Literature DB >> 24933321

DC-HIL+ CD14+ HLA-DR no/low cells are a potential blood marker and therapeutic target for melanoma.

Jake Turrentine1, Jin-Sung Chung1, Kaveh Nezafati1, Kyoichi Tamura1, Amy Harker-Murray2, James Huth2, Rohit R Sharma2, David B Harker3, Kiyoshi Ariizumi4, Ponciano D Cruz1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24933321      PMCID: PMC4199894          DOI: 10.1038/jid.2014.248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Invest Dermatol        ISSN: 0022-202X            Impact factor:   8.551


× No keyword cloud information.

TO THE EDITOR

Melanoma growth and metastasis depend on a battle between the cancer’s invasive properties and the host’s capacity to counter such attributes. Immunosuppression is a potent promoter of cancer progression that not only counters host control of tumor spread but also prevents anti-cancer treatments from achieving their full benefit (Ilkovitch and Lopez, 2008). Because CD11b+Gr1+ cells are most potent at suppressing T-cell function (Frey, 2006), their exponential proliferation in cancer patients severely limits efficacy of immunotherapy (Diaz-Montero ). We discovered the DC-HIL receptor to potently inhibit effector T-cell function following binding to syndecan-4 (SD-4) on these cells (Chung ; Chung ). In a submitted accompanying article, we showed that melanoma-bearing (but not tumor-free) mice harbors an expanded population of DC-HIL-expressing CD11b+Gr1+ cells and that functional blockade of DC-HIL on these cells via gene deletion or specific Ab abrogates their suppressor function, making DC-HIL a marker for immunosuppressive CD11b+Gr1+ cells and a powerful promoter of melanoma growth. Since CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells are the human equivalent of mouse CD11b+Gr-1+ cells (Filipazzi ), we posited that blood CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells in melanoma patients express DC-HIL and that such expression makes them immunosuppressive. Thus we examined blood frequencies of CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells and their DC-HIL expression, in cases of: melanoma with varying clinical stages (0-IV) (n=62), dysplastic nevi (in which melanocytes are abnormal but not malignant (n=12)), and healthy donors (n=21) (Figure 1a and Supplementary Table S1). Compared to healthy donors, all cases of melanoma exhibited elevated blood CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells (Figure 1b), consistent with a prior report (Filipazzi ). Whereas blood CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells in healthy donors had little-to-no expression of DC-HIL (0.1 ± 0.1% DC-HIL+ cells among PBMCs), all cases of metastatic melanoma (stages III/IV) displayed high-level DC-HIL expression on these cells (2.9 ± 0.9% and 2.6 ± 0.6%, respectively; t test p=0.001 vs. healthy donors) (Figure 1c). Intermediate levels of DC-HIL expression were seen in blood CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells of melanoma confined to skin (stages 0/I-II). Dysplastic nevi showed lower expression than skin-restricted melanoma, but higher than for healthy donors (p=0.01). Thus blood levels of DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells correlated with cancer progression, particularly in advanced stages. Other myeloid cells thought to have suppressor function (CD14+IL-4Rα+, CD14negCD11b+CD15+, and CD14negIL-4Rα+CD15+) also expressed DC-HIL at a range of 30–75% (Supplementary Figure 1).
Figure 1

Positive correlation between DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells and melanoma stage

PBMCs from melanoma patients (stages 0-IV) or dysplastic nevus (DN), and from healthy donors (HD) were analyzed for CD14 vs. HLA-DR expression, in which CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells are indicated (%). These cells were FACS-gated and examined for expression of DC-HIL vs. CD14. Data shown are representative of each group (a). % CD14+HLA-DRno/low (b) or % DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells/PBMC (c) in each cohort is summarized (mean % ± sd). Statistical significance for each stage was calculated by comparison with HD. (d) % blood DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells/PBMCs was assayed at indicated times post-resection in 9 patients with stage 0 melanoma (data for patient M71 are in red), *p<0.001 and **p<0.01.

To determine whether melanoma was the cause of the elevated blood levels, we followed a new cohort of 9 patients with stage 0 melanoma and assayed for % DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells in their PBMCs (Figure 1d), at 0, 1, 3, and 6 months after excision of the melanoma. At the time of resection (0 month), all subjects except one (subject M83) exhibited higher levels than healthy controls (0.3 to 12.8%) (Supplementary Table S2). Across the 3-month follow-up, these elevated levels declined significantly in 8 patients (Wald test, p=0.045) to an average of 0.4 %, close to that of 6 normal controls (Supplementary Table S3). Interestingly, in the case of one patient (M71), the % DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells that declined a month post-resection climbed back to a high level at 3 months, which coincided with discovery of a new melanoma in situ (stage 0), and then fell back after resection of this second melanoma. We concluded that melanoma is responsible (directly or indirectly) for acquisition of DC-HIL expression by CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells. Because our mouse studies showed IFN-γ and IL-1β to induce DC-HIL expression by CD11b+Gr1+ cells, we speculate similar mechanisms for human CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells. Do CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells from melanoma patients suppress T-cell function and is DC-HIL responsible for that function? CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells isolated from melanoma patients (vs. healthy donors) were cocultured with autologous T-cells activated by anti-CD2/CD3/CD28 Ab (Figure 2a). CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells from melanoma patients inhibited IFN-γ production by autologous T-cells dose-dependently and almost completely, whereas corresponding cells from healthy donors were weakly immunosuppressive.
Figure 2

Anti-DC-HIL mAb treatment restored IFN-γ response in melanoma patients

(a) CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells from stage III patient or healthy donor cocultured with T-cells/HLA-DR+ cells (varying ratios) with anti-CD2/CD3/CD28 Ab. (b) Effect of anti-DC-HIL or control IgG on IFN-γ secretion by the coculture (1:1 cell ratio) is expressed as IFN-γ amount (%) relative to T-cell culture: 50 and 53 ng/ml for HD and melanoma, respectively (a); and 24 ng/ml for (b). Representative data of 3 different patients. (c) PBMCs from same patients with stages III/IV were cultured with Ab; fold increase in IFN-γ amounts (mAb vs. IgG) is shown with Pearson’s correlation coefficient r. (d) Same experiments were performed with all samples, and values of fold increase in IFN-γ production plotted to cancer stage. *p<0.001.

Treatment with anti-DC-HIL mAb (but not control IgG) restored the T-cell IFN-γ response dose-dependently (up to 80%) (Figure 2b). Moreover, treatment of total (unfractionated) PBMCs from melanoma patients with anti-DC-HIL mAb (but not with control IgG) enhanced the IFN-γ response, and this enhancement correlated positively with melanoma staging (Figure 2c), but negatively with IFN-γ levels from IgG-treated PBMCs (Figure 2d). Our outcomes indicated that neutralizing DC-HIL’s T cell-suppressive function could be beneficial to melanoma patients. Among currently available treatments for melanoma, the most closely related to a DC-HIL antagonist are humanized mAb directed against CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) or PD-1 (lambrolizumab). Both treatments have been shown to prolong survival of patients with metastatic melanoma (Hamid ; Hodi ), presumably by blocking the inhibitory functions of CTLA-4 and PD-1, respectively. However, their benefits have been limited by development of autoimmune disease causing dermatitis, hepatitis, colitis, and in many cases, death (Hodi ), making the search for even better treatments important. Our mouse studies showed that, unlike DC-HIL, the ligands for CTLA-4 (CD80 and CD86) and for PD-1 (PD-L1) are not critically involved in the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid cells. Moreover, both CTLA-4 and PD-1 are expressed by most activated T-cells and regulate development of autoreactive T-cells via regulatory T-cell function (Gattinoni ). By contrast, SD-4 (the DC-HIL ligand) is expressed by only a restricted population of effector T-cells, with no impact on regulatory T-cell function (Chung ). Finally, CTLA-4−/− or PD-1−/− mice develop spontaneous autoimmune diseases (Nishimura ; Tivol ) causing early death, while DC-HIL−/− or syndecan-4−/− mice survive without observable autoimmune diseases (unpublished data). These differences suggest strategies neutralizing DC-HIL function may restore T-cell function in melanoma patients via mechanisms different from CTLA-4 or PD-1 blockers. In sum, the positive correlation between % blood DC-HIL+CD14+HLA-DRno/low cells and advancing melanoma stage, this parameter’s quick decline after resection of early melanoma, and the restoration by anti-DC-HIL mAb of the T-cell IFN-γ response in melanoma patients constitute strong bases for developing these cells as a useful biomarker and therapeutic target for melanoma. Our results should be confirmed by large, multi-centers studies.
  12 in total

1.  DC-HIL is a negative regulator of T lymphocyte activation.

Authors:  Jin-Sung Chung; Kota Sato; Irene I Dougherty; Ponciano D Cruz; Kiyoshi Ariizumi
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Authors:  F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Myeloid suppressor cells regulate the adaptive immune response to cancer.

Authors:  Alan B Frey
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 14.808

4.  CTLA-4 dysregulation of self/tumor-reactive CD8+ T-cell function is CD4+ T-cell dependent.

Authors:  Luca Gattinoni; Anju Ranganathan; Deborah R Surman; Douglas C Palmer; Paul A Antony; Marc R Theoret; David M Heimann; Steven A Rosenberg; Nicholas P Restifo
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 22.113

5.  Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor.

Authors:  H Nishimura; M Nose; H Hiai; N Minato; T Honjo
Journal:  Immunity       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 31.745

6.  Increased circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells correlate with clinical cancer stage, metastatic tumor burden, and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

Authors:  C Marcela Diaz-Montero; Mohamed Labib Salem; Michael I Nishimura; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; David J Cole; Alberto J Montero
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 6.968

7.  Syndecan-4 mediates the coinhibitory function of DC-HIL on T cell activation.

Authors:  Jin-Sung Chung; Irene Dougherty; Ponciano D Cruz; Kiyoshi Ariizumi
Journal:  J Immunol       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 5.422

8.  Loss of CTLA-4 leads to massive lymphoproliferation and fatal multiorgan tissue destruction, revealing a critical negative regulatory role of CTLA-4.

Authors:  E A Tivol; F Borriello; A N Schweitzer; W P Lynch; J A Bluestone; A H Sharpe
Journal:  Immunity       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 31.745

9.  Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma.

Authors:  Omid Hamid; Caroline Robert; Adil Daud; F Stephen Hodi; Wen-Jen Hwu; Richard Kefford; Jedd D Wolchok; Peter Hersey; Richard W Joseph; Jeffrey S Weber; Roxana Dronca; Tara C Gangadhar; Amita Patnaik; Hassane Zarour; Anthony M Joshua; Kevin Gergich; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Alain Algazi; Christine Mateus; Peter Boasberg; Paul C Tumeh; Bartosz Chmielowski; Scot W Ebbinghaus; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; S Peter Kang; Antoni Ribas
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Immune modulation by melanoma-derived factors.

Authors:  Dan Ilkovitch; Diana M Lopez
Journal:  Exp Dermatol       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 3.960

View more
  4 in total

1.  Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells in Psoriasis Are an Expanded Population Exhibiting Diverse T-Cell-Suppressor Mechanisms.

Authors:  Lauren Y Cao; Jin-Sung Chung; Takahiro Teshima; Lawrence Feigenbaum; Ponciano D Cruz; Heidi T Jacobe; Benjamin F Chong; Kiyoshi Ariizumi
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 8.551

Review 2.  GPNMB: a potent inducer of immunosuppression in cancer.

Authors:  Anna-Maria Lazaratos; Matthew G Annis; Peter M Siegel
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 8.756

3.  Blocking Monocytic Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cell Function via Anti-DC-HIL/GPNMB Antibody Restores the In Vitro Integrity of T Cells from Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Masato Kobayashi; Jin-Sung Chung; Muhammad Beg; Yull Arriaga; Udit Verma; Kevin Courtney; John Mansour; Barbara Haley; Saad Khan; Yutaka Horiuchi; Vijay Ramani; David Harker; Purva Gopal; Farshid Araghizadeh; Ponciano D Cruz; Kiyoshi Ariizumi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Circulating CD14+HLA-DR-/low Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells as Potential Biomarkers for the Identification of Psoriasis TCM Blood-Heat Syndrome and Blood-Stasis Syndrome.

Authors:  Shipeng Sun; Yali Wei; Xue Zeng; Yuliang Yuan; Na Wang; Cheng An; Jinlong Duan; Bo Pang; Zifu Hong; Guijian Liu
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 2.629

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.