| Literature DB >> 36113894 |
Hengkai Chen1,2,3,4, Zhenli Li1,2,3, Liman Qiu1,2,3, Xiuqing Dong1,2,3, Geng Chen1,2,3, Yingjun Shi1,2,3, Linsheng Cai1,2,3, Wenhan Liu1,2,3, Honghao Ye1,2,3, Yang Zhou1,2,3, Jiahe Ouyang1,2,3, Zhixiong Cai5,2,3, Xiaolong Liu5,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personalized neoantigen vaccine could induce a robust antitumor immune response in multiple cancers, whose efficacy could be further enhanced by combining with programmed cell death 1 blockade (α-PD-1). However, the corresponding immune response and synergistic mechanisms remain largely unclear. Here, we aimed to develop clinically available combinational therapeutic strategy and further explore its potential antitumor mechanisms in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Entities:
Keywords: immunotherapy; liver neoplasms; tumor microenvironment; vaccination
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36113894 PMCID: PMC9486396 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-004389
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 12.469
Figure 1Neoantigen identification and immunogenicity validation. (A) Tumor neoepitope identification processes for murine hepatocellular carcinoma cell line Hepa1-6 cells. (B) Screening workflow of neoantigen peptides. (C) Potential neoantigen immunogenicity validation performed by ELISPOT. (D) Cross-reactivity analysis between seven identified neoantigen peptides and corresponding wild-type peptides. (E) Potential neoantigen immunogenicity analysis of seven identified neoantigen peptides in sorted splenic CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Results are shown as mean±SD. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. IFN, interferon.
Figure 2Adjuvant optimization for neoantigen peptide vaccine NeoVAC preparation. (A) Schematic representation of the vaccination schedule for screening adjuvant in subcutaneous HCC model. (B) Tumor growth curves of each group (n=5) treated with neoantigen peptides pulsed with different Toll-like receptor agonists as adjuvant (Pam3cks4, Poly(I:C), Mpla, Flagellin, R848 and CpG-ODN). Results are shown as mean±SEM. (C) The representative immunofluorescence image of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltration in tumor tissues at each treated group, Scare bars, 100 µm (10×), 40 µm (40×). (D) The histogram of ELISPOT assay showing neoantigen-specific reactivity of splenic T cells against the pool of seven neoantigen peptides. Results are shown as mean±SD. (E) Schematic representation of the vaccination schedule for screening adjuvant in orthotopic HCC model. (F) Tumor burden monitoring of each group (n=5) treated with neoantigen peptides pulsed with different adjuvant by bioluminescence imaging. Neo, neoantigen peptides. The statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance analysis. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; IFN, interferon; PBS, phosphate buffered saline.
Figure 3Antitumor efficacy of NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treatment in orthotopic HCC model. (A) Treatment timeline for NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treatment in orthotopic HCC model. (B) Tumor burden monitoring of PBS, NeoVAC alone, α-PD-1 alone and NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treated mice by bioluminescence imaging (n=5). (C) Kaplan-Meier survival curves of PBS, NeoVAC alone, α-PD-1 alone and NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treated groups (n=10). (D) Flow cytometry showing the percentage of matured DCs (n=5). (E) Flow cytometry showing the percentage of central memory T cells in spleen (n=5). (F) ELISPOT assay showing neoantigen-specific reactivity of splenic T cells against seven neoantigen peptides (n=3). (G) Flow cytometry showing the percentage of CD8+ T cells expressing PD-1 and 4-1BB in ELISPOT assay (n=3). (H) The representative immunofluorescence image of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltration in tumor tissues. Scale bars, 100 µm (10×), 40 µm (40×). (I) Flow cytometry showing the percentage of infiltrating CD8+ T cells expressing PD-1 and 4-1BB (n=3). (J) Flow cytometry analysis showing the percentage of Ptpn2376-384 (RWLYWQPTL):H-2Kb specific CD8+ T cells in infiltrating CD8+ T cells (n=3). Ptpn2, Ptpn2376-384:H-2Kb. The statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance analysis. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and tested using the log-rank test. Results are shown as mean±SD. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; IFN, interferon; NeoVAC, neoantigen peptide vaccine; PBS, phosphate buffered saline; PD-1, programmed cell death 1; α-PD-1, PD-1 blockade.
Figure 4Orthotopic recurrence and metastasis rechallenge of NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treatment in vivo. (A) Schematic diagram showing the process of establishing orthotopic recurrence and metastasis rechallenge models. (B) Tumor burdens of NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treated mice (n=6) and naive mice (n=5) after treatment and rechallenge measured by bioluminescence imaging. (C) Flow cytometry analysis showing the percentage of Ptpn2376-384:H-2Kb specific CD8+ T cells in blood after 2 days orthotopic recurrence and metastasis rechallenge (n=3). (D) ELISPOT assay showing neoantigen-specific reactivity of splenic T cells against seven neoantigen peptides on day 90 after treatment (n=3). Ptpn2, Ptpn2376-384:H-2Kb. The statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance analysis. Results are shown as mean±SD. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; NeoVAC, neoantigen peptide vaccine; α-PD-1, programmed cell death 1 blockade.
Figure 5Characterization of mouse immune microenvironment via scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data. (A) t-SNE plot showing CD45+ infiltrating cells merged from all groups (left); histogram indicating the proportion of clusters within each group (right). (B) t-SNE plot showing the subsets of infiltrating T-cell clusters. (C) t-SNE plots of infiltrating T cells separated by treatment condition, the arrow indicated the CD8+ T-cell cluster enriched in NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 group. (D) Alluvial plot connecting treatment groups and CD8+ T-cell clusters according to predicted TCR specificity. (E) Heatmap showing the expression of top upregulated genes of T13 cluster (top); expression levels of Ifn-g, Gzmb, Tnf across all CD8+ T-cell clusters (bottom). (F) Pseudotime trajectory of CD8+ T-cell clusters colored by clusters generated by Monocle 2 (left); Pseudotime trajectory of CD8+ T-cell clusters colored by pseudotime (dark blue to light blue) generated by Monocle 2 (right). (G) The overlap of TCR clonotypes between different CD8+ T-cell clusters. The number in each square indicating the overlap of clonotypes scaled to the length of unique clonotypes in the smaller sample. (H) Bubble chart showing the interactions between CD8+ TRM subset and other T-cell subsets. The sizes of the bubbles indicate the significance of the interactions between different subsets and the color indicated the communication probability calculated by CellChat. (I) Scatterplot showing the correlation between the two-gene signature (Cd69 and Cd8a) and Ccr5 (right) or Ccl5 (left) genes from T13 cluster. (J) Expression levels of CD8+ TRM signature for different groups assessed by RNA-seq data, error bars represented SD for groups with replicates (n=4 for NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 group and NeoVAC only group; n=3 for α-PD-1 treated and PBS group). (K) Kaplan-Meier curves of 5-year overall survival (left) and recurrence-free survival (right) for patients with HCC from TCGA stratified by median expression level of two-gene signature (CD69 and CD8a). t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and tested using the log-rank test. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; NeoVAC, neoantigen peptide vaccine; PBS, phosphate buffered saline; scRNA-seq, single-cell RNA sequencing; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; TCR, T-cell receptor; TRM, tissue-resident memory T cells; α-PD-1, programmed cell death 1 blockade.
Figure 6Infiltration and antitumor efficacy of CD8+ TRMs. (A) Flow cytometry analysis showing the percentage of CD8+ TRMs in infiltrating CD8+ T cells of PBS, NeoVAC alone, α-PD-1 alone and NeoVAC plus α-PD-1 treated groups (n=5). (B) Flow cytometry analysis showing the percentage of Ptpn2376-384:H-2Kb specific CD8+ T cells in infiltrating CD8+ TRMs (n=5). (C) Schematic diagram of in vitro tumor-killing efficacy evaluation of CD8+CD69+ and CD8+CD69– T cells isolated from Hepa1-6 tumor tissues after combined treatment. (D) Flow cytometry showing the percentage of apoptotic cells induced by CD8+CD69+ or CD8+CD69– TILs (n=3). (E) ELISA assay showing secretion of TNF-α from CD8+CD69+ or CD8+CD69– TILs (n=3). (F) ELISA assay showing secretion of IFN-γ from CD8+CD69+ or CD8+CD69– TILs (n=3). (G) Schematic diagram of adoptive CD8+CD69+ or CD8+CD69– T cells therapy in orthotopic HCC mouse models. (H) Tumor burden monitoring of mice after adoptive CD8+CD69+ or CD8+CD69– T cells therapy by bioluminescence imaging (n=4). (I) Schematic diagram of in vitro tumor-killing efficacy evaluation of CD8+CD69+ and CD8+CD69- T cells isolated from patient’s tumor tissue. (J) Flow cytometry analysis showing the percentage of apoptotic cells induced by CD8+CD69+ or CD8+CD69– TILs in PDCs (n=6). Ptpn2, Ptpn2376-384:H-2Kb. The statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance analysis. Results are shown as mean±SD. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; NeoVAC, neoantigen peptide vaccine; PDCs, patient-derived cells; TIL, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; TRMs, tissue-resident memory T cells; α-PD-1, programmed cell death 1 blockade.