4.8 Article

Quantitative Interactomics in Primary T Cells Provides a Rationale for Concomitant PD-1 and BTLA Coinhibitor Blockade in Cancer Immunotherapy

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 3315-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.041

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  2. INSERM
  3. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [787300]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (PHENOMIN project)
  5. MSDAVENIR Fund
  6. AstraZeneca-MedImmune
  7. Plan Cancer [C15091AS]
  8. DC Biol Labex [ANR-11-LABEX-0043, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL]
  9. MSDAVENIR
  10. China Scholarship Council
  11. ERC [670821]
  12. Swiss National Science Foundation [3100A0-688107679]
  13. Innovative Medicines Initiative project ULTRA-DD [115766]
  14. European Research Council (ERC) [787300, 670821] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deciphering how TCR signals are modulated by coinhibitory receptors is of fundamental and clinical interest. Using quantitative interactomics, we define the composition and dynamics of the PD-1 and BTLA coinhibitory signalosomes in primary effector T cells and at the T cell-antigen-presenting cell interface. We also solve the existing controversy regarding the role of the SHP-1 and SHP-2 protein-tyrosine phosphatases in mediating PD-1 coinhibition. PD-1 predominantly recruits SHP-2, but when absent, it recruits SHP-1 and remains functional. In contrast, BTLA predominantly recruits SHP-1 and to a lesser extent SHP-2. By separately analyzing the PD-1-SHP-1 and PD-1-SHP-2 complexes, we show that both dampen the TCR and CD28 signaling pathways equally. Therefore, our study illustrates how comparison of coinhibitory receptor signaling via quantitative interactomics in primary T cells unveils their extent of redundancy and provides a rationale for designing combinations of blocking antibodies in cancer immunotherapy on the basis of undisputed modes of action.

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