4.7 Article

Lenalidomide treatment promotes CD154 expression on CLL cells and enhances production of antibodies by normal B cells through a PI3-kinase-dependent pathway

期刊

BLOOD
卷 115, 期 13, 页码 2619-2629

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-09-242438

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer and Leukemia Group B Foundation
  2. D. Warren Brown Foundation
  3. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
  4. National Cancer Institute [P50-CA140158, 1K12 CA133250, P01 CA95426, P01 CA101956]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) involves a profound humoral immune defect and tumor-specific humoral tolerance that directly contribute to disease morbidity and mortality. CD154 gene therapy can reverse this immune defect, but attempts to do this pharmacologically have been unsuccessful. The immune-modulatory agent lenalidomide shows clinical activity in CLL, but its mechanism is poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that lenalidomide induces expression of functional CD154 antigen on CLL cells both in vitro and in vivo. This occurs via enhanced CD154 transcription mediated by a Nuclear Factor of Activated T cells c1 (NFATc1)/Nuclear Factor-kappa B (NF kappa B) complex and also through phosphoinositide-3 (PI3)-kinase pathway-dependent stabilization of CD154 mRNA. Importantly, CD154-positive CLL cells upregulate BID, DR5, and p73, become sensitized to tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL)-mediated apoptosis, and promote costimulatory activation of normal B cells to produce antibodies. In CLL patients receiving lenalidomide, similar evidence of CD154 activation is observed including BID, DR5, and p73 induction and also development of anti-ROR1 tumor-directed antibodies. Our data demonstrate that lenalidomide promotes CD154 expression on CLL cells with subsequent activation phenotype, and may therefore reverse the humoral immune defect observed in this disease. This study is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00466895. (Blood. 2010;115(13):2619-2629)

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