| Literature DB >> 36180876 |
Dong Shao1,2,3,4, Yaping Chen1,2,3, Hao Huang1,2,3, Yingting Liu1,2,3,5, Junjun Chen1,2,3, Dawei Zhu1,2,3, Xiao Zheng1,2,3, Lujun Chen6,7,8, Jingting Jiang9,10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with other therapeutic strategies have shown exciting results in various malignancies, and ICIs have now become the gold standard for current cancer treatment. In several preclinical and clinical investigations, ablation coupled with immunotherapy has proved to be quite effective. Our previous studies have shown that ablation coupled with ICI is a potential anti-cancer regimen for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). Furthermore, we have reported that following microwave ablation (MWA), the expression of LAG3 is up-regulated in tumor microenvironment (TME), indicating that LAG3 is implicated in the regulation of immunosuppressive immune response, and combination therapy of MWA and LAG3 blockade can serve as a promising therapeutic strategy against cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Combinational immunotherapy; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; LAG3; Microwave ablation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36180876 PMCID: PMC9524118 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03646-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 8.440
Fig. 1LAG3 expression is up-regulated upon MWA. A and B. Representative flow cytometry plot and a corresponding quantitative plot showing the proportion of LAG3-expressing cells in tumor or spleen, indicating that LAG3 was highly expressed on CD4+T cells, CD8+T cells and NK cells in MC38 tumor tissues (n = 4). C and D. Representative flow cytometry plot and corresponding quantitative plot showing the increased proportion of LAG3+CD8+T cells in MC38 tumors on day 10 after MWA treatment (n = 4). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001
Fig. 2LAG3 expression is up-regulated after RFA. A and B. Dot plot shows the expression of LAG3 in major cell populations in the published RFA single-cell dataset [20]
Fig. 3Anti-LAG3 synergizes with MWA to inhibit tumor outgrowth A. Schematic drawing for the therapeutic treatment in our present study. A total of 3 × 106 MC38 cells were subcutaneously inoculated into the bilateral flanks (1.5 × 106 MC38 cells for each side) of C57BL/6 mice. Mice bearing the MC38 tumor were divided into four groups. B. The tumor size on the left flank was measured three times every week after MWA, showing that the LAG3 blockade plus MWA significantly decreased the tumor growth (n = 5 for each group). C. Log-rank survival analysis shows LAG3 blockade plus MWA treatment significantly prolonged the OS of the tumor-bearing mice (n = 10 for the control group, and for the other three groups, n = 7 respectively). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 4Transcriptional landscape of TME in the MWA alone and MWA combined with LAG3 blockade groups. A and B. UMAP analysis of all the cells in TME of the MWA alone or MWA combined with the LAG3 blockade group and the proportions of different subpopulations in each sample (MWA group: 8971 cells; MWA combined with the LAG3 blockade group: 8733 cells). C and D. UMAP analysis of all the myeloid cells in TME of the MWA alone or MWA combined with LAG3 blockade group and the proportions of different subpopulations in each sample. E and F. UMAP analysis of all the lymphocytes in TME of the MWA alone or MWA combined with LAG3 blockade group and the proportions of different subpopulations in each sample
Fig. 5Anti-LAG3 synergizes with MWA to induce immune cell infiltration. A. Representative flow cytometry plots showing the proportions of live CD45+ TILs, CD4+ TILs, and CD8+ TILs. B. Frequencies of CD45+ TILs in different treatment groups. C. Frequencies of CD4+ TILs in different treatment groups. D. Frequencies of CD8+ TILs in different treatment groups. (5 mice for each group). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001
Fig. 6Single-cell analysis of CD8+ TILs. A. UMAP analysis of all the CD8+ TILs. B. Dot plot showing the expression of specific genes among three clusters. C. Feature plot showing the distribution of LAG3 expression in UMAP space. D. Density plot showing the different distribution of three clusters between two treatment conditions. E. Trajectory analysis of all the CD8+ TILs colored by the pseudo time. F. Trajectory analysis of all the CD8+ TILs colored by different CD8+ TIL clusters. G. ECDF plot exhibit the diference of pseudotime regarding to LAG3 blockade and combination therapy groups
Fig. 7Anti-LAG3 coordinates with MWA to promote CD8+ T cell functions A–C. Representative flow cytometry plots and corresponding quantitative bars showing the proportion of IFN-γ and TNF-α expressing CD8+ TILs in different treatment groups. D. Dot plot showing the gene expression of Ifng and Tnf in scRNA-seq dataset. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 8Combined therapy of MWA and LAG3 blockade alters the cell–cell communication across all immune subsets. A. The cell–cell communication among immune cell populations between the MWA group and MWA in combination with LAG3 blockade group. B. Bar plot showing the relative information flow between the MWA group and MWA combined with the LAG3 blockade group. C. Chord plot showing the specific cell–cell interaction with the CXCL signaling pathway. D. Dot plot showing the genes of the CXCL signaling pathway among different clusters. E. Dot plot showing the genes of IFNG signaling pathway among different clusters