| Literature DB >> 30974896 |
Amber Kerstetter-Fogle1, Sourabh Shukla2, Chao Wang3, Veronique Beiss4, Peggy L R Harris5, Andrew E Sloan6,7,8, Nicole F Steinmetz9,10,11,12.
Abstract
Despite aggressive multi-modality treatment with surgery, radiation and chemotherapies, malignant glioma inevitably recurs and has dismal survival rates. Recent progress in immunotherapy has led to a resurgence of interest, and immunotherapies are being investigated for treatment of glioma. However, the unique brain anatomy and a highly immunosuppressive glioma microenvironment pose significant challenges to achieving efficacy. Thus, there is a critical need for assessment of next-generation immunotherapies for glioma. In this study, we have investigated the efficacy of the nanoparticle platform technology based on plant-derived Cowpea mosaic virus like particles (empty CPMV or eCPMV) to instigate a potent immune response against intracranial glioma. CPMV immunotherapy has been shown to efficiently reverse the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments in pre-clinical murine models of dermal melanoma and metastatic melanoma, metastatic breast cancer, intraperitoneal ovarian cancer and in canine patients with oral melanoma. In the present study, we demonstrate that in situ administration of CPMV immunotherapy in the setting of glioma can effectively recruit unique subset of effector innate and adaptive immune cells to the brain parenchyma while reducing immune suppressive cellular population, leading to regression of intracranial glioma. The in situ CPMV nanoparticle vaccine offers a potent yet safe and localized immunotherapy for intracranial glioma.Entities:
Keywords: CPMV; immunotherapy; in situ vaccine; intracranial glioma; viral nanoparticles
Year: 2019 PMID: 30974896 PMCID: PMC6521079 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11040515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1eCPMV propagation, purification and characterization. (A) eCPMV VLPs were propagated using N. benthamiana plants; leaves were infiltrated when plants were 45 days old. (B) Structure of eCPMV, chimera image created using PDB file 1NY7 (CPMV) (C,D) Purified eCPMV particles were characterized for structural integrity using TEM and size exclusion chromatography (FPLC). (E) One-step-NHS chemistry was used to bioconjugate Cy5 dyes to the lysine residues on eCPMV CPs. (F) SDS-gel electrophoresis was used to confirm conjugation of Cy5 dyes to eCPMV coat proteins: the fluorescence derived from conjugated Cy5 is detected by exposing the gel to 632 nm excitation; the small (S) and large (L) protein are detected after protein staining (GelCode™ Blue Safe protein stain) and visualization under white light.
Figure 2Intracranial eCPMV injection and immunotherapy. (A) eCPMV retention in brain following intracranial administration was determined using eCPMV-Cy5 and Maestro fluorescence imaging system. (B) For in situ immunotherapy, C57BL6 mice (n = 4) were inoculated with 3 × 103 GL261 cells intracranially and administered PBS or eCPMV via intracranial injections on days 8, 16 and 24. (C) On day 30, MRI imaging (7 Tesla) was used to visualize glioma post-treatment. Yellow circles highlight solid tumors in PBS administered mice, whereas blue circle highlights the residual tumor and/or edema in one of the mice in the eCPMV treatment group.
Figure 3Flow cytometry analysis to characterize immune infiltration in the brain parenchyma. (A) GL261 glioma bearing C57BL6 mice (n = 3) were treated 1× or 3× with eCPMV immunotherapy and the brain tissues were harvested 24 h following the last treatments to determine innate (B) and adaptive (C) immune cell infiltrates in eCPMV treated (black bars) or untreated (white bars) GL261 bearing brain tissues. Error bars represent SEM. Statistical comparisons were performed using unpaired t-test (**** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01 and * p < 0.05).
Figure 4Immunohistochemical analysis. (A) Brain tissues from GL261 glioma bearing mice (n = 3) were harvested on day 25 from tumor inoculation after 24 h of receiving 1× eCPMV treatment or the last dose of 3× eCPMV treatment. (B) Tumor sections (6 μm thick) were stained with α-CD45 antibody, α-IBA-1 antibody, α-CD68 antibody and α-FoxP3 antibody. The scale bar is 50 μm in all images. Quantitative analysis was performed using Zeiss software to determine relative optical densities of the stained sections. Error bars represent SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using ordinary one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test (**** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01).