4.6 Article

Anti-PD-1 antibody decreases tumour-infiltrating regulatory T cells

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6499-y

关键词

PD-1; Treg; Osteosarcoma; Anti-PD-1 antibody

类别

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [16 K20045, 18 K16652]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There are many types of therapies for cancer. In these days, immunotherapies, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, are focused on. Though many types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are there, the difference of effect and its mechanism are unclear. Some reports suggest the response rate of anti-PD-1 antibody is superior to that of anti-PD-L1 antibody and could potentially produce different mechanisms of action. On the other hand, Treg also express PD-1; however, their relationship remains unclear. Methods In this study, we used osteosarcoma cell lines in vitro and osteosarcoma mouse model in vivo. In vitro, we analyzed the effect of IFN gamma for expression of PD-L1 on the surface of cell lines by flowcytometry. In vivo, murine osteosarcoma cell line LM8 was subcutaneously transplanted into the dorsum of mice. Mouse anti-PD-1 antibody was intraperitoneally administered. we analysed the effect for survival of anti-PD-1 antibody and proportion of T cells in the tumour by flowcytometry. Results We discovered that IFN gamma increased PD-L1 expression on the surface of osteosarcoma cell lines. In assessing the relationship between anti-PD-1 antibody and Treg, we discovered the administration of anti-PD-1 antibody suppresses increases in tumour volume and prolongs overall survival time. In the tumour microenvironment, we found that the administration of anti-PD-1 antibody decreased Treg within the tumour and increased tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes. Conclusions Here we clarify for the first time an additional mechanism of anti-tumour effect-as exerted by anti-PD-1 antibody decreasing Treg- we anticipate that our findings will lead to the development of new methods for cancer treatment.

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