| Literature DB >> 32332763 |
Lorenzo Gerratana1,2,3, Debora Basile4,5, Barbara Toffoletto6, Michela Bulfoni6, Silvia Zago7, Alessandro Magini8, Marta Lera4, Giacomo Pelizzari4,5, Pietro Parisse9,10, Loredana Casalis10, Maria Grazia Vitale4,5, Valentina Fanotto4,5, Marta Bonotto5, Federica Caponnetto4, Michele Bartoletti4,5, Camilla Lisanti4,5, Alessandro Marco Minisini5, Carla Emiliani8, Carla Di Loreto4,6, Gianpiero Fasola5, Francesco Curcio4,7, Antonio Paolo Beltrami4,6, Daniela Cesselli4,6, Fabio Puglisi4,11.
Abstract
High neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and monocyte to lymphocyte ratio (MLR) are respectively associated with systemic inflammation and immune suppression and have been associated with a poor outcome. Plasmatic exosomes are extracellular vesicles involved in the intercellular communication system that can exert an immunosuppressive function. Aim of this study was to investigate the interplay between the immune system and circulating exosomes in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). A threshold capable to classify patients according to MLR, NLR and PLR, was computed through a receiving operator curve analysis after propensity score matching with a series of female blood donors. Exosomes were isolated from plasma by ExoQuick solution and characterized by flow-cytometry. NLR, MLR, PLR and exosomal subpopulations potentially involved in the pre-metastatic niche were significantly different in MBC patients with respect to controls. MLR was significantly associated with number of sites at the onset of metastatic disease, while high levels of MLR and NLR were found to be associated with poor prognosis. Furthermore, exosomal subpopulations varied according to NLR, MLR, PLR and both were associated with different breast cancer subtypes and sites of distant involvement. This study highlights the nuanced role of immunity in MBC spread, progression and outcome. Moreover, they suggest potential interaction mechanisms between immunity, MBC and the metastatic niche.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32332763 PMCID: PMC7181663 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-63291-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patients’ characteristics.
| N | % | |
|---|---|---|
| ≥45 and ≤65 | 186 | (47.0) |
| <45 | 42 | (10.6) |
| >65 | 168 | (42.4) |
| 1 | 11 | 3.4 |
| 2 | 162 | 0.50 |
| 3 | 151 | 46.6 |
| Ductal | 318 | (81.6) |
| Lobular | 59 | (15.1) |
| Others | 13 | (3.3) |
| Negative | 80 | (24.0) |
| Positve | 254 | (76.0) |
| Negative | 126 | (38.4) |
| Positve | 202 | (61.6) |
| <14% | 70 | (21.8) |
| ≥14% | 251 | (78.2) |
| Uncertain | 2 | (0.6) |
| Negative | 245 | (73.4) |
| Positive | 87 | (26.0) |
| Luminal A | 44 | (14.2) |
| Luminal B | 151 | (48.7) |
| Luminal HER2 | 43 | (13.9) |
| HER2 Positive | 35 | (11.3) |
| Triple Negative | 37 | (11.9) |
| 0 | 204 | (52.4) |
| 1 | 150 | (38.6) |
| 2 | 35 | (9.0) |
| 1 | 213 | (53.8) |
| 2 | 105 | (26.5) |
| 3 | 53 | (13.4) |
| 4 | 19 | (4.8) |
| 5 | 5 | (1.3) |
| 6 | 1 | (0.2) |
Figure 1Characterization of Exoquick-precipitated plasma exosomes. (A–C) Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). (A) Representative AFM micrograph (2.5 μm × 2.5 μm) of mBC exosomes enriched by ExoQuick, diluted in PBS and deposited on a mica substrate. (B) Height profile of a single vesicle (blue line in panel A) matching the typical lateral dimensions of exosomes (<150 nm). (C) Quantification of the exosome diameter: histogram show the distribution of the diameter of exosomes, as extracted by grain analysis (Gwyddion) of three distinct AFM images of the same sample. (D) Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA). Representative histogram showing the particle size distribution of an exosome preparation analyzed by Nanosight and diluted 1:1000 in water. (E–G) Western Blot. (E) After ExoQuick precipitation, samples were subjected to floatation on a linear sucrose gradient. Protein distribution in the gradient is shown as µg of proteins recovered in each fraction (grey line; scale on the right). Enlarged data (black line; scale on the left) are also shown. (F) Ponceau staining of the gel. (G) Cropped immunoblot showing CD9 immunoreactivity of the different recovered fractions (full length blot is displayed in Supplementary Fig. 1). (H) Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Representative pictures, acquired at different magnification, of a sample whose CD9 positive fractions (fractions 3–5) were pooled and subjected to SEM analysis. (I) Dynamic light scattering (DLS) analysis. CD9 positive fractions 3–5 were pooled and analyzed by DLS. Histograms represent the size distribution of the vesicles. The profile shows the presence of distinct populations. The first one with an average size of about 30 nm and the second one of 110 nm. A population with an average diameter of 450 nm was also observable, probably due to protein aggregation induced by ExoQuick treatment.
Figure 2Characterization of exosomes by FACS. (A) Gating strategy. Taking advantage of beads of specific size, the gate corresponding to latex beads (gate R1) was identified in the FSC/SSC dot plot (left panel). Events included in R1 were evaluated for the positivity to the isotypic specific antibody to define the gate of positivity for the exosome specific markers CD9 and CD63 (central panel). Exosome-positive beads were therefore included in the R2 gate (right panel). (B,C) Exosome characterization. Representative dot plots defining the fraction of exosome-positive beads expressing HER2, Epcam (left panels), E-Cadherin, CD49d (central panels), CXCR4 and CD44 (right panels) in healthy donors (B) and MBC patients (C). (D) Quantitative analysis. Data, obtained from the analysis of 20 healthy donors (CTRL) and 20 MBC patients (MBC), are presented as Box and whisker plot. *p < 0.05 vs. CTRL.
Figure 3Plasma exosomes derived from MBC patient, but not from healthy donors, inhibit T-cell proliferation. (A) CFSE-labeled PBMCs isolated from healthy donors were pretreated for 24 hours without or with plasma-derived exosomes and stimulated or not for 72 hours with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28. The representative CFSE histograms show the fraction of proliferative CD3 + T cells in unstimulated PBMCs (left panels) and stimulated PBMCs (right panels), treated or not with donor-derived or patient derived exosomes, at two different concentrations (1:2 and 1:100). (B) Quantification data deriving from two experiments in triplicate are shown. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 4Plasma exosomes are preferentially internalized by monocytes. (A) DiD-labelled exosomes were incubated with PBMCs for 5 hours (upper panels) or 24 hours (lower panels) and the uptake by CD14 + monocytes, and CD3 + T cells was measured by flow cytometric analysis. In the dot plots on the left, it is represented the gating strategy to recognize, in the bulk population, T lymphocytes (red dots) and CD14 + monocytes (blue dots). Gated sub-populations were analyzed for DiD-fluorescence. (B) Quantification data deriving from two experiments in triplicate are shown. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 5Exosomal subpopulation distribution according to LRs, site of metastasis and tumor burden. (A) MLRlow patients (B) MLRhigh patients (C) NLRlow patients (D) NLRhigh patients (E) PLRlow patients (F) PLRhigh patients. Significant associations are presented as box and whisker plot.
Univariate Cox regression analysis on the matched population.
| HR | 95 (%) CI | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luminal A | 1.00 | ||
| Luminal B | 1.55 | 0.84–2.86 | 0.161 |
| Luminal HER2 | 1.04 | 0.49–2.19 | 0.921 |
| HER2 Positive | 1.28 | 0.57–2.87 | 0.542 |
| Triple Negative | 5.67 | 2.81–11.43 | 0.000 |
| ≥ 45 and ≤ 65 | 1.00 | ||
| <45 | 0.81 | 0.51–1.28 | 0.375 |
| > 65 | 0.32 | 0.08–1.31 | 0.116 |
| Relapsed | 1.00 | ||
| De novo | 0.84 | 0.59–1.20 | 0.349 |
| 0 | 1.00 | ||
| 1 | 1.70 | 1.15–2.50 | 0.008 |
| 2 | 1.75 | 1.02–3.01 | 0.043 |
| 1 | 1.00 | ||
| 2 | 1.61 | 1.08–2.40 | 0.019 |
| 3 | 2.13 | 1.35–3.36 | 0.001 |
| No | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 0.67 | 0.42–1.06 | 0.084 |
| No | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 2.11 | 1.11–4.04 | 0.023 |
| No | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.27 | 0.87–1.85 | 0.211 |
| No | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.26 | 0.87–1.83 | 0.214 |
| <0.28 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥0.28 | 1.77 | 1.24–2.54 | 0.002 |
| <1.95 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥1.95 | 2.09 | 1.40–3.12 | 0.000 |
| <149.68 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥149.68 | 1.42 | 1.00–2.03 | 0.051 |
| Score 0 | 1.00 | ||
| Score 1 | 2.35 | 1.38–4.02 | 0.002 |
| Score 2 | 2.54 | 1.59–4.07 | 0.000 |
Figure 6Kaplan Meier plot in terms of OS after applying the ROC Analysis defined threshold for MLR (A), NLR (B) and PLR (C). P value was calculated though log-rank test.
Multivariare Cox regression models for MLR, NLR and NLR-MLR Score.
| HR | 95% CI | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| <0.28 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥0.28 | 1.85 | 1.20–2.83 | 0.004 |
| <2 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥2 | 1.37 | 0.85–2.19 | 0.196 |
| Score 0 | 1.00 | ||
| Score 1 | 1.38 | 0.75–2.56 | 0.300 |
| Score 2 | 1.90 | 1.11–3.26 | 0.19 |
| <0.28 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥0.28 | 1.37 | 0.99–1.89 | 0.053 |
| <2 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥2 | 1.14 | 0.80–1.63 | 0.454 |
| Score 0 | 1.00 | ||
| Score 1 | 1.18 | 0.74–1.88 | 0.494 |
| Score 2 | 1.38 | 0.92–2.08 | 0.123 |
| <0.28 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥0.28 | 1.92 | 1.15–3.22 | 0.013 |
| <2 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥2 | 0.91 | 0.48–1.72 | 0.768 |
| Score 0 | 1.00 | ||
| Score 1 | 0.90 | 0.39–2.08 | 0.810 |
| Score 2 | 1.46 | 0.74–2.89 | 0.274 |
*Corrected for molecular profiles, ECOG PS, number of sites, CNS involvement at fist line.
**Corrected for molecular profiles, ECOG PS, number of sites, CNS and liver involvement at fist line.
Figure 7Different prognostic impact of MLR (A) and NLR (B) according to clinically relevant subgroups. Forest plot highlights a tangible difference in age-defined subgroups, p for interaction = 0.028 and 0.088 for MLR and NLR respectively.
Figure 8Kaplan Meier plot in terms of OS according to variation of MLR (A), NLR (B) and PLR (C) from the first to the second line of treatment.