| Literature DB >> 34326835 |
Ruocong Zhao1,2, Yuanbin Cui2,3, Yongfang Zheng2,3, Shanglin Li2,3, Jiang Lv2,3, Qiting Wu2, Youguo Long2, Suna Wang2, Yao Yao2, Wei Wei4, Jie Yang5, Bin-Chao Wang6, Zhenfeng Zhang7, Hui Zeng1,8, Yangqiu Li1,8, Peng Li2,3,9.
Abstract
T cell infiltration into tumors is essential for successful immunotherapy against solid tumors. Herein, we found that the expression of hyaluronic acid synthases (HAS) was negatively correlated with patient survival in multiple types of solid tumors including gastric cancer. HA impeded in vitro anti-tumor activities of anti-mesothelin (MSLN) chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T cells) against gastric cancer cells by restricting CAR-T cell mobility in vitro. We then constructed a secreted form of the human hyaluronidase PH20 (termed sPH20-IgG2) by replacing the PH20 signal peptide with a tPA signal peptide and attached with IgG2 Fc fragments. We found that overexpression of sPH20-IgG2 promoted CAR-T cell transmigration through an HA-containing matrix but did not affect the cytotoxicity or cytokine secretion of the CAR-T cells. In BGC823 and MKN28 gastric cancer cell xenografts, sPH20-IgG2 promoted anti-mesothelin CAR-T cell infiltration into tumors. Furthermore, mice infused with sPH20-IgG2 overexpressing anti-MSLN CAR-T cells had smaller tumors than mice injected with anti-MSLN CAR-T cells. Thus, we demonstrated that sPH20-IgG2 can enhance the antitumor activity of CAR-T cells against solid tumors by promoting CAR-T cell infiltration.Entities:
Keywords: CAR-T cells; gastric cancer; hyaluronic acid; immunotherapy; tumor extracellular matrix
Year: 2021 PMID: 34326835 PMCID: PMC8313856 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.660488
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1The expression of HA synthase (HAS) is negatively correlated with the disease prognosis of cancer patients. (A) Data analysis of the correlations of hyaluronic acid synthase expression (HAS1, HAS2, and HAS3) with patients survival in STAD patients. (B) Analysis for the correlations of the expression of hyaluronic acid synthase 2 (HAS2) with patient survival. LIHC, liver hepatocellular carcinoma; LUSC, lung squamous cell carcinoma; MESO, mesothelioma; SARC, sarcoma; LGG, low-grade glioma. The results were compared with Log-rank test with 95% Confidence Interval, Median survival was used as group cutoff with 50% high group and 50% low group.
Figure 2HA restricts T cell mobility and inhibits the antitumor effect of CAR-T cells. (A) Schematic diagram of the structures of CAR gene expression cassettes. (B) Schematic diagram of the Transwell tumor killing coculture system. (C) Results of killing assays performed with anti-MSLN CAR-T cells targeting the gastric cancer cell lines BGC823GL and KATOIIIGL in the Transwell coculture system; error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with two-way ANOVA. **P < 0.01. (D) GFP fluorescence images of viable BGC823GL cells at the endpoint of the killing assay at each E:T ratio. (E) Concentrations of IFN-γ and (F) Granzyme B in the supernatant of Transwell chambers at each E:T ratio determined by ELISA; error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with an unpaired t test. **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Figure 3sPH20-IgG2 enhances the transmigratory capacity of anti-MSLN CAR-T cells in an HA-containing matrix and promotes their antitumor activity in vitro. (A) Schematic diagram of the four types of PH20 lentiviral expression cassettes. (B) Hyaluronidase activity of UT-T, MSLN-T, and MSLN-sP-T cells; error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with an unpaired t test. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. (C) Viability of BGC823GL tumor cells in the lower chamber of a Transwell coculture system after coculture with UT-T, MSLN-T, or MSLN-sP-T cells at an E:T ratio of 1:1 with 5 mg/ml HA matrix in the upper chamber. (D) Percentage of CD3-positive T cells in the lower chamber of Transwell wells with UT-T, anti-MSLN-T, or anti-MSLN-sP-T cells at an E:T ratio=1:1 with 5 mg/ml HA matrix in the upper chamber. (E) Representative flow cytometry plot for (D). (F) The concentrations of IFN-γ and (G) granzyme B in the supernatant of chambers in the Transwell killing assay. Error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with an unpaired t test. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4sPH20-IgG2 enhances the infiltration and antitumor activity of anti-MSLN CAR-T cells in BGC823 gastric cancer mouse model. (A) Schematic diagram of the experiment,n=7 for each group. (B) Measurement of tumor volumes after treatment with Mock-T, anti-MSLN-T or anti-MSLN-sP-T cells; error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with two-way ANOVA. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. (C) Tumor weights of the Mock-T, anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell groups on day 30 after tumor injection (time of sacrifice). (D) Tumor growth curves for the individual mice in the anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell groups. (E) Representative images of IHC detection of tumor-infiltrated T cells in the anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell groups. (F) Statistical analysis of tumor-infiltrated T cells in the anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell groups. Error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with an unpaired t test. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
Figure 5sPH20-IgG2 enhances the infiltration and antitumor activity of anti-MSLN CAR-T cells in MKN28 gastric cancer mouse model. (A) Schematic diagram of the experiment, n=4 for Mock-T, n=6 for MSLN-T and n=5 for MSLN-sP-T group. (B) Measurement of tumor volumes after treatment with Mock-T, anti-MSLN-T or anti-MSLN-sP-T cells; (C) Tumor weights of the Mock-T, anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell groups on day 39 after tumor injection (time of sacrifice). (D) Tumor growth curves for the individual mice in the anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell groups. (E) Statistical analysis for the percentage of T cells in the tumor tissues of the anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell treated groups. (F) ELISA detection of HA level in the in the tumor tissues of the anti-MSLN-T and anti-MSLN-sP-T cell treated groups. Error bars denote the S. D, and the results were compared with an unpaired t test. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.