BACKGROUND: Challenge of MHC-mismatched murine bone marrow chimeras with recipient-type lymphocytes (recipient lymphocyte infusion) produces antileukemic responses in association with rejection of donor chimerism. In contrast, MHC-matched chimeras resist eradication of donor chimerism by recipient lymphocyte infusion. Here, we investigated lymphohematopoietic host-versus-graft reactivity and antileukemic responses in the MHC-matched setting, which is reminiscent of the majority of clinical transplants. DESIGN AND METHODS: We challenged C3H→AKR radiation chimeras with AKR-type splenocytes (i.e. recipient lymphocyte infusion) and BW5147.3 leukemia cells. We studied the kinetics of chimerism using flowcytometry and the mechanisms involved in antileukemic effects using in vivo antibody-mediated depletion of CD8(+) T and NK cells, and intracellular cytokine staining. RESULTS: Whereas control chimeras showed progressive evolution towards high-level donor T-cell chimerism, recipient lymphocyte infusion chimeras showed a limited reduction of donor chimerism with delayed onset and long-term preservation of lower-level mixed chimerism. Recipient lymphocyte infusion chimeras nevertheless showed a significant survival benefit after leukemia challenge. In vivo antibody-mediated depletion experiments showed that both CD8(+) T cells and NK cells contribute to the antileukemic effect. Consistent with a role for NK cells, the proportion of IFN-γ producing NK cells in recipient lymphocyte infusion chimeras was significantly higher than in control chimeras. CONCLUSIONS: In the MHC-matched setting, recipient lymphocyte infusion elicits lymphohematopoietic host-versus-graft reactivity that is limited but sufficient to provide an antileukemic effect, and this is dependent on CD8(+) T cells and NK cells. The data indicate that NK cells are activated as a bystander phenomenon during lymphohematopoietic T-cell alloreactivity and thus support a novel type of NK involvement in anti-tumor responses after post-transplant adoptive cell therapy.
BACKGROUND: Challenge of MHC-mismatched murine bone marrow chimeras with recipient-type lymphocytes (recipient lymphocyte infusion) produces antileukemic responses in association with rejection of donor chimerism. In contrast, MHC-matched chimeras resist eradication of donor chimerism by recipient lymphocyte infusion. Here, we investigated lymphohematopoietic host-versus-graft reactivity and antileukemic responses in the MHC-matched setting, which is reminiscent of the majority of clinical transplants. DESIGN AND METHODS: We challenged C3H→AKR radiation chimeras with AKR-type splenocytes (i.e. recipient lymphocyte infusion) and BW5147.3 leukemia cells. We studied the kinetics of chimerism using flowcytometry and the mechanisms involved in antileukemic effects using in vivo antibody-mediated depletion of CD8(+) T and NK cells, and intracellular cytokine staining. RESULTS: Whereas control chimeras showed progressive evolution towards high-level donor T-cell chimerism, recipient lymphocyte infusion chimeras showed a limited reduction of donor chimerism with delayed onset and long-term preservation of lower-level mixed chimerism. Recipient lymphocyte infusion chimeras nevertheless showed a significant survival benefit after leukemia challenge. In vivo antibody-mediated depletion experiments showed that both CD8(+) T cells and NK cells contribute to the antileukemic effect. Consistent with a role for NK cells, the proportion of IFN-γ producing NK cells in recipient lymphocyte infusion chimeras was significantly higher than in control chimeras. CONCLUSIONS: In the MHC-matched setting, recipient lymphocyte infusion elicits lymphohematopoietic host-versus-graft reactivity that is limited but sufficient to provide an antileukemic effect, and this is dependent on CD8(+) T cells and NK cells. The data indicate that NK cells are activated as a bystander phenomenon during lymphohematopoietic T-cell alloreactivity and thus support a novel type of NK involvement in anti-tumor responses after post-transplant adoptive cell therapy.
Authors: H Zetterquist; P Hentschke; A Thörne; A Wernerson; J Mattsson; M Uzunel; J Martola; N Albiin; J Aschan; N Papadogiannakis; O Ringdén Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: A D Billiau; H Sefrioui; L Overbergh; O Rutgeerts; J Goebels; C Mathieu; M Waer Journal: Transplantation Date: 2001-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: E Orsini; E P Alyea; A Chillemi; R Schlossman; S McLaughlin; C Canning; R J Soiffer; K C Anderson; J Ritz Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2000 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Maciej Kmieciak; Debasmita Basu; Kyle K Payne; Amir Toor; Adly Yacoub; Xiang-Yang Wang; Lisa Smith; Harry D Bear; Masoud H Manjili Journal: J Immunol Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 5.422