4.8 Article

Chemokine Expression in Melanoma Metastases Associated with CD8+ T-Cell Recruitment

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 7, 页码 3077-3085

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2281

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Burroughs Wellcome Fund [P01 CA97296, R01 CA90575]
  2. Ludwig Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the frequent detection of circulating tumor antigen-specific T cells, either spontaneously or following active immunization or adoptive transfer, immune-mediated cancer regression occurs only in the minority of patients. One theoretical rate-limiting step is whether effector T cells successfully migrate into metastatic tumor sites. Affymetrix gene expression profiling done on a series of metastatic melanoma biopsies revealed a major segregation of samples based on the presence or absence of T-cell-associated transcripts. The presence of lymphocytes correlated with the expression of defined chemokine genes. A subset of six chemokines (CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CXCL9, and CXCL10) was confirmed by protein array and/or quantitative reverse transcription-PCR to be preferentially expressed in tumors that contained T cells. Corresponding chemokine receptors were found to be up-regulated on human CD8(+) effector T cells, and transwell migration assays confirmed the ability of each of these chemokines to promote migration of CD8(+) effector cells in vitro. Screening by chemokine protein array identified a subset of melanoma cell lines that produced a similar broad array of chemokines. These melanoma cells more effectively recruited human CD8(+) effector T cells when implanted as xenografts in nonobese diabetic/severe combined immuno-deficient mice in vivo. Chemokine blockade with specific antibodies inhibited migration of CD8(+) T cells. Our results suggest that lack of critical chemokines in a subset of melanoma metastases may limit the migration of activated T cells, which in turn could limit the effectiveness of antitumor immunity. [Cancer Res 2009;69(7):3077-85]

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