4.7 Article

Human NK cells maintain licensing status and are subject to killer immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR) and KIR-ligand inhibition following ex vivo expansion

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 1047-1059

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-016-1864-z

关键词

Ex vivo expansion; NK cells; Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors; HLA; ADCC

资金

  1. Hyundai Hope on Wheels Grant
  2. Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer
  3. NIH [R01 CA166105, R35 CA197078]
  4. Stand Up To Cancer Foundation
  5. St. Baldrick's Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infusion of allogeneic NK cells is a potential immunotherapy for both hematopoietic malignancies and solid tumors. Interactions between killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) on human NK cells and KIR-ligands on tumor cells influence the magnitude of NK function. To obtain sufficient numbers of activated NK cells for infusion, one potent method uses cells from the K562 human erythroleukemia line that have been transfected to express activating 41BB ligand (41BBL) and membrane-bound interleukin 15 (mbIL15). The functional importance of KIRs on ex vivo expanded NK cells has not been studied in detail. We found that after a 12-day co-culture with K562-mbIL15-41BBL cells, expanded NK cells maintained inhibition specificity and prior in vivo licensing status determined by KIR/KIR-ligand interactions. Addition of an anti-CD20 antibody (rituximab) induced NK-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and augmented killing of CD20+ target cells. However, partial inhibition induced by KIR/KIR-ligand interactions persisted. Finally, we found that extended co-cultures of NK cells with stimulatory cells transduced to express various KIR-ligands modified both the inhibitory and activating KIR repertoires of the expanded NK cell product. These studies demonstrate that the licensing interactions known to occur during NK ontogeny also influence NK cell function following NK expansion ex vivo with HLA-null stimulatory cells.

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

4.7
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