| Literature DB >> 23663506 |
Francesca Kalli1, Rodolfo Machiorlatti, Florinda Battaglia, Alessia Parodi, Giuseppina Conteduca, Francesca Ferrera, Michele Proietti, Samuele Tardito, Marina Sanguineti, Enrico Millo, Daniela Fenoglio, Raffaele De Palma, Giorgio Inghirami, Gilberto Filaci.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer vaccines are considered a promising therapeutic approach. However, their clinical results are not yet satisfactory. This may be due to the the difficulty of selection of an efficient tumor associated antigen (TAA) and immunization protocol. Indeed, the weak antigenicity of many TAA impairs the design of robust procedures, therefore a systematic analysis to identify the most efficient TAA is mandatory. Here, we performed a study to compare different gp100 vaccination strategies to identify the best strategy to provide a 100% protection against experimental melanoma in a reproducible manner.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23663506 PMCID: PMC3659084 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Figure 1Comparative analysis of the different gp100 vaccination protocols in a syngeneic setting. (A) B16F10 melanoma growth curves in differently treated and control mice (*p = 0.05; **p = 0.01); (B) Elispot analysis of frequency of IFNγ-secreting splenocytes from differently treated and control mice.
Figure 2Comparison of gp100 vaccination protocols performed either in syngeneic or xenogeneic setting. (A) Comparative analysis of the different gp100 vaccination protocols in a xenogeneic setting. B16F10 melanoma growth curves in differently treated and control mice (*p = 0.05; **p = 0.01); (B) Elispot analysis of frequency of IFNγ-secreting splenocytes from differently treated and control mice in a xenogeneic setting; (C) Comparison of gp100 vaccination protocols performed in syngeneic (light grey columns) or xenogeneic (dark grey columns) settings. Data refer to the assessment performed after 21 days from B16F10 melanoma challenge when mice were sacrificed.
Figure 3Frequency of CD4+granzyme+ and CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ T lymphocytes in vaccinated mice. FACS analyses of frequency of CD4+granzyme+ (A) and CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ (B) T lymphocytes were performed in mice immunized or not with gp10025-33 peptide-pulsed DC. The analyses were executed on splenocytes and TIL from immunized (black columns) or untreated (white columns) mice. Data in both panels are expressed as percentage of positive cells out of the total CD3+ T cell population.
Figure 4Involvement of IL-10 in tumor growth. (A and C) Suppression assay performed with TIL purified from melanoma (A) or ALCL (C). CFSE-labeled syngeneic splenocytes were in vitro stimulated with Con A and co-incubated with TIL in the presence or not of an anti-IL-10 mAb or its relative isotypic control. Data are expressed as percentage of replicating, CFSE+ cells; percentage of inhibition are indicated in parentheses. (B and D) Mean tumor dimensions in mice challenged after 21 days with either B16F10 melanoma (B) or VAC ALCL (D) cells and treated or not with an anti-IL-10 mAb or its relative isotypic control.
Figure 5Frequency of CD4+granzyme+ and CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ T lymphocytes in mice treated with an anti-IL-10 mAb. FACS analyses of frequency of CD4+granzyme+ (A and C) and CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ (B and D) T lymphocytes were performed in mice untreated or treated with an anti-IL-10 mAb. The analyses were executed on TIL from treated (black columns) or untreated (white columns) mice. (A) and (B) panels refer to experiments performed in C57BL/6J mice challenged with B16F10 melanoma cells; (C) and (D) panels refer to experiments performed in Balb/c mice challenged with VAC ALCL cells. In all panels, data are expressed as percentage of positive cells out of the total CD3+ T cell population.
Figure 6Combinatorial treatment of B16F10 melanoma: vaccination with gp100pulsed-DC plus neutralizing anti-IL-10 mAb administration. (A) Schedule of treatment; (B) B16F10 melanoma growth curves in differently treated and control C57BL/6J mice (*p = 0.05).