4.6 Article

Correction of defects responsible for impaired Qa-2 class Ib MHC expression on melanoma cells protects mice from tumor growth

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 170, 期 9, 页码 4515-4523

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.9.4515

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI19624] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [P01 37818] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the principal mechanisms of tumor immune evasion is alteration of class I MHC expression. We have identified defects contributing to down-regulation of class I MHC expression in the widely studied marine B16 melanoma and its variants B16F1, B16F10, BL6-2, BL6-8 and B78H1. Transcription of the nonclassical class I MHC genes Q8 and Q9 (Qa-2 Ags) has been switched off in the entire panel of melanoma lines, suggesting that this event occurred early during tumor progression. B78H1, unlike B16F1 and B16F10 sublines, is also selectively devoid of TAP2 and low molecular weight protein 7 as well as classical class I MHC K-b and D-b transcripts. Cotransfection of B78H1 with TAP2 and class I H chain genes is sufficient to reconstitute surface expression of exogenously delivered class I MHC without concomitant re-expression of endogenous beta(2)-microglobulin-associated class I. The serological absence of endogenous class Ia and Ib at the surface of TAP2-negative as well as TAP2-transfected B78H1 makes this system a suitable model for studying the properties of isolated class I proteins in tumors. We used this system to demonstrate that B78H1 cells genetically manipulated to re-express Q9 Ag have reduced tumor potential in syngeneic B6 mice compared with TAP2-transfected parental melanoma. Both NK cells and CTLs appear to collaborate in restraining growth of Q9-positive tumors. The results implicate Qa-2 in antitumor responses and illustrate the utility of the B78H1 system for identifying in vivo interactions between class I MHC molecules of interest and immune cells of innate and/or adaptive immunity.

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