4.8 Article

A natural killer-dendritic cell axis defines checkpoint therapy-responsive tumor microenvironments

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1178-1191

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0085-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01CA197363]
  2. AbbVie of the Immunoprofiler Consortium
  3. Amgen of the Immunoprofiler Consortium
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb of the Immunoprofiler Consortium
  5. NIH [5P30CA082103]
  6. Genentech Predoctoral Research Fellowship
  7. Margaret A. Cunningham Immune Mechanisms in Cancer Research Fellowship Award
  8. Achievement Reward for College Scientists Scholarship
  9. Cancer Research Institute
  10. Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intratumoral stimulatory dendritic cells (SDCs) play an important role in stimulating cytotoxic T cells and driving immune responses against cancer. Understanding the mechanisms that regulate their abundance in the tumor microenvironment (TME) could unveil new therapeutic opportunities. We find that in human melanoma, SDC abundance is associated with intratumoral expression of the gene encoding the cytokine FLT3LG. FLT3LG is predominantly produced by lymphocytes, notably natural killer (NK) cells in mouse and human tumors. NK cells stably form conjugates with SDCs in the mouse TME, and genetic and cellular ablation of NK cells in mice demonstrates their importance in positively regulating SDC abundance in tumor through production of FLT3L. Although anti-PD-1 'checkpoint' immunotherapy for cancer largely targets T cells, we find that NK cell frequency correlates with protective SDCs in human cancers, with patient responsiveness to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, and with increased overall survival. Our studies reveal that innate immune SDCs and NK cells cluster together as an excellent prognostic tool for T cell-directed immunotherapy and that these innate cells are necessary for enhanced T cell tumor responses, suggesting this axis as a target for new therapies.

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