Most humantumors have reached at least 1 cm in diameter and contain at least
109 cancer cells at time of diagnosis. These tumors have been present
in the patient for probably many months, if not years (1). However, most experimental tumors used for
preclinical studies on the efficacy of immunotherapy do not reach that size, and
most strategies fail at later stages of cancer progression (2). Adoptive T cell therapy stands out as the most
effective approach and thus offers the highest promise in a clinically realistic
setting (2). In several experimental models,
mice receiving syngeneic activated T cells rejected established tumors expressing
potent, immunodominant artificial antigens (3-5). We have therefore focused on
experimental adoptive cell therapy that could be effective against tumors at least 1
cm in diameter and containing ∼109 cancer cells that express
natural tumor-specific antigens arisen at an old age.Most spontaneous human and animal tumors develop in older individuals (6-9). As
people age, they are predisposed to developing cancer likely due to increasingly
more mutations in their somatic cells as well as a decrease in their ability to
mount effective immune responses against these malignant cells. Furthermore, several
studies have shown that aged mice fail to reject similar tumor inocula that are
eradicated by younger mice (10-12). These distinct age-related immune
responses may be due to differences in co-stimulation, regulatory T cells and/or the
generation of effector T cells. As a consequence, tumors in elderly patients are
likely to harbor tumor-specific antigens, which are not targeted because of deficits
of the immune response.In recent clinical trials, exogenously stimulated, autologous T cells caused
regression of large tumor burdens in a fraction of patients (13-17). However,
experimental models of adoptive T cell therapy often reject tumors much more
effectively than when similar methods are applied to patients. One primary
difference between these two observations lies in the age of the donor T cells. The
experimental models use T cells often from adolescent or younger donormice. By
contrast, these clinical trials have isolated anti-tumor lymphocytes from the cancerpatient. Since cancerpatients are usually at a more advanced age, these donor T
cells may not function as well as donor T cells from younger individuals.
Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent the presence of a tumor could affect the
quality of the T cells obtained from cancerpatients.Here we show that adoptive transfer of spleen cells from young but not old
immunized mice can eradicate large solid 8101 cancers that have grown for several
weeks. These cancer cells express a natural immunodominant target peptide that binds
to the presenting MHC class I molecule with nanomolar affinity. These findings
suggest that clinically relevant size cancers can be eradicated by adoptive cell
therapy also in a more realistic cancer model, and that the age of the immunized
lymphocyte donor is critical.
Results
Young naïve mice, but not an old naïve mouse, reject a
challenge with 8101 tumor fragments
Fragments of the cryopreserved autochthonous 8101 tumor were adapted to
culture and then injected into an athymic nude C57BL/6 mouse (Figure 1A). Fragments of this tumor were transplanted
into a total of 20 naïve 2-3 month-old euthymic C57BL/6 mice and 1
naïve 2 year-old normal euthymic C57BL/6 mouse that we had available in
our colony. Most (15 of 20) young naïve mice rejected the
inocula.[1] The same
results were obtained injecting cryopreserved fragments from the original 8101
tumor directly in naïve euthymic young animals (Suppl. Figure 1). Fragments of the
5 tumors that progressed in young mice were (i) adapted to culture for later
analysis and (ii) transplanted into 2 month-old normal C57BL/6 mice, two
bilateral injection sites per mouse. Fragments of the 8101 tumor grown in the
athymic mouse grew in the 2 year-old mouse, and fragments of this tumor were
also transplanted into two 2 month-old normal C57BL/6 mice bilaterally (Figure 1B). In contrast to the inocula of
fragments from young mice, these inocula were rejected indicating the tumor that
grew in the old host had not lost its antigenicity. We developed a
mutation-specific PCR that identifies the single nucleotide substitution causing
the immunodominant mutant p68 antigen (Suppl. Figure 2A). All progressors
that grew in young mice retained the mutant gene, except for one that lost the
mutant gene but kept the non-mutated p68 (PRO1A). However, analysis at mRNA
level (Suppl. Figure
2B) showed that all the lines derived from young mice were negative for
the transcript of the mp68 antigen. By contrast, the tumor that developed in the
old mouse and was rejected when re-transplanted into young recipients (Figure 1) had retained expression of the mRNA
of the mp68 antigen (Suppl.
Figure 2B, right small panel). Tumors that lost expression of mp68
message were also resistant to lysis by 8101 specific T cells in a
51Cr-release assay (data not shown).
Figure 1
Cancer progressor variants are selected by young but not old naïve mice.
A. Experimental design. Cryopreserved fragments of the
autochthonous 8101 tumor were first adapted to culture and then injected into a
nude C57BL/6 mouse that developed a tumor. Fragments of this tumor were
transplanted into one old (2 year-old) and twenty young (2-3 month-old) normal
euthymic C57BL/6 mice. Five of the twenty young and the old mouse failed to
reject the tumor challenge. B. Analysis of the transplant behavior
of each tumor found to be progressively growing in A by fragment transplantation
into a new set of young naïve mice. Every tumor that had developed in a
young naïve mouse grew again, whereas the tumor that grew in the old
mouse was rejected.
The mp68 peptide binds to Kb with an extremely high
affinity
To further understand why the mutant peptide had to be lost before 8101
could form tumors in young naïve mice, we analyzed the affinity of this
peptide for the presenting MHC molecule Kb. We found that the mutant
peptide bound to Kb with an IC50 0.48 nM (Table 1) and is therefore considered to be a very
good antigen, comparable in affinity to viral peptides that protect 100%
of mice from lethality when used for immunization against vaccinia virus
infection (19).
Table 1
The mutant p68 peptide binds MHC class I Kb with an affinity comparable to that of viral peptides that, when
used for immunization, protect 100 % of mice against a lethal challenge
with vaccinia.
Designation
Sequence
MHC
Affinity of peptide for MHC
(IC50 [nM])a
Geometric standard deviation
(times/divide)
mp68 (547-554, 5F)
SNFVFAGI
Kb
0.48
2.63
p68 (547-554)
SNFVSAGI
Kb
22.00
2.06
A23R (297-305)b
IGMFNLTFI
Db
0.34c
2.82
A6L (265-272)b
YTLIYRQL
Kb
6.00c
4.43
IC50 values are the geometric mean of 5 or more experiments.
Vaccinia virus strain Copenhagen protein nomenclature
Published in (19).
Lymphocytes from young immune but not from naïve or old immune mice
reject very large tumors
We next designed experiments to determine how effectively spleen cells
from naïve or immunized young or old mice could destroy clinical size
8101 tumors. The “uncloned” 8101 cell line (Figure 1) was grown in
Rag1-/- C57BL/6 mice (Figure 2A). Only 1 of the 6 8101 tumor-bearing
Rag1-/-C57BL/6 mice rejected the established
tumor when treated with naïve young C57BL/6 spleen cells (Figure 2B). Thus naïve spleen cells from young
mice are usually ineffective in eradicating established 8101 tumors. By
contrast, all 12 8101 tumor-bearing Rag1-/- C57BL/6
mice rejected the established tumor when treated with spleen cells from young
mice that had been immunized with live 8101 cancer cells. However, 4 mice that
received spleen cells from older immunized donors (29 month-old), failed to
reject the tumor. Remarkably, spleen cells from the older mice failed to
eradicate the tumors even though 3 of 4 tumors treated with spleen cells from
old immunized mice were significantly smaller than the average volume of tumors
treated in the other two groups, and the age at which old and young donors were
immunized for the first time was the same (details in Figure 2A and figure legend). The old donors had been
last boosted 7 months before their spleen cells were used for the adoptive
therapy. It is conceivable that the longer time interval between the last boost
and use of the spleens for treatment was responsible for the failure of the
spleen cells from the older immune mice to eradicate the tumors. In the
subsequent experiments we controlled for these potential influences.
Figure 2
Adoptive transfer of spleen cells from young immune but not naïve or old
immune mice leads to the eradication of large established 8101 tumors in
Rag1-/-mice. A. Experimental
design. B. Tumor-bearing Rag1-/-
C57BL/6 mice were treated by adoptive transfer of spleen cells (one spleen per
recipient, around 1×108 cells) from young naïve
donors (3-4 month-old), young donors (3-4 month-old) immunized once with
2×107 live 8101 cancer cells at the age of 2 months, or
old immune mice (29 month-old) immunized when 4 month-old and boosted 2, 12 and
19 months later. Results are pooled from several experiments, one of which is
sharing all three experimental groups and two sharing the young naïve
and young immune groups. The ⊕ symbol in the right panel designates a
tumor that was reisolated and found to express the mutant p68 gene by
RT-PCR.
* The average tumor size and duration of growth of 8101 (mean ±
SD) at time of treatment was: 1117 ± 339 mm3 and 41 ±
11 d for the “naïve young” group; 1219 ± 315
mm3 and 39 ± 7 d for the “young immune”;
1203 ± 961 mm3 and 30 ± 6 d for the “old
immune”.
We next determined how these findings obtained in T cell-deficient
recipients applied when treating euthymic tumor-bearing mice. While 8101 tumor
fragments are rejected in young euthymic B6C3F1 mice, tumor fragments failed to
be rejected by these mice when they bore the unrelated C3H-derived tumor PRO4L
on the contralateral side. 8101 grown under these conditions retains its
rejection antigen (Suppl.
Figure 3). B6C3F1 mice bearing only the 8101 tumor (after surgical
removal of the PRO4L tumor) were treated with syngeneic spleen cells (Figure 3A). Once again, spleen cells from
naïve young and old immunized mice failed to cause tumor rejection while
all mice treated with young immune spleen cells rejected the tumors (Figure 3B), even though the time from last
immunization/boost was equivalent for young and old immunized donors. All tumors
treated with old immune cells grew out eventually and 4 of 5 tumors analyzed
retained mp68 antigen expression (one grew as mp68-antigen loss variant).
Figure 3
Adoptive transfer of spleen cells from young immune but not naïve or old
immune mice leads to the eradication of large 8101 tumors grown in euthymic
B6C3F1 mice. A. Experimental design. B. 8101-bearing
euthymic B6C3F1 mice were treated by adoptive transfer of spleen cells (one
spleen per recipient, around 1×108 cells) from young
naïve donors (3-4 month-old), young donors (4-8 month-old) immunized
once with 2×107 live 8101 cancer cells 2 months before
transfer, or old immune mice (9-16 month-old) immunized when 2-3 month-old and
boosted 2 months before transfer. Results are pooled from several experiments,
one sharing all three experimental groups and two sharing the young
naïve and young immune group. The ⊕ symbols in the right and
left panels designate tumors that were reisolated and found to express the
mutant p68 gene by RT-PCR; the antigen-loss variant is designated with
Ø.
a The pre-existent PRO4L tumor burden at time of 8101 inoculation was
539 ± 165 mm3 (mean ± SD) and had grown for an
average of 21 ± 8 days.
b The average size of PRO4L was 1577 ± 988 mm3 when
strung at day 38 ± 10 of growth 8101 had grown for an average of 18
± 10 days when the PRO4L tumor burden was removed.
c The average tumor size and duration of growth of 8101 at time of
treatment was: 738 ± 206 mm3 and 19 ± 6 d for the
“naïve young” group; 845 ± 328 mm3
and 29 ± 9 d for the “young immune”; 909 ± 286
mm3 and 28 ± 19 d for the “old
immune”.
Old and young immunized mice have similar numbers of mp68-specific T cells
after immunization with 8101 cancer cells
We compared the frequency of mp68-specific CD8+ T
cells in young versus old 8101-immune C57BL/6 mice (Figure 4A). Mice primed with 8101 cancer cells
required a secondary challenge (boosting) with the mp68 antigen before an
expansion of mutant p68-specific cells was detectable (day 9 and 19); a
mp68-overexpressing MC57 cell line (M-mp68) was used to make the specific
response more prominent. No differences in the frequency of mp68-specific T
cells were detected in young compared to old mice. Thus, failure of old T cells
to reject 8101 tumors cannot be explained by a lower frequency of mp68-specific
CD8+ T cells.
Figure 4
Old and young mice have similar numbers of mp68-specific CD8+
T cells but differ in number of CD4+ T cells and in the
ability to increase the percentage of effector memory cells after boosting.
A. Peripheral blood cells were isolated from naïve and
immune young or old mice (5 mice per group) and the binding of mp68
peptide-loaded tetramers to CD8+ T cells was measured. The
young (6 month-old) immune mice had been primed once at the age of 2 months
whereas the old (16 month-old) immune mice had been primed at 2 months of age
and boosted at 5 and 12 months of age. Day 0 of analysis corresponds to 4 months
after immunization/last boosting respectively. The results are representative
for 3 mice each, for young and old. M-mp68 is a cell line transfected to express
very high levels of mp68 antigen. B. Absolute numbers of
CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were determined
in peripheral blood from old (14 month-old) and young (4 month-old) mice. An
experiment representative of two is shown with data from 5 mice per group.
C. The percentages of central memory (CM:
CD62Lhi/CD44hi), and effector memory (EM:
CD62Llo/CD44hi) CD8+ T cells were
determined in peripheral blood from old (16 month-old) and young (6 month-old)
mice before (pre) and on day 9 after boosting (post) as in A. 4-5 mice per group
were analyzed in total in two experiments pooled here. *p <
0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ns, no significant.
Young mice have more CD4+ T cells and respond to
immunization with 8101 by increasing the percentage of effector memory
cells
We then analyzed overall differences in T cell subpopulations between
young and old mice. Old mice had lower absolute numbers of circulating T cells
than young mice, and CD4+ T cells were the most affected
subset. Thus, the ratio CD8+:CD4+ T cell
was higher for old mice (Figure 4B).
Furthermore, while percentage of regulatory T cells (Treg) among
CD4+ T cells was increased in old mice, their absolute
number was decreased (Suppl.
Figure 4A). Old and young mice however differed in the composition of
their CD8+ T cell pool. Consistent with what has been
described before (20), young mice had
more naïve T cells, while the percentage of memory cells in the old mice
was higher (Suppl. Figure
4B). Interestingly, after boosting with the mp68 antigen-expressing
cancer cells, the percentage of effector memory CD8+ T cells
increased significantly in young mice (Figure
4C). In contrast, the percentage of effector memory cells remained
unaltered in old mice, and a tendency to increase was observed in the percentage
of central memory cells (although not statistically significant).
Discussion
Probably all cancers have mutant genes and express epitopes that are not
self. Such epitopes may bind to MHC molecules with high affinity, stimulate immunity
effectively and also serve as targets for effector cells. Some tumor-specific
somatic mutations affect genes expressed on the surface of cancer cells and are
recognized by tumor-specific antibodies (21-23). The fact that most
tumor-specific somatic mutations however seem to affect genes not expressed on the
surface membrane of cancer cells (24-27) should not matter, for such antigens could
be effectively presented as mutant peptide/MHC molecule complexes on the surface of
cancer cells or after cross-presentation on the surface of stromal cells in the
tumor (3, 28, 29).As we show for the immunodominant tumor-specific antigen of the 8101 cancer,
mutant epitopes such as the mutant p68 peptide may bind to MHC Class I molecules
with very high affinity (below 1 nM). Unlike transfected and overexpressed model
target antigens, this antigen originated during tumorigenesis in the autochthonous
8101 cancer. We further show in our study that this antigen was always lost before
the cancer could grow in immunocompetent young mice. In contrast, 8101 cancers
expressed the antigen in the old mouse in which it originated and in the old mouse
receiving tumor fragments. Antigen-negative variants were probably present in tumors
growing in both young and old hosts; however, only in young mice immunological
pressure selected for mp68-negative variants, whereas in the old mice the variants
remained a minority. Since the majority of common cancers are first diagnosed in
older individuals, most humancancers may have retained strong antigens such as
mp68. Thus, our results are consistent with the possibility that old age should
favor retention of strong rejection antigens.Two conditions needed to be fulfilled by the donor of immune cells for
successful therapy of 8101: to be young and to be immunized against the tumor being
treated (truly individualized immunization and therapy). How could these conditions
be fulfilled in patients?Adoptively transferred cells should come from young donors. The age of the
individual at the moment of immunization is known to be critical for effective
vaccination (30). However, we did not find
preclinical studies comparing the efficacy of lymphocytes from old and young donors
in adoptive transfer. Our studies show that even when the first immunization took
place when donors were young, immune lymphocytes from aged mice lost their efficacy
for treatment of tumors upon adoptive transfer into young hosts. Interestingly, our
cut-off point for age of donors was 9 months, which corresponds to a middle-age
mouse. Most cancerpatients eligible for adoptive T cell therapy might also be
between 40-60 (13-17). Importantly, T cells must be effective in the
“old” environment of the patient (31). Our experiments tested the efficacy of transferred T cells only in
young tumor-bearing hosts, and future experiments need to test whether adoptively
transferred young immune spleen cells can be effective in old tumor-bearing mice.
Previous studies (31) indicated that
adoptively transferred young T cells proliferate poorly in the environment of old
hosts. This problem could possibly be overcome by treating the old host with
anti-type I interferon antibodies as suggested by Sprent and co-workers (31).We immunized tumor-free syngeneic mice for adoptive transfer. Finding
tumor-free human donors who are syngeneic will be impossible (unless an identical
twin was available). Haploidentical patient-related tumor-free donors are more
readily available and younger if they are children. It needs to be explored how
lethal graft-versus-host effects by T cells from such donors can be circumvented.
However, the success of strategies as allogeneic Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) nuclear
antigen (EBNA)-specific T cells sharing major MHC allele with the patient, that can
treat successfully post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (32) and even bulky EBV-positive lymphomas (33, 34),
sets grounds for hope.Why do old splenocytes fail? When we compared T cell compartments in old and
young mice, we found two main differences: old mice (i) had less T cells (especially
CD4+ T cells) and (ii) did not increase the percentage of
effector memory CD8+ T cells after boosting with the mp68
antigen, in contrast to young mice. This is consistent with the reduction in
turnover observed in memory CD8+ T cells from aged mice (31). Proliferation and infiltration of effector
cells must happen for tumor rejection. CD4+ T cells have been
shown to be essential for expansion of memory cells (35) for tumor infiltration by CD8+ T cells (36) and optimal function of
CD8+ T cells at the effector phase (36, 37). Aged
CD4+ T cells form defective immunological synapses (38). Thus, a defective response of the memory
CD8+ T cells and ineffective help by CD4+
T cells could explain why old immune splenocytes failed to reject 8101 tumors.Young naïve euthymic splenocytes protect B6C3F1 mice against a 8101
tumor challenge. However, once the tumor is well established, transfer of
naïve spleen cells is no longer effective. Studies of the immune response to
sporadic cancers expressing SV40 T antigen suggest that once the cancer is
established it is no longer immunizing but tolerizing (39). These cancers lack the pro-inflammatory type I
cytokine environment caused by the initial injury of fragment or cancer cell
inoculation. Also, autochthonous newly arising or long-established transplanted
cancers probably have quite different stromal composition of bone marrow-derived
cells, fibroblastic cells and extracellular matrix (for review see (40)). In addition, tumor-induced regulatory T cells and
myeloid-derived suppressor cells have been demonstrated to suppress naïve T
cell responses (41-44).Together, our studies show that clinical size solid tumors can be eradicated
by adoptive transfer of spleen cells from young immunized donors without requiring
artificially transfected antigens or TCR-transgenic T cells. Our model avoided the
use of serially transplanted tumors; by contrast, we used cryopreserved original
tumor fragments and a primary cell line. Also, the cancers we treated were truly
long-established in the host. A systematic analysis of recent studies confirms the
century old assertion (45) that many
procedures are effective early after cancer cell inoculations but not later (2). Adoptive T cell transfer was singled out as
the most effective approach at later stages, consistent with findings of clinical
studies. But even for adoptive T cell therapy, we show here, stringent requirements
must be fulfilled to eradicate clinically relevant tumors.
Materials and Methods
Mice, cell lines, and reagents
C57BL/6 and C57BL/6 Rag1mice were
purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. B6C3F1 mice were obtained from Charles
River Laboratories. C3H Rag2mice were obtained
from Douglas Hanahan (University of California, San Francisco, California). All
mice were maintained in a specific pathogen-free barrier facility at the
University of Chicago according to the Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee guidelines.PRO4L was originated in a C3H/HeNmouse and has been previously
described (46). 8101 originated in
UV-treated C57BL/6 and has been described (18, 27). P. Ohashi
(University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), with permission of H.
Hengartner (University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland), provided the MC57G
methylcholanthrene-induced, C57BL/6-derived fibrosarcoma (MC57). MC57-mp68-EGFP
(M-mp68) was generated by retroviral transduction. Phoenix-ampho cells (47) were transfected with
pMFG-(mp68-AAY)3-EGFP using the CalPhos Mammalian Transfection
Kit (Clontech, Mountain View, CA). Repeated rounds of transduction of MC57 with
viral supernatants and FACS-sorting derived the highly peptide/fluorescent
protein-expressing line.pMFG-(mp68-AAY)3-EGFP was constructed by inserting annealed
oligonucleotides (IDT, Coralville, IA) encoding triple SNFVFAGI-AAY repeats into
the NcoI-linearized (NEB, Ipswich, MA) pMFG-EGFP vector (kindly provided by R.C.
Mulligan (Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA, (48)).
Tumor challenge and treatment
For the experiments in Rag1-/- mice,
107 8101 cells were injected subcutaneously (s.c.) onto the
shaved back of mice. Tumor volumes were measured along three orthogonal axes (a,
b, and c) every 3 to 4 days and tumor volume was calculated as abc/2. Mice were
treated intraperitoneally with naïve or immune splenocytes (one spleen
per recipient, around 1 ×108 cells). For the experiments in
euthymic B6C3F1 mice, PRO4L tumors were grown in C3H
Rag2-/- mice and were implanted s.c. as viable 1
mm3 fragments with a 12- gauge trocar (1 full trocar load) into
the left flank of anesthetized B6C3F1 mice. Once PRO4L was established, 8101
tumors grown in C57BL/6 Rag1-/- mice were implanted
in the right flank as fragments. Once 8101 was established (for details see
Figure 3A), PRO4L tumor was removed by
tying off the tumor at its base (“stringing”).For the generation of memory T cells, 2 × 107 8101
cancer cells were injected s.c. into the flanks of B6C3F1 mice or C57BL/6 and
their spleens were used for adoptive transfer.
PCR analysis for mutant p68 expression
Genomic DNA and total RNA were isolated from cancer cell lines using
QIAamp DNA mini and RNeasy mini kits. RNA was treated with DNase I (Roche) and
reverse transcriptase (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA) to synthesize the cDNA.
PCR was performed on the genomic DNA or cDNA using the following primers:
Forward 5-GGGGATCCGCCATGAAGGACGATCGTCGTGACAG-3 and reverse primer 5
-AGAATACCCTGTTGGCATGG-3 amplify a 425 bp fragment of the murinep68 RNA
helicase. Forward primer 5 -GGAGCTTTGGAAGTAATTTTTGTTTT-3 was designed to detect
specifically a point mutation at the nucleotide position 1812 of p68, and
amplifies a 290 bp fragment only if the mutation is present. Vectors containing
mutant and wild type p68 minigenes on the pIRES-EGFP vector backbone (Clontech,
Mountain View, CA) were used as controls.
T cell analysis in peripheral blood
Percentages of T cell subpopulations were measured in peripheral blood
after lysis of red blood cells. For the determination of absolute numbers of
cells, AccuCount Rainbow beads (Spherotech, Lake Forest, IL) were used according
to the manufacturer's instructions. For the analysis of the frequency of
mp68-specific T cells, old or young immune or naïve mice received 7
– 10 × 106 8101 or MC57-mp68-EGFP cancer cells and
were subsequently bled at days 5, 9 and 19. Analysis before cancer cell
injection served to determine the background staining (day 0).
Flow cytometry
Cells were stained using anti-CD3, CD4, CD8, CD44 and anti-CD62L mAb
(all from BioLegend or eBioscience). Specific T cells were detected with a
mp68-Kb tetramer (NIH Tetramer Core Facility). Treg
were analyzed using the mouse regulatory T cell staining kit from eBioscience.
Flow cytometry data were acquired on FACSCalibur or FACSCanto machines (BD) and
data were analyzed using FlowJo (Tree Star, Ashland, OR) software. Cell sorting
was performed using FACSAria (BD) or MoFlo-HTS (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA) at
the Flow Cytometry Facility of The University of Chicago.
MHC peptide binding assays
MHC purification, and quantitative assays to measure the binding
affinity of peptides to purified H2-Kb, H2-Db, and
HLA-A*0201 molecules were performed as previously described (49, 50).
Statistical analysis
Results of treatment of small groups of mice were analyzed using the
two-tailed p-value calculated by Fisher's exact test using Stata. (p
≤ 0.05 is considered significant, p ≤ 0.01 highly significant).
Differences between two sets of data were analyzed using the Student's
t-test (paired for CD8+ T cell populations in the same mouse;
unpaired for numbers and percentages of CD4+ and
CD8+ T cells and Treg in different groups of
mice).Supplementary Figure 1. A cancer progressor variant is
selected by a young mouse upon injection of cryopreserved 8101 original
tumor fragments. A. Experimental design. Cryopreserved
fragments of the autochthonous 8101 tumor were injected into a nude C57BL/6
mouse that developed a tumor. Fragments of this tumor were transplanted into
ten young (2-3 month-old) normal euthymic C57BL/6 mice. One of the ten young
mice failed to reject the tumor challenge. B. The tumor that
had developed in a young naïve mouse grew upon transplantation into
new naïve C57BL/6 mice.Supplementary Figure 2. Loss of expression of the
mutant p68 (mp68) rejection antigen by all 8101 variants that grew
progressively in naïve young mice but retention by 8101 tumor that
developed in the old recipient. A. mp68-specific PCR analysis
on genomic DNA B. mp68-specific RT-PCR. All variants except
PRO1A retained the mutant gene but lost the mRNA indicating the variants had
heritably shut off the transcription of the mutant gene. As an internal
control, a fragment of p68 was amplified on each sample using primers not
specific for the mutation (p68). 4102 is an unrelated cell line used as a
specificity control. Variants PRO1 and PRO1A developed in the same young
mouse (18).Supplementary Figure 3. 8101 tumors grown in B6C3F1
euthymic mice bearing a preexistent PRO4L tumor are mp68 antigen-positive.
8101 tumors developed in B6C3F1 mice that had a pre-existent PRO4L tumor at
the time of injection of 8101 tumor fragments. After stringing of the PRO4L
tumor, the 8101 tumor continued to grow. Re-transplantation of the 8101
tumors into 4 naïve young B6C3F1mice bilaterally led to rejection of
all 8 inocula.Supplementary Figure 4. A. Percentages and absolute
numbers of regulatory CD4+ T cells (Treg) in
the peripheral blood of young (5 month-old) and old (15 month-old) mice. The
% of Treg was measured as
%CD25+FoxP3+ in the gated
CD4+ T cell population
(CD3+CD4+). The plots show data
from 1 experiment with 4 mice per group. B. The percentages of
naïve (CD62Lhi/CD44lo), and memory
CD8+ T cells [central memory (CM:
CD62Lhi/CD44hi), and effector memory (EM:
CD62Llo/CD44hi)] were determined in
peripheral blood from old (16 month-old) and young (6 month-old) mice.
Central memory and effector memory cells were considered together as the
“memory” population. 4-5 mice per group were analyzed in two
experiments pooled here. *p < 0.05; **p
≤ 0.01; ns, no significant.
Authors: C Yee; J A Thompson; D Byrd; S R Riddell; P Roche; E Celis; P D Greenberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-11-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: P G Coulie; F Lehmann; B Lethé; J Herman; C Lurquin; M Andrawiss; T Boon Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1995-08-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kathleen Anders; Christian Buschow; Andreas Herrmann; Ana Milojkovic; Christoph Loddenkemper; Thomas Kammertoens; Peter Daniel; Hua Yu; Jehad Charo; Thomas Blankenstein Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: T Wölfel; M Hauer; J Schneider; M Serrano; C Wölfel; E Klehmann-Hieb; E De Plaen; T Hankeln; K H Meyer zum Büschenfelde; D Beach Journal: Science Date: 1995-09-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: David C Binder; Boris Engels; Ainhoa Arina; Ping Yu; James M Slauch; Yang-Xin Fu; Theodore Karrison; Byron Burnette; Christian Idel; Ming Zhao; Robert M Hoffman; David H Munn; Donald A Rowley; Hans Schreiber Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Ainhoa Arina; Karin Schreiber; David C Binder; Theodore G Karrison; Rebecca B Liu; Hans Schreiber Journal: J Immunol Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Matthias Leisegang; Boris Engels; Karin Schreiber; Poh Yin Yew; Kazuma Kiyotani; Christian Idel; Ainhoa Arina; Jaikumar Duraiswamy; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Wolfgang Uckert; Yusuke Nakamura; Hans Schreiber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David C Binder; Ainhoa Arina; Frank Wen; Tony Tu; Ming Zhao; Robert M Hoffman; Derek A Wainwright; Hans Schreiber Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Erik Ladomersky; Lijie Zhai; Kristen L Lauing; April Bell; Jiahui Xu; Masha Kocherginsky; Bin Zhang; Jennifer D Wu; Joseph R Podojil; Leonidas C Platanias; Aaron Y Mochizuki; Robert M Prins; Priya Kumthekar; Jeffrey J Raizer; Karan Dixit; Rimas V Lukas; Craig Horbinski; Min Wei; Changyou Zhou; Graham Pawelec; Judith Campisi; Ursula Grohmann; George C Prendergast; David H Munn; Derek A Wainwright Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 12.531