| Literature DB >> 31991588 |
Peng Zhang1, Xinxin Xiong2, Christian Rolfo3, Xuexiang Du1, Yan Zhang1, Han Yang2, Alessandro Russo3,4, Martin Devenport5, Penghui Zhou2, Yang Liu1,5, Pan Zheng1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CTLA-4 was the first immune checkpoint targeted for cancer therapy and the first target validated by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) after approval of the anti-CTLA-4 antibody, Ipilimumab. However, clinical response rates to anti-CTLA-4 antibodies are lower while the rates of immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAE) are higher than with anti-PD-1 antibodies. As a result, the effort to target CTLA-4 for cancer immunotherapy has stagnated. To reinvigorate CTLA-4-targeted immunotherapy, we and others have reported that rather than blocking CTLA-4 interaction with its cognate targets, CD80 and CD86, anti-CTLA-4 antibodies achieve their therapeutic responses through selective depletion of regulatory T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Accordingly, we have developed a new generation of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies with reduced irAE and enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity/phagocytosis (ADCC/ADCP). A major unresolved issue is how to select appropriate cancer types for future clinical development.Entities:
Keywords: ADCC/ADCP; Anti-CTLA-4 antibody; TCGA; immunotherapy responsiveness; irAE; lung cancer; treg
Year: 2020 PMID: 31991588 PMCID: PMC7073233 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12020284
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Improving Treg depletion in the tumor microenvironment without jeopardizing the selectivity of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. (a) Comparing cell surface CTLA-4 levels among different T cell subsets. The left panel shows histograms depicting the distribution of cell surface CTLA-4 on gated T cell subsets. The right panel show summary data of mean fluorescence intensity of cell-surface CTLA-4 staining from 5 tumor-baring mice. 5 × 105 MC38 tumor cells were injected (s.c.) into Ctla4/ mice, and mice were treated (i.p.) with 100 μg/mouse control hIgG-Fc per mouse on day 6 after tumor inoculation. Single-cell suspensions were prepared from tumor and spleen on day 10. (b,c) Selectivity of Treg depletion at 24 h post anti-CTLA-4 treatment. 5 × 105 MC38 tumor cells were injected (s.c.) into Ctla4/ mice, and mice were treated (i.p.) with 100 μg Ipilimumab, HL32 or control hIgG-Fc per mouse on day 14 after tumor inoculation and single cell suspensions were analyzed for expression of CD4, CD8, total CTLA-4 and FOXP3. (b) Representative flow cytometry profiles depicting the proportion of different subpopulations among single-cell suspensions prepared from tumor tissues (upper panel) and spleen tissues (lower panel) on day 15. (c) Summary data of the percentage on different subpopulations from tumor tissues (upper panel) and spleen tissues (lower panel). The T cell subset gating strategy is based on quardrons shown in (b). (d,e). As in (b,c), except that tumors and spleens were harvested at 96 h post antibody treatment and that the cell surface CTLA-4 were measured. Data shown were representative of 2–3 independent experiments. Statistical significance was determined by the one-way ANOVA in panel (c,e).
Figure 2CTLA-4 transcripts associate with therapeutic response to Ipilimumab. (a) Volcano plot of mRNA expressions change between anti-CTLA-4 therapy responder and non-responder samples. The x-axis specifies the fold-changes and the y-axis specifies the negative logarithm to the base 10 of the p-values. Grey vertical and horizontal dashed lines reflect the filtering criteria. Red and green dots represent genes expressed at significantly higher (n = 169) or lower (n = 178) levels, respectively. (b) The distribution plot shows selected gene expression differences. (c) Levels of the CTLA4 transcripts among human cancers. The transcript levels of 7279 cancer samples were depicted individually in dot plots. Median values of each cancer type are indicated in horizontal bars.
Ranking human cancer for their responsiveness to anti-CTLA-4 therapy.
| Order | Type | Rank Number | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADCC Feature | CTLA4 Expression | Signature Genes Score | Immune Cell Infiltration | Mutational Burden | Sum | ||
| 1 | SKCM-TM | 13.7 | 2 | 6.7 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 27.3 |
| 2 | LUAD | 12.7 | 1 | 1.3 | 13.0 | 3.5 | 31.5 |
| 3 | HNSC | 10.7 | 3 | 2.7 | 6.7 | 12.0 | 35.0 |
| 4 | LUSC | 12.7 | 8 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 4.5 | 37.5 |
| 5 | BRCA-Basal | 8.0 | 4 | 5.3 | 8.7 | 12.0 | 38.0 |
| 6 | BRCA-Her2 | 10.0 | 5 | 10.3 | 11.7 | 12.5 | 49.5 |
| 7 | KIRC | 11.0 | 15 | 2.7 | 9.3 | 13.0 | 51.0 |
| 8 | COAD | 10.3 | 10 | 11.0 | 9.0 | 12.0 | 52.3 |
| 9 | PAAD | 13.0 | 9 | 6.3 | 13.7 | 12.0 | 54.0 |
| 10 | BLCA | 5.3 | 11 | 18.3 | 8.3 | 13.0 | 56.0 |
| 11 | STAD | 21.3 | 6 | 6.7 | 12.7 | 11.0 | 57.7 |
| 12 | SKCM-TP | 15.0 | 12 | 16.0 | 6.3 | 10.5 | 59.8 |
| 13 | READ | 13.3 | 13 | 9.3 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 60.3 |
| 14 | BRCA_LumB | 8.0 | 14 | 15.3 | 10.7 | 12.5 | 60.5 |
| 15 | BRCA_LumA | 7.3 | 16 | 13.3 | 12.3 | 12.5 | 61.5 |
| 16 | ESCA | 10.7 | 7 | 15.0 | 17.0 | 13.0 | 62.7 |
| 17 | LIHC | 11.3 | 19 | 11.0 | 11.3 | 13.0 | 65.7 |
| 18 | PRAD | 13.0 | 17 | 18.7 | 11.3 | 12.5 | 72.5 |
| 19 | OV | 12.7 | 18 | 18.7 | 16.0 | 12.5 | 77.8 |
| 20 | KIRP | 11.0 | 21 | 15.7 | 18.3 | 13.0 | 79.0 |
| 21 | GBM | 10.7 | 20 | 21.0 | 16.0 | 13.0 | 80.7 |
| 22 | LGG | 11.0 | 22 | 22.0 | 16.0 | 11.5 | 82.5 |
Figure 3Mining genomic and RNAseq data for ADCC features of 22 cancer types in The Cancer Genomics Atlas (TCGA) database. (a) Allele frequency of FCGR3A158. (b) Dot plot showing the FCGR3A gene expression. (c) Dot plots showing the estimated fraction of Treg cell among tumor-infiltrating leukocytes. Median values of each cancer type are indicated in horizontal bars.
Figure 4Using immunological signature gene scores validated from the CTLA-4 response database to rank human cancer. (a) Distribution plot of the immunological signature gene score change between anti-CTLA-4 therapy responder and non-responder cancer tissues. (b) Distribution plot showing three immunological scores of 7279 independent samples from 22 types of human cancer. Those parameters that are significantly associated with CTLA-4 response in (a) were chosen to rank the 22 cancer types in (b).
Figure 5Estimated immune cell fraction varied across cancers from TCGA. (a) Distribution plot of estimated immune cell fraction among anti-CTLA-4 therapy responders and non-responders. Those that show significant association were used to rank human cancers. (b) Distribution plot shows selected estimated immune cell fractions across 22 cancer types from TCGA. Those parameters that are significantly associated with CTLA-4 response in (a) were chosen to rank the 22 cancer types in (b).
Figure 6Predicting selectivity of anti-CTLA-4 mAb-mediated Treg depletion in human NSCLC. (a) The CTLA4 transcript levels among tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes, using data from the database by Guo et al. [36] (b) CTLA4 expression among human T lymphocytes classified by Guo et al. [36] (c) Violin plot showing the single cell expression pattern of the CTLA4 across four indicated clusters. Statistical significance was determined by the One-way ANOVA. (d). CD4/CD8 subsets among tumor-infiltrating cells in NSCLC samples. (e–g) Expression of CTLA-4 among CD4 and CD8 cells. Summary data from 9 cases (e) and representative profiles (f–g) from 1/9 cases are presented. (h) Representative profiles of CCR8 and CTLA-4 distribution among tumor infiltrating CD4 T cells. (i) Summary data showing the distribution of CCR8+ vs. CCR8− cells among CTLA-4-expressing cells.