Skin dendritic cells in melanoma are key for successful checkpoint blockade therapy.
Animals
Antibodies
/ administration & dosage
CD40 Antigens
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Cell Line, Tumor
Coculture Techniques
Dendritic Cells
/ drug effects
Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic
/ drug effects
Hepatitis A Virus Cellular Receptor 2
/ genetics
Humans
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
/ administration & dosage
Melanoma, Experimental
/ drug therapy
Mice
Neoplasm Staging
Poly I-C
/ administration & dosage
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
/ genetics
Sequence Analysis, RNA
Skin
/ cytology
dendritic cells
immunomodulation
immunotherapy
melanoma
tumor microenvironment
Journal
Journal for immunotherapy of cancer
ISSN: 2051-1426
Titre abrégé: J Immunother Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101620585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
accepted:
16
11
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has shown impressive results in patients with melanoma, but still many do not benefit from this line of treatment. A lack of tumor-infiltrating T cells is a common reason for therapy failure but also a loss of intratumoral dendritic cells (DCs) has been described. We used the transgenic tg(Grm1)EPv melanoma mouse strain that develops spontaneous, slow-growing tumors to perform immunological analysis during tumor progression. With flow cytometry, the frequencies of DCs and T cells at different tumor stages and the expression of the inhibitory molecules programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM-3) on T cells were analyzed. This was complemented with RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) and real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis to investigate the immune status of the tumors. To boost DC numbers and function, we administered Fms-related tyrosine 3 ligand (Flt3L) plus an adjuvant mix of polyI:C and anti-CD40. To enhance T cell function, we tested several checkpoint blockade antibodies. Immunological alterations were characterized in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes (LNs) by flow cytometry, CyTOF, microarray and RT-qPCR to understand how immune cells can control tumor growth. The specific role of migratory skin DCs was investigated by coculture of sorted DC subsets with melanoma-specific CD8+ T cells. Our study revealed that tumor progression is characterized by upregulation of checkpoint molecules and a gradual loss of the dermal conventional DC (cDC) 2 subset. Monotherapy with checkpoint blockade could not restore antitumor immunity, whereas boosting DC numbers and activation increased tumor immunogenicity. This was reflected by higher numbers of activated cDC1 and cDC2 as well as CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in treated tumors. At the same time, the DC boost approach reinforced migratory dermal DC subsets to prime gp100-specific CD8+ T cells in tumor-draining LNs that expressed PD-1/TIM-3 and produced interferon γ (IFNγ)/tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα). As a consequence, the combination of the DC boost with antibodies against PD-1 and TIM-3 released the brake from T cells, leading to improved function within the tumors and delayed tumor growth. Our results set forth the importance of skin DC in cancer immunotherapy, and demonstrates that restoring DC function is key to enhancing tumor immunogenicity and subsequently responsiveness to checkpoint blockade therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has shown impressive results in patients with melanoma, but still many do not benefit from this line of treatment. A lack of tumor-infiltrating T cells is a common reason for therapy failure but also a loss of intratumoral dendritic cells (DCs) has been described.
METHODS
We used the transgenic tg(Grm1)EPv melanoma mouse strain that develops spontaneous, slow-growing tumors to perform immunological analysis during tumor progression. With flow cytometry, the frequencies of DCs and T cells at different tumor stages and the expression of the inhibitory molecules programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM-3) on T cells were analyzed. This was complemented with RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) and real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis to investigate the immune status of the tumors. To boost DC numbers and function, we administered Fms-related tyrosine 3 ligand (Flt3L) plus an adjuvant mix of polyI:C and anti-CD40. To enhance T cell function, we tested several checkpoint blockade antibodies. Immunological alterations were characterized in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes (LNs) by flow cytometry, CyTOF, microarray and RT-qPCR to understand how immune cells can control tumor growth. The specific role of migratory skin DCs was investigated by coculture of sorted DC subsets with melanoma-specific CD8+ T cells.
RESULTS
Our study revealed that tumor progression is characterized by upregulation of checkpoint molecules and a gradual loss of the dermal conventional DC (cDC) 2 subset. Monotherapy with checkpoint blockade could not restore antitumor immunity, whereas boosting DC numbers and activation increased tumor immunogenicity. This was reflected by higher numbers of activated cDC1 and cDC2 as well as CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in treated tumors. At the same time, the DC boost approach reinforced migratory dermal DC subsets to prime gp100-specific CD8+ T cells in tumor-draining LNs that expressed PD-1/TIM-3 and produced interferon γ (IFNγ)/tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα). As a consequence, the combination of the DC boost with antibodies against PD-1 and TIM-3 released the brake from T cells, leading to improved function within the tumors and delayed tumor growth.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results set forth the importance of skin DC in cancer immunotherapy, and demonstrates that restoring DC function is key to enhancing tumor immunogenicity and subsequently responsiveness to checkpoint blockade therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33408092
pii: jitc-2020-000832
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000832
pmc: PMC7789456
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies
0
CD40 Antigens
0
Havcr2 protein, mouse
0
Hepatitis A Virus Cellular Receptor 2
0
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Pdcd1 protein, mouse
0
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
0
Poly I-C
O84C90HH2L
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI123322
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Clin Invest. 2004 Mar;113(5):774-83
pubmed: 14991076
J Exp Med. 2014 Aug 25;211(9):1875-91
pubmed: 25135299
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Dec 1;18(23):3883-93
pubmed: 11099317
Nat Genet. 2003 May;34(1):108-12
pubmed: 12704387
Cancer Cell. 2014 Nov 10;26(5):638-52
pubmed: 25446897
Cell. 2019 Apr 18;177(3):556-571.e16
pubmed: 30955881
Front Immunol. 2015 Oct 22;6:534
pubmed: 26557117
Immunity. 2005 May;22(5):643-54
pubmed: 15894281
Bioinformatics. 2015 Jan 15;31(2):166-9
pubmed: 25260700
Cancer Cell. 2017 May 8;31(5):711-723.e4
pubmed: 28486109
Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 15;28(16):2184-5
pubmed: 22743226
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):814-824
pubmed: 30962585
Nat Commun. 2016 Dec 23;7:13720
pubmed: 28008905
J Exp Med. 2007 Oct 29;204(11):2545-52
pubmed: 17938236
Nucleic Acids Res. 2007 Jul;35(Web Server issue):W193-200
pubmed: 17478515
Cancer Cell. 2016 Aug 8;30(2):324-336
pubmed: 27424807
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
J Exp Med. 2003 Jul 21;198(2):305-13
pubmed: 12874263
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2007 Sep;56(9):1459-69
pubmed: 17279413
Cell. 2015 Apr 9;161(2):205-14
pubmed: 25860605
Bioinformatics. 2010 Oct 1;26(19):2363-7
pubmed: 20688976
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 25;102(43):15545-50
pubmed: 16199517
Immunity. 2019 Jun 18;50(6):1498-1512.e5
pubmed: 31097342
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Apr 1;17(7):1765-75
pubmed: 21233400
J Clin Invest. 2008 Dec;118(12):4036-48
pubmed: 19033672
Nat Methods. 2012 Mar 04;9(4):357-9
pubmed: 22388286
Cell Rep. 2019 Dec 10;29(11):3736-3750.e8
pubmed: 31825848
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
Nat Rev Immunol. 2014 Jun;14(6):417-28
pubmed: 24854591
Science. 2015 Apr 3;348(6230):74-80
pubmed: 25838376
J Exp Med. 2003 Aug 18;198(4):569-80
pubmed: 12925674
J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Nov;135(11):2785-2793
pubmed: 26121214
J Immunol. 2017 Jan 1;198(1):31-39
pubmed: 27994166
Nat Immunol. 2002 Dec;3(12):1135-41
pubmed: 12415265
Nat Rev Immunol. 2017 Sep;17(9):559-572
pubmed: 28555670
Immunity. 2016 Sep 20;45(3):669-684
pubmed: 27637149
Immunity. 2016 Apr 19;44(4):924-38
pubmed: 27096321
Cancer Res. 2007 Mar 1;67(5):2298-305
pubmed: 17332361
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Science. 2018 Mar 23;359(6382):1350-1355
pubmed: 29567705
Immunol Rev. 2010 Jul;236:11-27
pubmed: 20636805
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015 Jul;50(7):924-30
pubmed: 25915810
Immunity. 2018 Dec 18;49(6):1148-1161.e7
pubmed: 30552023
Nat Genet. 2009 May;41(5):544-52
pubmed: 19282848
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:6803756
pubmed: 28331853