4.8 Article

Genetic and Environmental Determinants of Immune Response to Cutaneous Melanoma

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 79, 期 10, 页码 2684-2696

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2864

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [C588/A19167, C8216/A6129, C588/A10721]
  2. NIH [CA83115]
  3. Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme [641458]
  4. MRC [MR/M019012/1, MR/S00386X/1, MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The immune response to melanomaimproves the survival in untreated patients and predicts the response to immune checkpoint blockade. Here, we report genetic and environmental predictors of the immune response in a large primary cutaneous melanoma cohort. Bioinformatic analysis of 703 tumor transcriptomes was used to infer immune cell infiltration and to categorize tumors into immune subgroups, which were then investigated for association with biological pathways, clinicopathologic factors, and copy number alterations. Three subgroups, with low, intermediate, and high immune signals, were identified in primary tumors and replicated in metastatic tumors. Genes in the low subgroup were enriched for cell-cycle and metabolic pathways, whereas genes in the high subgroup were enriched for IFN and NF-kappa B signaling. We identified high MYC expression partially driven by amplification, HLA-B downregulation, and deletion of IFN gamma and NF-kappa B pathway genes as the regulators of immune suppression. Furthermore, we showed that cigarette smoking, a globally detrimental environmental factor, modulates immunity, reducing the survival primarily in patients with a strong immune response. Together, these analyses identify a set of factors that can be easily assessed that may serve as predictors of response to immunotherapy in patients with melanoma. Significance: These findings identify novel genetic and environmental modulators of the immune response against primary cutaneous melanoma and predict their impact on patient survival.

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