4.6 Article

CD26 expression and adenosine deaminase activity in regulatory T cells (Treg) and CD4+ T effector cells in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
卷 1, 期 5, 页码 659-669

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/onci.20387

关键词

cancer; adenosine deaminase (ADA); Treg; Teff; adenosine

资金

  1. NIH [PO1 CA109688, DK079307, DK068575, HL069846]
  2. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [NN401047738]
  3. University of Essen (IFORES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenosine deaminase (ADA) is responsible for the deamination of immunosuppressive adenosine to inosine. In human T lymphocytes, ADA is associated with dipeptidyl peptidase IV (CD26). ADA expression and activity were evaluated in regulatory T cells (Treg) and CD4(+) T effector cells (Teff) of patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). CD4(+) CD39(+) and CD4(+) CD39(neg) T cells were isolated by single-cell sorting from the peripheral blood of 15 HNSC patients and 15 healthy donors (NC). CD26/ADA expression in these cells was studied by multicolor flow cytometry, confocal microscopy, RT-PC R and immunohistochemistry in tumor tissues. ADA activity was evaluated by mass spectrometry, suppression of Teff proliferation in CFSE assays and cytokine production by Luminex. CD4(+) CD39(+) Treg had low and CD4(+) CD39(neg) Teff high CD26/ADA expression and ADA activity in NC or HNSCC. The frequency and suppressor activity of CD39(+) CD26(neg) Treg were elevated in patients relative to NC (p < 0.01). However, ADA activity in patients' CD4(+) CD39(neg) Teff was decreased (p < 0.05), resulting in extracellular adenosine accumulation. Also, patients' Teff were more sensitive to inhibitory signals delivered via adenosine receptors. IL-2, IL12 and INF gamma upregulated ADA expression and activity in CD4(+) CD39(neg) Teff, whereas IL-10, PGE(2) and CADO downregulated it. The differentially expressed CD26/ADA can serve as surface markers for functionally-active CD39(+) CD26(neg) Treg.

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