| Literature DB >> 31771150 |
Felicity C Stark1, Gerard Agbayani1, Jagdeep K Sandhu1, Bassel Akache1, Charis McPherson1, Lise Deschatelets1, Renu Dudani1, Melissa Hewitt1, Yimei Jia1, Lakshmi Krishnan1, Michael J McCluskie1.
Abstract
Archaeosomes are liposomes composed of natural or synthetic archaeal lipids that when used as adjuvants induce strong long-lasting humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against entrapped antigens. However, traditional entrapped archaeosome formulations have only low entrapment efficiency, therefore we have developed a novel admixed formulation which offers many advantages, including reduced loss of antigen, consistency of batch-to-batch production as well as providing the option to formulate the vaccine immediately before use, which is beneficial for next generation cancer therapy platforms that include patient specific neo-antigens or for use with antigens that are less stable. Herein, we demonstrate that, when used in combination with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint therapy, this novel admixed archaeosome formulation, comprised of preformed sulfated lactosyl archaeol (SLA) archaeosomes admixed with OVA antigen (SLA-OVA (adm)), was as effective at inducing strong CD8+ T cell responses and protection from a B16-OVA melanoma tumor challenge as the traditionally formulated archaeosomes with encapsulated OVA protein. Furthermore, archaeosome vaccine formulations combined with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy, induced OVA-CD8+ T cells within the tumor and immunohistochemical analysis revealed the presence of CD8+ T cells associated with dying or dead tumor cells as well as within or around tumor blood vessels. Overall, archaeosomes constitute an attractive option for use with combinatorial checkpoint inhibitor cancer therapy platforms.Entities:
Keywords: CTLA-4; PD-1; TIL; adjuvant; archaeal; archaeosomes; cancer; checkpoint; immunotherapy; melanoma; tumor infiltrating lymphocyte; vaccine
Year: 2019 PMID: 31771150 PMCID: PMC6966619 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines7040091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Figure 1Survival of C57BL/6 mice challenged with a solid melanoma tumor and treated with archaeosomes in combination with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4. C57BL/6 mice were given 5 × 105 B16-OVA tumor cells s.c. in the dorsal flank. Mice were treated with 20 μg of MS–OVA (enc), SLA–OVA (adm) or OVA alone by s.c. injection at the base of the tail away from the tumor site on days 3, 8 and 18. A total of 100 μg anti-CTLA-4 (Clone 9D9) was given s.c. alongside the archaeosome vaccination, and 250 μg of anti-PD-1 (RMP1-14) was given i.p. on day 9, 12, 15 and 18. Survival is plotted against time, and treatment groups are separated to better illustrate differences between groups. SLA–OVA (adm) therapy is compared to SLA–OVA (adm) combined with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 therapy (A). SLA–OVA (adm), SLA–OVA (enc) or MS–OVA (enc) therapy in combination with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 is compared (B). This survival assay was repeated once. Survival statistics were performed using the Gehan–Breslow-Wilcoxon test, * p < 0.05: SLA–OVA (adm) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 > anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1; n.s. p > 0.1: SLA–OVA (adm) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 = SLA–OVA (enc) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 = MS–OVA (enc) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1; **** p < 0.0001: SLA–OVA (adm) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 AND SLA–OVA (enc) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 AND MS–OVA (enc) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 > each control group shown on panel B.
Figure 2Solid tumor growth over time on C57BL/6 mice challenged with a solid melanoma tumor and treated archaeosomes in combination with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4. C57BL/6 mice were given 5 × 105 B16-OVA tumor cells s.c. in the dorsal flank and treated as described in Figure 1. Perpendicular tumor measurements were taken, and tumor growth is plotted against time for each treatment group.
Comparison of frequency of OVA-CD8+ T cells in the spleen and tumor of mice described in Figure 1.
| Frequency of OVA-CD8+ T Cells of All CD8+ T Cells in the Spleen and Tumor at the Humane Endpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spleen | Tumour | |||
| Geometric Mean | %95 CI (Lower + Upper) | Geometric Mean | %95 CI (Lower + Upper) | |
| SLA-OVA (adm) | 1.13 | 0.38 and 1.79 | 0.55 | 0.23 and 1.35 |
| Anti- CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 | 0.17 | −0.03 and 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.17 and 3.12 |
| SLA-OVA (adm) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 | 0.27 | 0.14 and 1.38 | 1.85 | 0.18 and 5.50 |
| SLA-OVA (enc) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 | 1.49 | 0.44 and 3.07 | 8.02 | 0.41 and 21.97 |
| MS-OVA (enc) + anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 | 1.27 | 0.55 and 1.37 | 1.74 | 0.67 and 3.04 |
Control groups not included above did not have detectable OVA-CD8 T cells. Outliers were removed with a ROUT coefficient Q of 1%, n = 5–7/gp.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical demonstration of immune-infiltrating cells in B16-OVA tumor-bearing mice. Tumors were collected at the humane endpoint and were fixed in zinc fixative and immunostained with rabbit monoclonal antibodies against CD45, CD4 and CD8, developed using a Bond Polymer Refine Red Detection system (red) and counterstained with hematoxylin (blue). Top panel: Photomicrographs of a B16-OVA tumor showing the presence of CD45+ cells around necrotic area (A), morphologically resembling neutrophils (B) and few CD4+ T cells at the tumor margin (C). Middle panel: Photomicrographs of a B16-OVA tumor treated with CPI therapy showing CD45+ cells in the tumor stroma (D) and CD8+ cells in the viable (arrows) and non-viable tumor tissue (E). A black box in panel E was magnified to show closely associated CD8+ cells with dead/dying tumor cells (F). Bottom panel: Photomicrographs of a B16-OVA tumor treated with a combination of CPI therapy and SLA–OVA, showing CD45+ cells in the tumor stroma (G,H), morphologically resembling neutrophils (H) and numerous intra-tumoral CD8+ cells in the viable tumor tissue (I). A black box in panel G is magnified to show neutrophil morphology in panel H.
Figure 4Semi-quantitative analysis of the immune cell infiltrate. Using a four-tier scoring system (0, 1, 2 and 3), CD45+ and CD8+ cells were semi-quantified in the tumor margin (A) and within the tumor (B). A score of “0” indicates no cells in the field, “1” indicates mild infiltrate of 1–10 immune cells/field, “2” indicates moderate infiltration of 10–25 immune cells/field and a score of “3” indicates marked infiltration with >25 cells/field. 40× fields were used to grade the immune cell infiltrates. Necrotic areas were excluded from analysis. Groups are color-matched to the survival curves in Figure 1.