immune response.

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

4.8
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