Most human cancers, including myeloma, are preceded by a precursor state. There is an unmet need for in vivo models to study the interaction of human preneoplastic cells in the bone marrow microenvironment with non-malignant cells. Here, we genetically humanized mice to permit the growth of primary human preneoplastic and malignant plasma cells together with non-malignant cells in vivo. Growth was largely restricted to the bone marrow, mirroring the pattern in patients with myeloma. Xenografts captured the genomic complexity of parental tumors and revealed additional somatic changes. Moreover, xenografts from patients with preneoplastic gammopathy showed progressive growth, suggesting that the clinical stability of these lesions may in part be due to growth controls extrinsic to tumor cells. These data demonstrate a new approach to investigate the entire spectrum of human plasma cell neoplasia and illustrate the utility of humanized models for understanding the functional diversity of human tumors.
Most humancancers, including myeloma, are preceded by a precursor state. There is an unmet need for in vivo models to study the interaction of human preneoplastic cells in the bone marrow microenvironment with non-malignant cells. Here, we genetically humanized mice to permit the growth of primary human preneoplastic and malignant plasma cells together with non-malignant cells in vivo. Growth was largely restricted to the bone marrow, mirroring the pattern in patients with myeloma. Xenografts captured the genomic complexity of parental tumors and revealed additional somatic changes. Moreover, xenografts from patients with preneoplastic gammopathy showed progressive growth, suggesting that the clinical stability of these lesions may in part be due to growth controls extrinsic to tumor cells. These data demonstrate a new approach to investigate the entire spectrum of human plasma cell neoplasia and illustrate the utility of humanized models for understanding the functional diversity of human tumors.
Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by the growth of malignant plasma cells
predominantly in the bone marrow, leading to lytic bone disease[1]. In nearly all cases, MM is preceded by
clinically asymptomatic precursor states, termed monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined
significance (MGUS) and asymptomatic MM (AMM). Although several transgenic mouse models
of plasma cell tumors have been described, these lack the known genetic drivers that
characterize human MM/MGUS[2]. Hence,
there is an unmet need for in vivo mouse models that would allow the
growth and investigation of patient-specific primary human tumors (and particularly
precursor states)[2].
Immune-deficient mice implanted with fetal human bone (SCID-hu) or synthetic bone
scaffolds (SCID-synth-hu) have been utilized to study the growth of MM cells (though not
MGUS), but have several limitations, including the limited availability of human fetal
tissues in large parts of the world[2-4]. Major obstacles
to facile growth of human cells in mice are the innate rejection pathways and the lack
of inter-species cross reactivity of certain cytokines/growth factors[5]. To overcome these obstacles, we recently
developed humanized mice containing knock-in alleles that express the human versions of
5 genes important for innate immune cell development and hematopoiesis[5-7]. These mice (termed MIS(KI)TRG, for humanM-CSF, IL-3, GM-CSF, Thrombopoietin and SIRPα knock in) exhibit superior
multi-lineage engraftment of human hematopoietic stem cells, including innate immune
cells. We hypothesized that humanization of Interleukin-6 (IL-6), a critical growth
factor for human MM that lacks species cross-reactivity[8,9], would
provide critical signals necessary for MM cell survival. Therefore, we modified
MIS(KI)TRGmice with an additional knock-in allele that expresses humanIL-6 to generate (MIS(KI)TRG6mice) and tested the ability of MM cells to
grow in these mice.
RESULTS
Growth of human IL6-dependent cells
INA-6 is a humanIL-6-dependent MM cell line commonly utilized for MM
models in the context of the SCID-hu system[10]. We first analyzed the capacity of these cells to grow
in Rag2−/− γc−/−
mice expressing either mouse or humanIL-6. We first verified the capacity of
these mice to produce IL-6 following injection of lipopolysaccharide in
vivo (Supplementary Fig 1). Injection of INA-6 cells into the bones of
mice expressing humanIL-6 led to IL-6 dependent tumor growth, manifested as an
increase in human sIL-6R in the circulation and bone destruction (Supplementary Fig 2a, b),
analogous to the growth of INA-6 cells described previously in SCID-hu
mice[10]. INA-6 cells
could also grow in mice expressing both hIL-6 and human SIRPα
(expression of humanSIRPa was intended to help overcome phagocytosis of tumor
cells by innate immune cells) with slightly improved kinetics compared to mice expressing hIL6 alone however, this difference was not
significant, which could be due to analysis of an insufficient number of mice
(Supplementary Fig
2c). Together, these data demonstrate that the presence of humanIL-6, but not mouseIL-6, supports INA-6 growth in vivo, and
show the feasibility of using humanIL-6 expressing mice to study bone
destruction by this MM cell line.
Growth of primary MM cells
As noted previously,
MIS(KI)TRG6mice were generated by knocking hIL6 into
MIS(KI)TRGmice. Although INA-6 cells were able to grow in
RAG2−/−γc−/−
SIRPαh/hIL-6h/h mice, primary MM cells showed
poorer growth in these mice as compared to MIS(KI)TRG6mice (Supplementary Fig 2d).
Therefore, we subsequently used MIS(KI)TRG6mice for studying the
growth of primary MM cells in vivo (Fig 1a). Primary MM cells were isolated from bone
marrow of MM patients (Supplementary Table 1 for patient characteristics). The growth of tumor cells was monitored both by
flow cytometry of cells in the bone marrow as well as by
levels of human immunoglobulin light chains in the blood. Primary MM cells
injected into the bones of
MIS(KI)TRG6mice grew in the injected bone but not in the spleen
(Fig 1b–d). In contrast,
non-malignant cells such as human T cells could be detected in the spleen. A
detailed phenotypic analysis of xenografted tumors using mass cytometry revealed
similarity to isolated primary tumor cells before implantation for several proteins, including immune checkpoint markers
(Fig 1e).
Figure 1
Engraftment and phenotype of human plasma cell tumors in
MIS(KI)TRG6 mice
1a. Summary of the overall strategy for tumor cell injection into
mice and analysis of the mice. BM, bone marrow.
1b. Representative FACS plots showing engraftment of CD138+
primary tumor cells from a patient with multiple myeloma. Tumor
(hCD138+hCD38+) and non-tumor (hCD3+) cells were
detected in the injected bone, contralateral bone and spleen.
1c. Levels of human light chain-restricted monoclonal antibodies
(μg/ml) in mouse sera, detected by ELISA. Data shown are from 3 mice
injected with the sample from the patient in Fig 1b.
1d. The percentage of cellular engraftment of tumor cells
(hCD138+hCD38+) and T cells (hCD3+) in the human
cellular compartment (mCD45-mTer119-) in the injected bone, contralateral bone
and spleen. Data shown are summary of data from n=23 mice with samples
from 12 patients; ** ≤ .01).
1e. Heat-map for the expression of the indicated proteins by primary
tumor cells and xenografted tumor cells as in 1b/1c, as analyzed by mass
cytometry. Bars represent expression scales.
Some studies have suggested that a subset of tumor cells lacking
expression of CD138 may be enriched in clonogenic potential[11], whereas others have shown that purified
CD138+ plasma cells are capable of tumor growth [3,12,13]. Our prior studies suggested
plasticity between these compartments[14]. In the MIS(KI)TRG6 model, injection of
purified CD138+ cells or a CD138− depleted cell population
similarly led to the growth of CD138+ tumor cells in
vivo, indicating that both compartments contain cells capable of
repopulating tumors (Fig 2a,b). Depletion
of CD3+ T cells from bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) prior to
adoptive transfer, was performed to reduce the risk of xeno-graft versus host
disease (xeno-GVHD), and emerged as an effective strategy to
successfully allow the growth of tumor cells in vivo (Fig 2b). Nonetheless,
residual non-tumor cells in the isolated primary MM bone marrow cells do undergo
expansion in vivo in this model and contribute to the spectrum
of human non-malignant cells from the tumor microenvironment growing in these
mice (Fig 2c). In addition to T cells, the
spectrum of non-malignant human cells present in the bone marrow in these mice includes myeloid cells, natural killer cells,
and B cells (Fig 2c). Tumor cells from
primary bone xenografts were also capable of
repopulation upon serial transplantation (Fig
2d). Together, these data demonstrate that both the CD138+
and CD138− compartments of bone marrow mononuclear cells are capable of
repopulating in vivo in MIS(KI)TRG6mice, and that
both malignant and non-malignant human cells can grow in these mice.
Figure 2
Engraftment of different tumor cellular compartments, the spectrum of
non-malignant cells that engrafted and the potential for serial
transplantation
2a. Tumor engraftment from the CD138− CD3− fraction
(top) and hCD3-depleted fractions (bottom) and the intracellular light
chain-restricted profiles of the corresponding tumor cells isolated from
transplanted mouse bone marrow following injection of MM tumor cells
(right).
2b. Success rate for engraftment for each of the cellular
compartments transplanted (CD3− depleted, CD138+, and
CD138− and CD3-depleted). N refers to numbers of patients.
2c. Spectrum of non-malignant human immune cells in primary tumors
and in bone marrow aspirates of xenografted bone The proportions of T, NK,
myeloid and B cells were analyzed by mass cytometry. N refers to numbers of
patients.
2d. FACS plots showing the presence of CD38+CD138+
tumor cells in the bone following serial transplantation of tumor cells isolated
from xenografted tumor. CD3-depleted tumor cells isolated from a primary
transplant recipient were reinjected into the bone of secondary recipients. Data
are representative of 2 patients with 3 primary recipients and 2–3
secondary recipients
Microenvironment-dependent growth of MM and precursor states
Prior xenograft models have primarily focused on patients with clinical
MM; reliable models for human preneoplastic gammopathies have not been
described[2]. Injection
of CD3-depleted BMMNCs from patients with either MGUS or AMM into
MIS(KI)TRG6 led to the growth of tumor cells in
vivo (Fig 3a,b). As in the
case of tumor cells from early stage MM patients, cells
isolated from MGUS or AMM patients grew primarily in the injected bone. In
contrast, we observed an enhanced ability of tumor cells to grow in the
contralateral bone when samples from patients with relapsed/refractory MM were
injected (Fig 3a). For the even more
aggressive disease stage of plasma cell leukemia (PCL), extramedullary growth of
tumor cells was also observed (Fig 3a).
Interestingly, tumor cells from MGUS and AMM patients grew progressively in
these mice, reaching higher proportion of tumor cells in the injected bone
compared to the proportion of tumor cells in the preimplantation sample (Fig 3a). The percentage of clonal plasma cells in the
xenografts from patients with preneoplastic gammopathy (n=5) were higher
than in the primary samples (mean 4.9% in primary samples versus
27.4% in xenograft samples, p = 0.06).
Figure 3
Pattern of tumor cell growth from a spectrum of clonal plasma cell tumors and
preneoplastic lesions
3a. Representative FACS plots showing engraftment of primary tumor
cells from patients with MGUS, AMM, relapsed MM and PCL in the injected bone,
contralateral bone and spleen. In the MGUS plot, the CD138−CD38+
cells were identified as NK cells (data not shown).
3b. Success rate for engraftment of tumor cells from MGUS
(n=3), AMM (n=4) and PCL
(n=3) samples.
Injection of MM tumor cells in implanted human fetal bone (SCID-hu model)
is commonly utilized to grow advanced MM[3] and the INA-6 MM cell line[10], but
the reliable growth of pre-neoplastic stages in this model has not been
described. In a direct comparison of the MIS(KI)TRG6 and SCID-hu
models to support the growth of tumors from 3 patients with precursor state MM
(MGUS/AMM), we found that MIS(KI)TRG6mice
were superior to SCID-hu mice (Fig 4).
Growth of INA-6 cells was utilized as a positive control for SCID-hu mice (Supplementary Fig 3).
Taken together, these data show that growth of tumor cells in
MIS(KI)TRG6mice is largely restricted to bone marrow and that these
mice can serve as a host for the entire spectrum of plasma cell dyscrasias, from
MGUS to PCL, and offer several advantages over existing models, particularly for
the growth of precursor states.
Figure 4
Comparison of the MIS(KI)TRG6 and SCID-hu models for the growth of
pre-neoplastic gammopathies
4a. FACS plots showing engraftment of tumor cells following injection of
CD3-depleted bone marrow mononuclear cells from MGUS
(n=2) and AMM (n=1) samples in
MIS(KI)TRG6 and SCID-hu mice was. INA6 cells were utilized as a
positive control for growth of MM cells in SCID-hu mice (supplementary fig 3a).
4b. Data for engraftment in individual patients. PT#1-3 are individual
patients.
Genomic diversity of xenografts
Tumor growth in some xenograft models does not reproduce the genomic
diversity of the parental tumors[15,16]. To test
whether MM cells grown in MIS(KI)TRG6mice retain their genomic
diversity, DNA from sort-purified tumor cells in xenografts were analyzed by whole exome
sequencing and compared to the parental tumor cells (see Supplementary Fig 4 for the sorting
strategy[17]).
Comparison of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) patterns revealed that the majority
of LOH changes in parental tumors were also observed in cells isolated from xenografts; however,
xenograft cells contained additional LOH changes (Fig 5a). Profiling of
somatic copy number alterations (CNA) also revealed a similar pattern of genomic
gains/losses between parental and xenograft cells(Fig 5b). Interestingly,
the patterns of LOH and CNA were identical in individual mice transplanted with
the same parental tumor cells, indicating that the new patterns of genomic change observed upon
xenografting were likely already present in a minor subclone in the parental
cells (Fig
5c,5d). Notably, these new genomic changes detected in the xenografts included genomic changes in chromosome 1
typically associated with high-risk MM[18] (Supplementary Fig 5). Analysis of somatic non-synonymous variants
(SNVs) revealed that the great majority of SNVs detected in the parental tumors
were also identified in xenografts; however, xenografts also contained
additional SNVs not initially detected in parental samples,
including some SNVs with known oncogenic potential (Fig 6). As an example, a xenograft-emergent SNV in
MAPK8IP3 was detected in the parental sample upon PCR genomic amplification, indicating that at least some of the new SNVs
detected in xenografts were already present in the parental cells as
minor subclones (Supplementary
Fig 6). Therefore, tumors growing in xenografts not only recapitulate
the genomic diversity of the parental tumor, but also reveal the presence of
minor subclones capable of growth in the xenogeneic environment.
Figure 5
Genomic analysis of tumor cells engrafted in MIS(KI)TRG6
mice
5a. LOH regions in CD138+ parental tumor cells from patients
#683 and #640 compared with those isolated from transplanted
mice. BAF: B allelic frequencies.
5b. Copy number alterations (CNA) in CD138+ parental tumor
cells from patients #640 and #683 compared with those isolated
from transplanted mice.
5c and 5d.. Genomic analysis of multiple mice injected with the same
tumor.
5c. LOH regions in CD138+ parental tumor cells from patient
#668 compared with LOH regions in xenografted tumor cells isolated from
3 independent transplanted mice.
5d. Copy number alterations (CNA) in CD138+ parental tumor
cells from patient #668 compared with CNAs in xenografted tumor cells
isolated from 3 independent transplanted mice.
Figure 6
Analysis of somatic non-synonymous variants (SNVs) identified in parental tumor
cells and those isolated from xenografted mice. The majority of SNVs detected in
parental tumors were also found in xenografts. However several additional SNVs
were also detected in xenografts.
DISCUSSION
These data demonstrate that the use of advanced humanized mice allows
modeling of the entire spectrum of human plasma cell tumors, including for the first
time to our knowledge, preneoplastic lesions, without the need for human fetal
tissue. The ability to reliably grow primary tumor cells in vivo has clear implications for
preclinical testing and personalized therapies. These studies also provide several
insights into the biology of these tumors.An important strength of this model is that it supports the growth of both
malignant and non-malignant cells from the primary tumor. The improved growth of
non-malignant cells in this model, as compared to other models, is likely due to improved humanhematopoiesis in
MIS(KI)TRG-derived mice, which express species-specific growth
factors[5,6]. The
interaction of MM cells with non-malignant cells in the bone marrow, including immune cells, can affect the growth and evolution of
tumors[14,19,20].
It is therefore important that xenotransplantation models permit the growth of
patient-derived non-malignant as well as malignant cells. This feature is also
essential for the preclinical investigation of emerging immune-based
therapies[21]. It is
therefore of interest that the expression of immune checkpoint markers in humantumor cells in this model resembled that in the primary
tumor.Xenotransplantation models should recapitulate the biology of primary
tumors, not only in terms of their growth pattern but also in terms of their
genetics. In contrast to prior studies in which xenografts exhibited marked
fluctuation in clonal architecture[22], MM tumors grown in MIS(KI)TRG6mice reflected the
entire genetic diversity of the primary tumors. Growth of early MM lesions was
largely restricted to the bone marrow (the natural site of tumor), without
involvement of spleen or lymphoid tissue. Only advanced lesions exhibited the
capacity to seed and expand in the contralateral bone. Furthermore, the capacity of
tumor cells to grow in the spleen and circulation was observed only when the primary
tumors had a circulating component in patients, in the case of plasma cell leukemia.
The ability to recapitulate the growth pattern of primary tumors should facilitate
studies probing the biology of tumor dissemination and homing[23].The ability to grow pre-neoplastic lesions in vivo is
particularly important for enabling study of the biology
of malignant transformation. In patients, the tumor mass in precursor states such as
MGUS remains stable over prolonged periods prior to transformation to clinical MM.
Whether the stability of the clonal mass in MGUS is due to features intrinsic to
tumor cells or to growth control mediated by extrinsic elements is not known. It is
notable that recent genome sequencing studies have shown that nearly all of the
genomic changes and mutations found in MM can be observed in MGUS; moreover, in the
small studies in which serial samples from patients were sequenced, very few
additional mutations, if any, were detected at disease progression[17,24-26]. The
finding that tumor cells from MGUS exhibit progressive growth in mice suggests the
presence of active extrinsic restraints (such as immune-surveillance or
niche-derived signals) in preventing clinical malignancy in patients[27-31]. Extrinsic restraints may be particularly important in
restraining the growth of minor subclones with potentially
“high-risk” genetic lesions, as were detected in our study. Use of this humanized mouse model for study of the
biology of clonal plasma cell diseases and emerging therapeutic approaches, as well
as for the clinical evaluation of patients, may help in understanding the functional
diversity of human tumors and in the development of personalized therapies.
ONLINE METHODS
Generation of MIS(KI)TRG6 mice
MISTRG and MIS(KI)TRGmice have recently been
described[6,7]. MIS(KI)TRG6mice were
generated by humanIL-6 knock-in modification of MIS(KI)TRGmice. The
hIL-6 knock-in mouse, designed and generated by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
will be described elsewhere (manuscript in preparation). MIS(KI)TRG6mice are Rag2-deficient, IL-2Rϒ-deficient mice with human versions of
six genes important for innate immune cell and myeloma cell development
(IL-6h; M-CSFh; IL-3/GM-CSFh;
hSIRPαh; TPOh). Both male and female mice
(approximately 8–12 weeks of age) were utilized for xenotransplantation.
The mice were maintained on a mixed BALB/c;129 genetic background.
BALB/c;129Rag2−;γc−;hSIRPαh/h
mice were used as controls for primary cell transplantation.
BALB/c;129Rag2−;γc−;hSIRPαtg/−
mice with or without humanIL-6 knock in were used for experiments involving
cell lines. To verify production of humanIL-6 by hIL-6 knock-in mice, mice were
i.p. injected with 20μg of LPS (Sigma-Aldrich) and
serum samples were collected before and 2 hours after the challenge. Mouse and
humanIL-6 levels were evaluated using the respective Quantikine ELISA Kit
(R&D Systems) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All
animal experimental procedures were in accordance with Yale Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee (IACUC) guidelines.
Patients and isolation of tumor cells
Blood/bone marrow samples were obtained from patients with MM/MGUS/PCL
following informed consent approved by the Yale Institutional Review Board.
CD138+ tumor cells were isolated from bone marrow mononuclear cells
(BMMNCs) using magnetic bead selection on an AutoMACS separator (Miltenyi), as
described[14,32]. For some experiments, BMMNC or
CD138− fractions were depleted of CD3+ T cells prior to
transplantation using magnetic-bead depletion. For these pilot studies, our
initial goal was to analyze engraftment of tumors from the first 30 patients of
consecutive patients who provided informed consent for research samples. No
patients were specifically excluded. Randomization is not applicable and there
was no blinding to group allocation.
Xenograft transplantation
An IL-6 dependent humanmyeloma cell line, INA-6 (kindly provided by Dr
Nikhil Munshi, Boston), was initially utilized for standardization of the
xenograft procedure. INA-6 cells were maintained in the presence of IL-6 as
described[10]. For
primary myeloma cell transplantation, sorted tumor (CD138+),
CD138− or CD3 depleted bulk MNC fractions from patient bone marrow or
primary blood were injected into mice. All procedures were conducted within Yale
Animal Research Center approved BSL-2 facilities. Mice were irradiated (180
rads) 3–4 hrs before the transplant experiment. Primary cells were
injected directly into the one femur (1–2 million cells per mouse).
After injection, mice were closely monitored for 8–12 weeks or until the
endpoint of the study. Xenografted mice were maintained on Harlan teklad breeder
diet with continuous treatment of Sulfatrim (TMS)Water (40mg trimethoprim and
200mg sulfamethoxazole) and Baytril 20mg/kg. For some experiments, tumor cells
were injected into human fetal bone (purchased from Advanced Bioscience
Resources, Alameda, CA) implanted into C.B17 SCID (SCID-hu, Taconic Farms) mice,
as described following Yale institutional IRB and IACUC approval. [3,10]. For secondary transplantation, bone marrow cells
harvested from the bone of primary recipients were depleted of humanCD3+ cells and reinjected into secondary recipients as discussed
above.
Analysis of engraftment
Engraftment of INA-6 cells was monitored based on the evaluation of
human soluble IL-6R levels with an ELISA using the manufacturer’s
guidelines (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN). Growth of INA-6 tumor cells was
also confirmed based on the detection of GFP+ tumor cells by flow
cytometry. Analysis of the engraftment of primary tumor cells was based on the
detection of human Ig and plasma cells by flow cytometry. Human Ig Lambda and
Kappa levels were monitored using ELISA (Bethyl Laboratories, Inc), following
the manufacturer’s protocol. For immunophenotypic analysis, cells were
isolated from mouse bone marrow (femur and tibia) from the transplanted and
contralateral hind limbs of the xenografted mice. Splenocytes were obtained by
processing the mouse spleen and used as a peripheral control. Human tumor
engraftment was measured by flow cytometry. Fluorochrome conjugated anti-human
antibodies CD138 (MI15, BD Pharmingen), CD38 (HIT2, BD Horizon), CD45 (HI30, BD
Pharmingen), CD3(UCHT1, Biolegend) CD19 (SJ25-C1, BD horizon) were used to
identify engrafted humanmyeloma cells. Anti-mouseCD45 (30-F11, BD Pharmingen)
and Ter119 (TER-119, BD Pharmingen) antibodies were used in the staining panel
to exclude mouse cells. Source and dilution factors for all antibodies are noted
in supplementary table
3.For intracellular detection of human light chains lambda and kappa,
cells were fixed by BD Cytofix™ fixation buffer
(100μl/million cells) for 10 minutes at RT and washed subsequently with
BD Perm/Wash™ buffer for permeabilization. After
permeabilization of cells, fluorochrome conjugated antibodies against human
light chains lambda (MHL-38, Biolegend) and kappa (MHK-49, Biolegend) were used
for intracellular detection. Respective isotype antibodies were used as
controls. Cells were stained in Perm/Wash buffer and later washed and suspended
in staining buffer at the time the samples were run. FACS data were acquired on
BD™ Calibur, BD™ LSR II or BD
LSRFortessa™ instruments and the data was analyzed using
Flowjo v9.7.5 software (Tree Star Inc.). A similar fluorochrome panel was also
used to label cells for FACsorting. All sorting experiments were done using a
BD™ ARIA III instrument. Sorted cells were subjected to
DNA extraction.
Immunophenotyping by mass cytometry
Cells from engrafted mice or primary patient samples were suspended in
1X PBS (up to 10 million/ml) for viability staining by
Cell-ID™ Cisplatin (final concentration of 5μM,
DVS Sciences). Cells were mixed well and incubated for 5 minutes at room
temperature. The staining was quenched with MaxPar® Cell staining
buffer. A panel of anti-human antibodies (CD45-89Y, B7H3-141Pr, CD19-142Nd,
C-kit-143Nd, CD11b-144Nd, CD4-145Nd, CD8-146Nd, CD11c-147Sm, CD14-148Nd,
CD25-149Sm, TIM3-153Eu, CXCR5-155Gd, CD16-156Gd, CD33-158Gd, CD95-164Dy,
HLA-DR-166Er, CD3-170Er, CD38-172Yb, CD138-173Yb, PDL1-174Yb, CD56-176Yb) was
used along with anti-mouseCD45-175Lu and Ter119-154Sm for surface staining. All
antibodies were either commercially available (Fluidigm) or were conjugated
in-house using the MaxPar® X8 Antibody Labeling kit according to the
manufacturer’s protocol (DVS Sciences).Cells were incubated in a volume of 100μl of cell staining
buffer with antibodies in a polystyrene tube for 30 minutes at room temperature.
After staining, cells were washed twice with buffer before fixing and
permeabilizing using the BD Pharmingen™ Transcription Factor
Buffer Set. Permeabilized cells were intracellularly stained with metal
conjugated anti-human antibodies (lambda 151Eu, Ki67 168Er, FoxP3 162Dy, kappa
163Dy) [for 30 minutes at room temperature. After intracellular
staining, cells were washed and re-suspended in 1ml intercalation solution
containing MaxPar Intercalator-Ir in MaxPar Fix and Perm buffer at a final
concentration of 125nM. Data was acquired on a CyTOF® 2 instrument (DVS,
Fluidigm Sciences Inc.) by detecting the signal from antibody-conjugated metal
ions. Cell-ID Cisplatin was detected in the 195Pt channel and Intercalator-Ir
was detected in the 191-Ir and 193-Ir channels DVS Cytobank software (Cytobank
Inc.) was used to analyze mass cytometry data.
Whole exome capture and sequencing
Sorted humanCD3+ or CD14+ cells (germline) from
peripheral blood, CD138+ primary tumor cells (samples used for
xeno-transplantation) and sorted CD138+ human cells from the matched
engrafted MIS(KI)TRG6mice were subjected to DNA isolation using the
QIAamp DNA isolation kit (Qiagen), according the manufacturer’s
protocol. Whole exome capture and sequencing was performed as previously
described[17]. Briefly,
germline and tumor DNA were captured on a Roche NimbleGen Sequence Capture V2.0
human exome array (Roche NimbleGen, Madison, WI), following the
manufacturer’s protocol, with protocol modifications at the Yale Center
for Genome Analysis. Captured libraries were sequenced on the HiSeq 2500
sequencing system (Illumina, Inc. San Diego, CA). Image analysis and base
calling was performed by Illumina pipeline version 1.4. Summary sequencing
statistics are described in Supplemental Table 2. Sanger sequencing was performed on DNA from
CD138+ tumor cells from a primary patient sample and matched
germline/normal DNA samples. Primers were designed to amplify the novel mutation
in the patient baseline tumor DNA, previously identified via whole exome
sequencing in xenografted-tumor samples.
Data analysis
Analysis of raw data from Illumina sequencing was performed as
previously described[17,33,34]. Sequence reads were mapped to the reference genome
(hg19) using ELAND software (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Statistics on coverage
were collected using an in-house Perl script[33]. For insertion/deletion detection, the Burrows-Wheeler
Aligner was used to allow gapped alignment to the reference genome. SAMtools was
used to call germline-originated variants. Differences in minor allele read
frequencies from identical germline-originated variants in tumor and germline
were plotted for genome-wide LOH patterns. Filtering and annotation was done
with in-house Perl scripts[17].
Somatic variants were defined as those present in tumor DNA, but absent in
germline, as previously described[17]. Briefly, base coverage information from matched tumor and
germline was utilized to generate Fisher’s exact test P-values for
tumor-specific variants. Normal-specific calls were also produced for null
distribution, which was used to determine the P-value cutoff. Copy number
alteration analysis was performed based on the coverage ratio of exome probes in
paired tumor and normal samples from sequencing data, similarly as previously
described[17]. Analysis
of Sanger sequencing data was performed using the Geneious 9.1.4 software.
Statistical Analysis
Student’s T test or non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney) were
utilized to compare data from individual groups, and the significance was set at
two sided p <0.05.
Authors: Pierfrancesco Tassone; Paola Neri; Daniel R Carrasco; Renate Burger; Victor S Goldmacher; Robert Fram; Vidit Munshi; Masood A Shammas; Laurence Catley; Gary S Jacob; Salvatore Venuta; Kenneth C Anderson; Nikhil C Munshi Journal: Blood Date: 2005-04-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Kartik Sehgal; Rituparna Das; Lin Zhang; Rakesh Verma; Yanhong Deng; Mehmet Kocoglu; Juan Vasquez; Srinivas Koduru; Yan Ren; Maria Wang; Suzana Couto; Mike Breider; Donna Hansel; Stuart Seropian; Dennis Cooper; Anjan Thakurta; Xiaopan Yao; Kavita M Dhodapkar; Madhav V Dhodapkar Journal: Blood Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: L Melchor; A Brioli; C P Wardell; A Murison; N E Potter; M F Kaiser; R A Fryer; D C Johnson; D B Begum; S Hulkki Wilson; G Vijayaraghavan; I Titley; M Cavo; F E Davies; B A Walker; G J Morgan Journal: Leukemia Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Srinivas Koduru; Ellice Wong; Till Strowig; Ranjini Sundaram; Lin Zhang; Matthew P Strout; Richard A Flavell; David G Schatz; Kavita M Dhodapkar; Madhav V Dhodapkar Journal: Blood Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Murim Choi; Ute I Scholl; Peng Yue; Peyman Björklund; Bixiao Zhao; Carol Nelson-Williams; Weizhen Ji; Yoonsang Cho; Aniruddh Patel; Clara J Men; Elias Lolis; Max V Wisgerhof; David S Geller; Shrikant Mane; Per Hellman; Gunnar Westin; Göran Åkerström; Wenhui Wang; Tobias Carling; Richard P Lifton Journal: Science Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Siming Zhao; Murim Choi; John D Overton; Stefania Bellone; Dana M Roque; Emiliano Cocco; Federica Guzzo; Diana P English; Joyce Varughese; Sara Gasparrini; Ileana Bortolomai; Natalia Buza; Pei Hui; Maysa Abu-Khalaf; Antonella Ravaggi; Eliana Bignotti; Elisabetta Bandiera; Chiara Romani; Paola Todeschini; Renata Tassi; Laura Zanotti; Luisa Carrara; Sergio Pecorelli; Dan-Arin Silasi; Elena Ratner; Masoud Azodi; Peter E Schwartz; Thomas J Rutherford; Amy L Stiegler; Shrikant Mane; Titus J Boggon; Joseph Schlessinger; Richard P Lifton; Alessandro D Santin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kai Deng; Mihaela Pertea; Anthony Rongvaux; Leyao Wang; Christine M Durand; Gabriel Ghiaur; Jun Lai; Holly L McHugh; Haiping Hao; Hao Zhang; Joseph B Margolick; Cagan Gurer; Andrew J Murphy; David M Valenzuela; George D Yancopoulos; Steven G Deeks; Till Strowig; Priti Kumar; Janet D Siliciano; Steven L Salzberg; Richard A Flavell; Liang Shan; Robert F Siliciano Journal: Nature Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jithendra Kini Bailur; Samuel S McCachren; Deon B Doxie; Mahesh Shrestha; Katherine Pendleton; Ajay K Nooka; Natalia Neparidze; Terri L Parker; Noffar Bar; Jonathan L Kaufman; Craig C Hofmeister; Lawrence H Boise; Sagar Lonial; Melissa L Kemp; Kavita M Dhodapkar; Madhav V Dhodapkar Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2019-04-23
Authors: Madelon M E de Jong; Zoltán Kellermayer; Natalie Papazian; Sabrin Tahri; Davine Hofste Op Bruinink; Remco Hoogenboezem; Mathijs A Sanders; Pieter C van de Woestijne; P Koen Bos; Cyrus Khandanpour; Jessica Vermeulen; Philippe Moreau; Mark van Duin; Annemiek Broijl; Pieter Sonneveld; Tom Cupedo Journal: Nat Immunol Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 25.606
Authors: Jithendra Kini Bailur; Sameet Mehta; Lin Zhang; Natalia Neparidze; Terri Parker; Noffar Bar; Tara Anderson; Mina L Xu; Kavita M Dhodapkar; Madhav V Dhodapkar Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2017-11-20
Authors: Shiny Nair; Joel Sng; Chandra Sekhar Boddupalli; Anja Seckinger; Marta Chesi; Mariateresa Fulciniti; Lin Zhang; Navin Rauniyar; Michael Lopez; Natalia Neparidze; Terri Parker; Nikhil C Munshi; Rachael Sexton; Bart Barlogie; Robert Orlowski; Leif Bergsagel; Dirk Hose; Richard A Flavell; Pramod K Mistry; Eric Meffre; Madhav V Dhodapkar Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-04-19
Authors: Duncan R Hewett; Kate Vandyke; David M Lawrence; Natasha Friend; Jacqueline E Noll; Joel M Geoghegan; Peter I Croucher; Andrew C W Zannettino Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2017-11-05 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Chuan Yan; Dalton C Brunson; Qin Tang; Daniel Do; Nicolae A Iftimia; John C Moore; Madeline N Hayes; Alessandra M Welker; Elaine G Garcia; Taronish D Dubash; Xin Hong; Benjamin J Drapkin; David T Myers; Sarah Phat; Angela Volorio; Dieuwke L Marvin; Matteo Ligorio; Lyle Dershowitz; Karin M McCarthy; Murat N Karabacak; Jonathan A Fletcher; Dennis C Sgroi; John A Iafrate; Shyamala Maheswaran; Nick J Dyson; Daniel A Haber; John F Rawls; David M Langenau Journal: Cell Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Sarah A Holstein; Alan Howard; David Avigan; Manisha Bhutani; Adam D Cohen; Luciano J Costa; Madhav V Dhodapkar; Francesca Gay; Nicole Gormley; Damian J Green; Jens Hillengass; Neha Korde; Zihai Li; Sham Mailankody; Paola Neri; Samir Parekh; Marcelo C Pasquini; Noemi Puig; G David Roodman; Mehmet Kemal Samur; Nina Shah; Urvi A Shah; Qian Shi; Andrew Spencer; Vera J Suman; Saad Z Usmani; Philip L McCarthy Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 5.742