4.7 Article

CTLA-4/CD80 pathway regulates T cell infiltration into pancreatic cancer

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 66, 期 12, 页码 1609-1617

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-017-2053-4

关键词

Pancreas cancer; T cell exclusion; Treg; CTLA-4; CD80; Immunotherapy

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute [K08 CA138907, R01 CA197916]
  2. Molecular Studies in Digestive and Liver Diseases grant from the National Institutes of Health
  3. AACR-PanCAN Career Development Award
  4. National Pancreas Foundation
  5. Department of Defense Discovery Award
  6. Nadia's Gift Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of some tumors to exclude effector T cells represents a major challenge to immunotherapy. T cell exclusion is particularly evident in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a disease where blockade of the immune checkpoint molecule CTLA-4 has not produced significant clinical activity. In PDAC, effector T cells are often scarce within tumor tissue and confined to peritumoral lymph nodes and lymphoid aggregates. We hypothesized that CTLA-4 blockade, despite a lack of clinical efficacy seen thus far in PDAC, might still alter T cell immunobiology, which would have therapeutic implications. Using clinically relevant genetic models of PDAC, we found that regulatory T cells (Tregs), which constitutively express CTLA-4, accumulate early during tumor development but are largely confined to peritumoral lymph nodes during disease progression. Tregs were observed to regulate CD4(+), but not CD8(+), T cell infiltration into tumors through a CTLA-4/CD80 dependent mechanism. Disrupting CTLA-4 interaction with CD80 was sufficient to induce CD4 T cell infiltration into tumors. These data have important implications for T cell immunotherapy in PDAC and demonstrate a novel role for CTLA-4/CD80 interactions in regulating T cell exclusion. In addition, our findings suggest distinct mechanisms govern CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell infiltration in PDAC.

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