4.6 Article

Specific ADAM10 inhibitors localize in exosome-like vesicles released by Hodgkin lymphoma and stromal cells and prevent sheddase activity carried to bystander cells

期刊

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1421889

关键词

immune escape; immune stress; alfa-secretase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shedding of ADAM10 substrates, like TNF alpha, MICA or CD30, is reported to affect both anti-tumor immune response and antibody-drug-conjugate (ADC)-based immunotherapy. Soluble forms of these molecules and ADAM10 can be carried and spread in the microenvironment by exosomes released by tumor cells. We reported new ADAM10 inhibitors able to prevent MICA shedding in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), leading to recognition of HL cells by cytotoxic lymphocytes. In this paper, we show that the mature bioactive form of ADAM10 is released in exosome-like vesicles (ExoV) by HL cells and lymph node mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC). We demonstrate that ADAM10 inhibitors are released in ExoV by MSC or HL cells, endocytosed by bystander cells and localized in the endolysosomal compartment in HL MSC. ExoV released by HL cells can enhance MICA shedding by MSC, while ExoV from MSC induce TNF alpha or CD30 shedding by HL cells. Of note, ADAM10 sheddase activity carried by ExoV is prevented with the ADAM10 inhibitors LT4 and CAM29, pretreating either the ExoV-producing or the ExoV-receiving cells. In particular, both inhibitors reduce CD30 shedding maintaining the anti-tumor effects of the ADC Brentuximab-Vedotin or the anti-CD30 Iratumumab on HL cells. Thus, spreading of ADAM10 activity due to ExoV can result in the release of cytokines, like TNF alpha, a lymphoma growth factor, or soluble molecules, like sMICA or sCD30, that potentially interfere with host immune surveillance or immunotherapy. ADAM10 blockers can interfere with this process, allowing the development of anti-lymphoma immune response and/or efficient ADC-based or human antibody-based immunotherapy.

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