4.6 Article

Rational Combination of Parvovirus H1 With CTLA-4 and PD-1 Checkpoint Inhibitors Dampens the Tumor Induced Immune Silencing

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00425

关键词

melanoma; immune cells; H-1PV; nivolumab; ipilimumab; immunotherapy

类别

资金

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent therapeutic success of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of advanced melanoma highlights the potential of cancer immunotherapy. Oncolytic virus-based therapies may further improve the outcome of these cancer patients. A human ex vivo melanoma model was used to investigate the oncolytic parvovirus H-1 (H-1PV) in combination with ipilimumab and/or nivolumab. The effect of this combination on activation of human T lymphocytes was demonstrated. Expression of CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 immune checkpoint proteins was upregulated in H-1PV-infected melanoma cells. Nevertheless, maturation of antigen presenting cells such as dendritic cells was triggered by H-1PV infected melanoma cells. Combining H-1PV with checkpoint inhibitors, ipilimumab enhanced TNF alpha release during maturation of dendritic cells; nivolumab increased the amount of IFN gamma release. H-1PV mediated reduction of regulatory T cell activity was demonstrated by lower TGF-beta levels. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in a further decline of TGF-beta levels. Similar results were obtained regarding the activation of cytotoxic T cells. H-1PV infection alone and in combination with both checkpoint inhibitors caused strong activation of CTLs, which was reflected by an increased number of CD8(+)GranB(+) cells and increased release of granzyme B, IFN gamma, and TNF alpha. Our data support the concept of a treatment benefit from combining oncolytic H-1PV with the checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab, with nivolumab inducing stronger effects on cytotoxic T cells, and ipilimumab strengthening T lymphocyte activity.

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