4.7 Article

TIGIT modulates sepsis-induced immune dysregulation in mice with preexisting malignancy

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 6, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.139823

关键词

-

资金

  1. [T32GM095442]
  2. [R01GM104323]
  3. [R01AA027396]
  4. [R01AI149274]
  5. [R56 AI154895]
  6. [R01 GM072808]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TIGIT is an inhibitory receptor that is upregulated in cancer and contributes to impaired antitumor immunity, but its role in sepsis is unclear. Experiments showed that anti-TIGIT antibody reversed T cell apoptosis in cancer septic mice, leading to significant survival benefits for these patients. This suggests that anti-TIGIT therapy may be a potential immunotherapy to improve outcomes in septic cancer patients.
TIGIT is a recently identified coinhibitory receptor that is upregulated in the setting of cancer and functionally contributes to the impairment of antitumor immunity. However, its role during sepsis is unknown. Because patients with cancer are 10 times more likely to die of sepsis than previously healthy (PH) patients with sepsis, we interrogated the role of TIGIT during sepsis in the context of preexistent malignancy. PH mice or cancer (CA) mice inoculated with lung carcinoma cells were made septic by cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). We found that sepsis induced TIGIT upregulation predominantly on Tregs and NK cells in both PH and CA mice. Anti-TIGIT Ab improved the 7-d survival of CA septic mice but not PH mice after CLP. Treatment of CA septic animals but not PH septic animals with anti-TIGIT mAb significantly reversed sepsis-induced loss of CD4(+) T cells, CD8(+) T cells, Foxp3(+) Treg, and CD19(+) B cells in the spleen, which was the result of decreased caspase-3(+) apoptotic cells. In sum, we found that anti-TIGIT Ab reversed sepsis-induced T cell apoptosis in CA septic mice and led to a significant survival benefit, suggesting its use as a potential immunotherapy to improve outcomes in septic patients with cancer.

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