Immunologic Signatures of Rejection

Immunologic Signatures of Rejection

Francesco M. Marincola    Ena Wang ●

Editors

Immunologic Signatures of Rejection

Editors Francesco M. Marincola Infectious Disease and Immunogenetics Section (IDIS) Department of Transfusion Medicine Clinical Center and Trans-NIH Center for Human Immunology (CHI) National Institutes of Health Bethesda, 20892 USA [email protected]

Ena Wang Infectious Disease and Immunogenetics Section (IDIS) Department of Transfusion Medicine Clinical Center and Trans-NIH Center for Human Immunology (CHI) National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892 USA [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-4419-7218-7 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-7219-4 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: PCN Applied for © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Contents

Part I  Preamble From the “Delayed Allergy Reaction” to the “Immunologic Constant of Rejection”.................................................................................... Ena Wang and Francesco M. Marincola

3

Part II  The Immune Biology of Rejection: Basic Principles The Yin Yang of Cancer Related Inflammation............................................ Alberto Mantovani, Cecilia Garlanda, Paola Allavena, Antonio Sica, and Massimo Locati

11

The Immune Rejection: Lessons from Experimental Models..................... Anil Shanker

17

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch: Immune Response Polarization and Its Control by IL-10 and STAT3....................... C. Andrew Stewart and Giorgio Trinchieri

27

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells............................................. Douglas M. Noonan, Agostina Ventura, Antonino Bruno, Arianna Pagani, and Adriana Albini

57

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection....................... Alan M. Krensky and Carol Clayberger

77

Clinical Applications of Activated Immune Cells......................................... Luciano Castiello, Marianna Sabatino, Ping Jin, Francesco M. Marincola, and David Stroncek

93

v

vi

Contents

Part III Circulating Patterns Associated with Chronic and Acute Immune Pathology Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects............................................................................... 105 Damien Chaussabel, Nicole Baldwin, Derek Blankenship, Charles Quinn, Esperanza Anguiano, Octavio Ramilo, Ganjana Lertmemongkolchai, Virginia Pascual, and Jacques Banchereau Innate Signatures of Immune Mediated Resolution and Persistence of Hepatitis C Virus Infections............................................ 127 Robert E. Lanford Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines.................................. 141 F.M. Buonaguro, M.L. Tornesello, and L. Buonaguro Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State.................. 169 Rebecca J. Critchley-Thorne, Hongxiang Yu, and Peter P. Lee Part IV Tissue-Specific Patterns Associated with Chronic Inflammatory Processes HTLV-1 Infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Disregulate Balance of Inflammation and Tolerance in HTLV-1 Associated Neuroinflammatory Disease......................................................... 189 Yoshihisa Yamano and Steven Jacobson D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer.......................................... 199 Zoltán Pós and Jérôme Galon The Microenvironment of Ovarian Cancer: Lessons on Immune Mediated Tumor Rejection or Tolerance.................... 211 Lana E. Kandalaft and George Coukos Transcriptional Profiling of Melanoma as a Potential Predictive Biomarker for Response to Immunotherapy.............................. 229 Thomas F. Gajewski Functional Pathway Analysis for Understanding Immunologic Signature of Rejection: Current Approaches and Outstanding Challenges....................................... 239 Purvesh Khatri and Minnie M. Sarwal

Contents

vii

Part V  Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease: Inflammation at the Crossroads of Allo and Auto Immunity.............................................. 259 Frances T. Hakim Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection.............................................................. 281 Ena Wang and Francesco M. Marincola Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection........................................................................................... 305 Davide Bedognetti Index.................................................................................................................. 347

Part I

Preamble

From the “Delayed Allergy Reaction” to the “Immunologic Constant of Rejection” Ena Wang and Francesco M. Marincola

This book collects salient observational data, derived predominantly from human studies, regarding the mechanism(s) of rejection in various pathologic conditions; the premise is that immune rejection, better defined as “immune-mediated, tissuespecific destruction” (TSD) (Wang et  al. 2008), comprises a broad range of ­phenomena ranging from tumor regression, to clearance of pathogen through destruction of infected cells, autoimmunity, allograft rejection by the host and host vs. graft reactions. Like different hands can turn on or off a switch, distinct ­mechanisms can trigger TSD, however, a convergent pathway is ultimately observed when TSD occurs consisting of a dramatic switch from chronic to acute inflammation (Mantovani et al. 2008).

From the Delayed Allergy Reaction to the Immunologic Constant of Rejection The hypothesis that TSD is a pathophysiological mechanism shared by several diseases is not new; it was suggested long time ago by Jonas Salk, who observed that various phenomena leading to tissue destruction shared common patterns that he defined the “delayed allergy reaction” (Salk 1969). We recently expanded on this concept; comparing our data addressing the transcriptional changes associated with tumor rejection in response to immune manipulation with published observations derived from similar hypothesis-generating approaches applied predominantly (but not exclusively) to the analysis of human tissues during TSD. We concluded that a limited number of functional themes are consistently observed independent of the disease context (Wang et  al. 2008). We reckon, therefore, that the mechanisms E. Wang  (*) Infectious Disease and Immunogenetics Section (IDIS), Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center and Trans-NIH Center for Human Immunology (CHI), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_1, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

3

4

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

l­eading to TSD are relatively conserved among pathologies and include a relatively small number of genes and pathways predominantly centered on the activation of interferon regulatory factor (IRF)-1. We referred to such convergence of mechanism(s) as the immunologic constant of rejection (ICR). The ICR is, in turn, based on four postulates: 1 . Tissue-specific destruction occurs independently of self-nonself discrimination. 2. The requirements for the induction of a cognate immune response differ from those associated with the development of an effector one. 3. While the mechanisms prompting tissue-specific destruction differ among immune pathologies the effector phase converges into a common activation of adaptive and innate cytotoxic mechanisms. 4. Adaptive immunity triggers a tissue-specific reaction but it is not always sufficient or necessary for tissue-destruction. This book was designed to solicit chapters from outstanding basic and/or observational scientists that have contributed to this area either by defining mechanisms relevant to the understanding of the inflammatory switch or by describing how this occurs in human tissues under different pathological conditions. At the time when this pre-amble is being prepared, Ena and I have not read the individual contributions but we are familiar with the authors’ previous publications. Therefore, we would like to entice our reader(s) to test with us, through, the subsequent reading, whether our hypothesis is correct; we predict that common themes will emerge from the reading particularly if attention will be paid to the general phenomenon of TSD rather than the peculiarities of individual pathologies. We want to emphasize that the ICR does not address “why” rejection occurs but rather “how.” We believe that the pathways leading to the final outcome are quite different in distinct conditions and only at the final effector phase converge into a common one. We also believe that the ICR is not necessarily applicable to all forms of TSD but to most of them; at the moment there is no evidence that either hyperacute rejection or fulminant hepatitis, predominantly complement mediated mechanisms, follow the ICR determinism. We hypothesize that several innate and/or adaptive immune mechanisms can contribute differently to TSD. However, the final mechanisms converge in the end to a relatively simple switch that leads to the activation of acute inflammatory process and, particularly, the simultaneous activation of most immune effectors mechanisms. Although, the ICR hypothesis may not contribute an explanation for the determinism of rejection, it provides, if correct, a simplified road map about the convergent common pathways leading to TSD. This offers the powerful benefit of identifying a common target for immune manipulation with therapeutic purposes. In particular, most ICR-related pathways have been found to be active only in the tissues in which TSD occurs while are shut off in the rest of the organism; this tissue discrimination provides the alluring opportunity of targeting for treatment a disease-specific pathway either with the goal of mitigating (autoimmunity, allograft rejection, graft versus host disease) or activating (clearance of pathogen or ­neoplastic cells) its key components.

From the “Delayed Allergy Reaction”

5

Interferon Regulatory Factor (IRF)-1: Master Switch of Inflammation It has been almost a decade since we first observed that the transcript most upregulated in melanoma metastases undergoing complete regression after immunotherapy was IRF-1 (Wang et al. 2002). This transcription factor has been subsequently recognized to represent a master switch for acute inflammatory process and identified by various groups who studied tissues undergoing TSD as a central modulator of TSD. At the cellular level, IRF-1 is believed to play a purely proinflammatory role activating the expression of cytokines such as IL-12 or IL-15 which have potent effects on immune effector mechanisms (Paun and Pitha 2007; Taniguchi 1997; Taniguchi et  al. 2001; Honda and Taniguchi 2006; Honda et  al. 2006). Furthermore, IRF-1 can also act as a negative regulator of transcription decreasing the expression of proangiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) which is involved in tissue repair and possess anti-inflammatory properties (Lee et al. 2008). Thus, our working hypothesis is that IRF-1 plays a central role in altering the cellular biology not only by activating proinflammatory stimuli but by simultaneously blocking anti-inflammatory ones. It is presently unclear what pathways regulate the activation of IRF-1 in different conditions although, IRF-1 is believed to be primarily expressed in response to IFN-g stimulation (Honda and Taniguchi 2006). However, we have observed IRF-1 activation in the absence of IFN-g or other IFNs (Worschech et al. 2009) and, on the other hand, we observed IRF-1 to be strongly activated in response to IL-2 stimulation of PBMCs suggesting either a direct or indirect activation of IRF-1 by this cytokine (Jin et al. 2007). Thus, it is likely that other pathways can activate this master regulator or inflammation. Similarly, the complete picture of what pathways are activated or inactivated by IRF-1 in different patho-physiological conditions is missing. It is likely that various pathways can be diversely influenced dependent upon the cellular environment in which IRF-1 interacts with other regulatory factors. Probably, IRF-1 acts differently in relation to the presence of other transcription factors that may be activated in different conditions and/or in different cell types. It is even possible that IRF-1, like other IRFs may affect the function of other master regulators of innate immunity such as the NF-kB complex by enhancing its proinflammatory effects while inhibiting the antiapoptotic ones (Honda and Taniguchi 2006). These questions are not addressed by this book but are salient areas for future investigation and will enhance further understanding of how TSD occurs and how it can be modulated effectively.

The Recurrent Themes Defining the Signatures of Rejection We recently summarized the common functional units associated with TSD. These include overlapping yet distinct themes that are consistently present when TSD occurs:

6

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

1 . The STAT-1/IRF-1/T-bet/IFN-g, IL-15 path 2. The Granzyme A/B, TIA-1 pathway 3. The CXCR3 ligand chemokine pathway 4. The CCR5 ligand chemokine pathway We observed, in different disease models, their presence; studies in humans have identified these signatures to be associated with improved survival of patients with colon, lung and ovarian cancer or melanoma (Benencia et  al. 2005; Pages et  al. 2005; Dieu-Nosjean et al. 2008; Camus et al. 2009; Galon et al. 2006, 2007; Harlin et  al. 2009); the same patterns were observed in neoplastic lesions undergoing rejection during immunotherapy both in humans (Wang et al. 2002; Panelli et al. 2002, 2006) and in experimental models (Shanker et al. 2007). Allo-rejection has been most studied by biopsing organs during the acute phases of rejection and several studies have reported recurrent themes (Sarwal et  al. 2003; Hardstedt et  al. 2005; Karason et al. 2006; Reeve et al. 2009; Saint-Mezard et al. 2009). In particular, Saint-Mezard et al. (2009) analyzed three independent data set of renal biopsies identifying a robust transcriptional signature of acute allograft rejection which well summarizes most of the components of the ICR. Imanguli et al (2009), observed similar patterns by studying biopsies of tissues suffering chronic graft vs. host disease and similar patters where observed in the liver during clearance of HCV infection (Bigger et al. 2001; He et al. 2006; Feld et al. 2007; Nanda 2008; Asselah et al. 2008). Recently similar signatures were observed in the destructive phases of acute cardiovascular events (Zhao et al. 2002; Okamoto et al. 2008) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Costa et al. 2008). With the hope of having contributed with this book something novel and important, we wish our reader a pleasant journey in the wondrous land of immune-mediated, tissue-specific destruction.

References Asselah T, Bieche I, Narguet S et al. Liver gene expression signature to predict response to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin combination therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gut 2008; 57(4):516–524. Benencia F, Courreges MC, Conejo-Garcia JR et  al. HSV oncolytic therapy upregulates interferon-inducible chemokines and recruits immune effector cells in ovarian cancer. Mol Ther 2005; 12(5):789–802. Bigger CB, Brasky KM, Lanford RE. DNA microarray analysis of chimpanzee liver during acute resolving hepatitis C virus infection. J Virol 2001; 75(15):7059–7066. Camus M, Tosolini M, Mlecnik B et al. Coordination of intratumoral immune reaction and human colorectal cancer recurrence. Cancer Res 2009; 69(6):2685–2693. Costa C, Rufino R, Traves SL, Lapa E Silva JR, Barnes PJ, Donnelly LE. CXCR3 and CCR5 chemokines in induced sputum from patients with COPD. Chest 2008; 133(1):26–33. Dieu-Nosjean MC, Antoine M, Danel C et al. Long-term survival for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with intratumoral lymphoid structures. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(27):4410–4417. Feld JJ, Nanda S, Huang Y et al. Hepatic gene expression during treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin: Identifying molecular pathways for treatment response. Hepatology 2007; 46(5):1548–1563.

From the “Delayed Allergy Reaction”

7

Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F et  al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 2006; 313(5795):1960–1964. Galon J, Fridman WH, Pages F. The adaptive immunologic microenvironment in colorectal cancer: a novel perspective. Cancer Res 2007; 67(5):1883–1886. Hardstedt M, Finnegan CP, Kirchhof N et al. Post-transplant upregulation of chemokine messenger RNA in non-human primate recipients of intraportal pig islet xenografts. Xenotransplantation 2005; 12(4):293–302. Harlin H, Meng Y, Peterson AC et al. Chemokine expression in melanoma metastases associated with CD8+ T-cell recruitment. Cancer Res 2009; 69(7):3077–3085. He XS, Ji X, Hale MB et al. Global transcriptional response to interferon is a determinant of HCV treatment outcome and is modified by race. Hepatology 2006; 44(2):352–359. Honda K, Taniguchi T. IRFs: master regulators of signalling by Toll-like receptors and cytosolic pattern-recognition receptors. Nat Rev Immunol 2006; 6(9):644–658. Honda K, Takaoka A, Taniguchi T. Type I interferon [corrected] gene induction by the interferon regulatory factor family of transcription factors. Immunity 2006; 25(3):349–360. Imanguli MM, Swaim WD, League SC, Gress RE, Pavletic SZ, Hakim FT. Increased T-bet+ cytotoxic effectors and type I interferon-mediated processes in chronic graft-versus-host disease of the oral mucosa. Blood 2009; 113(15):3620–3630. Jin P, Wang E, Provenzano M, Stroncek D, Marincola FM. Gene expression signatures of interleukin-2 in vivo and in vitro and their relation to anticancer therapy. Crit Rev Immunol 2007; 27(5):437–448. Karason K, Jernas M, Hagg DA, Svensson PA. Evaluation of CXCL9 and CXCL10 as circulating biomarkers of human cardiac allograft rejection. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2006; 6:29. Lee JH, Chun T, Park SY, Rho SB. Interferon regulatory factor-1 (IRF-1) regulates VEGF-induced angiogenesis in HUVECs. Biochim Biophys Acta 2008; 1783(9):1654–1662. Mantovani A, Romero P, Palucka AK, Marincola FM. Tumor immunity: effector response to tumor and the influence of the microenvironment. Lancet 2008; 371(9614):771–783. Nanda S, Havert MB, Calderon GM et  al. Hepatic transcriptome analysis of hepatitis C virus infection in chimpanzees defines unique gene expression patterns associated with viral clearance. PLoS ONE 2008; 3(10):e3442. Okamoto Y, Folco EJ, Minami M et al. Adiponectin inhibits the production of CXC receptor 3 chemokine ligands in macrophages and reduces T-lymphocyte recruitment in atherogenesis. Circ Res 2008; 102(2):218–225. Pages F, Berger A, Camus M et  al. Effector memory T cells, early metastasis, and survival in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(25):2654–2666. Panelli MC, Wang E, Phan G et al. Gene-expression profiling of the response of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and melanoma metastases to systemic IL-2 administration. Genome Biol 2002; 3(7):RESEARCH0035. Panelli MC, Stashower M, Slade HB et  al. Sequential gene profiling of basal cell carcinomas treated with Imiquimod in a placebo-controlled study defines the requirements for tissue rejection. Genome Biol 2006; 8(1):R8. Paun A, Pitha PM. The IRF family, revisited. Biochimie 2007; 89(6–7):744–753. Reeve J, Einecke G, Mengel M et al. Diagnosing rejection in renal transplants: a comparison of molecular- and histopathology-based approaches. Am J Transplant 2009; 9(8):1802–1810. Saint-Mezard P, Berthier CC, Zhang H et al. Analysis of independent microarray datasets of renal biopsies identifies a robust transcript signature of acute allograft rejection. Transpl Int 2009; 22(3):293–302. Salk J. Immunological paradoxes: theoretical considerations in the rejection or retention of grafts, tumors, and normal tissue. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1969; 164(2):365–380. Sarwal M, Chua MS, Kambham N et al. Molecular heterogeneity in acute renal allograft rejection identified by DNA microarray profiling. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(2):125–138. Shanker A, Verdeil G, Buferne M et al. CD8 T cell help for innate antitumor immunity. J Immunol 2007; 179(10):6651–6662. Taniguchi T. Transcription factors IRF-1 and IRF-2: linking the immune responses and tumor suppression. J Cell Physiol 1997; 173(2):128–130.

8

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Taniguchi T, Ogasawara K, Takaoka A, Tanaka N. Irf family of transcription factors as regulators of host defense. Annu Rev Immunol 2001; 19:623–655. Wang E, Miller LD, Ohnmacht GA et al. Prospective molecular profiling of subcutaneous melanoma metastases suggests classifiers of immune responsiveness. Cancer Res 2002; 62:3581–3586. Wang E, Worschech A, Marincola FM. The immunologic constant of rejection. Trends Immunol 2008; 29(6):256–262. Worschech A, Chen N, Yu YA et  al. Systemic treatment of xenografts with vaccinia virus GLV-1h68 reveals the immunologic facets of oncolytic therapy. BMC Genomics 2009; 10:301. Zhao DX, Hu Y, Miller GG, Luster AD, Mitchell RN, Libby P. Differential expression of the IFNgamma-inducible CXCR3-binding chemokines, IFN-inducible protein 10, monokine induced by IFN, and IFN-inducible T cell alpha chemoattractant in human cardiac allografts: association with cardiac allograft vasculopathy and acute rejection. J Immunol 2002; 169(3):1556–1560.

Part II

The Immune Biology of Rejection: Basic Principles

The Yin Yang of Cancer Related Inflammation Alberto Mantovani, Cecilia Garlanda, Paola Allavena, Antonio Sica, and Massimo Locati

Introduction Smoldering, nonresolving inflammation is part of the tumor microenvironment (Balkwill and Mantovani 2001; Coussens and Werb 2002; Mantovani et al. 2008a). Inflammatory cells and mediators are present in the microenvironment of cancers epidemiologically related or unrelated to inflammatory or infectious conditions. Leukocyte infiltration and the presence of soluble mediators such as cytokines, and chemokines are key characteristics of CRI. Conditions predisposing to cancer (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, IBD) or genetic events that cause neoplastic transformation orchestrate the construction of an inflammatory microenvironment. Indeed, alterations of oncogenes drive the production of inflammatory mediators. Thus, an intrinsic pathway of inflammation (driven in tumor cells), as well as an extrinsic pathway driven by chronic inflammatory conditions have been identified, both of which contribute to tumor progression (Mantovani et al. 2008a). CRI has therefore emerged as the seventh hallmark of cancer (Mantovani 2009). Tumorassociated macrophages (TAM) are a major component of leukocytic infiltrate of tumors and have served as a paradigm for cancer-related inflammation (De Palma et  al. 2007; Mantovani et  al. 2008a; Pollard 2009). Macrophages are a double edged sword, with the potential to express pro and antitumor activity (the macrophage balance, (Mantovani et al. 1992, 2002)), the former prevailing in established neoplasia. Here we will focus on selected molecular pathways underlying TAM recruitment and polarization, emphasizing the dual potential of cancerrelated inflammation (Mantovani et al. 2008b) and the diversity of pathways and functions in different tumors.

A. Mantovani (*) Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, Italy Department of Translation Medicine, university of Milan, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_2, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

11

12

A. Mantovani et al.

Recruitment of TAM Inflammatory chemokines have long been associated with macrophage recruitment in tumors (Bottazzi et al. 1983) and cancer cells have served as a major source for identification of members of these chemoattractants. They act in concert with ­adhesion molecules (Marttila-Ichihara et al. 2009). Yet, only recently has unequivocal genetic evidence been obtained that monocyte attracting inflammatory CC chemokines play a nonredundant role in carcinogenesis (Nibbs et  al. 2007; Popivanova et al. 2009; Vetrano et al. 2010). The “robustness” of the chemokine system in terms of phagocyte recruitment (Mantovani 1999) until recently has prevented an unequivocal demonstration of a nonredundant function of individual inflammatory chemokines or their receptors using gene targeted mice. This missing genetic link has now been obtained taking advantage of the D6 atypical receptor which acts as a decoy and scavenger for most inflammatory CC chemokines (Mantovani et  al. 2006). D6 deficient mice show increased susceptibility to skin carcinogenesis (Nibbs et  al. 2007) and colitis-associated cancer, the latter being representative of a clinical paradigm of the inflammation-cancer connection (Vetrano et al. 2010) Thus, D6 targeted mice provide unequivocal genetic evidence that inflammatory CC chemokines are more than an epiphenomenon in clinically relevant carcinogenesis.

Plasticity of TAM and Promotion of Metastasis In most, but not all (Torroella-Kouri et al. 2009) tumors investigated, TAM have an M2-like phenotype. What signals in the tumor microenvironment are responsible for the protumor function of TAM? Tumor cell products, including extracellular matrix components, IL-10, M-CSF, activate macrophages and set them in an M2, cancer promoting mode (Hagemann et  al. 2006; Kuang et  al. 2007; Erler et  al. 2009; Kim et  al. 2009). Chemokines (CCL17 and CCL22) which interact with CCR4 have been shown to promote M2 polarization (Wallace et al. 2009). CCL2 has been shown to play a role not only in attracting tumor promoting macrophages prostate carcinoma but also in promoting their survival and M2 polarization (Roca et  al. 2009). Anti CCL2 antibodies are undergoing evaluation in humans. Tumor products can instruct dendritic cells to prime IL-13 producing T cells which promote breast cancer (Aspord et al. 2007). Adaptive immune responses can shape the infiltration and function of TAM. In a primary mammary carcinoma model, CD4+ T cells promote metastasis by causing M2 activation via IL-4 (DeNardo et  al. 2009). Interestingly, in multistage epithelial carcinogenesis in the skin driven by transgenic expression of HPV16, a different pathway of orchestration of inflammationmediated tumor promotion by adaptive immune responses is operative. Antibody production against extracellular matrix components orchestrates by remote control cancer-related inflammation (de Visser et al. 2005). Autoantibodies act via FcgR and regulate recruitment and M2-like polarization of myelomonocytic cells which promote tumor progression (Andreu et al. 2010).

The Yin Yang of Cancer Related Inflammation

13

A similarity has emerged in terms of transcriptional profile, functional ­properties and underlying transcription factors between TAM and “tolerant” macrophage (Porta et al. 2009). Tolerant macrophages belong to the wide spectrum and universe of M2-like polarized phagocytes. The finding that PMN have unsuspected plasticity and are subject to a N1-N2 balance in the tumor microenvironment (Fridlender et al. 2009 ) calls for a reappraisal of their role and significance in cancer related inflammation. Macrophages and some of their products (IL-1; TNF; IL-6) have long been known to increase metastasis (Mantovani et al. 2008a) and recent work has provided new evidence (Hagemann et  al. 2005, 2006; Kulbe et  al. 2007; Wyckoff et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2009) In particular, cells of hematopoietic origin and specifically myelomonocytic cells have been shown to home and condition the premetastatic niche. Here they form a secondary niche which favors secondary localization of cancer (Kaplan et al. 2005; Wels et al. 2008; Erler et al. 2009).

Protective Inflammation and Macrophage Activation Appropriate activation of innate immunity has antitumor potential (Duluc et  al. 2009). IFNg has been shown to re-educate TAM (Duluc et al. 2009) and there is proof of principle evidence for antitumor activity of this molecule in minimal residual disease in humans (Colombo et al. 1992; Windbichler et al. 2000; Berek et al. 2003). Given the protumor function of TAM in many cancers, strategies have been directed at blocking recruitment (see above) targeting chemokines or M-CSF or inhibiting TAM directly (Luo et al. 2006; Ritchie and Smyth 2009; Song et al. 2009). Certain forms of inflammation are protective in a preventive or therapeutic setting (Nickoloff et  al. 2005; Mantovani et  al. 2008a; Kryczek et  al. 2009). An immune response has long been known to contribute to the outcome of chemotherapy. It has now been shown that dying tumor cells can be cross presented by dendritic cells and trigger a protective immune response via a TLR4-MyD88 pathway (Apetoh et al. 2007). Inflammasome activation and IL-1b production underlie ultimate activation of protective immunity (Ghiringhelli et al. 2009). Association of TLR4 and PrX7 polymorphisms with clinical outcome are consistent with relevance of these pathways. Thus the challenge rests in blocking cancer promoting inflammation and activating tumor inhibitory innate responses (Mantovani et al. 2008b).

References Andreu, P., Johansson, M., Affara, N. I., Pucci, F., Tan, T., Junankar, S., Korets, L., Lam, J., Tawfik, D., DeNardo, D. G., Naldini, L., de Visser, K., De Palma, M. and Coussens, L. M. (2010). FcRgamma activation regulates inflammation-associated squamous carcinogenesis. Cancer Cell 17: 121–134. Apetoh, L., Ghiringhelli, F., Tesniere, A., Obeid, M., Ortiz, C., Criollo, A., Mignot, G., Maiuri, M. C., Ullrich, E., Saulnier, P., Yang, H., Amigorena, S., Ryffel, B., Barrat, F. J., Saftig, P., Levi, F., Lidereau, R., Nogues, C., Mira, J. P., Chompret, A., Joulin, V., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Bourhis, J.,

14

A. Mantovani et al.

Andre, F., Delaloge, S., Tursz, T., Kroemer, G. and Zitvogel, L. (2007). Toll-like receptor 4-­dependent contribution of the immune system to anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Nat Med 13: 1050–1059. Aspord, C., Pedroza-Gonzalez, A., Gallegos, M., Tindle, S., Burton, E. C., Su, D., Marches, F., Banchereau, J. and Palucka, A. K. (2007). Breast cancer instructs dendritic cells to prime interleukin 13-secreting CD4+ T cells that facilitate tumor development. J Exp Med 204: 1037–1047. Balkwill, F. and Mantovani, A. (2001). Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet 357: 539–545. Berek, J. S., Schultes, B. C. and Nicodemus, C. F. (2003). Biologic and immunologic therapies for ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 21: 168s–174s. Bottazzi, B., Polentarutti, N., Acero, R., Balsari, A., Boraschi, D., Ghezzi, P., Salmona, M. and Mantovani, A. (1983). Regulation of the macrophage content of neoplasms by chemoattractants. Science 220: 210–212. Colombo, N., Peccatori, F., Paganin, C., Bini, S., Brandely, M., Mangioni, C., Mantovani, A. and Allavena, P. (1992). Anti-tumor and immunomodulatory activity of intraperitoneal IFNgamma in ovarian carcinoma patients with minimal residual tumor after chemotherapy. Int J Cancer 51: 42–46. Coussens, L. M. and Werb, Z. (2002). Inflammation and cancer. Nature 420: 860–867. De Palma, M., Murdoch, C., Venneri, M. A., Naldini, L. and Lewis, C. E. (2007). Tie2-expressing monocytes: regulation of tumor angiogenesis and therapeutic implications. Trends Immunol 28: 519–524. de Visser, K. E., Korets, L. V. and Coussens, L. M. (2005). De novo carcinogenesis promoted by chronic inflammation is B lymphocyte dependent. Cancer Cell 7: 411–423. DeNardo, D. G., Barreto, J. B., Andreu, P., Vasquez, L., Tawfik, D., Kolhatkar, N. and Coussens, L. M. (2009). CD4(+) T cells regulate pulmonary metastasis of mammary carcinomas by enhancing protumor properties of macrophages. Cancer Cell 16: 91–102. Duluc, D., Corvaisier, M., Blanchard, S., Catala, L., Descamps, P., Gamelin, E., Ponsoda, S., Delneste, Y., Hebbar, M. and Jeannin, P. (2009). Interferon-gamma reverses the immunosuppressive properties and prevents the generation of human tumor-associated macrophages. Int J Cancer 125: 367–373. Erler, J. T., Bennewith, K. L., Cox, T. R., Lang, G., Bird, D., Koong, A., Le, Q. T. and Giaccia, A. J. (2009). Hypoxia-induced lysyl oxidase is a critical mediator of bone marrow cell recruitment to form the premetastatic niche. Cancer Cell 15: 35–44. Fridlender, Z. G., Sun, J., Kim, S., Kapoor, V., Cheng, G., Ling, L., Worthen, G. S. and Alberlda, S. M. (2009). Polarization of tumor-associated neutrophil (TAN) phenotype by TGF-beta: “N1” versus “N2” TAN – a new paradigm? Cancer Cell 16: 183–194. Ghiringhelli, F., Apetoh, L., Tesniere, A., Aymeric, L., Ma, Y., Ortiz, C., Vermaelen, K., Panaretakis, T., Mignot, G., Ullrich, E., Perfettini, J. L., Schlemmer, F., Tasdemir, E., Uhl, M., Genin, P., Civas, A., Ryffel, B., Kanellopoulos, J., Tschopp, J., Andre, F., Lidereau, R., McLaughlin, N. M., Haynes, N. M., Smyth, M. J., Kroemer, G. and Zitvogel, L. (2009). Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome in dendritic cells induces IL-1beta-dependent adaptive immunity against tumors. Nat Med 15: 1170–1178. Hagemann, T., Wilson, J., Burke, F., Kulbe, H., Li, N. F., Pluddemann, A., Charles, K., Gordon, S. and Balkwill, F. R. (2006). Ovarian cancer cells polarize macrophages toward a tumor-associated phenotype. J Immunol 176: 5023–5032. Hagemann, T., Wilson, J., Kulbe, H., Li, N. F., Leinster, D. A., Charles, K., Klemm, F., Pukrop, T., Binder, C. and Balkwill, F. R. (2005). Macrophages induce invasiveness of epithelial cancer cells via NF-kappa B and JNK. J Immunol 175: 1197–1205. Kaplan, R. N., Riba, R. D., Zacharoulis, S., Bramley, A. H., Vincent, L., Costa, C., MacDonald, D. D., Jin, D. K., Shido, K., Kerns, S. A., Zhu, Z., Hicklin, D., Wu, Y., Port, J. L., Altorki, N., Port, E. R., Ruggero, D., Shmelkov, S. V., Jensen, K. K., Rafii, S. and Lyden, D. (2005). VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the pre-metastatic niche. Nature 438: 820–827.

The Yin Yang of Cancer Related Inflammation

15

Kim, S., Takahashi, H., Lin, W.-W., Descargues, P., Grivennikov, S., Kim, Y., Luo, J.-L. and Karin, M. (2009). Carcinoma produced factors activate myeloid cells via TLR2 to stimulate metastasis. Nature 457: 102–106. Kryczek, I., Banerjee, M., Cheng, P., Vatan, L., Szeliga, W., Wei, S., Huang, E., Finlayson, E., Simeone, D., Welling, T. H., Chang, A., Coukos, G., Liu, R. and Zou, W. (2009). Phenotype, distribution, generation, and functional and clinical relevance of Th17 cells in the human tumor environments. Blood 114: 1141–1149. Kuang, D. M., Wu, Y., Chen, N., Cheng, J., Zhuang, S. M. and Zheng, L. (2007). Tumor-derived hyaluronan induces formation of immunosuppressive macrophages through transient early activation of monocytes. Blood 110: 587–595. Kulbe, H., Thompson, R., Wilson, J. L., Robinson, S., Hagemann, T., Fatah, R., Gould, D., Ayhan, A. and Balkwill, F. (2007). The inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-alpha generates an autocrine tumor-promoting network in epithelial ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Res 67: 585–592. Luo, Y., Zhou, H., Krueger, J., Kaplan, C., Lee, S. H., Dolman, C., Markowitz, D., Wu, W., Liu, C., Reisfeld, R. A. and Xiang, R. (2006). Targeting tumor-associated macrophages as a novel strategy against breast cancer. J Clin Invest 116: 2132–2141. Mantovani, A. (1999). The chemokine system: redundancy for robust outputs. Immunol Today 20: 254–257. Mantovani, A., Bonecchi, R., Locati, M. (2006). Tuning inflammation and immunity by chemokine sequestration: decoys and more. Nature Reviews in Immunology 12: 907–918. Mantovani, A. (2009). Cancer: inflaming metastasis Nature 457: 36–37. Mantovani, A., Allavena, P., Sica, A. and Balkwill, F. (2008a). Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 454: 436–444. Mantovani, A., Bottazzi, B., Colotta, F., Sozzani, S. and Ruco, L. (1992). The origin and function of tumor-associated macrophages. Immunol Today 13: 265–270. Mantovani, A., Romero, P., Paluka, A. and Marincola, F. (2008b). Tumor immunity: effector response to tumor and the influence of the microenvironment. Lancet 371: 771–783. Mantovani, A., Sozzani, S., Locati, M., Allavena, P. and Sica, A. (2002). Macrophage polarization: tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes. Trends Immunol 23: 549–555. Marttila-Ichihara, F., Auvinen, K., Elima, K., Jalkanen, S. and Salmi, M. (2009). Vascular adhesion protein-1 enhances tumor growth by supporting recruitment of Gr-1+CD11b+ myeloid cells into tumors. Cancer Res 69: 7875–7883. Nibbs, R. J., Gilchrist, D. S., King, V., Ferra, A., Forrow, S., Hunter, K. D. and Graham, G. J. (2007). The atypical chemokine receptor D6 suppresses the development of chemically induced skin tumors. J Clin Invest 117: 1884–1892. Nickoloff, B. J., Ben-Neriah, Y. and Pikarsky, E. (2005). Inflammation and cancer: is the link as simple as we think? J Invest Dermatol 124: x-xiv. Pollard, J. W. (2009). Trophic macrophages in development and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 9: 259–270. Popivanova, B. K., Kostadinova, F. I., Furuichi, K., Shamekh, M. M., Kondo, T., Wada, T., Egashira, K. and Mukaida, N. (2009). Blockade of a chemokine, CCL2, reduces chronic colitis-associated carcinogenesis in mice. Cancer Res 69: 7884–7892. Porta, C., Rimoldi, M., Raes, G., Brys, L., Ghezzi, P., Di Liberto, D., Dieli, F., Ghisletti, S., Natoli, G., De Baetselier, P., Mantovani, A. and Sica, A. (2009). Tolerance and M2 (alternative) macrophage polarization are related processes orchestrated by p50 nuclear factor kappaB. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 14978–14983. Ritchie, D. S. and Smyth, M. J. (2009). A new therapeutic target for leukemia comes to the surface. Cell 138: 226–228. Roca, H., Varsos, Z. S., Sud, S., Craig, M. J., Ying, C. and Pienta, K. J. (2009). CCL2 and IL-6 promote survival of human CD11b+- peripheral blood mononuclear cells and induce M2-type macrophage polarization. J Biol Chem 284: 34342–34354.

16

A. Mantovani et al.

Song, L., Asgharzadeh, S., Salo, J., Engell, K., Wu, H. W., Sposto, R., Ara, T., Silverman, A. M., DeClerck, Y. A., Seeger, R. C. and Metelitsa, L. S. (2009). Valpha24-invariant NKT cells mediate antitumor activity via killing of tumor-associated macrophages. J Clin Invest 119: 1524–1536. Torroella-Kouri, M., Silvera, R., Rodriguez, D., Caso, R., Shatry, A., Opiela, S., Ilkovitch, D., Schwendener, R. A., Iragavarapu-Charyulu, V., Cardentey, Y., Strbo, N. and Lopez, D. M. (2009). Identification of a subpopulation of macrophages in mammary tumor-bearing mice that are neither M1 nor M2 and are less differentiated. Cancer Res 69: 4800–4809. Vetrano, S., Borroni, E. M., Sarukhan, A., Savino, B., Bonecchi, R., Correale, C., Arena, V., Fantini, M., Roncalli, M., Malesci, A., Mantovani, A., Locati, M. and Danese, S. (2010). The lymphatic system controls intestinal inflammation and inflammation-associated colon cancer through the chemokine decoy receptor D6. Gut 59: 197–206. Wallace, K. L., Marshall, M. A., Ramos, S. I., Lannigan, J. A., Field, J. J., Strieter, R. M. and Linden, J. (2009). NKT cells mediate pulmonary inflammation and dysfunction in murine sickle cell disease through production of IFN-gamma and CXCR3 chemokines. Blood 114: 667–676. Wels, J., Kaplan, R. N., Rafii, S. and Lyden, D. (2008). Migratory neighbors and distant invaders: tumor-associated niche cells. Genes Dev 22: 559–574. Windbichler, G. H., Hausmaninger, H., Stummvoll, W., Graf, A. H., Kainz, C., Lahodny, J., Denison, U., Muller-Holzner, E. and Marth, C. (2000). Interferon-gamma in the first-line therapy of ovarian cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Br J Cancer 82: 1138–1844. Wyckoff, J. B., Wang, Y., Lin, E. Y., Li, J. F., Goswami, S., Stanley, E. R., Segall, J. E., Pollard, J. W. and Condeelis, J. (2007). Direct visualization of macrophage-assisted tumor cell intravasation in mammary tumors. Cancer Res 67: 2649–2656.

The Immune Rejection: Lessons from Experimental Models Anil Shanker

Abstract  The mechanisms of immune rejection depend on a complex interplay between the elements of innate and adaptive immunity. Several studies in animal models of cancer and other conditions, including obesity and intestinal microbiome, over the past decade have provided evidence for an intricate cross-regulation of innate resistance and adaptive immunity. More recently, it became apparent that adaptive immunity, besides its effector function, also controls innate immune responses beyond its role in immune complex-Fc receptor interaction. This has led to a paradigm shift from the classical unidirectional notion of the innate instruction of adaptive immunity to a bidirectional partnership of the innate and adaptive immune system in controlling various pathological and physiological conditions. This chapter summarizes the advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of immune reactivity in the models of intestinal microbiota, acute infections, obesity, and cancer.

Introduction The immune system has evolved in multicellular organisms as a guard against ­life-threatening infections. Innate immune components provide a first line of defense and function to alert tissue-specific adaptive immunity against persistent tissue insult. Innate immunity is an evolutionarily conserved primitive but robust defense mechanism capable of protecting plants and invertebrate animals from a diverse threat of viral, prokaryotic and eukaryotic parasites and pathogens. Adaptive immunity evolved later at the time of differentiation of vertebrates between the jawless hagfish and lampreys by a gene conversion mechanism giving rise to

A. Shanker  (*) Laboratory of Experimental Immunology, Cancer and Inflammation Program, National Cancer Institute – Frederick, Frederick, MD, USA and Basic Science Program, SAIC-Frederick, Inc, Frederick, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

17

18

A. Shanker

v­ ariable lymphocyte receptors (Guo et al. 2009) and subsequent genomic invasion of a retroposon encoding site-specific recombinases (Hiom et al. 1998; Thompson 1995). These receptors achieved remarkable mechanisms of diversification as a result of hypervariability, rearrangement of receptor gene segments and clonal selection to allow the adaptive immune cells to provide specific recognition of unlimited pathogens, and develop long-term immunological memory of insult. Thus, adaptive immunity expanded the capacity of the immune system to recognize the pathogenic proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids and combat the ever growing pool of diseases and their elaborate immune evasion strategies. Along with the co-evolution of pathogens, commensals and the immune system came stringent regulation of innate and adaptive immunity to avoid overproduction of inflammatory cytokines during an innate immune response or suppress a hyperactivated adaptive response. The innate and adaptive immunity cooperatively acted to maximize host defense while minimizing collateral damage to the host tissues: innate immunity generated help signals in the damaged tissues; adaptive immunity provided specific responses to the pathogenic insult or recruited other powerful innate effector cells that, though not specific by themselves, could act specifically by their guided recruitment. Conventional view suggests a linear progression from innate to adaptive immunity by innate signals following tissue insult triggering adaptive immune cells to respond to the pathogen or disease. However, several recent studies, as discussed in the following sections, demonstrate an equally indispensable adaptive control of the effector mechanisms of innate immunity. In this scheme, adaptive immunity thus assumes an additional role of providing a tighter control of innate immunity not only by regulating innate inflammation but also by activating innate effectors when they are specifically needed.

Rejection of Intestinal Microbiota Mammalian intestinal mucosal surfaces interface with an exceptionally diverse and dynamic microbiota that is ten times as numerous as the body’s cells. Given the enormous numbers of enteric bacteria and the persistent threat of opportunistic infections, immune mechanisms tightly limit the spread of the intestinal microbiota. Intestinal epithelial cells control enteric bacteria through cell-autonomous MyD88dependent toll-like receptor (TLR) activation, triggering expression of multiple microbial factors (Vaishnava et al. 2008). Recently, a flexible continuum between innate and adaptive immunity to maintain host-microbiota mutualism was observed in mice (Slack et  al. 2009). Clean germ-free Myd88−/−Ticam−/− mice deficient in signaling through TLRs and IL-1/IL-18 receptors, or phagocyte oxidative burstdeficient Nos2−/−Cybb−/− mice spontaneously mounted a robust CD4+ T cell-dependent antibody response following intragastric exposure to high doses of Escherichia coli bacteria. Thus, adaptive immunity compensated for the defect in innate immune clearance of bacteria. Implication from these findings is that under ­conditions of

The Immune Rejection: Lessons from Experimental Models

19

deficiency in innate immune signaling adaptive immune cells possess the ability to function in antigen-independent innate-type responses. More work is required to dissect the alternate signaling pathways that allow adaptive immune cells to manifest innate-like immune phenomenon. Similar immune compensatory defense mechanisms have been noted in some TLR signaling-deficient IRAK-4−/− children (Ku et al. 2007a, b). The mechanisms of activation of adaptive immune cells to provide innate-type protection and the precise rules of the compensatory innate-adaptive immune collaboration in detecting and controlling bacterial commensals yet remain to be investigated. Nonetheless, it is clear that the innate and adaptive immune mechanisms collaborate and form an interdependent cooperative system.

Rejection of Acute Infections Mortality from acute infections can be caused by the pathogen as well as by a ­disproportionate immune response. T cells play important role in pathogen ­clearance and also in regulating innate-immunity-driven excessive inflammation. This control is in part provided by the activation of T cell effector mechanisms in the relevant tissues. Recently, effector and memory CD4+ T cells and, to a lesser extent, effector CD8+ T cells were demonstrated to suppress potentially damaging inflammation in a murine peritonitis model by blocking macrophage inflammasomemediated cryopyrin and caspase-1 activation, interleukin (IL)-1b release, IL-18 secretion and neutrophil recruitment in an antigen-dependent manner (Guarda et al. 2009). Surprisingly, the T cell-mediated contact-dependent blockade of the caspase-1 axis of inflammasome left the primary inflammatory response and release of inflammatory mediators such as CXCL2, IL-6, IL-12 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) crucial for tissue healing intact. In this regard, it has also been reported that IFN-g produced during T cell responses to influenza infection in mice inhibits alveolar macrophages (Sun and Metzger 2008). Thus, T cells edit the quality of inflammatory mediators and effectors during excessive innate inflammatory response via TNF family ligands and IFN-g, while maintaining their competence in antigen-specific recognition and stimulation. Lymphocyte-deficient hosts die of acute infection due to not only their lack of an adaptive immune response to clear pathogens but also an uncontrolled innate immune response as seen in a mouse hepatitis viral infection (Kim et al. 2007). In this model, resting T cells were found necessary and sufficient to temper early innate responses by direct contact inhibition, requiring antigen-presenting major histocompatibility complex molecule, but no antigen. Hepatitis viral infection or administration of TLR3 ligand poly-inosinic:polycytidylic acid, which mimics viral double-stranded RNA, led to cytokine storm in lymphocyte-deficient mice. Consequently, infected mice that showed only negligible increases in viral load died from the high amounts of inflammatory cytokines secreted during an

20

A. Shanker

u­ nrestrained innate immune response due to the lack of control by T cells. The adaptive immune cells thus negatively regulate the unnecessary early innate response. In neonate mice, where the embryonic development of the innate immune ­system precedes that of the adaptive system (Levy 2007), a hypersensitivity to ­various forms of TLR stimulation and high mortality to acute infection is observed most likely due to insufficient numbers of T cells. Dendritic cells are present in larger number in neonatal mice than in adult mice and produce robust TNF-a and IL-6 cytokines (Zhao et  al. 2008). Even in humans, the proportion of T cells is lower in peripheral blood of newborns, especially in infants who are small for ­gestational age (Heldrup et  al. 1992; Kumar et  al. 1994). Expectedly, highly increased levels of inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-a, IL-1 and IL-6 have been detected in some human newborns following acute infections (Atici et  al. 1997; Blackwell et al. 2005; Ozdemir et al. 1994; Vege et al. 1998). B cell-produced IL-10 also is implicated in dampening the neonatal inflammatory response (Zhang et al. 2007). During herpes simplex virus infection in vaginal mucosa of mice, ablation of Treg cells delays the arrival of natural killer (NK) cells, DCs and effector T cells to the site of infection (Lund et al. 2008). Thus, Treg cells, in addition to limiting the extent of an inflammatory response, seem also to coordinate early protective responses to local viral infection by facilitating a timely entry of innate immune cells into the infected tissue. However, the precise signals that activate Treg cells during infection remain unclear. Moreover, rapid non-cognate activation of interferon (IFN)-g-producing CD8+ T cells within 15 h of bacterial infection in response to cytokines secreted by phagocytic cells forms an important component of immune defense against intracellular pathogens (Lertmemongkolchai et al. 2001). Indeed, early antigen nonspecific CD44highCD8+ T cells represent the major population of IFN-g-producers in response to bacterial and viral products (Berg et  al. 2003; Kambayashi et al. 2003). The cooperativity of adaptive immunity and innate immunity thus appears essential in the rejection of acute infections. Identifying the underlying mechanisms responsible for this cooperativity between innate cells and the different populations of resting, effector, memory and regulatory T cells might lead to the discovery of new regulatory networks.

Chronic Inflammation in Obesity Obese adipose tissue shows the hallmarks of chronic inflammation that underlies the development of metabolic diseases. Infiltration of macrophages, T cells and B cells in obese adipose tissue has been described in both mice and humans (Duffaut et  al. 2009; Hotamisligil 2006; Rausch et  al. 2008; Wu et  al. 2007). Lately, the sequence of events that comprises the inflammatory cascade during the development of obesity has become clear. The infiltration of CD8+T cells in the epididymal

The Immune Rejection: Lessons from Experimental Models

21

adipose tissue is an early event induced by a high-fat diet in mice, concomitant with a decrease in the numbers of CD4+T helper and regulatory cells (Nishimura et al. 2009). Unknown factors in the obese tissue activate CD8+T cell effectors, which, in turn, promote the recruitment, differentiation and activation of macrophages in this tissue by secreting substantial amounts of humoral factors such as IFN-inducible protein-10, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, MCP-3 and regulation upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted protein (RANTES). Thus, CD8+T cells contribute to the initiation and propagation of inflammation by increased expression of the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-a, as well as of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and matrix metalloproteinase-2 in epididymal adipose tissue, leading to systemic insulin resistance and metabolic disorder. Two other studies have also confirmed that obesity alters the balance between Th1 and Th2 stimuli in fat through the depletion of Th2 and adipose tissue Treg cells, and the increase in CD8+T and Th1 cells or both weeks before macrophages infiltrate fat (Feuerer et al. 2009; Winer et al. 2009). It would be interesting to know how other leucocytes such as NK cells, Th17, or B cells influence adipose tissue. These findings have relevance in atherosclerosis that involves the formation of inflammatory arterial lesions. Deposited underneath the endothelium of arteries, the lipid-laden macrophages lead to formation of obstructive atherosclerotic plaques (Erbay et al. 2009). T cells largely via IFN-g-mediated mechanisms regulate the magnitude of the atherogenic proinflammatory response of macrophages and the propensity for thrombus formation as reviewed recently (Andersson et al. 2010).

Tumor Rejection NK cells have been proposed to function as a “fail-safe” mechanism to lyse tumor cells that outgrow following effector T cell rejection and immunoselection (Coulie et al. 1999; Dunn et al. 2002; Shankaran et al. 2001). Recently, tumor ­antigen-specific CD8+T cells, in addition to their direct effector response, were found necessary to provide “help” to otherwise dormant NK cells in eliciting their antitumor function for the rejection of a mastocytoma tumor (Shanker et al. 2007). Surprisingly, antigenescape tumor variants could be lysed by NK cells only if activated CD8+ T cells were present locally in their surroundings. This study suggested a new role for the CD8+T cells to induce dormant NK cells into killer effectors at the site of tumor. A T cell-NK cell cooperative interaction that emerged from this study is illustrated in Fig. 1. The T cells could broaden the effector response by activating NK cells in their vicinity and could eliminate antigen-deficient tumor cells, leading to more effective clearance of tumor. The complete rejection of tumor became possible only when there was a productive interaction of activated T cells and NK cells. The cooperative action of CD8+ T cells and NK cells in tumor rejection was further confirmed when, under conditions of restricted T cell receptor diversity,

22

A. Shanker

Fig.  1  Broadening of effector response by T cell-NK cell cooperation. Tumor is completely cleared when there is a productive interaction between activated T cells and NK cells

tumor resistance was affected by the variation in precursor frequencies of ­tumor-specific CD8+ T cell and NK cell effectors. NK cells constituted an ­important component contributing to tumor resistance, in part through an NKG2D-mediated mechanism (Shanker et  al. 2009). In another independent study, photodynamic therapy-induced CD8+ T cell-dependent control of distant late stage tumors was also found to require NK cells (Kabingu et al. 2007). Moreover, CD4+T cells have also been found to work in concert with NK cells for maximal antitumor effect in a bladder carcinoma mouse model (Perez-Diez et  al. 2007). The exact T ­cell-dependent recruitment/activation signal for NK cells however remains unclear. CD56bright human NK cells expressing high affinity IL-2 receptor have been shown to use endogenous IL-2 produced by the antigen-activated T cells to ­stimulate IFN-g production (Fehniger et al. 2003). T cell-secreted IL-2, TNF-a or direct T cell-NK cell contact could contribute to NK cell activation. Thus, tumor rejection requires the cooperative mechanisms of innate and ­adaptive immunity. Adaptive immune cells alone, in at least highly immunogenic tumors, contribute to the development of tumor escape variants and the maintenance of the “occult” cancer in equilibrium (Koebel et al. 2007). Innate immune cells alone also fail to bring about complete rejection of tumor, albeit tumor-infiltrating NK cells,

The Immune Rejection: Lessons from Experimental Models

23

neutrophils, and macrophages have been shown to cause tumor regression in a spontaneous-regression/complete-resistance mouse model (Hicks et  al. 2006a, b; Yu et al. 2009), and in a xenograft tumor model following oncolytic viral therapy (Worschech et al. 2009).

Concluding Remarks Immune reactivity depends on an intricate cooperativity between both innate and adaptive arms of immunity. Adaptive immune responses are necessary not only to provide effector response but also to mediate tissue specificity in a cognate manner by directing the innate effector response to the site of infection or disease following tissue insult. The concentration of pathogen-associated molecular patterns and/or danger-associated molecular patterns may be a critical parameter for this immune rejection. Although the triggers and magnitude controls that regulate an adaptive immune response during a given infection or disease are not yet precisely understood, it is clear that the immune system has evolved the capacity to generate a powerful immunological “orchestra,” where adaptive T lymphocytes seemingly play a role of “conductor.” The dynamics of this immune orchestra will become clear as more meaningful immune interactions and their regulatory networks in immune rejection are identified. Acknowledgments  This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under contract HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government. This Research was supported [in part] by the Intramural Research Program of the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

References Andersson, J., Libby, P., and Hansson, G.K. (2010). Adaptive immunity and atherosclerosis. Clin Immunol 134, 33–46. Atici, A., Satar, M., Cetiner, S., and Yaman, A. (1997). Serum tumor necrosis factor-alpha in neonatal sepsis. Am J Perinatol 14, 401–404. Berg, R.E., Crossley, E., Murray, S., and Forman, J. (2003). Memory CD8+ T cells provide innate immune protection against Listeria monocytogenes in the absence of cognate antigen. J Exp Med 198, 1583–1593. Blackwell, C.C., Moscovis, S.M., Gordon, A.E., Al Madani, O.M., Hall, S.T., Gleeson, M., Scott, R.J., Roberts-Thomson, J., Weir, D.M., and Busuttil, A. (2005). Cytokine responses and sudden infant death syndrome: genetic, developmental, and environmental risk factors. J Leukoc Biol 78, 1242–1254. Coulie, P.G., Ikeda, H., Baurain, J.F., and Chiari, R. (1999). Antitumor immunity at work in a melanoma patient. Adv Cancer Res 76, 213–242. Duffaut, C., Galitzky, J., Lafontan, M., and Bouloumie, A. (2009). Unexpected trafficking of immune cells within the adipose tissue during the onset of obesity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 384, 482–485.

24

A. Shanker

Dunn, G.P., Bruce, A.T., Ikeda, H., Old, L.J., and Schreiber, R.D. (2002). Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol 3, 991–998. Erbay, E., Babaev, V.R., Mayers, J.R., Makowski, L., Charles, K.N., Snitow, M.E., Fazio, S., Wiest, M.M., Watkins, S.M., Linton, M.F., and Hotamisligil, G.S. (2009). Reducing endoplasmic reticulum stress through a macrophage lipid chaperone alleviates atherosclerosis. Nat Med 15, 1383–1391. Fehniger, T.A., Cooper, M.A., Nuovo, G.J., Cella, M., Facchetti, F., Colonna, M., and Caligiuri, M.A. (2003). CD56bright natural killer cells are present in human lymph nodes and are activated by T cell-derived IL-2: a potential new link between adaptive and innate immunity. Blood 101, 3052–3057. Feuerer, M., Herrero, L., Cipolletta, D., Naaz, A., Wong, J., Nayer, A., Lee, J., Goldfine, A.B., Benoist, C., Shoelson, S., and Mathis, D. (2009). Lean, but not obese, fat is enriched for a unique population of regulatory T cells that affect metabolic parameters. Nat Med 15, 930–939. Guarda, G., Dostert, C., Staehli, F., Cabalzar, K., Castillo, R., Tardivel, A., Schneider, P., and Tschopp, J. (2009). T cells dampen innate immune responses through inhibition of NLRP1 and NLRP3 inflammasomes. Nature 460, 269–273. Guo, P., Hirano, M., Herrin, B.R., Li, J., Yu, C., Sadlonova, A., and Cooper, M.D. (2009). Dual nature of the adaptive immune system in lampreys. Nature 459, 796–801. Heldrup, J., Kalm, O., and Prellner, K. (1992). Blood T and B lymphocyte subpopulations in healthy infants and children. Acta Paediatr 81, 125–132. Hicks, A.M., Riedlinger, G., Willingham, M.C., Alexander-Miller, M.A., Von Kap-Herr, C., Pettenati, M.J., Sanders, A.M., Weir, H.M., Du, W., Kim, J., et al. (2006a). Transferable anticancer innate immunity in spontaneous regression/complete resistance mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103, 7753–7758. Hicks, A.M., Willingham, M.C., Du, W., Pang, C.S., Old, L.J., and Cui, Z. (2006b). Effector mechanisms of the anti-cancer immune responses of macrophages in SR/CR mice. Cancer Immun 6, 11. Hiom, K., Melek, M., and Gellert, M. (1998). DNA transposition by the RAG1 and RAG2 proteins: a possible source of oncogenic translocations. Cell 94, 463–470. Hotamisligil, G.S. (2006). Inflammation and metabolic disorders. Nature 444, 860–867. Kabingu, E., Vaughan, L., Owczarczak, B., Ramsey, K.D., and Gollnick, S.O. (2007). CD8+ T cell-mediated control of distant tumours following local photodynamic therapy is independent of CD4+ T cells and dependent on natural killer cells. Br J Cancer 96, 1839–1848. Kambayashi, T., Assarsson, E., Lukacher, A.E., Ljunggren, H.G., and Jensen, P.E. (2003). Memory CD8+ T cells provide an early source of IFN-gamma. J Immunol 170, 2399–2408. Kim, K.D., Zhao, J., Auh, S., Yang, X., Du, P., Tang, H., and Fu, Y.X. (2007). Adaptive immune cells temper initial innate responses. Nat Med 13, 1248–1252. Koebel, C.M., Vermi, W., Swann, J.B., Zerafa, N., Rodig, S.J., Old, L.J., Smyth, M.J., and Schreiber, R.D. (2007). Adaptive immunity maintains occult cancer in an equilibrium state. Nature 450, 903–907. Ku, C.L., Picard, C., Erdos, M., Jeurissen, A., Bustamante, J., Puel, A., von Bernuth, H., FilipeSantos, O., Chang, H.H., Lawrence, T., et al. (2007a). IRAK4 and NEMO mutations in otherwise healthy children with recurrent invasive pneumococcal disease. J Med Genet 44, 16–23. Ku, C.L., von Bernuth, H., Picard, C., Zhang, S.Y., Chang, H.H., Yang, K., Chrabieh, M., Issekutz, A.C., Cunningham, C.K., Gallin, J., et al. (2007b). Selective predisposition to bacterial infections in IRAK-4-deficient children: IRAK-4-dependent TLRs are otherwise redundant in protective immunity. J Exp Med 204, 2407–2422. Kumar, A., Jauhari, P., Singh, U., and Singla, P.N. (1994). Quantitation of T cells in venous blood of healthy neonates. Indian J Pediatr 61, 711–714. Lertmemongkolchai, G., Cai, G., Hunter, C.A., and Bancroft, G.J. (2001). Bystander activation of CD8+ T cells contributes to the rapid production of IFN-gamma in response to bacterial pathogens. J Immunol 166, 1097–1105. Levy, O. (2007). Innate immunity of the newborn: basic mechanisms and clinical correlates. Nat Rev Immunol 7, 379–390.

The Immune Rejection: Lessons from Experimental Models

25

Lund, J.M., Hsing, L., Pham, T.T., and Rudensky, A.Y. (2008). Coordination of early protective immunity to viral infection by regulatory T cells. Science 320, 1220–1224. Nishimura, S., Manabe, I., Nagasaki, M., Eto, K., Yamashita, H., Ohsugi, M., Otsu, M., Hara, K., Ueki, K., Sugiura, S., et al. (2009). CD8+ effector T cells contribute to macrophage recruitment and adipose tissue inflammation in obesity. Nat Med 15, 914–920. Ozdemir, A., Oygur, N., Gultekin, M., Coskun, M., and Yegin, O. (1994). Neonatal tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-1 alpha, interleukin-1 beta, and interleukin-6 response to infection. Am J Perinatol 11, 282–285. Perez-Diez, A., Joncker, N.T., Choi, K., Chan, W.F., Anderson, C.C., Lantz, O., and Matzinger, P. (2007). CD4 cells can be more efficient at tumor rejection than CD8 cells. Blood 109, 5346–5354. Rausch, M.E., Weisberg, S., Vardhana, P., and Tortoriello, D.V. (2008). Obesity in C57BL/6J mice is characterized by adipose tissue hypoxia and cytotoxic T-cell infiltration. Int J Obes (Lond) 32, 451–463. Shankaran, V., Ikeda, H., Bruce, A.T., White, J.M., Swanson, P.E., Old, L.J., and Schreiber, R.D. (2001). IFNgamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumour development and shape tumour immunogenicity. Nature 410, 1107–1111. Shanker, A., Buferne, M., and Schmitt-Verhulst, A.-M. (2009). Cooperative action of CD8 T lymphocytes and natural killer cells controls tumour growth under conditions of restricted T-cell receptor diversity. Immunology 129, 41–54. Shanker, A., Verdeil, G., Buferne, M., Inderberg-Suso, E.M., Puthier, D., Joly, F., Nguyen, C., Leserman, L., Auphan-Anezin, N., and Schmitt-Verhulst, A.M. (2007). CD8 T cell help for innate antitumor immunity. J Immunol 179, 6651–6662. Slack, E., Hapfelmeier, S., Stecher, B., Velykoredko, Y., Stoel, M., Lawson, M.A., Geuking, M.B., Beutler, B., Tedder, T.F., Hardt, W.D., et al. (2009). Innate and adaptive immunity cooperate flexibly to maintain host-microbiota mutualism. Science 325, 617–620. Sun, K., and Metzger, D.W. (2008). Inhibition of pulmonary antibacterial defense by interferongamma during recovery from influenza infection. Nat Med 14, 558–564. Thompson, C.B. (1995). New insights into V(D)J recombination and its role in the evolution of the immune system. Immunity 3, 531–539. Vaishnava, S., Behrendt, C.L., Ismail, A.S., Eckmann, L., and Hooper, L.V. (2008). Paneth cells directly sense gut commensals and maintain homeostasis at the intestinal host-microbial interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 20858–20863. Vege, A., Rognum, T.O., Aasen, A.O., and Saugstad, O.D. (1998). Are elevated cerebrospinal fluid levels of IL-6 in sudden unexplained deaths, infectious deaths and deaths due to heart/ lung disease in infants and children due to hypoxia? Acta Paediatr 87, 819–824. Winer, S., Chan, Y., Paltser, G., Truong, D., Tsui, H., Bahrami, J., Dorfman, R., Wang, Y., Zielenski, J., Mastronardi, F., et al. (2009). Normalization of obesity-associated insulin resistance through immunotherapy. Nat Med 15, 921–929. Worschech, A., Chen, N., Yu, Y.A., Zhang, Q., Pos, Z., Weibel, S., Raab, V., Sabatino, M., Monaco, A., Liu, H., et  al. (2009). Systemic treatment of xenografts with vaccinia virus GLV-1h68 reveals the immunologic facet of oncolytic therapy. BMC Genomics 10, 301. Wu, H., Ghosh, S., Perrard, X.D., Feng, L., Garcia, G.E., Perrard, J.L., Sweeney, J.F., Peterson, L.E., Chan, L., Smith, C.W., and Ballantyne, C.M. (2007). T-cell accumulation and regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted upregulation in adipose tissue in obesity. Circulation 115, 1029–1038. Yu, Y.A., Galanis, C., Woo, Y., Chen, N., Zhang, Q., Fong, Y., and Szalay, A.A. (2009). Regression of human pancreatic tumor xenografts in mice after a single systemic injection of recombinant vaccinia virus GLV-1h68. Mol Cancer Ther 8, 141–151. Zhang, X., Deriaud, E., Jiao, X., Braun, D., Leclerc, C., and Lo-Man, R. (2007). Type I interferons protect neonates from acute inflammation through interleukin 10-producing B cells. J Exp Med 204, 1107–1118. Zhao, J., Liu, J., Feng, Z., Hu, S., Liu, Y., Sheng, X., Li, S., Wang, X., and Long, C. (2008). Clinical outcomes and experience of 20 pediatric patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Fuwai Hospital. ASAIO J 54, 302–305.

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch: Immune Response Polarization and Its Control by IL-10 and STAT3 C. Andrew Stewart and Giorgio Trinchieri

The innate and immunologic arms of host resistance to pathogenic infections use distinct patterns of cytokine production to direct appropriate tissue responses. This chapter discusses how this “Immunological Switch” is coordinated by distinct T helper cell lineages and how IL-10 and STAT3 signaling controls the inflammatory response. A particular emphasis is given to the role of IL-10 and STAT3 in tumor-associated immunosuppression, where the functional inhibition of either molecule results in acquiescence to proinflammatory and anti-tumor Th1 type immune responses.

T Helper Cell Lineages Adaptive immune responses are defined by their use of distinct lineages of CD4+ T helper (Th) cells (Fig. 1). Th cells are required for generation of antibody responses against thymus-dependent antigens and otherwise shape immune responses through their regulation of cytotoxic CD8+ T cell responses and by directly mediating effector mechanisms including the production of cytokines at inflammatory sites. Historically, the discovery that CD4 T cell clones had different patterns of cytokine gene expression defined the Th1/Th2 paradigm of immunity. This states that Th1 cells, through their production of IFN-g and IL-2, contribute to the activation of macrophages and dendritic cells (DC) to drive cellular-mediated immunity. On the other hand, Th2 cells produce IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 that contribute to B cell class switching to the IgG1 and IgE isotypes, leading to protective cellular responses against worm infestation but also adverse effects such as allergic reactions and asthma (reviewed in Zhu et  al. (2010)). More recently, additional subsets of Th cells have been identified. Furthermore, evidence has been found that the Th subsets, with the possible exception of well-differentiated Th1 cells, maintain some level of plasticity.

G. Trinchieri  (*) Cancer and Inflammation Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_4, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

27

28

a

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri Lineage Cell

Inducing Cytokines

Th1

IL-12 IFN-γ

IL-12R T-bet/Eomes STAT1/STAT4 IL-18R

IL-4 IL-2

Th2

IL- 4R

GATA-3 STAT6

IL-33R

Th17

TGF-β IL-6 IL-21

IL-23R

RORγ t STAT3

IL-1R

iTreg

TGF-β IL-2

b

Cytokines Produced

Th2

Th9

Tumors Viruses Intracellular parasites (Mycobacterium)

IFN-γ IL-2

Macrophage/APC activation CD8+ T cell help

IL-4 IL-5 IL-13

B cell activation IgE production

Worms Parasites Allergens

Neutrophil accumulation Tissue repair

Bacteria Inflammation Wound healing (e.g. S. aureus)

IL-17 IL-22

IL-21 B cell activation +TGF-β

Role in Immunity

TGF-β Suppression of T cell responses IL-10

FoxP3 STAT5

Tfh

Mechanism

Prevention of autoimmunity Control of inflammation

TGF-β Oral tolerance

Th3

IL-9 Mast cell recruitment ? Th1

Th1 IL-10 IFN-α/β

Th0

? Tr1

IL-10 Limit Inflammation IFN-γ

? Th2

IL-2 Intermediate IL-4 state?

Fig. 1  CD4 T helper cell lineages. (a) Representation of T helper and inducible T regulatory cell lineages. Each lineage is associated with one or two master transcription factors along with an activating signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT). For Th1, Th2 and Th17 cells, receptors for STAT-driving cytokines and IL-1 family cytokines are noted. The cytokines driving generation of T helper lineages from naïve T cells, and cytokines produced upon their stimulation are also shown. (b) Other T helper subsets, the cytokines they produce, the cytokines required for their generation, their function and their relationship to other T helper lineages (blue arrows and text)

The identification of the Th17 and inducible T regulatory (iTreg) lineages has rectified some shortcomings of the Th1/Th2 paradigm. Th17 cells produce IL-17A, IL-17F or IL-22, whose receptors are mainly expressed by non-hematopoietic tissue cells such as fibroblasts and epithelial cells and trigger them to produce neutrophilattracting chemokines, thus driving a type of inflammation characterized by abundant infiltration of neutrophils (Weaver et al. 2007a). Treg produce the potent anti-inflammatory cytokine TGF-b and through this and other less well-defined

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

29

cell-mediated and humoral mechanisms suppress proliferation and activation of other CD4 T cells. They may also act directly on antigen presenting cells by modulating their ability to efficiently activate T cells. In addition to the main Th lineages, several other subsets of Th cells have been defined (Fig. 1b). T follicular helper cells produce IL-21 and drive B cell activation and maturation in germinal centers. TGF-b shifts the phenotype of Th2 cells into cells producing IL-9 (also known as Th9 cells) that may contribute to the recruitment of mast cells during a Th2-type response (Veldhoen et al. 2008). Th3 cells are a subset of regulatory cells identified as producers of TGF-b and important mediators of oral tolerance (Weiner 2001). Tr1 cells are induced by IL-10 and/or type I IFN (Roncarolo et al. 2001; Dikopoulos et al. 2005; Levings et al. 2001). They produce high levels of IL-10 and intermediate levels of IFN-g and are possibly related to the IL-10-producing Th1 cells often observed in infected individuals and probably important for limiting Th1-mediated inflammation (Anderson et al. 2007; Jankovic et al. 2007; Nylen et al. 2007; Roers et al. 2004; Trinchieri 2007). Th0 cells produce both IL-2 and IL-4 and are probably a stage preceding commitment to either Th1 or Th2 differentiation (Romagnani 1994).

Differentiation and Activation of T Helper Lineages In addition to their cytokine secretion profile, the Th lineages are defined by the culture conditions that give rise to their differentiation, by the signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) transcription factors that are activated in polarizing culture, and by one (or several) master transcription factors involved in their differentiation (Fig. 1). Through positive feedback on a lineage’s driving cytokine and transcription factor and through negative feedback on those of the other lineages, in vitro culture systems produce highly polarized lineage phenotypes. For example, the production of IFN-g by Th1 cells leads to STAT1 activation and transcription of T-bet, the Th1master transcription factor (Lighvani et al. 2001). In addition, IFN-g stimulates DC to produce IL-12, which in Th1 cells drives STAT4 activation and expression of T-bet, of the IL-12 receptor (IL-12Rb2), and of IFN-g (Usui et  al. 2006; Robinson et  al. 1997). Eomes is another T-box transcription factor involved in Th1 differentiation and together with T-bet, they induce IFN-g expression (Pearce et al. 2003). In this way, a positive feedback loop is created in Th1 polarizing cultures. Such loops also exist for Th2 cells involving the GATA3 and STAT6 transcription factors, for Th17 cells involving RORgt and STAT3 and for inducible Treg involving FoxP3 and STAT5 (for detailed discussion, see Zhu et al. (2010)). The exact mechanisms by which lineage commitment is induced by the combination of cytokines and other stimuli still remain controversial and may be qualitatively or quantitatively different in humans and in mice. Human Th1 clones maintain their phenotype when switched to Th2-inducing condition but Th2 clones can be converted into IFN-g producing cells in the presence of IL-12 (Manetti et al. 1994). Similarly, recent epigenetic studies in the Mouse have shown that Th1 cells completely

30

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

shut-off the genes encoding the transcription factor or the cytokine characteristic of other Th subsets (O’Shea and Paul 2010). However, the master regulator genes encoding the Th subset-specific transcription factors remain in a partially open chromatin conformation in Th2 or Th17 cells (O’Shea and Paul 2010), suggesting that the original observations in humans might be also reproduced in the murine system. The receptors for IL-12 and IL-23, two cytokines important for the terminal differentiation of Th1 and Th17 cells respectively, are not expressed in naïve CD4+ T cells and need to be induced by other stimuli (other cytokines, TCR signaling, or co-stimulation), yet they play an essential role in the generation of fully effective Th1 and Th17 cells and, at least in humans, IL-12 signaling is required for the irreversible commitment of high IFN-g-producing Th1 cells (Manetti et al. 1994). The three inflammatory T helper lineages, Th1, Th2 and Th17, are distinctly activated by members of the IL-1 family of cytokines and, when fully committed, differentially express their receptors. The IL-1 family cytokines, including IL-1a, IL-1b, IL-18 and IL-33, are important early mediators of inflammation that are often preformed and become available for cell signaling upon release from cell nuclei associated with cell death or senescence (IL-1a and IL-33) or are converted into an active form by inflammasome-dependent caspase-1-dependent processing prior to release (IL-1b and IL-18). Individual members are able to activate specific lineages of T helper cells. Thus, although maximal activation and cytokine production by the Th cell subsets require antigen-specific stimulation, TCR-independent production of IFN-g by Th1 cells can be induced by stimulation with IL-12 (in combination with IL-2 or IL-18 and co-stimulation), while Th2 cells produce TCRindependent cytokines in response to IL-33 and IL-4 and Th17 cells produce IL-17 when stimulated with IL-1 and IL-23 (Guo et al. 2009). TCR-independent effector functions conferred upon polarized T helper cells by the milieu of inflammationassociated cytokines could be important for the bystander activation of T cells that allows these cells to participate in innate mechanisms of resistance at the side of the typical innate effector cells (NK, NKT, Tg/d cells) but also to contribute to maintain a polarized inflammatory microenvironment in which antigen specific T cells will be reinforced in their commitment.

Function and Plasticity of Th and Treg Lineages In Vivo In vivo, mouse model systems and human diseases have demonstrated requirements for components of each of these lineages in immunoregulation and control of infectious pathogens. For example, patients with genetic defects in Th1 responses are highly susceptible to Mycobacterium infections (Zhang et al. 2008). In mice, host resistance to intestinal helminth infections is critically dependent upon the Th2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-13 (Wynn 2003). Humans with Job’s syndrome due to dominant-negative mutations in STAT3 are defective in Th17 responses and are susceptible to skin and lung infections with Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

31

species (Ma et al. 2008). However, while the T helper lineage functions are critical in host defense, the extent of T cell polarization in  vivo is less clear. Using intracellular cytokine staining, it is possible to identify ex vivo T cells that produce both IL-4 and IFN-g or both IFN-g and IL-17. Conversely, highly polarizing conditions lead to a single prominent T helper cell type, such as the Th1 responses observed during MCMV or Toxoplasma gondii infections (Gaddi and Yap 2007). T cells are also capable of converting from one lineage to another, for example Th17 cells can switch to Treg or to IFN-g producers given the correct mixture of cytokines. This plasticity has been proposed as an important mechanism in CD8+ T cells that can switch from a Tc17 (cytotoxic T cells producing IL-17) to an IFNg-producing response. This switch may facilitate high levels of CD8 T cell accumulation along with optimal cytotoxic function and IFN-g production, thus leading to effective anti-tumor responses (Yen et al. 2009; Hinrichs et al. 2009). The Th response is regulated by immuno-suppressive Treg cells whose function is dependent upon the FoxP3 transcription factor. Mutations in the Foxp3 gene cause immune-dysfunction, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy X-linked (IPEX) syndrome (Bennett et al. 2001; Wildin et al. 2001). IPEX is a rare and lethal condition characterized by type I diabetes, infections, enteropathy, anemia, endocrinopathy and cachexia. This requirement for functional FoxP3 shows the necessity for Treg function in regulation of the immune system. In several models it has been shown that Treg-mediated control of Th1, Th2 and Th17 responses requires more than a generic Treg program. The transcription factors associated with the Th1, Th2 and Th17 lineages have been found to be expressed by Treg and this expression contributes to Treg-mediated suppression in  vivo. For example, suppression of Th17 cells by Treg requires that the latter express STAT3, a transcription factor central in regulating Th17 cell differentiation. Thus, it appears that Treg at the site of effector immune response activate Th response-specific suppression mechanisms involving the activation of STATs that guide the differentiation of the corresponding class of the immune response (Chaudhry et al. 2009; Wohlfert and Belkaid 2010).

IL-10 Controls Inflammation The cytokines IL-10 and TGF-b are the major mediators of anti-inflammatory communication and immunosuppression (Sanjabi et al. 2009). IL-10 was described 20 years ago by Fiorentino et al. (1989) at DNAX as a cytokine produced by Th2 cells, but it is now known to be produced by other T cell subsets and by other cell types. The apparently conflicting roles for IL-10 as a suppressive cytokine under certain circumstances but a stimulant under others have made it a challenge to understand IL-10s action in  vivo and identify safe clinical applications (Vicari and Trinchieri 2004; Mosser and Zhang 2008). Indeed, in subsets of CD8+ T cells, NK cells and B cells, IL-10 can act to drive proliferation and activation (see Moore et al. (2001)). Also, in monocytes IL-10 can induce receptors involved in immunecomplex recognition and phagocytosis (including CD14, CD16, CD32, CD64)

32

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

(Calzada-Wack et  al. 1996; Rahimi et  al. 2005). In contrast, IL-10 suppresses the proinflammatory activity of APC such as DC, monocytes and macrophages by inhibiting the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF, IL-1b, IL-6, IL-8 and IL-12, and impairing APC maturation and upregulation of costimulatory molecules (Moore et al. 2001). As discussed below, in many situations in vivo, the anti-inflammatory effects of IL-10 override stimulatory effects, consistent with a predominant role as a regulator of inflammation through the suppression of APC function. IL-10 limits inflammation during multiple acute and chronic conditions and contributes to limit the pathology associated with unchecked inflammatory responses. IL-10 knockout mice develop chronic enterocolitis when housed under specific pathogen-free conditions that can be limited by administration of antibiotics and prevented in germ-free conditions, illustrating the requirement for commensal microbiota to drive colitis (Kuhn et al. 1993; Sellon et al. 1998). Cell-type specific knockouts of IL-10 have been used to demonstrate that T cells (arguably Tregs) are the critical source of IL-10 in prevention of colitis (Roers et al. 2004; Rubtsov et al. 2008). However, the systemic response to LPS challenge is greatly exacerbated in mice in which IL-10 is specifically suppressed in macrophages/neutrophils. These mice, but not those in which T cells are unable to produce IL-10, succumb to a 20-fold lower dose of LPS than control mice (Berg et al. 1995). Conversely, in the acute response to another TLR ligand, CpG oligonucleotides, protection is conferred by IL-10 from cells other than Tab cells, macrophages or neutrophils (Siewe et al. 2006). The extent of inflammation in many diseases including Th1, Th2 and Th17associated pathologies can be limited by IL-10 (reviewed in Moore et al. (2001)). During T. gondii infection, IL-10-deficient mice die due to immunopathology associated with an overproduction of Th1 cytokines (Gazzinelli et al. 1996). During chronic T. gondii infection it has been shown that the major producer of protective IL-10 is the same IFN-g-producing FoxP3−Tbet+ CD4+ Th1 cell subset that is responsible for the immunopathology and control of the parasite (Jankovic et  al. 2007; Roers et  al. 2004; Trinchieri 2007). Production of IL-10 by Th1 cells in T. gondii infection has been attributed to IL-27 (Stumhofer et  al. 2007) but alternative data have proposed that NK cells producing IL-10 in response to IL-12 stimulation are responsible for the control of inflammation in this infection (Perona-Wright et al. 2009). The conditions that drive IL-10 in T and NK cells, in response to IL-27 and IL-12 respectively during infection, still remain to be determined. Production of IL-10 by Th1 cells also limits inflammation and allows the maintenance of chronic infection by certain Leishmania species, both in humans and mice (Anderson et  al. 2007; Nylen et  al. 2007). During Th2-type responses against Schistosoma mansoni, IL-10 is able to limit IL-4 and IL-13 production along with liver fibrosis and the growth of granulomas (Hoffmann et  al. 2000). Th17 responses during experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) are also controlled by IL-10 and IL-10-deficient mice are unable to recover from CNS inflammation (reviewed in Moore et al. (2001) and O’Garra et al. (2008)). Th17 cells producing both IL-17 and IL-10 can be identified or produced during culture with IL-27 or TGF-b and IL-6 (Stumhofer et  al. 2007; Fitzgerald et  al. 2007;

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

33

Jankovic and Trinchieri 2007; McGeachy et al. 2007). Th17 cells generated in this manner can control EAE caused by autoreactive Th17 cells in an IL-10-sensitive manner (McGeachy et  al. 2007), suggesting that like Th1 cells (Anderson et  al. 2007; Jankovic et al. 2007), Th17 cells may limit their pathogenesis by expressing IL-10 (reviewed in Jankovic and Trinchieri (2007)). Due to the wide-ranging control of immunopathology by T cell IL-10, the therapeutic induction of IL-10 in T cells is likely to provide considerable benefit in various autoimmune and allergic diseases (reviewed in O’Garra et al. (2008)). While IL-10 limits the inflammatory pathogenesis in many diseases, it can also contribute to long term persistence of pathogens. This is seen for the Leishmania major Friedlin strain, which causes self-healing but persistent infection in wild-type mice, but is eliminated in IL-10-deficient or in anti-IL10R antibody-treated mice (Belkaid et  al. 2001). During experimental infections with some species of Mycobacterium (Mycobacterium avium), but not others, administration of anti-IL10R antibody can enhance responses to chemotherapy (Silva et al. 2001). Some viral infections also require IL-10 for persistence. The clone 13 strain of Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) establishes persistent infection associated with high levels of IL-10 and impaired T cell responses. The treatment of persistently infected mice with anti-IL10R antibody is sufficient to cure the infection (Brooks et al. 2006; Ejrnaes et al. 2006). However, the role of IL-10 in persistence of other viruses and its susceptibility to therapy may be more difficult to define. Murine gammaherpesvirus 68 is a model for gammaherpesvirus infections including human EBV. It induces host production of IL-10 during infection, but IL-10-deficient mice are neither resistant to nor protected from persistent infection, and IL-10 plays a more prominent role in the control of inflammatory pathology associated with the virus (Peacock and Bost 2001; Nelson et al. 2009). During acute viral infections such as influenza, the control of lung inflammation mediated by IL-10 can prevent lethality of the infection (Sun et al. 2009). Therefore it is critical to assess the risk of immunopathology when considering therapies for persistent viral infections, including HCV, EBV and HIV by blockade of IL-10 signaling with or without immunization (Vicari and Trinchieri 2004; Blackburn and Wherry 2007; Brooks et al. 2008; Filippi and von Herrath 2008).

Regulation of IL-10 Production Given its importance in restraining inflammation, the regulation of IL-10s expression by many different cell types is highly complex and it involves a large number of regulatory transcription factors (reviewed in Mosser and Zhang (2008) and Saraiva and O’Garra (2010)). In addition, post-transcriptional regulation occurs at the level of transcript stability due to AU-rich elements (ARE) in the 3¢UTR and due to regulation by micro-RNA (Mosser and Zhang 2008; Sharma et  al. 2009). IL-10 is produced by DC, monocytes/macrophages, neutrophils, eosinophils, mast cells, B cells, NK cells, CD8+ T cells, all CD4+ T-helper cell lineages and perhaps some tissue resident cells such as keratinocytes and endothelial cells. At the

34

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

promoter level, expression is regulated by many factors including Sp1, Sp3, C/EBPb, c-Maf, CREB, IRF, AP-1, NF-kB p50, PBX1, PREP1 and STAT3. Several of the signaling pathways involved in inducing expression of IL-10 are noteworthy. The MAPK (mitogen activated protein kinase) pathway, particularly the ERK pathway, but also p38, is critical for IL-10 induction in many cell types following diverse stimuli including TLR-ligand stimulation and FcR-gamma triggering in macrophages (Mosser and Zhang 2008; Saraiva and O’Garra 2010). During macrophage activation, this ERK signaling is associated with epigenetic changes at the IL-10 promoter and phosphorylation of Histone H3 and increased binding by Sp1 and STAT3 (Mosser and Zhang 2008; Lucas et  al. 2005; Zhang et  al. 2006). A differential requirement for STAT transcription factors and GATA-3 has been shown within the different T helper lineages. Thus during induction of IL-10 expression in T cells by TGF-b and IL-6, STAT3 is required, while IL-27-induced IL-10 production requires both STAT1 and STAT3 (Stumhofer et al. 2007). On the other hand, IL-10 expression by high antigen dose-stimulated Th1 cells requires IL-12 and STAT4 (Gerosa et al. 1996; Saraiva et al. 2009), and NK cells produce IL-10 in response to IL-2/ IL-12 stimulation via a STAT4-dependent pathway (Grant et al. 2008). The precise mechanisms by which various STATs activate IL-10 gene expression have yet to be defined. In Th2 cells, the Th2 lineage “master transcription factor,” GATA-3 is involved in chromatin remodeling at the IL-10 locus, facilitating expression of IL-10 by Th2 cells (reviewed in Mosser and Zhang (2008)). Finally, the potential involvement of suppressive factors including IL-10 itself and TGF-b in control of IL-10 expression suggests that positive feedback mechanisms may act to coordinate the immunosuppressive environment. In human macrophages, IL-10 has been described to induce its own expression via STAT3 (Staples et  al. 2007). TGF-b enhances induction of IL-10 expression by macrophages and by T cells exposed to IL-6 or IL-27 (Stumhofer et al. 2007; Maeda et al. 1995), and a binding site for SMAD4 has been identified in the IL-10 promoter (Kitani et  al. 2003). In addition, the neutralization of TGF-b leads to reduced development of FoxP3+ and FoxP3− IL-10-producing T cells in the gut (Maynard et al. 2007).

IL-10 Signaling and Role of STAT3 in its Regulatory Functions The IL10R is a member of the interferon family of cytokine receptors (Moore et al. 2001). It is a heterodimer composed of a unique high affinity IL-10R1 chain and the IL-10R2 chain that is shared with the receptors for IL-22, IL-26 and the IFN-ls (IL-28A, IL-28B and IL-29) (Uze and Monneron 2007). IL-10 itself is a dimer and brings together two receptor complexes upon binding. This activates the Jak1 and Tyk2 kinases, associated with the IL-10R1 and IL-10R2, respectively, and leads to phosphorylation of tyrosines within two YXXQ sites in IL-10R1. Upon phosphorylation these sites serve as docking sites for STAT3 and to a lesser extent, STAT1, which are themselves phosphorylated by Jak1/Tyk2. Phosphorylated STAT3 homodimers (or STAT1:STAT3 heterodimers or STAT1:STAT1 homodimers) then

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

35

form and translocate into the nucleus to bind STAT-binding sites and modulate transcription (Moore et al. 2001; Weber-Nordt et al. 1996). It is well established that STAT3 plays a central role in the anti-inflammatory effects of IL-10. The Jak1-STAT3 pathway is required for anti-inflammatory function of IL-10 in vitro (Riley et al. 1999). Ectopic expression of constitutively active STAT3 in mouse and human macrophages is sufficient to inhibit cytokine production in response to LPS (Hoentjen et al. 2005; Williams et al. 2007). In the converse situation, Cre-loxP-mediated deletion of STAT3 in macrophages and neutrophils in vivo leads to phenotypes similar to IL-10-deficient mice: these mice are hypersensitive to LPS stimulation and develop chronic enterocolitis (Takeda et al. 1999). Thus, STAT3 is required for the anti-inflammatory action of IL-10. It is not clear whether the canonical scheme of STAT3 tyrosine phosphorylation is sufficient for the anti-inflammatory effect of IL-10 (see discussion on other STAT3-inducing cytokines and stimuli below). One study suggested that a Serinerich region in the C-terminus of the IL-10R was necessary for anti-inflammatory function (Riley et al. 1999), but this has been contradicted by another investigation (Williams et  al. 2007) and the relevance of this region remains uncertain. Transcriptional regulation by STAT3 can occur in the absence of tyrosine phosphorylation, and phosphorylation at Serine 727 within its transcriptional activation domain can modulate its activity. Kinases implicated in this Serine phosphorylation include the MAP-kinases p38, ERK and JNK, mTOR PKCd and PKCe (Schindler et  al. 2007; Aziz et  al. 2007). Germline deletion of STAT3 is embryonic lethal (Takeda et al. 1997), but mice with Serine 727 of STAT3 mutated to Alanine survive and show reduced transcription of STAT3 sensitive genes (Shen et  al. 2004). Recently it has been shown that STAT3 with phosphorylated Serine 727 (STAT3pS) is found in mitochondria and that it is required for upregulation of oxidative phosphorylation by the electron transport chain (Wegrzyn et al. 2009). Finally, unphosphorylated STAT3 plays several other roles in the cell. Unphosphorylated STAT3 binds to stathmin, a tubulin-binding protein that depolymerizes tubulin. Through inhibition of stathmin’s activity, STAT3 maintains the integrity of microtubules and is therefore important for cell motility (Gao et  al. 2006; Ng et  al. 2006). This microtubule-regulating function might be affected during STAT3 signaling, and could hypothetically explain why IL-10 inhibits trafficking of MHC class II from the MHC class II-loading compartment to the plasma membrane (Koppelman et al. 1997). Additionally, unphosphorylated STAT3 can interact with p65 and p50 of NF-kB and can repress or induce gene expression in cytokine and other genes including IL-8 and IFN-b (Yang et al. 2007). IL-10R has also been shown to signal through PI3-kinase (Williams et al. 2004). PI3K activation inhibits cytokine production in DC, as DC deficient in PI3K produce much higher IL-12 and other pro-inflammatory cytokines than wild type DC in response to LPS (Fukao et al. 2002). However, in this case, IL-10 is not required for PI3-kinase mediated suppression. A cytomegalovirus homolog of IL-10 has been reported to suppress TNF production in a PI3K-mediated manner (Spencer 2007), but other studies indicate PI3K is required for IL-10s effect on proliferation rather than for its inhibitory effect on cytokine production (Crawley et al. 1996).

36

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

IL-10 signaling is regulated at a number of levels. While the IL-10R2 chain is widely expressed, the IL-10R1 chain is expressed by most hematopoietic cells at only very low levels. These expression levels are reduced upon T cell activation and conversely are increased in activated monocytes (Moore et al. 2001). Though both STAT3 and STAT1 can be activated in response to IL-10 signaling, it is mainly STAT3 that is activated in myeloid cells (Finbloom and Winestock 1995). Crosstalk from other cytokine signaling systems can also modulate IL-10 signaling. For example, the priming of human macrophages with IFN-a leads to increased STAT1 activation and preformed dimerization, thus conferring a pro-inflammatory gain of function to IL-10 signaling which is then able to induce production of pro-inflammatory factors such as IFN-inducible chemokines (Sharif et al. 2004).

IL-10 has Superior Anti-Inflammatory Activity Compared with Other STAT3-Signaling Cytokines: Role of SOCS3 The anti-inflammatory signaling induced through the IL-10-STAT3 axis contrasts with other STAT3-inducing cytokines that drive more pro-inflammatory signaling. These include IL-6, IL-21, IL-23 and IL-27, some of which also participate in differentiation of T helper cell lineages as discussed above. One component of the difference between anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory STAT3-inducing cytokines can be explained by the downstream activity of suppressor of cytokine signaling 3 (SOCS3). SOCS3 is induced following STAT3 activation induced by multiple cytokines and growth factors including IL-10, IL-6 and EGF (Yoshimura et al. 2007; Cassel and Rothman 2009; O’Shea and Murray 2008). In common with other SOCS protein family members, it has a central src homology 2 (SH2) domain that targets it to specific phosphorylated tyrosines and a C-terminal SOCS box that serves as an E3 ubiquitin ligase. In addition, SOCS3 has an N-terminal kinase inhibitory region (KIR) that is required for its inhibition of Jak kinases. The selective effects of SOCS3-mediated suppression are believed to be due to its recognition of a specific phosphotyrosine (Y757) on the gp130 chain common to receptors for the cytokines IL-6, leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) and IL-27 among others. In contrast, the IL-10 receptor lacks tyrosines capable of forming this interaction and is resistant to SOCS3-mediated suppression. In macrophages in which gp130 was mutated at Y757, the site responsible for binding SOCS3 and SHP-2 upon its phosphorylation, IL-6 acts in a similar manner to IL-10 by inducing prolonged STAT3 tyrosine phosphorylation and suppressing the response to LPS (Yasukawa et al. 2003; El Kasmi et al. 2006). The same conversion of IL-6 signaling from pro-inflammatory to anti-inflammatory is observed in macrophages lacking SOCS3 (Yasukawa et al. 2003; Croker et al. 2003; Lang et al. 2003), demonstrating a highly selective effect of the SOCS3-gp130 interaction. Thus SOCS3 limits the duration of STAT3 activation induced by IL-6 signaling. Indeed, it has been proposed that the sustained STAT3 activation resulting from IL-10 signaling is the sole required feature of an anti-inflammatory response (Yasukawa et al. 2003). However, it is also

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

37

possible that STAT3 activation induced by anti-inflammatory signaling could differ qualitatively from the pro-inflammatory signaling (in terms of protein modification, cooperative partners or other) (O’Shea and Murray 2008).

Molecular Mechanisms of the IL-10-Mediated Anti-Inflammatory Effects The mechanisms by which IL-10 mediates its anti-inflammatory effects are diverse and their details and relative importance remain a matter of debate (Murray 2006; Page et al. 2009; Weaver et al. 2007b; Grutz 2005; Sabat et al. 2007). In the context of pro-inflammatory stimulation by TLR ligands, IL-10s regulatory effects are twofold: it suppresses the expression of proinflammatory genes, in particular cytokines and chemokines including TNF, IL-12, IL-1b, IL-6, KC, IL-8, and it induces the expression of suppressive factors and receptors including the IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra), TNF-R2, DUSP1, SOCS-3 and Bcl-3 (Moore et al. 2001; Williams et al. 2004). Mechanisms to explain the regulation of these genes must consider the coordinated activity of NF-kB induced during TLR stimulation (see Fig. 2). TLR signaling-induced transcription Pol II

Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Genes

TLR Signaling NF-κB p65 p50

IL-10 Signaling STAT3pY Y-P YP

TLR and IL-10-induced transcription Chromatin Remodeling Coordinated promoter activaiton YP YP

TNF IL-1 IL-6 IL-12

IL-1ra SOCS3 ETV3 SBNO2

Pol II

Anti-Inflammatory Genes

Bcl-3 IκBNS DUSP1 TTP

1) Termination of Signaling Pol II by interruption of signaling pathways

2) Transcriptional Repression

Pol II

Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Genes

3) Binding and Inhibition of NF-κB by nuclear IκBlike molecules

Pol II

? (5) Direct IL-10-induced repression ? Chromatin Remodeling Promoter inactivation YP

YP

Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Genes

Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Genes

4) Destabilization and degradation of Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine mRNA Pro-Inflammatory Genes

Fig. 2  Coordinated TLR and IL-10 signaling drives a multipart anti-inflammatory response. TLR signaling drives the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokine genes. IL-10 signaling, through STAT3 and in coordination with TLR signaling, induces expression of anti-inflammatory genes. These anti-inflammatory genes block the pro-inflammatory response at multiple levels. For detailed explanations of mechanisms, see text. (1) Extracellular cytokine signaling and intracellular cytokine signaling are inhibited by IL-1ra and SOCS3 respectively. (2) ETV3 and SBNO2 are transcriptional repressors/corepressors (depicted in red) that repress transcription of NF-kBresponsive genes. (3) Nuclear IkB-like molecules (in red) are induced by coordinated TLR + IL-10 signaling and bind, along with NF-kBp50 to promoters that have been inactivated. (4) IL-10 increases the expression of genes involved in destabilizing AU-rich element (ARE) containing mRNAs (including pro-inflammatory cytokine mRNAs). (5) Hypothetically, STAT3 driven by IL-10 signaling might also recruit pre-synthesized nuclear repressors (or repressors activated/ induced by TLR signaling alone) to downregulate expression of some pro-inflammatory genes

38

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

IL-10 can control levels of cytokine expression at the gene transcription and post-transcriptional levels. Earlier studies suggested post-transcriptional regulation for TNF and IL-1 in mouse macrophages, but that expression of genes including TNF, IL-12p35 and IL-12p40 is regulated at the transcriptional level in human monocytes (Aste-Amezaga et al. (1998) and references therein). Using a knockin mouse with the 3¢UTR of TNF replaced by the 3¢UTR of GAPDH, Murray assessed TNF transcription rates that were unaffected by 3¢UTR-mediated degradation. This study showed that, following LPS stimulation, IL-10 reduced generation of the knockin TNF transcript, and therefore that its negative regulation occurs at the transcriptional level (Murray 2005). In many studies the observation that cycloheximide blocked transcriptional repression by IL-10 led to the conclusion that de novo protein synthesis was required and transcriptional repression was due to induced secondary factors (but alternative explanations exist for the effect of cycloheximide – see discussion in next paragraph). Based on this observation, a recent screen for factors co-induced by LPS and IL-10 signaling identified ETV3, a transcriptional repressor, and SBNO2, a transcriptional co-repressor (El Kasmi et al. 2007). The induction of these factors was shown to be STAT3-dependent. Transfection-based studies also showed that they can suppress the activity of a kB- (but not an IRF7) responsive promoter (El Kasmi et  al. 2007) (Fig. 2). It remains to be determined whether these factors are required for the in vivo IL-10-mediated anti-inflammatory response. The mechanisms underlying gene expression that is induced or positively regulated by the combination of TLR and IL-10 signaling can be explained by simpler models of transcription factor cooperation. It was recently observed that the drop in IL-10-mediated suppression caused by cycloheximide treatment coincided with blockade in Jak1 and Tyk2 activity and interruption of IL-10 signaling (Rossato et al. 2007). This finding gives an alternative explanation for the sensitivity of IL-10 suppression to cycloheximide and suggests that additional newly translated positive or negative factors may not be required. The same group recently described studies on how LPS and IL-10 synergize to induce expression of IL-1ra (Tamassia et al. 2010) (Fig. 2). IL-1ra is a powerful natural inhibitor of IL-1 inflammatory reactions whose gene mutation leads to potentially fatal systemic autoinflammatory disease (Reddy et al. 2009; Aksentijevich et al. 2009). Using chromatin immunoprecipitation and analysis of primary transcripts in human monocytes, Tamassia et al. (2010) showed that LPS and IL-10 coordinate to enable RNA polymerase II binding to the promoter and to drive IL-1ra primary transcript production. NF-kB was activated by LPS signaling alone, and STAT3 binding to the promoter required only IL-10 (and not LPS), but NF-kB p65 and p50 binding to the IL-1ra promoter required both IL-10 and LPS. It was not possible to coimmunoprecipitate STAT3 and NF-kB. Thus, the authors proposed that activated STAT3 remodels the chromatin to render it accessible for NF-kB binding (Tamassia et al. 2010). In embryonic stem cells STAT3 binds to transcriptionally active and inactive promoters (Kidder et al. 2008). Therefore, if de novo protein synthesis is affecting only the upstream events of IL-10R signaling, this model of STAT3/NF-kB coordinated binding might equally apply not only to positively regulated genes but also to negatively regulated genes during coordinated signaling with TLR.

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

39

The IL-1ra and other negative regulators that are induced by IL-10 and LPS, including SOCS3, Bcl-3 and IkBNS, complement the inhibition of proinflammatory cytokine production and give IL-10 a broad anti-inflammatory action. SOCS3 may, in addition to its role in suppression of IL-6 and gp130-mediated signaling, play a role in suppression of TLR responses (Yoshimura et al. 2007), through suppression of the TAK1/TRAF6 (Frobose et al. 2006) or through inhibition of type I interferon signaling (Zeng et al. 2008). Bcl-3 is a nuclear IkB-like molecule, whose expression is also induced following LPS and IL-10 treatment of macrophages and may contribute significantly to the anti-inflammatory response (Kuwata et al. 2003; Lang et al. 2002). Using transfection studies, Kuwata et al. showed that Bcl-3 binds to the TNF promoter, but not to the IL-6 promoter. NF-kB p50 subunits share this selective binding to the TNF promoter and also associate with Bcl-3 (Kuwata et al. 2003). Bcl-3 overexpression did not affect the activation of NF-kB p50/p65, but reduced its binding to NF-kB binding sites. Higher levels of Bcl-3 reduced activity of the TNF promoter, while the Bcl-3 knockout displayed increased TNF production, confirming its role as a negative regulator of TNF expression (Kuwata et al. 2003). IkBNS is another nuclear IkB-like molecule that is induced by TLR signaling and can negatively regulate late genes including IL-6 and IL-12p40 (reviewed in Yamamoto and Takeda (2008)). IkBNS was found to be responsive to IL-10 as it is selectively expressed in the lamina propria of wild type but not IL-10-deficient mice. It was also found to regulate cytokine production and bind the IL-6, but not the TNF promoter in association with NF-kB p50 (Hirotani et al. 2005). It is still unclear exactly how different members of the NF-kB family, and particularly p50/ p50 homodimers (Driessler et al. 2004), contribute to positive and negative regulation of target gene expression. However, the role of the nuclear IkB-like molecules in modulation of different NF-kB activities in response to IL-10 is likely to play an important role in its anti-inflammatory activity (Fig. 2). Different cytokines, such as IL-6, IL-1a, KC (or CXCL8) and IL-12 do not share the same regulatory mechanism as TNF, and this contributes an additional level of complexity to IL-10s anti-inflammatory effect. As discussed above, IL-6 is not regulated by Bcl-3 in the same way as TNF (Kuwata et al. 2003). Additionally, comparison of cycloheximide-dependent and -independent effects of IL-10 on primary transcripts of IL-6 suggests that IL-6 transcription is positively regulated by cycloheximidesensitive factors in the absence of IL-10 rather than negatively regulated in its presence (Murray 2005). In other words, de novo protein synthesis induces a protein required for upregulation of IL-6, but only when low levels of IL-10 are present. In the context of LPS signaling, IL-10 increases the post-transcriptional regulation of cytokines including TNF and IL-1a (Fig. 2). mRNA stability and/or translation is repressed through interactions with ARE in the 3¢UTR (Murray 2005; Kontoyiannis et al. 2001; Denys et al. 2002). Tristetraprolin (TTP) is a protein that destabilizes ARE-containing mRNAs. A recent publication (Schaljo et  al. 2009) suggests that IL-10 can influence the TTP/ARE mRNA degradation in two ways: firstly, IL-10 induces an increase in TTP expression. Secondly, IL-10 signaling increases the activity of TTP by reducing p38 MAPK phosphorylation because of increased levels of the phosphatase DUSP1 (also see Hammer et  al. (2005)).

40

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

Thus, post-transcriptional regulation provides a mechanism for IL-10 to rapidly downregulate active cytokine signaling. Therefore at the cellular and molecular levels, IL-10 drives a wide range of transcriptional and post-transcription changes that contribute to its powerful antiinflammatory effects. The mechanism is known to require STAT3, but a detailed understanding of its inhibitory effects on NF-kB-responsive promoters is poorly defined. The recent emergence of the cyclic AMP response element binding protein, ATF3, as a negative regulator of TLR responses (reviewed in Thompson et  al. (2009)) introduces another potential player in IL-10s anti-inflammatory effects (Stearns et al. 2004). Comprehensive chromatin immunoprecipitation studies on NF-kB responsive promoters with multiple factors including STAT3, ETV3, SBNO2, nuclear IkB-like molecules and ATF3 may therefore be required to elucidate the precise mechanisms of IL-10s transcriptional effects.

Roles of STAT3 in Health and Disease As previously discussed, the STAT3 transcription factor is essential for anti-inflammatory signaling by IL-10. Its sustained activation during proinflammatory activation of NF-kB either directly or in concert with secondary factors leads to downregulation of pro-inflammatory gene transcription and translation and upregulation of antiinflammatory genes. However, in addition to IL-10, STAT3 is critical for signaling of many different cytokine receptors, including the gp130-linked receptors for IL-6, IL-11, IL-27, and LIF, as well as other receptors such as those for IL-21, IL-22, leptin, G-CSF and IL-23 (Yu et al. 2009). Furthermore, STAT3 activation can be induced in transformed cells by receptor tyrosine kinases and non-receptor tyrosine kinases such as oncogenic Src. STAT3 is unique among STATs as its deletion results in early embryonic lethality (Takeda et al. 1997). It is also a necessary component of LIF signaling for maintaining the pluripotency of mouse, but not human embryonic stem cells (Raz et  al. 1999; Sumi et  al. 2004). Additional roles for unphosphorylated STAT3 and mitochondrial STAT3 have already been discussed. The recent identification of dominant-negative STAT3 mutations in patients with autosomal dominant hyper IgE syndrome (HIES, or Job’s syndrome) (Minegishi et al. 2007) has provided an important insight into the physiological relevance of different STAT3-dependent pathways in man (reviewed in Heimall et al. (2010)). The major symptoms of these patients are eosinophilia, high serum IgE levels and susceptibility to skin and pulmonary infections. Patients can also have a variety of connective tissue and skeletal abnormalities. A defect in differentiation of Th17 cells may explain the eosinophilia and increased IgE levels and susceptibility to Candida albicans infection. Defective IL-22 function, a cytokine that is produced by Th17 cells but also by other Th subsets and requires STAT3 for signaling, may play a role in impaired resistance to skin and pulmonary infection as, together with IL-17, it induces beta-defensin expression (Wolk et  al. 2004; Liang et  al. 2006). Increased IL-12 production and Th1 skewing in response to LPS stimulation of

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

41

macrophages from these patients is observed possibly due to poor response to IL-10 (Holland et al. 2007). The identification of dominant-negative STAT3 as the etiological agent in Job’s syndrome not only provides a target for treatment of these patients, but also demonstrates the probable side effects that inhibition of STAT3 may cause.

Roles of STAT3 in Cancer STAT3 is a protooncogene that is hyperactivated in many blood and solid tumors including melanoma, head and neck, breast, prostate and lung cancers (reviewed in Buettner et al. (2002)). Its activation leads to improved cell survival, increased cell motility and decreased expression of pro-apoptotic genes. Classical activation of the Jak/STAT pathway leads to STAT3 activation in response to cytokines. However, in transformed cells, STAT3 activation can also be induced by receptor tyrosine kinases such as the EGF receptor and non-receptor tyrosine kinases such as Src, and this activation is required for Src-mediated cell transformation (Bromberg et al. 1998; Yu et al. 1995). Furthermore, stimulation with TLR-ligands LPS and CpG have also been reported to activate STAT3 (Kortylewski et al. 2009a; Samavati et al. 2009). While direct activation of STAT3 by non-cytokine/Jak/STAT pathways may occur under certain experimental conditions, cellular transformation can also lead to autocrine production and signaling through STAT3-inducing cytokines, particularly IL-6 (see Yu and Jove (2004)). Paracrine signaling through STAT3 may be more relevant in vivo during inflammation associated carcinogenesis. This has been demonstrated during colitis and colitis-associated cancer where IL-6, IL-11 and IL-22 from hematopoietic cells and STAT3 in the intestinal epithelial cell are required for optimal proliferation and repair of the intestinal mucosa and elevated carcinogenesis (Grivennikov et al. 2009; Bollrath et al. 2009; Pickert et al. 2009). Recently, Iliopoulos et  al. (2009) identified a role for IL-6 in an epigenetic switch from the immortalized to the transformed cell state. They demonstrated that, by transient activation of the v-Src oncogene, an immortalized cell line (i.e., contactinhibited and unable to form tumors in vivo) could be converted into a transformed state (growing as mammospheres with cancer stem cells and forming tumors in  vivo). Src activation triggered NF-kB signaling and transcription of Lin28b (Iliopoulos et al. 2009). Lin28b is an RNA-binding protein that binds the precursors of Let-7 microRNAs and prevents their processing (Viswanathan and Daley 2010). Let-7 microRNAs were found to block IL-6 mRNA expression and downstream events of STAT3 activation and VEGF production (Iliopoulos et al. 2009). Therefore NF-kB activation due to Src, combined with lower Let-7 microRNA levels, let to robust IL-6 production. This IL-6 was then required for high levels of IL-1 transcription (possibly leading to sustained NF-kB activation) and STAT3 activation, leading to the transformed phenotype. Lin28b and IL-6 were required for growth of transformed MCF10A cells (mammary epithelial line) in nude mice. Similarly, the blockade of IL-6, or Lin28b, or overexpression of Let-7 reverted the transformed

42

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

phenotype of lung, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast, prostate and colon cancer cell lines. Finally, human breast, prostate, and HCC cancer tissue was found to have low Let-7 expression and high IL-6 expression while the inverse was found in normal tissue. Together, their data describe an epigenetic switch involving triggering by NF-kB, maintenance by Lin28b, low Let-7 and high IL-6, and transformation of cells due to activation of STAT3 (Iliopoulos et al. 2009). Whether, in vivo, IL-6 is derived from tumor or inflammatory cells, the existence of such an epigenetic change requiring several factors for its maintenance provides a clear target for therapeutic intervention.

STAT3 and IL-10 in Cancer-Promoting Inflammation Activation of STAT3 leads to inflammatory processes that promote wound repair, but in the context of cancer, can contribute to tumor growth and invasion. Two key events are stimulation of angiogenesis through production of VEGF, whose promoter has binding sites for STAT3 and HIF-a (Niu et al. 2002; Gray et al. 2005), and suppression of antigen presenting cell functions. During chronic inflammatory conditions, a major role for IL-10 in activation of STAT3 is argued by observations that manipulation of either STAT3 or IL-10 leads to highly similar effects. For example, cell-specific deletion of STAT3 in macrophages and neutrophils leads to increased sensitivity to endotoxic shock and chronic colitis in aging mice – a phenotype that matches that of IL-10-deficient mice (Takeda et al. 1999). As discussed below, a prominent role of the IL-10-STAT3 pathway during chronic cancer-associated inflammation may explain why blockade of either molecule is effective in cancer immunotherapy.

IL-10 Inhibition Facilitates Immune Responses to Tumors Antigen presenting cells from tumors respond poorly to stimulation with TLR ligands or other stimuli compared with antigen presenting cells from other locations (O’Garra et al. 2008; Sica et al. 2000; Vicari et al. 2002; Perrot et al. 2007; Bell et al. 1999). In addition to DC, macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) infiltrate the tumor microenvironment and the distinction between these populations based on function or phenotype is not trivial. Tumor infiltrating DC (TIDC) frequently have an immature phenotype with low expression of costimulatory molecules (reviewed in Gottfried et  al. (2008), Rabinovich et  al. (2007), and Zou (2005)). Similarly, tumor associated macrophages have an alternatively activated or “M2” phenotype (including expression of arginase, high IL-10 expression and low IL-12 production) that is linked to an altered NF-kB response (see Chap. “Cancer and Inflammation” by Mantovani) (Anderson and Mosser 2002; Biswas et al. 2006; Hagemann et al. 2009, 2008). A growing body of evidence

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

43

from human and mouse studies shows that IL-10 plays a key role in producing a hyporesponsive phenotype by tumor associated macrophages and DC (Sica et al. 2000; Vicari et al. 2002; Perrot et al. 2007). Based on in vitro observations that tumor associated antigen presenting cells are defective in IL-12 production due to high levels of IL-10 production (Sica et  al. 2000), Vicari et  al. (2002) employed coordinated TLR9 stimulation using CpG oligodeoxyribonucleotide (ODN) and IL-10 signaling blockade with an anti-IL-10R antibody to develop an antitumor immune therapy regime. They observed that TIDC express low levels of MHC class II and costimulatory molecules CD86 and CD40 compared with lymph node DC and do not upregulate these molecules or produce IL-12p70 upon costimulation with LPS, IFN-g and anti-CD40 agonist antibody (Vicari et  al. 2002). Addition of antagonistic anti-IL-10R antibody to cultures revived TIDC cytokine responses and antigen presentation capacity in mixed lymphocyte reaction and cross-presentation assays. The combination of antiIL10R and intra-tumor CpG in vivo, given as a weekly therapy for 3 weeks, led to rejection of established tumor in ~80% of mice, by a mechanism that required NK cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells for full effect (Vicari et al. 2002). A follow up study showed that tumor rejection could be attained with CpG alone in IL-10-deficient mice and that Treg have overlapping but separable roles during the immunosuppression (Dercamp et al. 2005). In this way, the removal of IL-10s anti-inflammatory activity permitted potent APC and cytokine responses, along with tumor rejection and immunity, in response to the CpG TLR ligand. The mechanisms behind CpG-mediated rejection in the absence of IL-10 were dissected in detail by Guiducci et al. (2005) using a modified protocol designed to draw antigen presenting cells into tumor tissue. They had previously shown that local administration of an adenoviral vector expressing the human chemokine CCL16 (AdCCL16; CCL16 is a ligand for CCR1, CCR2, CCR5 and CCR8) led to infiltration of T cells, macrophages and DC, retarded growth of TSA mammary tumor nodules and an adaptive immune response that prevented metastatic spread of tumor (Guiducci et al. 2004). A single treatment consisting of intratumoral injection of AdCCL16 at 36 h prior to systemic anti-IL10R antibody and local CpG administration led to rejection of established TSA mammary, MCA38 colon and 4T1 mammary tumors in 60–90% of mice (Guiducci et al. 2005). This effect involved local production of TNF, IL-12 and nitric oxide (NO) by tumor macrophages at ~6 h post-CpG injection, followed by TNF-dependent hemorrhagic necrosis at the tumor site. The complete treatment (AdCCL16 + anti-IL-10R + CpG), but not treatment lacking antiIL10R antibody, led to upregulation of costimulatory molecules and MHC class II on tumor-infiltrating DC along with production of IL-12 and TNF. In vitro, these DC were capable of driving T cells to proliferate and produce high levels of the Th1 cytokine IFN-g in a mixed leukocyte reaction assay. In vivo, DC migration was triggered, followed by activation of the adaptive immune system and tumor rejection that required CCR7 (a chemokine receptor involved in migration to the lymphatics), costimulation by CD40, and both chains of the cytokine IL-12 (Guiducci et  al. 2005). In this way, blockade of IL-10 signaling permits a powerful local hemorrhagic necrosis, which the authors described as comparable to a localized Shwartzman

44

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

reaction, with high levels of TNF and NO and an IL-12-dependent Th1-type immune response. The very rapid necrotic response is fully dependent on the activation of innate resistance mechanisms and even if in a few hours it induces an almost complete destruction of the tumor mass, it is not by itself able to cure the animal: in the absence of an antigen-specific T cell response the tumors eventually progress and kill most of the treated animals. The type of inflammation that characterizes the tumor microenvironment supports tumor growth and dissemination, by favoring e.g., angiogenesis and through the effect of secreted metalloproteases that promote tumor invasion. It is also immunosuppressive, reducing the ability of the antigen-presenting cells in the tumor microenvironment to activate T cells and to migrate in the draining lymph nodes. The treatment of the mice with CpG and anti-IL-10R not only induces an acute type I inflammatory response that is responsible for the rapid necrosis but it also reverts the phenotypes of tumor-resident APC, allowing them to efficiently present tumor antigens to T cells and also to migrate rapidly to the draining lymph node for optimal T cell activation. Thus, effective eradication of the tumors requires the generation of both Th1 and cytotoxic T cell responses against the tumor antigen. This was clearly demonstrated by the fact that anti-IL-10R and CpG treatment induce tumor necrosis but do not cure in mice deficient for CD4 and/or CD8 T cells or in which the T cells and the APC have different MHC antigens than the tumor cells (Guiducci et al. 2005). In addition to the studies on inoculated subcutaneous tumors described above, therapy by TLR ligation and inhibition of IL-10 signaling has been successfully employed in several transgenic carcinogenesis models. Mice expressing SV40 T antigen (Tag) under control of the tyrosinase related protein 1 (TRP-1) promoter develop tumors from the retinal pigmented epithelium of the eye that become macroscopically visible at around 6 weeks of age (Penna et  al. 1998). Treatment of TRP-1/Tag mice with anti-IL-10 antibody in conjunction with CpG ODN i.p. or with the TLR-7/8 ligand R848 delayed eye tumor development for the duration of the treatment in a large proportion of mice (Alain Vicari 2004, personal communication). Similarly, topical treatment of breast tumors in MMTVneu mice with the TLR-7 ligand, imiquimod, limited development of tumors during treatment but mice succumbed to tumor after its cessation. Additional treatment with anti-IL-10 antibodies led to prolonged survival of imiquimod-treated mice (Lu et al. 2010). The success of combination (TLR-L + IL-10-block) therapies in transgenic models probably requires effective adaptive immune responses (against immunogenic Tag or neu, respectively (Lu et al. 2010)). Furthermore, it demonstrates a broad applicability of the combination therapy and strengthens the prospects of its clinical use.

Targeting STAT3 Facilitates Anti-Tumor Immune Responses In 1999, the Yu laboratory described an observation that inhibition of STAT3 in tumors leads to more extensive cell death than could be explained by its immediate effects, suggesting that bystander effect was occurring (Kortylewski and Yu 2007;

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

45

Niu et al. 1999). Using electroinjection of plasmid DNA that achieved no more than ~15% transfection efficiency into B16 melanomas, they observed that half the tumor cells could be driven to apoptosis when a dominant-negative STAT3b isoform was encoded on the plasmid, and that this effect led to tumor regression in ~50% of mice (Niu et al. 1999). This initial observation prompted a series of continuation studies by Hua Yu, in collaboration with Richard Jove and Drew Pardoll, into STAT3s anti-inflammatory and immunological roles in the tumor environment and its accessibility to therapeutic manipulation. Any viable mechanistic explanation of the bystander effect during inhibition of STAT3 should include changes in extracellular levels of pro-apoptotic factors or tumor-survival factors. Soluble factors, including TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) were found to be expressed by STAT3b-transfected B16 cells and contributed to tumor cell apoptosis (Niu et al. 2001). STAT3 was linked to tumor angiogenesis through direct binding and activation of the VEGF promoter and through upregulation of AKT1 and HIF-1 in tumor cells (Niu et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2005). STAT3 was also shown to contribute to tumor cell survival through upregulation of factors including bcl-xl, bcl-2 and survivin and a role in tumor invasion was described through STAT3-mediated upregulation of matrix metalloproteases such as MMP-2 (reviewed in Aggarwal et al. (2009)). It is therefore apparent that STAT3-mediated regulation of extracellular factors could contribute to oncogenesis and complement STAT3s role in oncogene-mediated transformation (Bromberg et  al. 1998; Yu et  al. 1995; Iliopoulos et  al. 2009). However, other functions of STAT3 in the tumor microenvironment, specifically its effects on inflammation, are required to fully explain the bystander effect of STAT3 inhibition. The demonstration that inhibition of STAT3 can lead to proinflammatory cytokine production and can reverse the suppressive effect of tumor culture supernatants on DC maturation provided a mechanistic framework for its anti-inflammatory role in tumors (Wang et al. 2004). Inhibition of STAT3 in a variety of tumor lines by ectopic expression of dominant-negative STAT3b or anti-sense RNA led to increases in expression of proinflammatory cytokines including TNF, IL-6, IFN-b and chemokines including CCL5 (RANTES) and CXCL10 (IP10). Similarly, STAT3 activation by Src-transformation or expression of a constitutively active STAT3 (STAT3C) suppressed expression of proinflammatory cytokines in response to LPS/IFN-g treatment (Wang et al. 2004). By inhibiting STAT3, tumor cells that would normally suppress DC and macrophage activation were capable of promoting DC maturation and macrophage NO production in vitro, and immunization of mice with STAT3-inhibited tumor cells led to enhanced antigen-specific responses. Furthermore, tumor-derived factors also induced STAT3 phosphorylation in DC and their suppression required STAT3. The authors finally demonstrated that IL-10 (and possibly VEGF) could mimic the suppressive effect of tumor cell supernatant in a STAT3-dependent manner, suggesting IL-10 to be a key mediator of DC suppression in the tumor microenvironment (Wang et al. 2004). The relevance of hematopoietic cell STAT3 was demonstrated using inducible deletion of STAT3 in all bone marrow-derived cells using Mx1-Cre;STAT3fl/fl mice (Kortylewski et  al. 2005). STAT3-deficient DC from these mice produced

46

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

higher levels of IL-12 in response to LPS stimulation, and induced higher levels of antigen-specific T cell proliferation in culture. Furthermore, B16 tumor-infiltrating STAT3-deficient DC expressed higher levels of costimulatory CD86 and MHC class II compared with wild-type. Interestingly, STAT3 phosphorylation was triggered in neutrophils and NK cells by IL-10, and both cell types were more cytotoxic following hematopoietic STAT3-ablation. The higher cytotoxic activity of neutrophils may have been related to higher levels of FasL expression. In the tumor-infiltrating populations of STAT3-ablated mice, higher frequencies of IFN-g-producing tumor antigen-specific T cells and lower proportions of CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ Tregs were observed (Kortylewski et  al. 2005). A profound effect of hematopoietic STAT3-ablation was observed in tumor immunity. Using MB49 (bladder carcinoma) and B16 tumors, hematopoietic STAT3-deficient mice were resistant to tumor growth and MB49 tumors were rejected by a mechanism requiring T cells (as shown by CD4 and CD8 depletion). Deletion of hematopoietic STAT3 following establishment of tumor also led to tumor regression (MB49) or slowed growth (B16). A similar T and NK cell-dependent anti-tumor effect could be observed with wild-type mice by administration of the STAT3 inhibitor, CPA7 (Kortylewski et al. 2005). Therefore hematopoietic STAT3 is a critical suppressor of anti-tumor immune responses and its genetic or pharmacological inhibition is sufficient to switch predisposition from tumor-promoting to anti-tumor inflammation. Deletion of STAT3 in hematopoietic cells also rendered tumors highly sensitive to peritumoral injection of CpG (Kortylewski et al. 2009a). Local CpG treatment of STAT3-deficient mice with 10mm diameter B16 tumors led to rapid tumor regression associated with neutrophil infiltration, production of nitric oxide and loss of vascular function as determined by the tracking of a systemic dye using intravital microcopy. The combined STAT3-deficiency and CpG treatment led to augmented costimulatory responses by tumor-draining lymph node DCs and increased frequencies of IFN-g producing tumor antigen-specific T cells. Furthermore, a single treatment of CpG led to tumor rejection in STAT3-deficient, but not STAT3sufficient mice, and long term protection required T cells (Kortylewski et  al. 2009a). In wild type mice, the combination treatment could also be achieved using CPA7 to inhibit STAT3 function combined with peritumoral CpG injection (Kortylewski et al. 2009a). The efficacy of these combination treatments led Kortylewski et al. (2009b) to design a single molecule drug comprised of a CpG stimulatory ODN conjugated to siRNA for STAT3 (CpG-Stat3siRNA). CpG-Stat3siRNA was taken up by DC, B cells and macrophages in  vitro and following peri-tumoral injection in  vivo. Effective uptake and processing by Dicer required the CpG portion of the conjugate and was not achieved with a control GpC ODN conjugate, suggesting that TLR9 recognition and activation were important for processing. B16 tumor growth was blocked by a single peritumoral treatment by a mechanism that required NK cells and partially required T cells. Local injection of CpG-Stat3siRNA led to growth inhibition of multiple tumor types. Furthermore, systemic administration 2 days after i.v. inoculation of B16 tumor cells led to a much lower level of visible metastases. Injection of CpG-Stat3siRNA induced innate and adaptive immune

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

47

responses including the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, tumor-infiltration of neutrophils and tumor cell apoptosis, and immunity against tumor-associated antigens (Kortylewski et al. 2009b). The mechanism and effect of combining CpG treatment with STAT3-deficiency in the Kortylewski studies (Kortylewski et al. 2009a, b) are highly reminiscent of the studies by Vicari et  al. using CpG + anti-IL10R treatment to treat tumors (as discussed earlier (Vicari et  al. 2002; Guiducci et  al. 2005)) (Fig.  3). Despite the similarities, Kortylewski et al. (2009a) argue that IL-10 is not required for STAT3 phosphorylation in DCs following CpG treatment and that STAT3 activation can be directly induced by TLR9 triggering. However, this argument is based on studies using splenic DCs and may not hold for tumor-infiltrating populations because lymphoid organ DCs are more readily activated by TLR ligands than tumorinfiltrating APC (Sica et al. 2000; Vicari et al. 2002; Perrot et al. 2007). It is therefore possible that IL-10 plays a predominant role in activating STAT3 within tumor APC in the context of TLR signaling, and that this leads to the potent effects of blockade in IL-10 signaling. Indeed, an incomplete blockade of STAT3 activation by anti-IL10R antibody treatment may account for different therapeutic efficiencies between the Vicari and Kortylewski protocols: three treatments with CpG and anti-IL10R were used for tumor rejection (Vicari et al. 2002) compared with one CpG injection in the context of STAT3-ablation (Kortylewski et al. 2009a) and multiple CpG injections in the context of STAT3-inhibition using CPA7 (Kortylewski et  al. 2009a). Alternatively, the use of poly(I:C) to trigger STAT3 ablation, though performed IL 10

IL-10 IL-10R

STAT3pY

TLR

IL-10R

TLR

STAT3pY

Tumor DC or macrophage Poor inflammatory response

Potent inflammatory response DC migration Th1 Immune Response Protection from tumor regrowth

Fig.  3  Inhibition or blockade of IL-10, IL-10R or STAT3 prevents anti-inflammatory action of IL-10 in the tumor microenvironment. Without IL-10/STAT3, TLR triggering of tumor dendritic cells (DC) and macrophages leads to robust pro-inflammatory cytokine production, DC migration and protective antigen-specific immune responses

48

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

four days prior to B16 tumor inoculation (Kortylewski et  al. 2009a), may have resulted in sufficient type I IFN production to potentiate immunological priming against tumor-associated antigens (Trumpfheller et  al. 2008). In either case, the resultant Th1 type immunity combined with local tumor tissue destruction makes the inhibition of IL-10 or STAT3 important enhancers of TLR-based immunotherapy and provides a foundation for effective clinical protocols.

Conclusions The tumor microenvironment if often characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells and lymphocytes suggesting that the tumor is interacting with the organism defense mechanisms and not simply escaping them. It has been clearly demonstrated in a subset of cancer patients that an anti-tumor response may be activated and may slow tumor progression. However, in general the tumor microenvironment is characterized by a type of inflammation and possibly immune response that favor tumor growth and diffusion while impeding an effective immune response. This microenvironment is characterized by alternative activation of tumor-infiltrating hematopoietic cells and by production of soluble factors, including chemokines, cytokines, metalloproteases, growth factors, and pro-angiogenic factors that contribute to maintain the pro-tumor and immunosuppressive state. Certain tumorinfiltrating cell types, e.g., Treg and MDSC, play a major role determining the characteristics of the tumor microenvironment. Although many soluble factors and transcription factors also play a major role, the cytokine IL-10 and the transcription factor STAT3 seem to have key functions: blocking either one of them has similar and profound effects by switching the inflammatory response in the tumor to a type I inflammation that is unfavorable for tumor progression and by allowing the generation of an effective anti-tumor Th1/CTL adaptive immune response. Thus, these key factors in the immunological switch represent promising targets for immunotherapy of cancer in order to induce an effective curative anti-tumor immune response.

References Aggarwal, B.B., et  al., Signal transducer and activator of transcription-3, inflammation, and cancer: how intimate is the relationship? Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2009. 1171: p. 59–76. Aksentijevich, I., et al., An autoinflammatory disease with deficiency of the interleukin-1-receptor antagonist. N Engl J Med, 2009. 360(23): p. 2426–37. Anderson, C.F. and D.M. Mosser, A novel phenotype for an activated macrophage: the type 2 activated macrophage. J Leukoc Biol, 2002. 72(1): p. 101–6. Anderson, C.F., et  al., CD4(+)CD25(-)Foxp3(-) Th1 cells are the source of IL-10-mediated immune suppression in chronic cutaneous leishmaniasis. J Exp Med, 2007. 204(2): p. 285–97.

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

49

Aste-Amezaga, M., et al., Molecular mechanisms of the induction of IL-12 and its inhibition by IL-10. J Immunol, 1998. 160(12): p. 5936–44. Aziz, M.H., et al., Protein kinase Cepsilon interacts with Stat3 and regulates its activation that is essential for the development of skin cancer. Mol Carcinog, 2007. 46(8): p. 646–53. Belkaid, Y., et al., The role of interleukin (IL)-10 in the persistence of Leishmania major in the skin after healing and the therapeutic potential of anti-IL-10 receptor antibody for sterile cure. J Exp Med, 2001. 194(10): p. 1497–506. Bell, D., et al., In breast carcinoma tissue, immature dendritic cells reside within the tumor, whereas mature dendritic cells are located in peritumoral areas. J Exp Med, 1999. 190(10): p. 1417–26. Bennett, C.L., et al., The immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked syndrome (IPEX) is caused by mutations of FOXP3. Nat Genet, 2001. 27(1): p. 20–1. Berg, D.J., et al., Interleukin-10 is a central regulator of the response to LPS in murine models of endotoxic shock and the Shwartzman reaction but not endotoxin tolerance. J Clin Invest, 1995. 96(5): p. 2339–47. Biswas, S.K., et al., A distinct and unique transcriptional program expressed by tumor-associated macrophages (defective NF-kappaB and enhanced IRF-3/STAT1 activation). Blood, 2006. 107(5): p. 2112–22. Blackburn, S.D. and E.J. Wherry, IL-10, T cell exhaustion and viral persistence. Trends Microbiol, 2007. 15(4): p. 143–6. Bollrath, J., et al., gp130-mediated Stat3 activation in enterocytes regulates cell survival and cellcycle progression during colitis-associated tumorigenesis. Cancer Cell, 2009. 15(2): p. 91–102. Bromberg, J.F., et al., Stat3 activation is required for cellular transformation by v-src. Mol Cell Biol, 1998. 18(5): p. 2553–8. Brooks, D.G., et al., Interleukin-10 determines viral clearance or persistence in vivo. Nat Med, 2006. 12(11): p. 1301–9. Brooks, D.G., et  al., IL-10 blockade facilitates DNA vaccine-induced T cell responses and enhances clearance of persistent virus infection. J Exp Med, 2008. 205(3): p. 533–41. Buettner, R., L.B. Mora, and R. Jove, Activated STAT signaling in human tumors provides novel molecular targets for therapeutic intervention. Clin Cancer Res, 2002. 8(4): p. 945–54. Calzada-Wack, J.C., M. Frankenberger, and H.W. Ziegler-Heitbrock, Interleukin-10 drives human monocytes to CD16 positive macrophages. J Inflamm, 1996. 46(2): p. 78–85. Cassel, S.L. and P.B. Rothman, Chapter 3: Role of SOCS in allergic and innate immune responses. Adv Immunol, 2009. 103: p. 49–76. Chaudhry, A., et al., CD4+ regulatory T cells control TH17 responses in a Stat3-dependent manner. Science, 2009. 326(5955): p. 986–91. Crawley, J.B., et al., Interleukin-10 stimulation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase and p70 S6 kinase is required for the proliferative but not the antiinflammatory effects of the cytokine. J Biol Chem, 1996. 271(27): p. 16357–62. Croker, B.A., et al., SOCS3 negatively regulates IL-6 signaling in vivo. Nat Immunol, 2003. 4(6): p. 540–5. Denys, A., et al., Evidence for a dual mechanism for IL-10 suppression of TNF-alpha production that does not involve inhibition of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase or NF-kappa B in primary human macrophages. J Immunol, 2002. 168(10): p. 4837–45. Dercamp, C., et al., Distinct and overlapping roles of interleukin-10 and CD25+ regulatory T cells in the inhibition of antitumor CD8 T-cell responses. Cancer Res, 2005. 65(18): p. 8479–86. Dikopoulos, N., et  al., Type I IFN negatively regulates CD8+ T cell responses through IL-10producing CD4+ T regulatory 1 cells. J Immunol, 2005. 174(1): p. 99–109. Driessler, F., et al., Molecular mechanisms of interleukin-10-mediated inhibition of NF-kappaB activity: a role for p50. Clin Exp Immunol, 2004. 135(1): p. 64–73. Ejrnaes, M., et al., Resolution of a chronic viral infection after interleukin-10 receptor blockade. J Exp Med, 2006. 203(11): p. 2461–72. El Kasmi, K.C., et  al., General nature of the STAT3-activated anti-inflammatory response. J Immunol, 2006. 177(11): p. 7880–8.

50

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

El Kasmi, K.C., et al., Cutting edge: a transcriptional repressor and corepressor induced by the STAT3-regulated anti-inflammatory signaling pathway. J Immunol, 2007. 179(11): p. 7215–9. Filippi, C.M. and M.G. von Herrath, IL-10 and the resolution of infections. J Pathol, 2008. 214(2): p. 224–30. Finbloom, D.S. and K.D. Winestock, IL-10 induces the tyrosine phosphorylation of tyk2 and Jak1 and the differential assembly of STAT1 alpha and STAT3 complexes in human T cells and monocytes. J Immunol, 1995. 155(3): p. 1079–90. Fiorentino, D.F., M.W. Bond, and T.R. Mosmann, Two types of mouse T helper cell. IV. Th2 clones secrete a factor that inhibits cytokine production by Th1 clones. J Exp Med, 1989. 170(6): p. 2081–95. Fitzgerald, D.C., et al., Suppression of autoimmune inflammation of the central nervous system by interleukin 10 secreted by interleukin 27-stimulated T cells. Nat Immunol, 2007. 8(12): p. 1372–9. Frobose, H., et al., Suppressor of cytokine Signaling-3 inhibits interleukin-1 signaling by targeting the TRAF-6/TAK1 complex. Mol Endocrinol, 2006. 20(7): p. 1587–96. Fukao, T., et  al., PI3K-mediated negative feedback regulation of IL-12 production in DCs. Nat Immunol, 2002. 3(9): p. 875–81. Gaddi, P.J. and G.S. Yap, Cytokine regulation of immunopathology in toxoplasmosis. Immunol Cell Biol, 2007. 85(2): p. 155–9. Gao, S.P. and J.F. Bromberg, Touched and moved by STAT3. Sci STKE, 2006. 2006(343): p. pe30. Gazzinelli, R.T., et al., In the absence of endogenous IL-10, mice acutely infected with Toxoplasma gondii succumb to a lethal immune response dependent on CD4+ T cells and accompanied by overproduction of IL-12, IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha. J Immunol, 1996. 157(2): p. 798–805. Gerosa, F., et al., Interleukin-12 primes human CD4 and CD8 T cell clones for high production of both interferon-gamma and interleukin-10. J Exp Med, 1996. 183(6): p. 2559–69. Gottfried, E., M. Kreutz, and A. Mackensen, Tumor-induced modulation of dendritic cell function. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, 2008. 19(1): p. 65–77. Grant, L.R., et  al., Stat4-dependent, T-bet-independent regulation of IL-10 in NK cells. Genes Immun, 2008. 9(4): p. 316–27. Gray, M.J., et al., HIF-1alpha, STAT3, CBP/p300 and Ref-1/APE are components of a transcriptional complex that regulates Src-dependent hypoxia-induced expression of VEGF in pancreatic and prostate carcinomas. Oncogene, 2005. 24(19): p. 3110–20. Grivennikov, S., et al., IL-6 and Stat3 are required for survival of intestinal epithelial cells and development of colitis-associated cancer. Cancer Cell, 2009. 15(2): p. 103–13. Grutz, G., New insights into the molecular mechanism of interleukin-10-mediated immunosuppression. J Leukoc Biol, 2005. 77(1): p. 3–15. Guiducci, C., et al., Intralesional injection of adenovirus encoding CC chemokine ligand 16 inhibits mammary tumor growth and prevents metastatic-induced death after surgical removal of the treated primary tumor. J Immunol, 2004. 172(7): p. 4026–36. Guiducci, C., et al., Redirecting in vivo elicited tumor infiltrating macrophages and dendritic cells towards tumor rejection. Cancer Res, 2005. 65(8): p. 3437–46. Guo, L., et  al., IL-1 family members and STAT activators induce cytokine production by Th2, Th17, and Th1 cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009. 106(32): p. 13463–8. Hagemann, T., et  al., “Re-educating” tumor-associated macrophages by targeting NF-kappaB. J Exp Med, 2008. 205(6): p. 1261–8. Hagemann, T., et  al., Regulation of macrophage function in tumors: the multifaceted role of NF-kappaB. Blood, 2009. 113(14): p. 3139–46. Hammer, M., et  al., Control of dual-specificity phosphatase-1 expression in activated macrophages by IL-10. Eur J Immunol, 2005. 35(10): p. 2991–3001. Heimall, J., A. Freeman, and S.M. Holland, Pathogenesis of hyper IgE syndrome. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol, 2010. 38(1): p. 32–8. Hinrichs, C.S., et al., Type 17 CD8+ T cells display enhanced antitumor immunity. Blood, 2009. 114(3): p. 596–9.

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

51

Hirotani, T., et al., The nuclear IkappaB protein IkappaBNS selectively inhibits lipopolysaccharideinduced IL-6 production in macrophages of the colonic lamina propria. J Immunol, 2005. 174(6): p. 3650–7. Hoentjen, F., et al., STAT3 regulates NF-kappaB recruitment to the IL-12p40 promoter in dendritic cells. Blood, 2005. 105(2): p. 689–96. Hoffmann, K.F., A.W. Cheever, and T.A. Wynn, IL-10 and the dangers of immune polarization: excessive type 1 and type 2 cytokine responses induce distinct forms of lethal immunopathology in murine schistosomiasis. J Immunol, 2000. 164(12): p. 6406–16. Holland, S.M., et al., STAT3 mutations in the hyper-IgE syndrome. N Engl J Med, 2007. 357(16): p. 1608–19. Iliopoulos, D., H.A. Hirsch, and K. Struhl, An epigenetic switch involving NF-kappaB, Lin28, Let-7 MicroRNA, and IL6 links inflammation to cell transformation. Cell, 2009. 139(4): p. 693–706. Jankovic, D. and G. Trinchieri, IL-10 or not IL-10: that is the question. Nat Immunol, 2007. 8(12): p. 1281–3. Jankovic, D., et al., Conventional T-bet(+)Foxp3(-) Th1 cells are the major source of host-protective regulatory IL-10 during intracellular protozoan infection. J Exp Med, 2007. 204(2): p. 273–83. Kidder, B.L., J. Yang, and S. Palmer, Stat3 and c-Myc genome-wide promoter occupancy in embryonic stem cells. PLoS One, 2008. 3(12): p. e3932. Kitani, A., et al., Transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta1-producing regulatory T cells induce Smad-mediated interleukin 10 secretion that facilitates coordinated immunoregulatory activity and amelioration of TGF-beta1-mediated fibrosis. J Exp Med, 2003. 198(8): p. 1179–88. Kontoyiannis, D., et  al., Interleukin-10 targets p38 MAPK to modulate ARE-dependent TNF mRNA translation and limit intestinal pathology. EMBO J, 2001. 20(14): p. 3760–70. Koppelman, B., et al., Interleukin-10 down-regulates MHC class II alphabeta peptide complexes at the plasma membrane of monocytes by affecting arrival and recycling. Immunity, 1997. 7(6): p. 861–71. Kortylewski, M. and H. Yu, Stat3 as a potential target for cancer immunotherapy. J Immunother, 2007. 30(2): p. 131–9. Kortylewski, M., et al., Inhibiting Stat3 signaling in the hematopoietic system elicits multicomponent antitumor immunity. Nat Med, 2005. 11(12): p. 1314–21. Kortylewski, M., et al., Toll-like receptor 9 activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 constrains its agonist-based immunotherapy. Cancer Res, 2009. 69(6): p. 2497–505. Kortylewski, M., et al., In vivo delivery of siRNA to immune cells by conjugation to a TLR9 agonist enhances antitumor immune responses. Nat Biotechnol, 2009. 27(10): p. 925–32. Kuhn, R., et  al., Interleukin-10-deficient mice develop chronic enterocolitis. Cell, 1993. 75(2): p. 263–74. Kuwata, H., et al., IL-10-inducible Bcl-3 negatively regulates LPS-induced TNF-alpha production in macrophages. Blood, 2003. 102(12): p. 4123–9. Lang, R., et al., Shaping gene expression in activated and resting primary macrophages by IL-10. J Immunol, 2002. 169(5): p. 2253–63. Lang, R., et  al., SOCS3 regulates the plasticity of gp130 signaling. Nat Immunol, 2003. 4(6): p. 546–50. Levings, M.K., et al., IFN-alpha and IL-10 induce the differentiation of human type 1 T regulatory cells. J Immunol, 2001. 166(9): p. 5530–9. Liang, S.C., et al., Interleukin (IL)-22 and IL-17 are coexpressed by Th17 cells and cooperatively enhance expression of antimicrobial peptides. J Exp Med, 2006. 203(10): p. 2271–9. Lighvani, A.A., et  al., T-bet is rapidly induced by interferon-gamma in lymphoid and myeloid cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2001. 98(26): p. 15137–42. Lu, H., et al., Treatment failure of a TLR-7 agonist occurs due to self-regulation of acute inflammation and can be overcome by IL-10 blockade. J Immunol, 2010. 184: p. 5360–7. Lucas, M., et al., ERK activation following macrophage FcgammaR ligation leads to chromatin modifications at the IL-10 locus. J Immunol, 2005. 175(1): p. 469–77. Ma, C.S., et al., Deficiency of Th17 cells in hyper IgE syndrome due to mutations in STAT3. J Exp Med, 2008. 205(7): p. 1551–7.

52

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

Maeda, H., et  al., TGF-beta enhances macrophage ability to produce IL-10 in normal and tumor-bearing mice. J Immunol, 1995. 155(10): p. 4926–32. Manetti, R., et  al., Interleukin 12 induces stable priming for interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) production during differentiation of human T helper (Th) cells and transient IFN-gamma production in established Th2 cell clones. J Exp Med, 1994. 179(4): p. 1273–83. Maynard, C.L., et  al., Regulatory T cells expressing interleukin 10 develop from Foxp3+ and Foxp3- precursor cells in the absence of interleukin 10. Nat Immunol, 2007. 8(9): p. 931–41. McGeachy, M.J., et al., TGF-beta and IL-6 drive the production of IL-17 and IL-10 by T cells and restrain T(H)-17 cell-mediated pathology. Nat Immunol, 2007. 8(12): p. 1390–7. Minegishi, Y., et al., Dominant-negative mutations in the DNA-binding domain of STAT3 cause hyper-IgE syndrome. Nature, 2007. 448(7157): p. 1058–62. Moore, K.W., et al., Interleukin-10 and the interleukin-10 receptor. Annu Rev Immunol, 2001. 19: p. 683–765. Mosser, D.M. and X. Zhang, Interleukin-10: new perspectives on an old cytokine. Immunol Rev, 2008. 226: p. 205–18. Murray, P.J., The primary mechanism of the IL-10-regulated antiinflammatory response is to selectively inhibit transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2005. 102(24): p. 8686–91. Murray, P.J., Understanding and exploiting the endogenous interleukin-10/STAT3-mediated antiinflammatory response. Curr Opin Pharmacol, 2006. 6(4): p. 379–86. Nelson, D.A., C.C. Petty, and K.L. Bost, Infection with murine gammaherpesvirus 68 exacerbates inflammatory bowel disease in IL-10-deficient mice. Inflamm Res, 2009. 58(12): p. 881–9. Ng, D.C., et  al., Stat3 regulates microtubules by antagonizing the depolymerization activity of stathmin. J Cell Biol, 2006. 172(2): p. 245–57. Niu, G., et al., Gene therapy with dominant-negative Stat3 suppresses growth of the murine melanoma B16 tumor in vivo. Cancer Res, 1999. 59(20): p. 5059–63. Niu, G., et al., Overexpression of a dominant-negative signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 variant in tumor cells leads to production of soluble factors that induce apoptosis and cell cycle arrest. Cancer Res, 2001. 61(8): p. 3276–80. Niu, G., et al., Constitutive Stat3 activity up-regulates VEGF expression and tumor angiogenesis. Oncogene, 2002. 21(13): p. 2000–8. Nylen, S., et al., Splenic accumulation of IL-10 mRNA in T cells distinct from CD4+CD25+ (Foxp3) regulatory T cells in human visceral leishmaniasis. J Exp Med, 2007. 204(4): p. 805–17. O’Garra, A., et al., Strategies for use of IL-10 or its antagonists in human disease. Immunol Rev, 2008. 223: p. 114–31. O’Shea, J.J. and P.J. Murray, Cytokine signaling modules in inflammatory responses. Immunity, 2008. 28(4): p. 477–87. O’Shea, J.J. and W.E. Paul, Mechanisms underlying lineage commitment and plasticity of helper CD4+ T cells. Science, 2010. 327(5969): p. 1098–102. Page, T.H., et  al., Tyrosine kinases and inflammatory signalling. Curr Mol Med, 2009. 9(1): p. 69–85. Peacock, J.W. and K.L. Bost, Murine gammaherpesvirus-68-induced interleukin-10 increases viral burden, but limits virus-induced splenomegaly and leukocytosis. Immunology, 2001. 104(1): p. 109–17. Pearce, E.L., et  al., Control of effector CD8+ T cell function by the transcription factor Eomesodermin. Science, 2003. 302(5647): p. 1041–3. Penna, D., A. Schmidt, and F. Beermann, Tumors of the retinal pigment epithelium metastasize to inguinal lymph nodes and spleen in tyrosinase-related protein 1/SV40 T antigen transgenic mice. Oncogene, 1998. 17(20): p. 2601–7. Perona-Wright, G., et  al., Systemic but not local infections elicit immunosuppressive IL-10 production by natural killer cells. Cell Host Microbe, 2009. 6(6): p. 503–12. Perrot, I., et  al., Dendritic cells infiltrating human non-small cell lung cancer are blocked at immature stage. J Immunol, 2007. 178(5): p. 2763–9. Pickert, G., et al., STAT3 links IL-22 signaling in intestinal epithelial cells to mucosal wound healing. J Exp Med, 2009. 206(7): p. 1465–72.

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

53

Rabinovich, G.A., D. Gabrilovich, and E.M. Sotomayor, Immunosuppressive strategies that are mediated by tumor cells. Annu Rev Immunol, 2007. 25: p. 267–96. Rahimi, A.A., et al., STAT-1 mediates the stimulatory effect of IL-10 on CD14 expression in human monocytic cells. J Immunol, 2005. 174(12): p. 7823–32. Raz, R., et al., Essential role of STAT3 for embryonic stem cell pluripotency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1999. 96(6): p. 2846–51. Reddy, S., et al., An autoinflammatory disease due to homozygous deletion of the IL1RN locus. N Engl J Med, 2009. 360(23): p. 2438–44. Riley, J.K., et al., Interleukin-10 receptor signaling through the JAK-STAT pathway. Requirement for two distinct receptor-derived signals for anti-inflammatory action. J Biol Chem, 1999. 274(23): p. 16513–21. Robinson, D., et al., IGIF does not drive Th1 development but synergizes with IL-12 for interferongamma production and activates IRAK and NFkappaB. Immunity, 1997. 7(4): p. 571–81. Roers, A., et al., T cell-specific inactivation of the interleukin 10 gene in mice results in enhanced T cell responses but normal innate responses to lipopolysaccharide or skin irritation. J Exp Med, 2004. 200(10): p. 1289–97. Romagnani, S., Lymphokine production by human T cells in disease states. Annu Rev Immunol, 1994. 12: p. 227–57. Roncarolo, M.G., et al., Type 1 T regulatory cells. Immunol Rev, 2001. 182: p. 68–79. Rossato, M., et al., IL-10 modulates cytokine gene transcription by protein synthesis-independent and dependent mechanisms in lipopolysaccharide-treated neutrophils. Eur J Immunol, 2007. 37(11): p. 3176–89. Rubtsov, Y.P., et al., Regulatory T cell-derived interleukin-10 limits inflammation at environmental interfaces. Immunity, 2008. 28(4): p. 546–58. Sabat, R., et al., Biology of Interleukin-10, In Class II Cytokines, Zdanov, A., Editor. 2007, Kerala, India: Transworld Research Network. p. 107–26. Samavati, L., et al., STAT3 tyrosine phosphorylation is critical for interleukin 1 beta and interleukin6 production in response to lipopolysaccharide and live bacteria. Mol Immunol, 2009. 46(8–9): p. 1867–77. Sanjabi, S., et al., Anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory roles of TGF-beta, IL-10, and IL-22 in immunity and autoimmunity. Curr Opin Pharmacol, 2009. 9(4): p. 447–53. Saraiva, M. and A. O’Garra, The regulation of IL-10 production by immune cells. Nat Rev Immunol, 2010. 10(3): p. 170–81. Saraiva, M., et al., Interleukin-10 production by Th1 cells requires interleukin-12-induced STAT4 transcription factor and ERK MAP kinase activation by high antigen dose. Immunity, 2009. 31(2): p. 209–19. Schaljo, B., et al., Tristetraprolin is required for full anti-inflammatory response of murine macrophages to IL-10. J Immunol, 2009. 183(2): p. 1197–206. Schindler, C., D.E. Levy, and T. Decker, JAK-STAT signaling: from interferons to cytokines. J Biol Chem, 2007. 282(28): p. 20059–63. Sellon, R.K., et al., Resident enteric bacteria are necessary for development of spontaneous colitis and immune system activation in interleukin-10-deficient mice. Infect Immun, 1998. 66(11): p. 5224–31. Sharif, M.N., et al., IFN-alpha priming results in a gain of proinflammatory function by IL-10: implications for systemic lupus erythematosus pathogenesis. J Immunol, 2004. 172(10): p. 6476–81. Sharma, A., et al., Posttranscriptional regulation of interleukin-10 expression by hsa-miR-106a. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009. 106(14): p. 5761–6. Shen, Y., et al., Essential role of STAT3 in postnatal survival and growth revealed by mice lacking STAT3 serine 727 phosphorylation. Mol Cell Biol, 2004. 24(1): p. 407–19. Sica, A., et al., Autocrine production of IL-10 mediates defective IL-12 production and NF-kappa B activation in tumor-associated macrophages. J Immunol, 2000. 164(2): p. 762–7. Siewe, L., et  al., Interleukin-10 derived from macrophages and/or neutrophils regulates the inflammatory response to LPS but not the response to CpG DNA. Eur J Immunol, 2006. 36(12): p. 3248–55.

54

C.A. Stewart and G. Trinchieri

Silva, R.A., T.F. Pais, and R. Appelberg, Blocking the receptor for IL-10 improves antimycobacterial chemotherapy and vaccination. J Immunol, 2001. 167(3): p. 1535–41. Spencer, J.V., The cytomegalovirus homolog of interleukin-10 requires phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase activity for inhibition of cytokine synthesis in monocytes. J Virol, 2007. 81(4): p. 2083–6. Staples, K.J., et al., IL-10 induces IL-10 in primary human monocyte-derived macrophages via the transcription factor Stat3. J Immunol, 2007. 178(8): p. 4779–85. Stearns, M.E., et al., Interleukin-10 induced activating transcription factor 3 transcriptional suppression of matrix metalloproteinase-2 gene expression in human prostate CPTX-1532 Cells. Mol Cancer Res, 2004. 2(7): p. 403–16. Stumhofer, J.S., et al., Interleukins 27 and 6 induce STAT3-mediated T cell production of interleukin 10. Nat Immunol, 2007. 8(12): p. 1363–71. Sumi, T., et  al., STAT3 is dispensable for maintenance of self-renewal in nonhuman primate embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells, 2004. 22(5): p. 861–72. Sun, J., et al., Effector T cells control lung inflammation during acute influenza virus infection by producing IL-10. Nat Med, 2009. 15(3): p. 277–84. Takeda, K., et al., Targeted disruption of the mouse Stat3 gene leads to early embryonic lethality. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1997. 94(8): p. 3801–4. Takeda, K., et al., Enhanced Th1 activity and development of chronic enterocolitis in mice devoid of Stat3 in macrophages and neutrophils. Immunity, 1999. 10(1): p. 39–49. Tamassia, N., et al., Uncovering an IL-10-dependent NF-{kappa}B recruitment to the IL-1ra promoter that is impaired in STAT3 functionally defective patients. FASEB J, 2010. 24: p. 1365–75. Thompson, M.R., D. Xu, and B.R. Williams, ATF3 transcription factor and its emerging roles in immunity and cancer. J Mol Med, 2009. 87(11): p. 1053–60. Trinchieri, G., Interleukin-10 production by effector T cells: Th1 cells show self control. J Exp Med, 2007. 204(2): p. 239–43. Trumpfheller, C., et al., The microbial mimic poly IC induces durable and protective CD4+ T cell immunity together with a dendritic cell targeted vaccine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2008. 105(7): p. 2574–9. Usui, T., et al., T-bet regulates Th1 responses through essential effects on GATA-3 function rather than on IFNG gene acetylation and transcription. J Exp Med, 2006. 203(3): p. 755–66. Uze, G. and D. Monneron, IL-28 and IL-29: newcomers to the interferon family. Biochimie, 2007. 89(6–7): p. 729–34. Veldhoen, M., et al., Transforming growth factor-beta ‘reprograms’ the differentiation of T helper 2 cells and promotes an interleukin 9-producing subset. Nat Immunol, 2008. 9(12): p. 1341–6. Vicari, A.P. and G. Trinchieri, Interleukin-10 in viral diseases and cancer: exiting the labyrinth? Immunol Rev, 2004. 202: p. 223–36. Vicari, A.P., et  al., Reversal of tumor-induced dendritic cell paralysis by CpG immunosti­ mulatory oligonucleotide and anti-interleukin 10 receptor antibody. J Exp Med, 2002. 196(4): p. 541–9. Viswanathan, S.R. and G.Q. Daley, Lin28: A microRNA regulator with a macro role. Cell, 2010. 140(4): p. 445–9. Wang, T., et al., Regulation of the innate and adaptive immune responses by Stat-3 signaling in tumor cells. Nat Med, 2004. 10(1): p. 48–54. Weaver, C.T., et al., IL-17 family cytokines and the expanding diversity of effector T cell lineages. Annu Rev Immunol, 2007. 25: p. 821–52. Weaver, B.K., et al., ABIN-3: a molecular basis for species divergence in interleukin-10-induced anti-inflammatory actions. Mol Cell Biol, 2007. 27(13): p. 4603–16. Weber-Nordt, R.M., et al., Stat3 recruitment by two distinct ligand-induced, tyrosine-phosphorylated docking sites in the interleukin-10 receptor intracellular domain. J Biol Chem, 1996. 271(44): p. 27954–61. Wegrzyn, J., et  al., Function of mitochondrial Stat3 in cellular respiration. Science, 2009. 323(5915): p. 793–7. Weiner, H.L., Induction and mechanism of action of transforming growth factor-beta-secreting Th3 regulatory cells. Immunol Rev, 2001. 182: p. 207–14.

Turning on and off the Immunological Switch

55

Wildin, R.S., et  al., X-linked neonatal diabetes mellitus, enteropathy and endocrinopathy syndrome is the human equivalent of mouse scurfy. Nat Genet, 2001. 27(1): p. 18–20. Williams, L.M., et al., Interleukin-10 suppression of myeloid cell activation – a continuing puzzle. Immunology, 2004. 113(3): p. 281–92. Williams, L.M., et  al., Expression of constitutively active STAT3 can replicate the cytokinesuppressive activity of interleukin-10 in human primary macrophages. J Biol Chem, 2007. 282(10): p. 6965–75. Wohlfert, E. and Y. Belkaid, Plasticity of T reg at infected sites. Mucosal Immunol, 2010. 3(3): p. 213–5. Wolk, K., et  al., IL-22 increases the innate immunity of tissues. Immunity, 2004. 21(2): p. 241–54. Wynn, T.A., IL-13 effector functions. Annu Rev Immunol, 2003. 21: p. 425–56. Xu, Q., et  al., Targeting Stat3 blocks both HIF-1 and VEGF expression induced by multiple oncogenic growth signaling pathways. Oncogene, 2005. 24(36): p. 5552–60. Yamamoto, M. and K. Takeda, Role of nuclear IkappaB proteins in the regulation of host immune responses. J Infect Chemother, 2008. 14(4): p. 265–9. Yang, J., et  al., Unphosphorylated STAT3 accumulates in response to IL-6 and activates transcription by binding to NFkappaB. Genes Dev, 2007. 21(11): p. 1396–408. Yasukawa, H., et  al., IL-6 induces an anti-inflammatory response in the absence of SOCS3 in macrophages. Nat Immunol, 2003. 4(6): p. 551–6. Yen, H.R., et al., Tc17 CD8 T cells: functional plasticity and subset diversity. J Immunol, 2009. 183(11): p. 7161–8. Yoshimura, A., T. Naka, and M. Kubo, SOCS proteins, cytokine signalling and immune regulation. Nat Rev Immunol, 2007. 7(6): p. 454–65. Yu, H. and R. Jove, The STATs of cancer – new molecular targets come of age. Nat Rev Cancer, 2004. 4(2): p. 97–105. Yu, C.L., et al., Enhanced DNA-binding activity of a Stat3-related protein in cells transformed by the Src oncoprotein. Science, 1995. 269(5220): p. 81–3. Yu, H., D. Pardoll, and R. Jove, STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3. Nat Rev Cancer, 2009. 9(11): p. 798–809. Zeng, B., et al., Tumor-induced suppressor of cytokine signaling 3 inhibits toll-like receptor 3 signaling in dendritic cells via binding to tyrosine kinase 2. Cancer Res, 2008. 68(13): p. 5397–404. Zhang, X., J.P. Edwards, and D.M. Mosser, Dynamic and transient remodeling of the macrophage IL-10 promoter during transcription. J Immunol, 2006. 177(2): p. 1282–8. Zhang, S.Y., et al., Inborn errors of interferon (IFN)-mediated immunity in humans: insights into the respective roles of IFN-alpha/beta, IFN-gamma, and IFN-lambda in host defense. Immunol Rev, 2008. 226: p. 29–40. Zhu, J., H. Yamane, and W.E. Paul, Differentiation of effector CD4 T cell populations (*). Annu Rev Immunol, 2010. 28: p. 445–89. Zou, W., Immunosuppressive networks in the tumour environment and their therapeutic relevance. Nat Rev Cancer, 2005. 5(4): p. 263–74.

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells Douglas M. Noonan, Agostina Ventura, Antonino Bruno, Arianna Pagani, and Adriana Albini

Keywords  Angiogenesis • Endothelial cells • Innate immunity • Specific immunity

Introduction Angiogenesis is a frequent hallmark of inflammation; in acute inflammation angiogenesis occurs to revascularize damaged tissues, with subsequent vascular pruning and maturation, which results in restoration of an adequate blood supply to the tissue involved. Angiogenesis is also a characteristic of chronic inflammation, and may be one of the links between inflammation and cancer (Colotta et al. 2009; Kobayashi and Lin 2009). In addition to excessively proliferating tumor cells, tumors are tissues that contain host components; these “nontransformed” components include stromal cells, an extensive, although poorly organized, vascular network and a characteristic inflammatory infiltrate. In the absence of host support, a tumor cannot grow to clinically relevant dimensions. Experimental studies have shown that tumors without a vasculature are limited to only a few cubic millimeter in dimension, as formation of a new blood supply is required to overcome physical limitations for diffusion of nutrients and oxygen, concepts born out in clinical application (Ferrara and Kerbel 2005; Folkman 2006; Hanahan and Folkman 1996; Hanahan and Weinberg 2000; Kerbel and Folkman 2002). A critical step in tumor progression is acquisition of the capacity to form a new vasculature, a process referred to as the angiogenic switch (Hanahan and Folkman 1996; Hanahan and Weinberg 2000). In the absence of an angiogenic switch, nascent tumors remain as small, clinically indolent hyperplastic foci, a condition often noted in autopsies of several tissues (Bergers and Benjamin 2003). The importance of the angiogenic

D.M. Noonan  (*) Department of Experimental Medicine, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Varese, Italy e-mail: [email protected]

F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_5, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

57

58

D.M. Noonan et al.

switch, and particularly the concept that this could be prevented clinically, has led to extensive examination of what triggers it. One obvious source of angiogenic factors is the tumor cells themselves. Tumor cells are known to produce a wide range of pro-angiogenic substances, the most crucial is vascular endothelial growth factor: VEGF (Ferrara and Kerbel 2005). VEGF is a prototypic angiogenic factor involved in physiological angiogenesis, as hypoxia induces VEGF production largely through the hypoxia sensing factor HIF1a (Pouyssegur et al. 2006). While tumors may be hypoxic, this does not seem to be the only factor leading to VEGF over-expression, as oncogene activation and metabolic mechanisms appear to also induce tumor VEGF production even in normoxia (Kroemer and Pouyssegur 2008). Thus one mechanism for “flipping” on the angiogenic switch is oncogenesis itself. However, in addition to the role of tumor cells themselves, it is increasingly recognized that host cells also represent key sources of angiogenic agents and are likely prominent modulators of the angiogenic switch (Albini et  al. 2005; Brigati et  al. 2002; Coussens and Werb 2002; De Visser et al. 2006; Noonan et al. 2008; Orimo and Weinberg 2006). Particularly conspicuous is the role of tumor inflammation and immune cells in driving and orchestrating tumor angiogenesis (Albini et al. 2005; Brigati et al. 2002; Coussens and Werb 2002; De Visser et al. 2006; Mantovani et al. 2002; Noonan et al. 2008; Sica and Bronte 2007). Immune cells are also able to produce VEGF, the role of this is controversial, as ablation of VEGF specifically in all myeloid cells a murine model actually resulted in accelerated tumor growth (Stockmann et  al. 2008), apparently due to a more organized and functional vascular network. VEGF from either myeloid or tumor compartments alone could support tumor angiogenesis and growth, loss of both led to a drastic reduction in angiogenesis, while expression in both compartments produced the typical poorly functional tumor vasculature (Stockmann et al. 2008). The observation that most tumors contain numerous inflammatory leukocytes led to the concept of a functional link between chronic inflammation and cancer (Sica and Bronte 2007). Tumor-associated inflammation is largely sustained by a constant influx of myelomonocytic cells that support the tissue remodeling and angiogenesis needed for tumor growth and progression (Sica and Bronte 2007). Clinical studies have provided evidence for a clear association between an increased number/density of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) and poor prognosis in a variety of murine and human malignancies (Gordon 2003; Martinez et al. 2006; Sica and Bronte 2007). Thus many tumors require a constant influx of inflammatory cells to support the angiogenesis and stromal remodeling needed for their growth (Sica and Bronte 2007). This is mediated by tumorderived factors, which cause enhanced myelopoiesis and the accumulation and functional differentiation of myelomonocytic cells at the tumor site. In addition to innate immune cells, cells of the specific immune system also appear to influence the angiogenic switch (Brigati et al. 2002; De Visser et al. 2006; Noonan et al. 2008). Here we review the roles these diverse cell types may have flipping the angiogenic switch on, and potential approaches towards flipping off the angiogenic switch.

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

59

Innate Immunity Macrophages and the Macrophage Polarization Paradigm Macrophage heterogeneity reflects the plasticity of these cells in response to microenvironmental signals, such as cytokines and microbial products, which in turn produces diverse functional programs and influences polarization of the specific immune system. Macrophages have a key role in promoting the orientation of the adaptive immune response typically towards either a Th1 or Th2 response, as well as by expressing specialized and polarized effector functions themselves (Goerdt and Orfanos 1999; Gordon 2003; Mantovani et al. 2002; Sica and Bronte 2007). Numerous data indicate that macrophages can be phenotypically polarized by the microenvironment to mount specific functional programs: either the classical (or M1) activation to potentially potent effector cells able, for example, to kill tumor cells, or the alternative M2 activation that is closely related to the tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) profile. M1 macrophages are generally characterized by an IL-12high, IL-23high, IL-10low phenotype, with obvious consequences in driving a Th1 response. These M1 cells also can produce copious amounts of reactive oxygen and nitrogen intermediates (Goerdt and Orfanos 1999; Gordon 2003; Mantovani et al. 2002; Sica and Bronte 2007). The M1 macrophages, a terminology mirroring the Th1 nomenclature, are part of the afferent and efferent limbs of Th1 responses; and help mediate resistance against intracellular parasites and tumors. On the other extreme we have alternatively activated, or “M2,” macrophages induced by cytokines such as IL-4 and IL-13. The M2-polarized functions are generally oriented to tissue remodeling and repair, immunosuppression and angiogenesis (Mantovani et  al. 2008). M2 is a generic terminology for various forms of macrophage activation other than the classic M1 activation profile, and includes cells exposed IL-4 or IL-13, immune complexes, IL-10, and glucocorticoid hormones. M2 macrophages generally share an IL-12low, IL-23low, IL-10high phenotype. Substantial data show that an M2 polarized inflammation is a key feature of the tumor microenvironment (Mantovani et al. 2002; Sica and Bronte 2007), influencing angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis, as well as subversion of adaptive immunity. The diverse polarized macrophages differ in terms of receptor expression, cytokine production profiles, chemokine repertoires and effector function. Induction of an M2 phenotype appears to be due to STAT3 activation and/or inhibition of STAT1 phosphorylation (Hu et  al. 2003; Ito et  al. 1999; Mantovani et  al. 2002; Riley et al. 1999), and down-regulation of p65 containing NF-kB along with generation of p50 NF-kB homodimers (Porta et al. 2009). NF-kB is a key axis in tumor angiogenesis, in endothelial cells induction of the angiogenic program involves NF-kB (Karin 2006), and numerous angiogenesis inhibitors block NF-kB activation (see Albini et al. (2007) for review). In addition, the cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiotherapy widely used in treatment of cancer patients also induces NF-kB both in normal and cancer cells (Nakanishi and Toi 2005), with the result of inducing inflammation, angiogenesis and reconstruction of the tumor. Simultaneous use of NSAIDs or cortisone could enhance the efficacy of these treatments.

60

D.M. Noonan et al.

Tumor Associated Macrophages (TAMs) Tumor inflammation was historically considered to be part of an abortive rejection process, now the role of tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), has undergone extensive re-evaluation (Fig.  1), TAMs are now considered to express properties that facilitate tumor growth and progression by stimulating tumor-cell proliferation, angiogenesis and favoring invasion and metastasis (Balkwill and Mantovani 2001; Lewis and Murdoch 2005; Mantovani et  al. 2002; Pollard 2004). TAMs derived from circulating monocytic precursors are directed into the tumor by chemokines, largely through hypoxia-dependent mechanisms involving VEGF and the CXCL12/ CXCR4 axis (Mantovani et  al. 2002; Saccani et  al. 2006; Schioppa et  al. 2003).

Tumor “Macro” environment VEGF CXCL12 GM-CSF… B cells

ICs “eDC” Tc, Th1

Treg, Th2 cells

CECs, CEPs…

TEM MDSC

M0 CFUProMonocyte Macrophage monocytic monocyte

ProCFUgranulocyte myelocyte

Dendritic cells

Eosinophilic cells

Neutrophil

Angioprevention

Hematopoietic pluripotent stem cell

mDC

Monocytic MDSC

T cells

Neutrophilic MDSC

Mast cells

iDC M2 TAM

M1 Macrophage

N2 Neutrophil

N1 Neutrophil

“dNK” cells

Tumor Microenvironment Mast cells NK cells

TGFβ, Chemotherapy Radiotherapy…

CD16+ NK cells

Antiangiogenic immunotherapy

Fig. 1  Tumors have a major influence on the immune system, and as a result the immune system becomes a driving force in tumor angiogenesis. Systemic “macroenvironment” effects include mobilization of endothelial precursors (circulating endothelial precursors (CEPs) and endothelial cells (CECs)) that participate in tumor vessel production by vasculogenesis; generation of myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), T cell skewing and suppressive Treg generation, B cell production of antibodies that form immune complexes (ICs). Local effects include polarization towards M2 Tumor infiltrating macrophages (TAMs), Tie2 expressing macrophages (TEMs), various forms of MDSCs, N2 pro-angiogenic neutrophils, possibly NK cells with potential activities similar to decidual NK cells (dNK), mast cells and immature dendritic cells (iDC) can contribute to angiogenesis as can dendritic transdifferentiation to endothelial cells (eDC). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy may also have similar local effects by activating NF-kB. Therapeutic approaches include angioprevention, inhibiting many activation processes before they start, or forcing an immune “reset” towards a Th1/M1/N1 polarization, eventually restoring a cytotoxic NK and T cell state

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

61

Analyses of TAMs indicate that these express an M2-associated phenotype, with a similar transcriptome profile oriented toward tissue remodeling and repair, immuno-suppression and angiogenesis (Biswas et al. 2006; Mantovani et al. 2002; Murdoch et al. 2008). TAMs recruited into tumors accumulate in hypoxic areas; they are attracted and/or immobilized into avascular (Leek et al. 1996) and necrotic (Leek et al. 1999) areas of hypoxia, apparently by both specific factors produced by hypoxic tumor cells and by a direct immobilizing effect of hypoxia on macrophages (O’Sullivan and Lewis 1994). Higher numbers of TAMs extravasate from the bloodstream into tumors containing high levels of necrosis as compared to those with little or no necrosis (Harmey et  al. 1998). Recent data show that TAMs are stimulated by hypoxia in such sites to cooperate with tumor cells to promote revascularization (Murdoch et al. 2008; Schioppa et al. 2003). The level of hypoxia present in ischemic areas of tumors stimulates the release of VEGF from human macrophages in  vitro (Lewis et  al. 1999). Moreover, TAMs upregulate VEGF in avascular and necrotic tumor areas (Lewis et al. 1999). TAMs respond to hypoxia through upregulation of transcriptional factors including HIFs 1 and 2 that activate a series of glycolytic, angiogenic, and proinvasive genes. TAMs are known to be an important source of proangiogenic factors such as VEGF (Leek et  al. 2000), TNFa (Pusztai et  al. 1994), IL-8 (Fujimoto et al. 2000), and CXCL12 (Schioppa et al. 2003). Angiogenesis is also facilitated by TAM-derived proteases released in tumors. These include the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs 1, 2, 3, 9, and 12) (Deryugina and Quigley 2010; Egeblad and Werb 2002), urokinase plasminogen activator and its receptor (Pyke et al. 1993), and plasmin. These enzymes release various proangiogenic molecules bound to heparan sulfate on proteoglycans, as well as fragments of fibrin and collagen. Their combined action results in the degradation of the basement membrane and other ECM components, destabilization of the local vasculature and promotion of the migration and proliferation of endothelial cells. This proteolytic activity also contributes to the migration and extravasation of tumor cells during the metastatic process (Deryugina and Quigley 2010; Egeblad and Werb 2002). A series of studies have found that hypoxia itself promotes an invasive program that favors metastatic dissemination, and that VEGF based angiogenesis inhibition can result in a greater incidence in metastasis (reviewed in Schmidt (2009)).

Tie2 Expressing Macrophages A TAM subset that appears to have a particularly intriguing role in angiogenesis are the Tie2 expressing macrophages, or TEMs (De Palma et al. 2007; De Palma and Naldini 2009). These cells are closely associated with the forming vasculature, and are found outside the endothelial cells (Fig.  1). They do not appear, however, to incorporate into the vasculature as can other precursors. Specific deletion of this TAM subset results in inhibition of angiogenesis and repression of tumor growth, indicating that the TEMs are key targets for anti-angiogenic

62

D.M. Noonan et al.

therapy (De Palma et al. 2007; De Palma and Naldini 2009; Pulaski et al. 2009). Further, these cells also can be used as “Trojan horses” to vehicle anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor therapies (De Palma and Naldini 2009).

Myeloid Derived Suppressor Cells (MDSCS) Myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) represent a range of poorly differentiated myeloid precursor that shares markers for both monocyte and granulocytes (Serafini et al. 2006). These cells were originally identified in murine models due to their potent immuno-suppressive activity through a variety of mechanisms, including production of TGFb, high level expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase (NOS2) and arginase (Arg1) which deplete arginine within the tumor microenvironment, as well as mechanims that deplete of cystine and cysteine (Srivatsa et al. 2010), all of which contribute to T cell suppression and apoptosis (Bronte and Zanovello 2005; Kusmartsev and Gabrilovich 2006). There are diverse subsets of murine MDSCs with more monocytic or granulocytic phenotypes (Fig.  1), which apparently have diverse immuno-­suppressive potentials (Bronte 2009; De Santo et al. 2005; Dolcetti et al. 2010). MDSCs are also powerful promoters of angiogenesis as well, by MMP production (Yang et al. 2004) as well as other mechanisms such as VEGF secretion (Sica and Bronte 2007). Stat3 activation in myeloid cells has been linked to production of angiogenic factors such as bFGF and VEGF (Kujawski et al. 2008) and angiogenesis. MDSC tumor infiltrates have been reported to be responsible for the resistance of tumors to anti-angiogenic therapy (Shojaei et al. 2007a, 2009), largely via production of diverse angiogenic factors such as Bv8 (Shojaei et al. 2007b) review: (Shojaei and Ferrara 2008). Myeloid precursors have also been found to be elevated in human cancers (Almand et  al. 2001; Diaz-Montero et  al. 2009; Ostrand-Rosenberg and Sinha 2009; Rodriguez et  al. 2009) and to correlate with disease status (Diaz-Montero et al. 2009) where again represent a variety of myeloid cells blocked at different stages of maturation along the monocytic or granulocytic pathways (OstrandRosenberg and Sinha 2009). The role of human MDSCs in tumor angiogenesis is not fully understood. The question remains as to how to target these cells, approaches to this have largely focused on targeting the immune-suppressive activity, including use of NO donors such as Nitroaspirin (De Santo et al. 2005; Ugel et al. 2009), interfering with recruitment and subsequent angiogenesis by blocking the CSF-1 receptor (Priceman et al. 2010).

Granulocytes Neutrophils are the most abundant circulating leukocyte in humans and the primary granulocytes involved in angiogenesis. These cells play a key role in responses diverse infective agents, based mostly on pattern recognition mechanisms. They are

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

63

quickly and massively recruited into areas producing danger signals, they store in granules several soluble mediators that can be rapidly secreted in both physiological and pathological conditions, as well as respiratory burst production of reactive oxygen species (O2−, H2O2, HOCl). These factors can produce tissue destruction and lysis, which result in significant anti-tumor activity (Di Carlo et  al. 2001). Neutrophils are also sources for several cytokines (including TNFa, IL-1b, IL-1Ra, IL-12 and VEGF), and chemokines (including CXCL1, CXCL-8, CXCL9, CXCL10, CCL3, and CCL4) (Scapini et al. 2000). What neutrophils lack in terms of the levels produced for some secreted products is usually more than made up for by the abundance of these cells in many pathological conditions. These products can influence the immune response and polarization as well as promote tissue reconstruction and angiogenesis. We noted that neutrophils appeared to lead the invasion of vessel sprouts into a matrigel sponge containing tat (Benelli et  al. 2000). The use of corneal pocket assays indicated that angiogenesis induced by IL-8 (CXCL8), a chemokine highly active on neutrophils and a known angiogenic factor acted, through CXCR2 receptors expressed on endothelial cells (Addison et  al. 2000). However, not all endothelial cells express CXCR2 and subsequent studies demonstrated that neutrophils were required for an angiogenic response to CXCL8 and other chemokines active on neutrophils in vivo (Benelli et al. 2002). The link between CXCL8 production and subsequent tumor-associated neutrophil (TAN) recruitment leading to release of angiogenic factors by these cells that induce angiogenesis has been confirmed in tumor models, where this cascade was shown to be critical in linking ras oncogene expression to tumor growth and angiogenesis (Sparmann and BarSagi 2004). TANs have also been shown to be a key source of MMP9, a protease required for the angiogenic switch and tumor growth, in skin carcinogenesis and the Rip-Tag pancreatic cancer models (Coussens et al. 2000; Nozawa et al. 2006). Neutrophils are able to produce a broad range of angiogenic factors (Schruefer et  al. 2005, 2006). The inflammation-associated angiogenic response during wound healing was significantly delayed in animals harboring genetic defects that compromise neutrophil recruitment, in particular deletion of CXCR2 (Devalaraja et al. 2000) or CD18 (Schruefer et al. 2006). Similarly, a dual src kinase knock-out that compromised neutrophil function also blocked the ability to induce angiogenesis in response to CXCL1 (Scapini et al. 2004). In this case the neutrophils were recruited into the site, but were unable to release VEGF, a factor critical for induction of the angiogenic response. Intriguingly, in a major site of physiological angiogenesis in adults, the endometrium, neutrophils closely associate with the growing vessels and appear to be the primary source of VEGF for these vessels (Gargett et al. 2001; Heryanto et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2006; Na et al. 2006), thus intimately nurture angiogenesis in this organ. The divergent roles for neutrophils, on one hand able to produce anti-tumor tissue destruction, on the other to supply angiogenic factors and tissue regeneration signals, lead to the speculation that several subsets of neutrophils may exist (Fig. 1), in particular pro- and anti-angiogenic subsets (Noonan et al. 2008). This speculation based on the observations of multiple neutrophil subsets previously reported

64

D.M. Noonan et al.

(Tsuda et al. 2004), as well as the role of neutrophils in pro- and anti-tumor effects on PPARa knock-out models (Kaipainen et al. 2007). Tumors injected into PPARa knock-out mice remained in an essentially dormant state. This was associated with notable neutrophil recruitment and production of the anti-angiogenic matrix molecule thrombospondin (Kaipainen et al. 2007). While neutrophil depletion in wildtype mice slowed tumor growth, consistent with a pro-angiogenic activity and previous observations (Nozawa et al. 2006; Pekarek et al. 1995), neutrophil depletion in the PPARa knock-out mice permitted angiogenesis and tumor growth, indicating an anti-tumor phenotype dictated by the loss of PPARa (Kaipainen et  al. 2007). Additional support for the existence of multiple neutrophil subsets with either pro- or anti-tumor activity comes from analyses of the effects of TGFb blockades. TGFb is an immunosupressive cytokine that itself has a dichotomous activity in cancer; inhibitory at early stages, TGFb is frequently found in the tumor microenvironment at later stages where it enhances tumor progression and creates immuno-suppression (Bierie and Moses 2006). Blockage of TGFb in diverse tumor models can lead to enhanced CD8+ T cell activity and tumor repression (Ge et al. 2006; Nam et al. 2008; Suzuki et al. 2007). Under a TGFb blockade, there is also an accumulation of neutrophils within the tumor, associated with direct neutrophil killing of tumor cells as well as enhanced CD8+ T cell activation (Fridlender et al. 2009). Depletion of neutrophils under the TGFb blockade impaired CD8+ T cell activation and enhanced tumor growth, while in control animals TAN depletion resulted in slower growth and increased CD8+ activation (Fridlender et al. 2009), similar to the observations with PPARa knock-out mice. The authors suggested the existence of two different neutrophil subsets: pro-tumor neutrophils in control animals linked to the presence of TGFb, termed “N2” neutrophils in concordance with the M2/Th2 paradigm, and anti-tumor neutrophils that were recruited into tumors when TGFb was rendered inactive, concordantly termed “N1” neutrophils (Fig. 1). These findings were similar in two different tumor types (NSCLC and mesothelioma) and in three different mice strains, suggesting that the polarization of neutrophils may be a general feature of tumor microenvironment (Fridlender et  al. 2009). The concept of N1–N2 polarization of TAN was supported by a limited transcription analysis with similarities to corresponding macrophage populations, based on eight key genes. The TGFb blockade resulted in significantly lower levels of arginase, CCL2, CCL3 and CCL5, and higher levels of ICAM1 and TNFa (Fridlender et al. 2009). The N2 cells also appeared to have enhanced expression of VEGF, which together with enhanced TNFa could promote vascularization, however the potential role in angiogenesis of these cells was not investigated.

Mast Cells Mast cells were initially suggested to be involved in vascularization during rheumatoid arthritis (Maruotti et al. 2007; Ribatti et al. 1988), and appear to play a key role in angiogenesis in allergic reactions as well (Crivellato et al. 2009). These cells are

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

65

intimately involved in vascularization of hematoligic malignancies, (Ribatti et al. 2009), where they also appear to be able to integrate into the vessel wall by vascular mimicry (Nico et al. 2008). Mast cells play a significant role in angiogenesis in at diverse solid tumor types (Crivellato et al. 2008; Murdoch et al. 2008; Ribatti et al. 2001). In tumors, mast cells contribute to the angiogenic switch by production of diverse angiogenesis-associated cytokines and chemokines (Murdoch et al. 2008; Ribatti et  al. 2004). Further, mast cell derived proteases promote premalignant angiogenesis (Coussens et al. 1999; Ranieri et al. 2009; Soucek et al. 2007), and are becoming a target for anti-angiogenic therapies (Galinsky and Nechushtan 2008; Liu et al. 2009).

Dendritic Cells Dendritic cells (DCs) constitute a heterogeneous population of antigen presenting cells found in virtually every tissue, which through their antigen presentation and cytokine secretion activity link innate and adaptive immunity (Lanzavecchia and Sallusto 2001; Steinman and Banchereau 2007). DC recruitment into tumors has been documented in several studies (Balkwill 2004; Sozzani et al. 2001; Ueno et al. 2007; Vicari et  al. 2004), although their clinical relevance is a matter of debate. Within the tumor microenvironment, DCs generally show an immature phenotype characterized by the low costimulatory molecule expression and low IL-12 production (Vermi et  al. 2003; Vicari et  al. 2004), apparently due to cytokines such as IL-10, IL-6, TGFb, VEGF and M-CSF that block differentiation and maturation (Ratta et al. 2002; Steinman and Banchereau 2007). Tumor associated DCs maintain tolerance to tumor antigens, promote tumor progression and dissemination (Mantovani et al. 2002) as well as angiogenesis and tumor growth (Sozzani et al. 2007) (Fig. 1).

DCs and Angiogenesis DCs express a wide array of pro- and anti-angiogenic mediators that might have a significant role in those pathophysiological settings characterized by DC activation and angiogenesis, including inflammation, would healing, atherosclerosis and tumor growth (Sozzani et  al. 2007). The pro- and anti-angiogenic mediators released by DCs belong to distinct families and can modulate neovascularization by different mechanisms of action (Mantovani 2004; Sozzani 2005). 1. DCs release classical angiogenic growth factors that act on the endothelium by engaging the corresponding signaling receptors on cell surface. Conventional DCs express VEGF-A, FGF2 and ET-1 (Guruli et al. 2004; Riboldi et al. 2005). Alternatively activated DCs can secrete high amounts of VEGF-A and low levels of FGF2 (Bourbie-Vaudaine et al. 2006; Piqueras et al. 2006).

66

D.M. Noonan et al.

2. DCs can release cytokines devoid of a direct pro-angiogenic activity but endowed with the capacity to increase the responsiveness of endothelial cells to classic angiogenic growth factors or upregulate the production of angiogenic growth factors by other cell types. These activities include upregulation of TNFa (Caux et  al. 1994; de Graaf et  al. 1996; Verhasselt et  al. 1997), Osteopontin (OPN), (Konno et al. 2006) triggering TEM recruitment and activation (Naldini et  al. 2006), IL-6 and TGFb, (Verhasselt et  al. 1997), and the angiogenic chemokines CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL3, CXCL5, CXCL8 and CCL2 (Means et  al. 2003; Scimone et  al. 2005; Vermi et  al. 2006). Activated plasmacytoid DCs can express the pro-angiogenic molecules CXCL8 and TNFa (Curiel et al. 2004; Penna et al. 2002; Piqueras et al. 2006). 3. DCs can transdifferentiate into endothelial cells (Coukos et al. 2005), similar to that suggested for diverse hematopoietic precursors, in particular circulating endothelial precursors (CEPs) and endothelial cells (CECs) (Dome et  al. 2009). 4. In contrast, DCs can release cytokines that repress angiogenesis such as IL-12 (Albini et al. 2009; Noonan et al. 2008; Trinchieri 2003), IFNg (Trinchieri 2003) and the angiostatic chemokines CXCL9, CXCL10 and CCL21 (Piqueras et al. 2006). Plasmacytoid DCs are a source of IFNa (Asselin-Paturel and Trinchieri 2005) an anti-angiogenic cytokine (Albini et  al. 2000; Brassard et  al. 2002; Indraccolo et al. 2002). 5. DCs produce anti-angiogenic extracellular matrix (ECM) components including thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) (Doyen et al. 2003; Rusnati and Presta 2006) and long-pentraxin-3 (PTX3) (Doni et  al. 2003, 2006; Garlanda et  al. 2005).

NK Cells Multiple human NK cells subsets have been found, the major subset of CD56dimCD16+ NK cells constitutes about 90–95% of peripheral blood NK cells, readily kill target cells upon proper recognition, and secrete low cytokine levels (Cooper et al. 2001). In contrast, the CD56brightCD16− NK cells (about 5–10% of peripheral blood NK cells) are poorly cytotoxic but produce large amounts of cytokines, including IFNg, TNFa, and GM-CSF. Only CD56bright NK cells express secondary lymphoid organ homing markers such as CCR7, CD62L, and CXCR3, resulting in an enrichment of this subset in lymphoid organs and sites of inflammation (Campbell et  al. 2001; Fehniger et  al. 2003; Ferlazzo et  al. 2004b). The question of whether or not the development of the human subsets is interconnected has been under investigation for some time. Recently, a number of studies suggested that CD56brightCD16− NK cells are able to differentiate into CD56dimCD16+ NK cells upon prolonged activation (Chan et al. 2007; Romagnani et al. 2007), while the reverse may be possible in the presence of TGFb (Keskin et al. 2007).

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

67

NK Localization NK subset distribution differs between distinct anatomical sites such as secondary lymphoid organs, lung, liver, and skin, suggesting specialization (Ferlazzo and Munz 2004; Ferlazzo et al. 2004a; Gregoire et al. 2007; Trinchieri 1989). A particular CD56superbrightCD16− NK cell subset is found in the deciduas during implanatation (Hanna et al. 2006; Hanna and Mandelboim 2007). Decidual or dNK cells are less cytotoxic (Kopcow et  al. 2005), they guide decidual angiogenesis by producing angiogenic factors (Hanna et  al. 2006) as well as promote decidual cellularity (Ashkar et al. 2000). The CD56brightCD16− NKcell subset is recruited into tumors (Carrega et al. 2008), and we have speculated that tumor infiltrating NK cells may be switched to an angiogenic phenotype (Fig. 1) similar to dNK cells (Noonan et al. 2008). However, NK cells infiltration appears to correlate with a better prognosis in gastric (Ishigami et al. 2000), colorectal (Coca et al. 1997), and lung carcinomas (Takeo et al. 1986; Villegas et al. 2002).

Specific Immunity Much of this volume will be dedicated to specific immunity, here we rapidly focus on the role T and B cells may play in tumor angiogenesis. Early studies indicated that an efficacious CD8+ cytotoxic T cell response against tumors required induction of an IFNg mediated angiogenesis blockade (Qin et al. 2003). However, an altered activation of CD4+ T cells can result in compromised macrophage effector function and enhanced angiogenesis and tumor growth in breast cancer models (DeNardo et al. 2009). The end result is a conditioning of a Th2 and Treg cell response (Fig. 1) that results in generation of a pro-tumor environment (Ruffell et al. 2010). In contrast, in a skin cancer model with induction of chronic inflammation, B cells were found to be necessary for tumor development (de Visser et al. 2005). The involvement of B cells was associated with deposition of immune complexes within the sites of early tumorigenesis (Fig.  1). Since most cells of the immune system have Fc receptors that modulate function, and in particular immune ­complexes play a role in generating M2b macrophages (Martinez et al. 2008), immune complexes could be expected to enhance angiogenesis (Fig.  1). However, if immune complexes are indeed angiogenic, then experimental use of function blocking antibodies to discern the role of specific components in angiogenesis needs to be taken with caution.

Conclusions Tumors induce both local microenvironmental conditioning as well as systemic (Macro-environmental) effects. Local effects include hypoxia, glycolysis and low extracellular pH, necrotic debris signals, TGFb and other cytokines, to skew most

68

D.M. Noonan et al.

immune cells into a chronic inflammation, would-healing, pro-tumor phenotype flipping on the angiogenic switch. Systemic effects often target the bone marrow through elevated cytokine and chemokines such as VEGF, CXCL12 and others that mobilized precursor (including endothelial) and immature cells (such as MDSCs) which also exert immuno-suppressive and pro-angiogenic effects when homing to the tumor. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy may well do their share in promoting a chronic inflammatory and pro-angiogenic state. The final question is how to flip off the inflammation associated angiogenic switch. One approach is to jam the switch before it can be turned on, increasing the threshold; this is the concept behind angioprevention (Tosetti et  al. 2002). Another is use of NF-kB blocking agents (Albini et al. 2007; Baud and Karin 2009; Karin 2006; Nakanishi and Toi 2005), ideally targeting p50 homodimer formation (Porta et al. 2009), or the use of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) agonists (Damiano et  al. 2007; Makkouk and Abdelnoor 2009; Smits et  al. 2008) to force Th1/M1/N1 skewing, essentially taking the Coley toxin approach into modern medicine. Acknowledgements  These studies were supported by grants from the AIRC (Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro), the Istituto Superiore della Sanità Alleanza contro il Cancro foundation, the Ministero della Sanità Progetto Finalizzato, the MIUR Progetto Finalizzato and FIRB, the Università degli studi dell’Insubria and the Compagnia di San Paolo. AV is the recipient of a FIRB (Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro) fellowship, AB and AP are in the Molecular and Cellular Biology PhD program of the University of Insubria.

References Addison CL, Daniel TO, Burdick MD, et al. (2000). The CXC chemokine receptor 2, CXCR2, is the putative receptor for ELR+ CXC chemokine-induced angiogenic activity. J Immunol 165: 5269–5277. Albini A, Marchisone C, Del Grosso F, et  al. (2000). Inhibition of angiogenesis and vascular tumor growth by interferon-producing cells: A gene therapy approach. Am J Pathol 156: 1381–1393. Albini A, Tosetti F, Benelli R, et al. (2005). Tumor inflammatory angiogenesis and its chemoprevention. Cancer Res 65: 10637–10641. Albini A, Noonan DM, and Ferrari N (2007). Molecular pathways for cancer angioprevention. Clin Cancer Res 13: 4320–4325. Albini A, Brigati C, Ventura A, et al. (2009). Angiostatin anti-angiogenesis requires iL-12: The innate immune system as a key target. J Transl Med 7: 5. Almand B, Clark JI, Nikitina E, et al. (2001). Increased production of immature myeloid cells in cancer patients: A mechanism of immunosuppression in cancer. J Immunol 166: 678–689. Ashkar AA, Di Santo JP, and Croy BA (2000). Interferon gamma contributes to initiation of uterine vascular modification, decidual integrity, and uterine natural killer cell maturation during normal murine pregnancy. J Exp Med 192: 259–270. Asselin-Paturel C and Trinchieri G (2005). Production of type I interferons: Plasmacytoid dendritic cells and beyond. J Exp Med 202: 461–465. Balkwill F (2004). Cancer and the chemokine network. Nat Rev Cancer 4: 540–550. Balkwill F and Mantovani A (2001). Inflammation and cancer: Back to virchow? Lancet 357: 539–545.

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

69

Baud V and Karin M (2009). Is NF-kappaB a good target for cancer therapy? Hopes and pitfalls. Nat Rev 8: 33–40. Benelli R, Barbero A, Ferrini S, et  al. (2000). Human immunodeficiency virus transactivator protein (tat) stimulates chemotaxis, calcium mobilization, and activation of human polymorphonuclear leukocytes: Implications for tat-mediated pathogenesis. J Infect Dis 182: 1643–1651. Benelli R, Morini M, Carrozzino F, et al. (2002). Neutrophils as a key cellular target for angiostatin: Implications for regulation of angiogenesis and inflammation. Faseb J 16: 267–269. Bergers G and Benjamin LE (2003). Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer 3: 401–410. Bierie B and Moses HL (2006). Tumour microenvironment: TGFbeta: The molecular jekyll and hyde of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 6: 506–520. Biswas SK, Gangi L, Paul S, et al. (2006). A distinct and unique transcriptional program expressed by tumor-associated macrophages (defective NF-kappaB and enhanced IRF-3/STAT1 activation). Blood 107: 2112–2122. Bourbie-Vaudaine S, Blanchard N, Hivroz C, et al. (2006). Dendritic cells can turn cd4+ t lymphocytes into vascular endothelial growth factor-carrying cells by intercellular neuropilin-1 transfer. J Immunol 177: 1460–1469. Brassard DL, Grace MJ, and Bordens RW (2002). Interferon-alpha as an immunotherapeutic protein. J Leukoc Biol 71: 565–581. Brigati C, Noonan DM, Albini A, et al. (2002). Tumors and inflammatory infiltrates: Friends or foes? Clin Exp Metastasis 19: 247–258. Bronte V (2009). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in inflammation: Uncovering cell subsets with enhanced immunosuppressive functions. Eur J Immunol 39: 2670–2672. Bronte V and Zanovello P (2005). Regulation of immune responses by L-arginine metabolism. Nat Rev Immunol 5: 641–654. Campbell JJ, Qin S, Unutmaz D, et al. (2001). Unique subpopulations of CD56+ NK and NK-T peripheral blood lymphocytes identified by chemokine receptor expression repertoire. J Immunol 166: 6477–6482. Carrega P, Morandi B, Costa R, et al. (2008). Natural killer cells infiltrating human nonsmall-cell lung cancer are enriched in CD56 bright CD16(−) cells and display an impaired capability to kill tumor cells. Cancer 112: 863–875. Caux C, Massacrier C, Vanbervliet B, et al. (1994). Activation of human dendritic cells through CD40 cross-linking. J Exp Med 180: 1263–1272. Chan A, Hong DL, Atzberger A, et  al. (2007). CD56bright human NK cells differentiate into CD56dim cells: Role of contact with peripheral fibroblasts. J Immunol 179: 89–94. Coca S, Perez-Piqueras J, Martinez D, et al. (1997). The prognostic significance of intratumoral natural killer cells in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 79: 2320–2328. Colotta F, Allavena P, Sica A, et al. (2009). Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: Links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis 30: 1073–1081. Cooper MA, Fehniger TA, and Caligiuri MA (2001). The biology of human natural killer-cell subsets. Trends Immunol 22: 633–640. Coukos G, Benencia F, Buckanovich RJ, et  al. (2005). The role of dendritic cell precursors in tumour vasculogenesis. Br J Cancer 92: 1182–1187. Coussens LM and Werb Z (2002). Inflammation and cancer. Nature 420: 860–867. Coussens LM, Raymond WW, Bergers G, et  al. (1999). Inflammatory mast cells up-regulate angiogenesis during squamous epithelial carcinogenesis. Genes Dev 13: 1382–1397. Coussens LM, Tinkle CL, Hanahan D, et al. (2000). MMP-9 supplied by bone marrow-derived cells contributes to skin carcinogenesis. Cell 103: 481–490. Crivellato E, Nico B, and Ribatti D (2008). Mast cells and tumour angiogenesis: New insight from experimental carcinogenesis. Cancer Lett 269: 1–6. Crivellato E, Travan L, and Ribatti D (2009). Mast cells and basophils: A potential link in promoting angiogenesis during allergic inflammation. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 151: 89–97.

70

D.M. Noonan et al.

Curiel TJ, Cheng P, Mottram P, et al. (2004). Dendritic cell subsets differentially regulate angiogenesis in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 64: 5535–5538. Damiano V, Caputo R, Garofalo S, et  al. (2007). TLR9 agonist acts by different mechanisms synergizing with bevacizumab in sensitive and cetuximab-resistant colon cancer xenografts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 12468–12473. De Graaf JH, Tamminga RY, Dam-Meiring A, et al. (1996). The presence of cytokines in langerhans’ cell histiocytosis. J Pathol 180: 400–406. De Palma M and Naldini L (2009). Tie2-expressing monocytes (tems): Novel targets and vehicles of anticancer therapy? Biochim Biophys Acta 1796: 5–10. De Palma M, Murdoch C, Venneri MA, et al. (2007). Tie2-expressing monocytes: Regulation of tumor angiogenesis and therapeutic implications. Trends Immunol 28: 519–524. De Santo C, Serafini P, Marigo I, et  al. (2005). Nitroaspirin corrects immune dysfunction in tumor-bearing hosts and promotes tumor eradication by cancer vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 4185–4190. De Visser KE, Korets LV, and Coussens LM (2005). De novo carcinogenesis promoted by chronic inflammation is B lymphocyte dependent. Cancer Cell 7: 411–423. De Visser KE, Eichten A, and Coussens LM (2006). Paradoxical roles of the immune system during cancer development. Nat Rev Cancer 6: 24–37. Denardo DG, Barreto JB, Andreu P, et al. (2009). CD4(+) t cells regulate pulmonary metastasis of mammary carcinomas by enhancing protumor properties of macrophages. Cancer Cell 16: 91–102. Deryugina EI and Quigley JP (2010). Pleiotropic roles of matrix metalloproteinases in tumor angiogenesis: Contrasting, overlapping and compensatory functions. Biochim Biophys Acta 1803:103–120. Devalaraja RM, Nanney LB, Du J, et  al. (2000). Delayed wound healing in CXCR2 knockout mice. J Invest Dermatol 115: 234–244. Di Carlo E, Forni G, Lollini P, et al. (2001). The intriguing role of polymorphonuclear neutrophils in antitumor reactions. Blood 97: 339–345. Diaz-Montero CM, Salem ML, Nishimura MI, et  al. (2009). Increased circulating myeloidderived suppressor cells correlate with clinical cancer stage, metastatic tumor burden, and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother 58: 49–59. Dolcetti L, Peranzoni E, Ugel S, et al. (2010). Hierarchy of immunosuppressive strength among myeloid-derived suppressor cell subsets is determined by GM-CSF. Eur J Immunol 40: 22–35. Dome B, Timar J, Ladanyi A, et al. (2009). Circulating endothelial cells, bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells and proangiogenic hematopoietic cells in cancer: From biology to therapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 69: 108–124. Doni A, Peri G, Chieppa M, et al. (2003). Production of the soluble pattern recognition receptor PTX3 by myeloid, but not plasmacytoid, dendritic cells. Eur J Immunol 33: 2886–2893. Doni A, Michela M, Bottazzi B, et al. (2006). Regulation of PTX3, a key component of humoral innate immunity in human dendritic cells: Stimulation by iL-10 and inhibition by IFN-gamma. J Leukoc Biol 79: 797–802. Doyen V, Rubio M, Braun D, et al. (2003). Thrombospondin 1 is an autocrine negative regulator of human dendritic cell activation. J Exp Med 198: 1277–1283. Egeblad M and Werb Z (2002). New functions for the matrix metalloproteinases in cancer progression. Nat Rev Cancer 2: 161–174. Fehniger TA, Cooper MA, Nuovo GJ, et al. (2003). CD56bright natural killer cells are present in human lymph nodes and are activated by T cell-derived IL-2: A potential new link between adaptive and innate immunity. Blood 101: 3052–3057. Ferlazzo G and Munz C (2004). NK cell compartments and their activation by dendritic cells. J Immunol 172: 1333–1339. Ferlazzo G, Pack M, Thomas D, et al. (2004a). Distinct roles of IL-12 and IL-15 in human natural killer cell activation by dendritic cells from secondary lymphoid organs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 16606–16611.

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

71

Ferlazzo G, Thomas D, Lin SL, et al. (2004b). The abundant NK cells in human secondary lymphoid tissues require activation to express killer cell Ig-like receptors and become cytolytic. J Immunol 172: 1455–1462. Ferrara N and Kerbel RS (2005). Angiogenesis as a therapeutic target. Nature 438: 967–974. Folkman J (2006). Angiogenesis. Annu Rev Med 57: 1–18. Fridlender ZG, Sun J, Kim S, et al. (2009). Polarization of tumor-associated neutrophil phenotype by TGF-b: “N1” versus “N2” tan. Cancer Cell 16: 183–194. Fujimoto J, Sakaguchi H, Aoki I, et al. (2000). Clinical implications of expression of interleukin 8 related to angiogenesis in uterine cervical cancers. Cancer Res 60: 2632–2635. Galinsky DS and Nechushtan H (2008). Mast cells and cancer–no longer just basic science. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 68: 115–130. Gargett CE, Lederman F, Heryanto B, et  al. (2001). Focal vascular endothelial growth factor correlates with angiogenesis in human endometrium. Role of intravascular neutrophils. Hum Reprod 16: 1065–1075. Garlanda C, Bottazzi B, Bastone A, et  al. (2005). Pentraxins at the crossroads between innate immunity, inflammation, matrix deposition, and female fertility. Annu Rev Immunol 23: 337–366. Ge R, Rajeev V, Ray P, et  al. (2006). Inhibition of growth and metastasis of mouse mammary carcinoma by selective inhibitor of transforming growth factor-beta type i receptor kinase in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 12: 4315–4330. Goerdt S and Orfanos CE (1999). Other functions, other genes: Alternative activation of antigenpresenting cells. Immunity 10: 137–142. Gordon S (2003). Alternative activation of macrophages. Nat Rev Immunol 3: 23–35. Gregoire C, Chasson L, Luci C, et al. (2007). The trafficking of natural killer cells. Immunol Rev 220: 169–182. Guruli G, Pflug BR, Pecher S, et al. (2004). Function and survival of dendritic cells depend on endothelin-1 and endothelin receptor autocrine loops. Blood 104: 2107–2115. Hanahan D and Folkman J (1996). Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell 86: 353–364. Hanahan D and Weinberg RA (2000). The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100: 57–70. Hanna J and Mandelboim O (2007). When killers become helpers. Trends Immunol 28: 201–206. Hanna J, Goldman-Wohl D, Hamani Y, et al. (2006). Decidual nk cells regulate key developmental processes at the human fetal-maternal interface. Nat Med 12: 1065–1074. Harmey JH, Dimitriadis E, Kay E, et al. (1998). Regulation of macrophage production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by hypoxia and transforming growth factor beta-1. Ann Surg Oncol 5: 271–278. Heryanto B, Girling JE, and Rogers PA (2004). Intravascular neutrophils partially mediate the endometrial endothelial cell proliferative response to oestrogen in ovariectomised mice. Reproduction 127: 613–620. Hu X, Li WP, Meng C, et al. (2003). Inhibition of IFN-gamma signaling by glucocorticoids. J Immunol 170: 4833–4839. Indraccolo S, Gola E, Rosato A, et al. (2002). Differential effects of angiostatin, endostatin and interferon-alpha(1) gene transfer on in vivo growth of human breast cancer cells. Gene Ther 9: 867–878. Ishigami S, Natsugoe S, Tokuda K, et al. (2000). Prognostic value of intratumoral natural killer cells in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 88: 577–583. Ito S, Ansari P, Sakatsume M, et al. (1999). Interleukin-10 inhibits expression of both interferon alpha- and interferon gamma-induced genes by suppressing tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT1. Blood 93: 1456–1463. Kaipainen A, Kieran MW, Huang S, et  al. (2007). Pparalpha deficiency in inflammatory cells suppresses tumor growth. PLoS One 2: e260. Karin M (2006). Nuclear factor-kappaB in cancer development and progression. Nature 441: 431–436.

72

D.M. Noonan et al.

Kerbel R and Folkman J (2002). Clinical translation of angiogenesis inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer 2: 727–739. Keskin DB, Allan DS, Rybalov B, et al. (2007). TGFbeta promotes conversion of CD16+ peripheral blood NK cells into CD16-NK cells with similarities to decidual NK cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 3378–3383. Kobayashi H and Lin PC (2009). Angiogenesis links chronic inflammation with cancer. Methods Mol Biol 511: 185–191. Konno S, Eckman JA, Plunkett B, et al. (2006). Interleukin-10 and Th2 cytokines differentially regulate osteopontin expression in human monocytes and dendritic cells. J Interferon Cytokine Res 26: 562–567. Kopcow HD, Allan DS, Chen X, et al. (2005). Human decidual nk cells form immature activating synapses and are not cytotoxic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 15563–15568. Kroemer G and Pouyssegur J (2008). Tumor cell metabolism: Cancer’s achilles’ heel. Cancer Cell 13: 472–482. Kujawski M, Kortylewski M, Lee H, et al. (2008). Stat3 mediates myeloid cell-dependent tumor angiogenesis in mice. J Clin Invest 118: 3367–3377. Kusmartsev S and Gabrilovich DI (2006). Role of immature myeloid cells in mechanisms of immune evasion in cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 55: 237–245. Lanzavecchia A and Sallusto F (2001). The instructive role of dendritic cells on t cell responses: Lineages, plasticity and kinetics. Curr Opin Immunol 13: 291–298. Leek RD, Lewis CE, Whitehouse R, et  al. (1996). Association of macrophage infiltration with angiogenesis and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer Res 56: 4625–4629. Leek RD, Landers RJ, Harris AL, et al. (1999). Necrosis correlates with high vascular density and focal macrophage infiltration in invasive carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 79: 991–995. Leek RD, Hunt NC, Landers RJ, et al. (2000). Macrophage infiltration is associated with VEGF and EGFR expression in breast cancer. J Pathol 190: 430–436. Lewis C and Murdoch C (2005). Macrophage responses to hypoxia: Implications for tumor progression and anti-cancer therapies. Am J Pathol 167: 627–635. Lewis JS, Lee JA, Underwood JC, et al. (1999). Macrophage responses to hypoxia: Relevance to disease mechanisms. J Leukoc Biol 66: 889–900. Lin YJ, Lai MD, Lei HY, et al. (2006). Neutrophils and macrophages promote angiogenesis in the early stage of endometriosis in a mouse model. Endocrinology 147: 1278–1286. Liu J, Divoux A, Sun J, et al. (2009). Genetic deficiency and pharmacological stabilization of mast cells reduce diet-induced obesity and diabetes in mice. Nat Med 15: 940–945. Makkouk A and Abdelnoor AM (2009). The potential use of toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists and antagonists as prophylactic and/or therapeutic agents. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 31: 331–338. Mantovani A (2004). Chemokines in neoplastic progression. Semin Cancer Biol 14: 147–148. Mantovani A, Sozzani S, Locati M, et  al. (2002). Macrophage polarization: Tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes. Trends Immunol 23: 549–555. Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, et  al. (2008). Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 454: 436–444. Martinez FO, Gordon S, Locati M, et al. (2006). Transcriptional profiling of the human monocyteto-macrophage differentiation and polarization: New molecules and patterns of gene expression. J Immunol 177: 7303–7311. Martinez FO, Sica A, Mantovani A, et al. (2008). Macrophage activation and polarization. Front Biosci 13: 453–461. Maruotti N, Crivellato E, Cantatore FP, et  al. (2007). Mast cells in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 26: 1–4. Means TK, Hayashi F, Smith KD, et al. (2003). The toll-like receptor 5 stimulus bacterial flagellin induces maturation and chemokine production in human dendritic cells. J Immunol 170: 5165–5175.

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

73

Murdoch C, Muthana M, Coffelt SB, et al. (2008). The role of myeloid cells in the promotion of tumour angiogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer 8: 618–631. Na YJ, Yang SH, Baek DW, et al. (2006). Effects of peritoneal fluid from endometriosis patients on the release of vascular endothelial growth factor by neutrophils and monocytes. Human Reprod 21: 1846–1855. Nakanishi C and Toi M (2005). Nuclear factor-kappaB inhibitors as sensitizers to anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer 5: 297–309. Naldini A, Leali D, Pucci A, et  al. (2006). Cutting edge: IL-1beta mediates the proangiogenic activity of osteopontin-activated human monocytes. J Immunol 177: 4267–4270. Nam JS, Terabe M, Mamura M, et al. (2008). An anti-transforming growth factor beta antibody suppresses metastasis via cooperative effects on multiple cell compartments. Cancer Res 68: 3835–3843. Nico B, Mangieri D, Crivellato E, et al. (2008). Mast cells contribute to vasculogenic mimicry in multiple myeloma. Stem Cells Dev 17: 19–22. Noonan DM, De Lerma Barbaro A, Vannini N, et al. (2008). Inflammation, inflammatory cells and angiogenesis: Decisions and indecisions. Cancer Metastasis Rev 27: 31–40. Nozawa H, Chiu C, and Hanahan D (2006). Infiltrating neutrophils mediate the initial angiogenic switch in a mouse model of multistage carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 12493–12498. O’sullivan C and Lewis CE (1994). Tumour-associated leucocytes: Friends or foes in breast carcinoma. J Pathol 172: 229–235. Orimo A and Weinberg RA (2006). Stromal fibroblasts in cancer: A novel tumor-promoting cell type. Cell Cycle 5: 1597–1601. Ostrand-Rosenberg S and Sinha P (2009). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: Linking inflammation and cancer. J Immunol 182: 4499–4506. Pekarek LA, Starr BA, Toledano AY, et al. (1995). Inhibition of tumor growth by elimination of granulocytes. J Exp Med 181: 435–440. Penna G, Vulcano M, Roncari A, et al. (2002). Cutting edge: Differential chemokine production by myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells. J Immunol 169: 6673–6676. Piqueras B, Connolly J, Freitas H, et al. (2006). Upon viral exposure, myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells produce 3 waves of distinct chemokines to recruit immune effectors. Blood 107: 2613–2618. Pollard JW (2004). Tumour-educated macrophages promote tumour progression and metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer 4: 71–78. Porta C, Rimoldi M, Raes G, et al. (2009). Tolerance and M2 (alternative) macrophage polarization are related processes orchestrated by p50 nuclear factor kappaB. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 14978–14983. Pouyssegur J, Dayan F, and Mazure NM (2006). Hypoxia signalling in cancer and approaches to enforce tumour regression. Nature 441: 437–443. Priceman SJ, Sung JL, Shaposhnik Z, et al. (2010). Targeting distinct tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells by inhibiting CSF-1 receptor: Combating tumor evasion of anti-angiogenic therapy. Blood 115: 1461–1471. Pulaski HL, Spahlinger G, Silva IA, et al. (2009). Identifying alemtuzumab as an anti-myeloid cell antiangiogenic therapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer. J Transl Med 7: 49. Pusztai L, Clover LM, Cooper K, et al. (1994). Expression of tumour necrosis factor alpha and its receptors in carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 70: 289–292. Pyke C, Graem N, Ralfkiaer E, et al. (1993). Receptor for urokinase is present in tumor-associated macrophages in ductal breast carcinoma. Cancer Res 53: 1911–1915. Qin Z, Schwartzkopff J, Pradera F, et  al. (2003). A critical requirement of interferon gammamediated angiostasis for tumor rejection by CD8+ t cells. Cancer Res 63: 4095–4100. Ranieri G, Ammendola M, Patruno R, et al. (2009). Tryptase-positive mast cells correlate with angiogenesis in early breast cancer patients. Int J Oncol 35: 115–120. Ratta M, Fagnoni F, Curti A, et al. (2002). Dendritic cells are functionally defective in multiple myeloma: The role of interleukin-6. Blood 100: 230–237.

74

D.M. Noonan et al.

Ribatti D, Contino R, and Tursi A (1988). Do mast cells intervene in the vasoproliferative process of the rheumatoid synovitis? J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol 20: 635–637. Ribatti D, Vacca A, Nico B, et al. (2001). The role of mast cells in tumour angiogenesis. Br J Haematol 115: 514–521. Ribatti D, Crivellato E, Roccaro AM, et al. (2004). Mast cell contribution to angiogenesis related to tumour progression. Clin Exp Allergy 34: 1660–1664. Ribatti D, Crivellato E, and Molica S (2009). Mast cells and angiogenesis in haematological malignancies. Leuk Res 33: 876–879. Riboldi E, Musso T, Moroni E, et al. (2005). Cutting edge: Proangiogenic properties of alternatively activated dendritic cells. J Immunol 175: 2788–2792. Riley JK, Takeda K, Akira S, et al. (1999). Interleukin-10 receptor signaling through the jak-stat pathway. Requirement for two distinct receptor-derived signals for anti-inflammatory action. J Biol Chem 274: 16513–16521. Rodriguez PC, Ernstoff MS, Hernandez C, et al. (2009). Arginase I-producing myeloid-derived suppressor cells in renal cell carcinoma are a subpopulation of activated granulocytes. Cancer Res 69: 1553–1560. Romagnani C, Juelke K, Falco M, et al. (2007). CD56brightCD16- killer Ig-like receptor-NK cells display longer telomeres and acquire features of CD56dim NK cells upon activation. J Immunol 178: 4947–4955. Ruffell B, Denardo DG, Affara NI, et al. (2010). Lymphocytes in cancer development: Polarization towards pro-tumor immunity. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 21: 3–10. Rusnati M and Presta M (2006). Extracellular angiogenic growth factor interactions: An angiogenesis interactome survey. Endothelium 13: 93–111. Saccani A, Schioppa T, Porta C, et al. (2006). P50 nuclear factor-kappaB overexpression in tumorassociated macrophages inhibits M1 inflammatory responses and antitumor resistance. Cancer Res 66: 11432–11440. Scapini P, Lapinet-Vera JA, Gasperini S, et  al. (2000). The neutrophil as a cellular source of chemokines. Immunol Rev 177: 195–203. Scapini P, Morini M, Tecchio C, et  al. (2004). CXCL1/macrophage inflammatory protein-2induced angiogenesis in vivo is mediated by neutrophil-derived vascular endothelial growth factor-A. J Immunol 172: 5034–5040. Schioppa T, Uranchimeg B, Saccani A, et  al. (2003). Regulation of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 by hypoxia. J Exp Med 198: 1391–1402. Schmidt C (2009). Why do tumors become resistant to antiangiogenesis drugs? J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 1530–1532. Schruefer R, Lutze N, Schymeinsky J, et al. (2005). Human neutrophils promote angiogenesis by a paracrine feedforward mechanism involving endothelial interleukin-8. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 288: H1186–H1192. Schruefer R, Sulyok S, Schymeinsky J, et al. (2006). The proangiogenic capacity of polymorphonuclear neutrophils delineated by microarray technique and by measurement of neovascularization in wounded skin of CD18-deficient mice. J Vasc Res 43: 1–11. Scimone ML, Lutzky VP, Zittermann SI, et al. (2005). Migration of polymorphonuclear leucocytes is influenced by dendritic cells. Immunology 114: 375–385. Serafini P, Borrello I, and Bronte V (2006). Myeloid suppressor cells in cancer: Recruitment, phenotype, properties, and mechanisms of immune suppression. Semin Cancer Biol 16: 53–65. Shojaei F and Ferrara N (2008). Refractoriness to antivascular endothelial growth factor ­treatment: Role of myeloid cells. Cancer Res 68: 5501–5504. Shojaei F, Wu X, Malik AK, et  al. (2007a). Tumor refractoriness to anti-VEGF treatment is ­mediated by CD11b+Gr1+ myeloid cells. Nat Biotechnol 25: 911–920. Shojaei F, Wu X, Zhong C, et  al. (2007b). Bv8 regulates myeloid-cell-dependent tumour ­angiogenesis. Nature 450: 825–831. Shojaei F, Wu X, Qu X, et al. (2009). G-CSF-initiated myeloid cell mobilization and angiogenesis mediate tumor refractoriness to anti-VEGF therapy in mouse models. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 6742–6747.

The Angiogenic Switch: Role of Immune Cells

75

Sica A and Bronte V (2007). Altered macrophage differentiation and immune dysfunction in tumor development. J Clin Invest 117: 1155–1166. Smits El, Ponsaerts P, Berneman ZN, et al. (2008). The use of TLR7 and TLR8 ligands for the enhancement of cancer immunotherapy. Oncologist 13: 859–875. Soucek L, Lawlor ER, Soto D, et al. (2007). Mast cells are required for angiogenesis and macroscopic expansion of myc-induced pancreatic islet tumors. Nat Med 13: 1211–1218. Sozzani S (2005). Dendritic cell trafficking: More than just chemokines. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 16: 581–592. Sozzani S, Allavena P, and Mantovani A (2001). Chemokines and dendritic cells. In Dendritic cells: Biology and clinical applications, Thomas G, and Lotze M, eds. (London: Acadimic), pp. 203–211. Sozzani S, Rusnati M, Riboldi E, et al. (2007). Dendritic cell-endothelial cell cross-talk in angiogenesis. Trends Immunol 28: 385–392. Sparmann A and Bar-Sagi D (2004). Ras-induced interleukin-8 expression plays a critical role in tumor growth and angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 6: 447–458. Srivastava MK, Sinha P, Clements VK, et  al. (2010). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells inhibit T-cell activation by depleting cystine and cysteine. Cancer Res 70: 68–77. Steinman RM and Banchereau J (2007). Taking dendritic cells into medicine. Nature 449: 419–426. Stockmann C, Doedens A, Weidemann A, et al. (2008). Deletion of vascular endothelial growth factor in myeloid cells accelerates tumorigenesis. Nature 456: 814–818. Suzuki E, Kim S, Cheung Hk, et  al. (2007). A novel small-molecule inhibitor of transforming growth factor beta type I receptor kinase (SM16) inhibits murine mesothelioma tumor growth in vivo and prevents tumor recurrence after surgical resection. Cancer Res 67: 2351–2359. Takeo S, Yasumoto K, Nagashima A, et al. (1986). Role of tumor-associated macrophages in lung cancer. Cancer Res 46: 3179–3182. Tosetti F, Ferrari N, De Flora S, et al. (2002). Angioprevention’: Angiogenesis is a common and key target for cancer chemopreventive agents. FASEB J 16: 2–14. Trinchieri G (1989). Biology of natural killer cells. Adv Immunol 47: 187–376. Trinchieri G (2003). Interleukin-12 and the regulation of innate resistance and adaptive immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 3: 133–146. Tsuda Y, Takahashi H, Kobayashi M, et al. (2004). Three different neutrophil subsets exhibited in mice with different susceptibilities to infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Immunity 21: 215–226. Ueno H, Klechevsky E, Morita R, et  al. (2007). Dendritic cell subsets in health and disease. Immunol Rev 219: 118–142. Ugel S, Delpozzo F, Desantis G, et al. (2009). Therapeutic targeting of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Curr Opin Pharmacol 9: 470–481. Verhasselt V, Buelens C, Willems F, et al. (1997). Bacterial lipopolysaccharide stimulates the production of cytokines and the expression of costimulatory molecules by human peripheral blood dendritic cells: Evidence for a soluble CD14-dependent pathway. J Immunol 158: 2919–2925. Vermi W, Bonecchi R, Facchetti F, et al. (2003). Recruitment of immature plasmacytoid dendritic cells (plasmacytoid monocytes) and myeloid dendritic cells in primary cutaneous melanomas. J Pathol 200: 255–268. Vermi W, Facchetti F, Riboldi E, et  al. (2006). Role of dendritic cell-derived CXCL13 in the pathogenesis of Bartonella henselae B-rich granuloma. Blood 107: 454–462. Vicari AP, Treilleux I, and Lebecque S (2004). Regulation of the trafficking of tumour-infiltrating dendritic cells by chemokines. Semin Cancer Biol 14: 161–169. Villegas FR, Coca S, Villarrubia VG, et al. (2002). Prognostic significance of tumor infiltrating natural killer cells subset CD57 in patients with squamous cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 35: 23–28. Yang L, Debusk LM, Fukuda K, et  al. (2004). Expansion of myeloid immune suppressor Gr+CD11b+ cells in tumor-bearing host directly promotes tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 6: 409–421.

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection Alan M. Krensky and Carol Clayberger

Abstract  Increased or de  novo expression of chemokines and cytotoxic effector molecules is part of the “immunologic constant of rejection” and are central to the “signature” of broad activation of proinflammatory and cytotoxic cells. Although several chemokines are associated with rejection and provocative results have been obtained in animal models, no real breakthroughs have occurred in translating these findings to clinical transplantation. In contrast, the cytotoxic effector molecules, granulysin, granzymes and perforin have proven to be important biomarkers for rejection. Keywords  Chemokine • Cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) • Granulysin • Granzymes • Natural killer (NK) cell • Perforin In 1984, we set out to identify genes expressed by human T lymphocytes 3–5 days after activation, reasoning that these molecules would be relevant to organ transplant rejection. The molecules identified using subtractive hybridization were RANTES (CCL5) (Schall et al. 1988), a chemokine, and granulysin (Jongstra et al. 1987), a cytolytic and proinflammatory molecule. Twenty-five years later, these molecules and functionally related families have been shown to be important in transplant rejection and are being investigated as potential diagnostics, prognostics (biomarkers), and/or therapeutics. Although a number of interrelated immune responses are involved in transplant rejection, this chapter focuses on the roles of chemokines and cytotoxic effector molecules in this process.

A.M. Krensky  (*) Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-4256, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_6, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

77

78

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

Chemokines Movement of inflammatory cells from the bloodstream to peripheral sites of inflammation is a multistep process involving a variety of cell surface and secreted molecules. Chemokines are chemoattractant cytokines instrumental in regulating leukocyte extravasation from the bloodstream and selective migration into tissues. Most chemokines are small, secreted molecules, although a few are larger and two are cell surface bound. They coordinate leukocyte migration by interacting with two types of receptors: (1) nonsignaling glycosaminoglycans on endothelial cells and extracellular matrix and (2) signaling seven membrane spanning G protein coupled serpentine receptors on inflammatory cells. There are approximately 50 chemokines and 20 G protein coupled chemokine receptors. Chemokines are basic proteins and interact with glycosaminoglycans based upon charge. These chemokine-glycosaminoglycan interactions immobilize and concentrate chemokines in sites of inflammation where they are recognized by the specific G protein coupled chemokine receptors (Fig. 1). This interaction then induces expression of integrins and immunoglobulin gene superfamily members, resulting in firm adhesion by inflammatory

Fig.  1  RANTES (CCL5) chemokine attracts immune cells from peripheral blood to sites of inflammation. Inflammatory leukocytes interact with selectins to “roll” along the vascular endothelium. RANTES, presented by glycosaminoglycans on the endothelium, attracts immune cells by haptotaxis. The leukocytes are activated to express adhesion molecules, adhere firmly and diapedese from the bloodstream into the tissue. The immune cells release metalloproteinases and move through tissues following the RANTES chemokine gradient. T cells, once activated by specific antigen, make more RANTES, amplifying the inflammatory response in time and space. Figure is reprinted with permission from Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology (Krensky and Ahn 2007)

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

79

cells to the endothelium and transmigration of immune cells from the bloodstream into tissues. Chemokines can attract inflammatory cells along a soluble gradient (chemotaxis) or bound to a solid surface (haptotaxis) (Wiedermann et  al. 1993). Haptotaxis occurs on the endothelium. Chemokines freely released into the blood go downstream and would fail to recruit cells to the inflammatory site. Binding to the glycosaminoglycans insures localization to the inflammatory site. Although diverse sets of chemokines and receptors are present in allografts undergoing rejection (Table 1) (Tan and Zhou 2005), only a few chemokine pathways appear to have central roles in allograft rejection (Table 2) (Viola and Luster 2008). Different chemokines and receptors are involved with early changes in expression due to the organ trauma associated with brain death, surgical manipulation and ischemia/reperfusion compared to later changes associated with acute and chronic rejection. Earliest changes are associated with neutrophil and monocyte infiltration. With antigen activation, the adaptive immune response is associated with the presence of monocytes and T lymphocytes. Early events. The earliest cellular infiltrates associated with transplant rejection are composed of neutrophils and monocytes. CXCR1 and CXCR2 are the major neutrophil chemokine receptors in man (Murphy 1997), and CXCL8 (IL-8), the Table 1  Chemokine receptor expression in allograft rejection from Tan and Zhou (2005) Organ/tissue Receptors in rejection Heart CXCR3, CCR5, CCR3, CCR2, CCR1, CXCR1 Kidney CCR1, CCR2, CCR5, CXCR3, CXCR2 Islet CXCR3, CCR5, CCR2, CCR1 Liver CCR5, CCR6, CXCR3, CXCR4 Bone marrow CCR2 Skin CXCR3 Lung CXCR3, CXCR2, CCR5, CCR2 Although most chemokines and receptors have been associated with some stage of transplant rejection, the review by Tan and Zhou (2005) concluded that CXCR3 and CCR5 are the most generally involved in rejection Table 2  Chemokines with central roles in transplant rejection Neutrophils CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL8 Early Monocytes CCL2 CXCR1 CXCR2 CCL2, CCL4, CCL5, CX3CL1 Monocytes Later CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11 Th1 DCCCL3, CCL4, CXCL9, CXCL10 CD8 CCR1 CXCL13 B CCR5 CCR6 CXCR1 CCR1 CCR5 CXCR3 Adapted from Viola and Luster (2008)

80

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

major neutrophil attracting/activating ligand, is induced by inflammatory stimuli, including ischemia-reperfusion injury (De Perrot et al. 2002). There is no murine homolog for CXCR1 or its major ligand CXCL8 (Fan et al. 2007). CXCL1 (KC/ MIP-2 in mouse and MIP-II in rat) are thought to be functional orthologs for the human chemokine (Miura et al. 2003; King et al. 2000). In addition, CCL2, CCL7, CCL8 and CCL13 are involved in early monocyte attraction and activation (Romagnani 2002). Acute rejection. The adaptive immune response to the allograft is induced when naïve antigen specific T lymphocytes encounter dendritic cells presenting foreign alloantigens (MHC/HLA) (Krensky et al. 1990). The T cell-antigen presenting cell interaction occurs in secondary lymphoid organs and involves CCR7 and its ligands, CCL19 and CCL21 (Forster et al. 2008). Dendritic cells present antigen after migrating to the T cell area of the lymph node. Immature dendritic cells express CCR1, CCR5, CCR6 and CXCR1. Expression of these chemokine ­receptors decreases and they are replaced by CCR7, CXCR4 and CCR4 as the dendritic cells mature and enter the afferent lymphatics and lymph nodes (Colvin et al. 2008). T cell entry into the lymph nodes is regulated by CCR7 on the T cells interacting with CCL19 on the dendritic cells and CCL21 on high endothelial venules (Forster et al. 1999). CXCL12 and CCL5 provide additional proinflammatory ­signals (Molon et al. 2005). Before activated T cells leave the lymph node, they downregulate CCR7 and upregulate other chemokine receptors involved in movement through the bloodstream and lymphatics and into tissues and organs. For example, some CD4+ T cells increase CXCR5 expression and localize to the lymph node follicle where they provide help to B cells (Cyster 2005). B cell entry into secondary lymphoid tissues depends on CCR7, CXCR4 and CXCR5 (Cyster 2005). Paradoxically, although CCR7 and CXCR5 are important in generation of alloreactive T cells, they are dispensable for the alloresponse in vivo. Only modest prolongation of heart graft survival occurs in CCR7 (−/−) mice (see below) (Beckmann et al. 2004; Muller et al. 2003). CCR1, CCR5 and CXCR3 recruit monocytes, macrophages and effector T cells during acute and chronic rejection (Fischereder 2007). CCR1 binds CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL7, CCL8 and other chemokines (Anders et  al. 2006). CCR5 binds CCL3, CCL4, CCL5 and CCL8 (Balistreri et al. 2007). In addition to sharing several ligands, CCR1 and CCR5 are expressed on similar cell types, but they act at different stages of leukocyte recruitment and activation. For example, peripheral blood monocytes are high for CCR1 expression but low for CCR5. In contrast, CD45RO+ memory T cells are low for CCR1 and high for CCR5. CCR5 expression is markedly increased in both acute and chronic rejection. T cells upregulate CXCR3 after activation (Panzer et al. 2004). CXCR3 is also expressed by B and NK cells and is commonly increased in expression in transplant rejection along with its ligands CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11 (Hoffmann et al. 2006). Chemokine receptors are differentially expressed by T helper subsets (Mantovani et al. 2004). Th1 cells generally express CCR5 and CXCR3 while Th2 cells express CCR3, CCR4 and CCR8. CCR7 expression has been used to divide memory T cells into two subsets: CCR7+ “central” memory T cells migrate into lymph nodes and

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

81

peripheral organs while CCR7− “effector” memory cells do not re-enter lymph nodes (Sallusto et al. 2000). Although a large variety of chemokines has been associated with transplant rejection, the major chemokines implicated in CD8+ T cells in transplant rejection are CCL3, CCL4 and CCL5, interacting with CCR5 and CXCL9, and CXCL10, interacting with CXCR3. Antigen activated CTL release CCR5 ligands, CCL2 and CCL3 (Selleri et al. 2008), and attract NK cells (Salazar-Mather et al. 1998; Morris and Ley 2004). Activated dendritic cells and B lymphocytes produce the CXCR3 ligand chemokines (Drayton et al. 2006; Deola et al. 2008). As described below, the CCR5 ligands do appear to be clinically relevant in transplant rejection. Even though CXCR3 and its ligands CXCL-9, CXCL10 and CXCL11 are induced in transplant rejection and were thought to be important mediators of CTL infiltration (Lazzeri and Romagnani 2005; Kobayashi et al. 2006), the functional importance of CXCR3 is now controversial based upon results in animal models (see below). Chronic rejection. The chemokines and receptors expressed in chronic rejection are the same as in acute rejection and most preclinical studies implicate similar pathways, including CCR1, CCR5 and CXCR3 (Viola and Luster 2008).

Translation to Clinical Utility The fact that chemokines and their receptors are induced and highly expressed at various stages of transplant rejection suggests that they may prove targets for ­diagnostics, prognostics (biomarkers) and/or therapeutics. Although animal models have implicated a number of chemokines for these uses, results to date moving preclinical observations to the clinics have been disappointing. This is likely due to the considerable differences between mouse and man, the redundancy of the chemokine-receptor interaction network, the pleiotropic effects of many ­chemokines, and kinetic/microenvironment considerations. Preclinical evaluation. The major approaches to studying chemokines in ­transplant rejection involve studies with targeted gene deletion animals, blocking antibodies, small molecules, and gene therapy. Gene deletion mice. Preclinical studies using chemokine receptor deficient mice implicated CCR1, CXCR2 and CCR5 in acute allograft rejection (Gao et al. 2000, 2001; El-Sawy et al. 2005). Based upon results in experimental animals, CCR7 and CXCR3 now appear less involved. Only modest prolongation of heart allografts was found with CCR7(−/−) mice (Beckmann et al. 2004), and, although mice deficient for CXCR3 were initially described as highly resistant to acute allograft rejection (Hancock et  al. 2000), subsequent studies failed to confirm this observation (Halloran and Fairchild 2008). Of note, a chemoattractant lipid, sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P), interacts with a G protein coupled receptor to control lymphocyte egress from lymphoid organs (Cyster 2005). Remarkably, S1P1-deficient lymphocytes fail to exit secondary ­tissues (Matloubian et al. 2004). Based on these observations, an inhibitor of S1P,

82

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

FTY720, was developed and advanced to clinical trials but proved no better than existing therapies for transplantation (Mansoor and Melendez 2008). Neutralizing antibodies. Blocking antibodies have proven useful in inhibiting cell surface interactions for integrins and immunoglobulin superfamily genes. Examples include anti-LFA-1 and anti-VLA4 treatments for multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease (Ulbrich et al. 2003; Ghosh et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2003). G protein coupled receptors would appear to be excellent potential therapeutic targets. CXCR1 and CXCR2 antibodies block the neutrophil infiltrate associated with ischemia-reperfusion injury (Sbrana et al. 2005; Cugini et al. 2005; Bertini et al. 2004). Neutralizing antibodies against CXCR2 and its ligands CXCL1, CXCL2 and CXCL3, prolong graft survival in a variety of mouse and rat allograft rejection models (El-Sawy et al. 2005). Anti-CXCL2 and CXCL3 antibodies prolong kidney graft survival in mice (Cugini et al. 2005; Bertini et al. 2004). Anti-CXCR1 and CXCR2 blocks rejection in the rat (Cugini et al. 2005; Bertini et al. 2004). CXCR2 antibodies block heart rejection and reduce infiltrate and graft injury in lung transplants (El-Sawy et al. 2005; Belperio et al. 2005). Small molecules and modified chemokines. Small molecules, including modified chemokines, have also been used to inhibit transplant rejection in animal models. Since CCR5 was shown to be a receptor for HIV entry into cells, many small molecules and modified RANTES (CCL5) have been developed and tested as potential HIV therapeutics (Tan and Zhou 2005). In agreement with data from CCR5 deficient mice (Abdi et al. 2002a), TAK-779, a small molecule antagonist for CCR5 and CXCR3, prolonged allograft survival in both acute and chronic cardiac and islet models in mice (Akashi et al. 2005). After the amino terminus was shown to be important for the chemokine specificity of CCL5, several modifications, including Met-RANTES, AOP-RANTES and other amino terminal modifications were developed (Grone et al. 1999; Proudfoot et al. 1996; Simmons et al. 1997; Lederman et  al. 2004). Met-RANTES, a functional antagonist for both CCR1 and CCR5 (Grone et al. 1999), reduces damage and prolongs graft survival in both acute and chronic rejection models (Yun et al. 2004). On the negative side, MET-RANTES causes glomerular damage and proteinuria, undercutting its clinical potential (Anders et al. 2003). BX471, a CCR1 receptor antagonist, is effective in rat heterotopic heart, rabbit orthotopic kidney and a rat chronic kidney allograft rejection models (Horuk et al. 2001a, b). Gene transfer. There is much less data involving gene transfer of chemokines or chemokine inhibitors in transplantation but a few studies are notable. Vassalli and colleagues used gene transfer of the chemokine antagonist RANTES (CCL5) 9-68 (Vassalli et al. 2006) and terminal deletion mutants of CCL5 (RANTES) and CCL2 (MCP-1) to prolong cardiac allograft survival in rats (Fleury et  al. 2006). AntiCCL2 (MCP-1) gene therapy also attenuated graft vasculopathy (Saiura et al. 2004) and transduction-mediated overexpression of CXCR4 significantly improved marrow engraftment of cultured peripheral blood stem cells (Brenner et al. 2004). Clinical data. Inhibitors of CCR1 and CCR5 are being tested in human diseases and may eventually be available in transplantation (Fischereder 2007). Early results

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

83

with some CCR1 antagonists for multiple sclerosis (Zipp et al. 2006) and rheumatoid arthritis (Pease and Horuk 2005) and CCR5 antagonists for HIV have failed (Kuritzkes 2009), but several additional compounds and studies continue to move forward (Pease and Horuk 2009a; Pease and Horuk 2009b). Perhaps the single most relevant clinical observations to date involve the CCR5∆32 null allele. Approximately 1% of people of Northern European descent have a 32 base pair deletion in the CCR5 coding region resulting in a null allele. A study of a large cohort of renal transplant patients showed a significant prolongation in graft survival for patients with this homozygous deletion (Fischereder et al. 2001). There are additional chemokine polymorphisms of clinical relevance in transplantation (Abdi et  al. 2002b). These include decreased transplant rejection associated with the CCR2-64I allele (Kruger et al. 2002) or CCR5 59029-A/G allele (Yigit et al. 2007) and decreased transplant survival for the G allele of CCL2/-2518 promoter (increased CCL2 expression) (Kruger et al. 2002). Summary. In general, exciting results from animal studies have been poorly translated to humans for a variety of reasons. Knock out animals are not the same as small molecule or neutralizing antibody inhibitors in localization or kinetics. Zlotnik points out the major differences between mouse and man in chemokine expression and function (Fig.  2) (Zlotnik et  al. 2006). He documents that some chemokine genes are present in one species but not the other. CXCL8, noted above is an example

Fig. 2  Human and mouse chemokine genes differ. The lack of correlation is evident as genes that exist in one species but not the other, as functional equivalents but not identical, and/or as chemokines with different functions between the species. Adapted from Zlotnik et al. (2006) and Viola and Luster (2008)

84

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

of a chemokine gene present in man but not mouse. Alternatively, a given chemokine may be related to more than one ortholog in the other species or the match may not be exact. These differences are due to independent gene duplication events. The complexity of multiple ligands for many receptors, multiple receptors on any particular cell and the hierarchy of potential combinatorial interactions (and potential for redundancies) functionally multiply and complicate differences between individual chemokine molecules. An additional level of complexity is due to the pleiotropic effects of any given chemokine. For example, CCL5 is produced and released by a wide variety of cell types, including lymphocytes, macrophages, fibroblasts, platelets, smooth muscle, endothelial and epithelial cells. Its can bind CCR1, CCR3 and CCR5. Furthermore, it can produce other activating and proinflammatory events in addition to chemoattraction. Lastly, differences in microenvironments (local effects) and kinetics provide ultimate complexity.

Cytotoxic Effector Molecules Transplant rejection usually includes infiltration of CTL and NK cells and broad activation of expression of cytotoxicity associated gene products (Krensky 2000). The other late expressed T cell molecule we first identified by subtractive hybridization was granulysin, originally named 519 (Jongstra et al. 1987). Granulysin is expressed constitutively by natural killer (NK) cells and after antigen stimulation in cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) (Krensky and Clayberger 2009). It is present in cytolytic granules of these cell types, overlapping with other cytolytic effectors, granzymes and perforin. Much of the immune effector function in the transplant literature focuses on granzymes because mice and rats do not express granulysin. Granulysin is expressed in man, cows, pigs and horses. Cell-mediated cytotoxicity occurs by two pathways (Clayberger 2009). A nonsecretory pathway involves the interaction of fas with fas ligand, giving rise to apoptosis. The secretory pathway involves directional release of cytolytic granules onto target cells, also resulting in caspase activation and cell death by apoptosis. Granulysin and perforin and granzymes and perforin collaborate in cell death while granulysin and granzymes function in entirely separate mechanistic pathways. Like most chemokines, these cytolytic effector molecules are not expressed by resting cells but are induced by T cell activation. They have proven to be potent biomarkers for rejection as activated T lymphocytes are intimately associated with this process. Granulysin. Granulysin was first identified by subtractive hybridization in a search for genes expressed “late” (3–5 days) after T cell activation (Jongstra et al. 1987). It is present in CTL and NK cell cytotoxic granules with perforin and granzymes and is directionally released at target cells upon antigen activation (Krensky and Clayberger 2009). Recombinant granulysin kills tumor targets by causing ion fluxes that increase intracellular calcium and decrease intracellular potassium.

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

85

Mitochondria are damaged, giving rise to cell death via apoptosis. Recombinant granulysin has broad antimicrobial and tumorcidal activity. In addition to its cytotoxic activity, it is a chemoattractant and proinflammatory, activating expression of a number of cytokines and chemokines, including RANTES, MCP-1, MCP-3, MIP1a, IL-1, IL-6, IL-10 and IFNa. There is no mouse homolog for granulysin, although cows, pigs and horses express homologs. Granulysin is highly expressed in a wide variety of diseases (Krensky and Clayberger 2009). Increased granulysin expression is associated with good outcomes in a number of cancers. Granulysin is highly expressed in cell-mediated transplant rejection and may be a biomarker for steroid resistance (Sarwal et  al. 2001). Urinary mRNA for granulysin is an excellent noninvasive biomarker for transplant rejection (Kotsch et al. 2004). Perforin. Perforin is also a cytolytic molecule present in granules of CTL and NK cells (Chavez-Galan et al. 2009). It is homologous to complement proteins C8 and C9 involved in the membrane attack complex (MAC) of the complement cascade. Upon degranulation, perforin inserts itself into the target cell membrane, forming pores. Perforin works in concert with molecules like granulysin or granzyme B to induce apoptosis in target cells. Studies with perforin knockout mice led to the discovery of the Fas-Fas ligand pathway for cell death and underscored the importance of perforin in the immune response to tumors and viruses (Kagi et al. 1996). Remarkably, although perforin expression correlates strongly with allograft rejection in man and experimental models, perforin knockout mice reject allografts with the same kinetics as wild type recipients (Bose et al. 2003). There is a perforin deficiency state in man, first described in 1999 (Stepp et al. 1999). Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a complex syndrome including high fevers, hepatosplenomegaly, cytopenias and hemophagocytosis, due to many entities, including perforin deficiency. Skin rashes, hepatic and central nervous system dysfunction often accompany the other symptoms. There is a breakdown in normal immunoregulation due to defects in both innate and adaptive immunity. These patients show uniform deficiency in NK function but variable CTL responses, suggesting some redundancy in CTL-mediated cytotoxic mechanisms (Janka 2007). Granzymes. Granzymes are caspase-like serine proteases that are released by CTL to kill viruses and tumors (Trapani and Smyth 2002). There are several more granzymes in mouse than man. Man expresses granzymes A, B, H and M while mice express A, B, C, D, E, F, G and M. While it appears that both granzymes A and B are important in killing target cells in collaboration with perforin, granzyme B appears to be the most important in inducing apoptosis and has been highly associated with allograft rejection in animal models and man (Trapani and Sutton 2003). Cell death is mediated by granzyme B via Bid cleavage and subsequent caspase activation and mitochondrial damage. Granzyme A functions by inducing DNA damage through noncaspase pathways. Compared to Granzyme B, Granzyme A is less important in target cell lysis and a less specific marker of organ transplant rejection (Li et al. 2001).

86

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

Clinical utility. Although direct inhibition of these cytotoxic effector molecules have yet to be effective targets for inhibition of transplant (or tumor) rejection, they do appear to be useful biomarkers for rejection in tissues, urinary mRNA and perhaps peripheral blood (Clayberger 2009). They may also have prognostic significance in discrimination of steroid resistance (Sarwal et al. 2001). These CTL associated genes are expressed more highly in steroid free patients with stable graft function than patients treated with steroids. Therefore, these markers should be applied differently in patients who are taking steroids vs. those that are not (Satterwhite et al. 2003). There are recent studies that suggest these cytolytic effector molecules may also be expressed in regulatory T cells (Treg) (Grossman et  al. 2004). Gondek et  al. (2008) reported in a mouse skin transplant model that granzyme B expression by FoxP3+ cells is required for transplant tolerance. As noted above, a variety of molecular profiling studies have identified perforin, granzyme B, granulysin and FasL in allograft rejection (Nickel et al. 2001; Sharma et al. 1996). Hidalgo and colleagues examined gene expression in CTL and NK cells and in transplant rejection. They first evaluated CD8+ CTL, CD4+ CTL and NK cell transcripts after subtracting out B cell and monocyte mRNA (Hidalgo et al. 2008a). Both CD4+ and CD8+ CTL have similar profiles and no transcripts were identified that differentiated them. NK cells were different from CTL, but more like CD8+ CTL than CD4+ CTL. High levels of the cytotoxic molecule transcripts were identified in all three groups, with granulysin the highest expressed transcript by CTL. Of particular note, they found that the CD4+ CTL expressed high levels of granzymes and granulysin and that CD8+ CTL expressed high levels of FasL. This is in contrast to the commonly held notion that CD8+ CTL primarily function via granule exocytosis while CD4+ CTL generally kill via the nonsecretory pathway. It must be stressed that these studies were examining mRNA, not protein, expression and that, although the populations were more than 90% pure, small contaminating populations could impact these results (Hidalgo et al. 2008a). In a second report, this group found that the same hierarchy of CTL-associated transcripts was present in renal transplant biopsies undergoing rejection (Hidalgo et al. 2008b). These CTL associated transcripts was strongly correlated with T cell infiltration of the graft. Early studies of cytotoxic gene expression in blood and urine underscored the utility of noninvasive transcriptional profiling for diagnosis of transplant rejection (Kotsch et al. 2004; Li et al. 2001; Vasconcellos et al. 1998). Recent studies have not always reproduced these findings and have suggested other markers, including lower expression of ICOS and CD154 (Alakulppi et al. 2007) or increased expression of FoxP3 (Aquino-Dias et al. 2008) may prove more useful as biomarkers.

Conclusion Genes that are markedly increased in expression after T cell activation are associated with transplant rejection and other T cell-mediated diseases. When we undertook to identify such genes 25 years ago, we identified RANTES (CCL5) (Schall et al. 1988)

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

87

and granulysin (Jongstra et  al. 1987). We now understand that these are important molecules in a large number of human diseases and that are members of large families of molecules of mechanistic relevance (Krensky and Clayberger 2009; Krensky and Ahn 2007; Nelson and Krensky 2001). Chemokines and cytotoxic effector molecules are important diagnostics and biomarkers and may prove useful in development of new therapies for transplant rejection and/or the development of transplant tolerance. Acknowledgment  This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology.

References Abdi, R., R.N. Smith, L. Makhlouf, N. Najafian, A.D. Luster, H. Auchincloss, Jr., and M.H. Sayegh. 2002. The role of CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) in islet  allograft rejection. Diabetes 51:2489–2495. Abdi, R., T.B. Tran, A. Sahagun-Ruiz, P.M. Murphy, B.M. Brenner, E.L. Milford, and D.H. McDermott. 2002. Chemokine receptor polymorphism and risk of acute rejection in human renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 13:754–758. Akashi, S., M. Sho, H. Kashizuka, K. Hamada, N. Ikeda, Y. Kuzumoto, Y. Tsurui, T. Nomi, T. Mizuno, H. Kanehiro, M. Hisanaga, S. Ko, and Y. Nakajima. 2005. A novel small-molecule compound targeting CCR5 and CXCR3 prevents acute and chronic allograft rejection. Transplantation 80:378–384. Alakulppi, N.S., L.E. Kyllonen, J. Partanen, K.T. Salmela, and J.T. Laine. 2007. Diagnosis of acute renal allograft rejection by analyzing whole blood mRNA expression of lymphocyte marker molecules. Transplantation 83:791–798. Anders, H.J., M. Frink, Y. Linde, B. Banas, M. Wornle, C.D. Cohen, V. Vielhauer, P.J. Nelson, H.J. Grone, and D. Schlondorff. 2003. CC chemokine ligand 5/RANTES chemokine antagonists aggravate glomerulonephritis despite reduction of glomerular leukocyte infiltration. J Immunol 170:5658–5666. Anders, H.J., V. Ninichuk, and D. Schlondorff. 2006. Progression of kidney disease: blocking leukocyte recruitment with chemokine receptor CCR1 antagonists. Kidney Int 69:29–32. Aquino-Dias, E.C., G. Joelsons, D.M. da Silva, R.H. Berdichevski, A.R. Ribeiro, F.J. Veronese, L.F. Goncalves, and R.C. Manfro. 2008. Non-invasive diagnosis of acute rejection in kidney transplants with delayed graft function. Kidney Int 73:877–884. Balistreri, C.R., C. Caruso, M.P. Grimaldi, F. Listi, S. Vasto, V. Orlando, A.M. Campagna, D. Lio, and G. Candore. 2007. CCR5 receptor: biologic and genetic implications in age-related diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1100:162–172. Beckmann, J.H., S. Yan, H. Luhrs, B. Heid, S. Skubich, R. Forster, and M.W. Hoffmann. 2004. Prolongation of allograft survival in ccr7-deficient mice. Transplantation 77:1809–1814. Belperio, J.A., M.P. Keane, M.D. Burdick, B. Gomperts, Y.Y. Xue, K. Hong, J. Mestas, A. Ardehali, B. Mehrad, R. Saggar, J.P. Lynch, D.J. Ross, and R.M. Strieter. 2005. Role of CXCR2/CXCR2 ligands in vascular remodeling during bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. J Clin Invest 115:1150–1162. Bertini, R., M. Allegretti, C. Bizzarri, A. Moriconi, M. Locati, G. Zampella, M.N. Cervellera, V. Di Cioccio, M.C. Cesta, E. Galliera, F.O. Martinez, R. Di Bitondo, G. Troiani, V. Sabbatini, G. D’Anniballe, R. Anacardio, J.C. Cutrin, B. Cavalieri, F. Mainiero, R. Strippoli, P. Villa, M. Di Girolamo, F. Martin, M. Gentile, A. Santoni, D. Corda, G. Poli, A. Mantovani, P. Ghezzi, and F. Colotta. 2004. Noncompetitive allosteric inhibitors of the inflammatory chemokine receptors CXCR1 and CXCR2: prevention of reperfusion injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:11791–11796.

88

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

Bose, A., Y. Inoue, K.E. Kokko, and F.G. Lakkis. 2003. Cutting edge: perforin down-regulates CD4 and CD8 T cell-mediated immune responses to a transplanted organ. J Immunol 170:1611–1614. Brenner, S., N. Whiting-Theobald, T. Kawai, G.F. Linton, A.G. Rudikoff, U. Choi, M.F. Ryser, P.M. Murphy, J.M. Sechler, and H.L. Malech. 2004. CXCR4-transgene expression significantly improves marrow engraftment of cultured hematopoietic stem cells. Stem Cells 22:1128–1133. Chavez-Galan, L., M.C. Arenas-Del Angel, E. Zenteno, R. Chavez, and R. Lascurain. 2009. Cell death mechanisms induced by cytotoxic lymphocytes. Cell Mol Immunol 6:15–25. Clayberger, C. 2009. Cytolytic molecules in rejection. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 14:30–33. Colvin, B.L., B.M. Matta, and A.W. Thomson. 2008. Dendritic cells and chemokine-directed migration in transplantation: where are we headed? Clin Lab Med 28:375–384, v. Cugini, D., N. Azzollini, E. Gagliardini, P. Cassis, R. Bertini, F. Colotta, M. Noris, G. Remuzzi, and A. Benigni. 2005. Inhibition of the chemokine receptor CXCR2 prevents kidney graft function deterioration due to ischemia/reperfusion. Kidney Int 67:1753–1761. Cyster, J.G. 2005. Chemokines, sphingosine-1-phosphate, and cell migration in secondary lymphoid organs. Annu Rev Immunol 23:127–159. De Perrot, M., Y. Sekine, S. Fischer, T.K. Waddell, K. McRae, M. Liu, D.A. Wigle, and S. Keshavjee. 2002. Interleukin-8 release during early reperfusion predicts graft function in human lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 165:211–215. Deola, S., M.C. Panelli, D. Maric, S. Selleri, N.I. Dmitrieva, C.Y. Voss, H. Klein, D. Stroncek, E. Wang, and F.M. Marincola. 2008. Helper B cells promote cytotoxic T cell survival and proliferation independently of antigen presentation through CD27/CD70 interactions. J Immunol 180:1362–1372. Drayton, D.L., S. Liao, R.H. Mounzer, and N.H. Ruddle. 2006. Lymphoid organ development: from ontogeny to neogenesis. Nat Immunol 7:344–353. El-Sawy, T., J.A. Belperio, R.M. Strieter, D.G. Remick, and R.L. Fairchild. 2005. Inhibition of polymorphonuclear leukocyte-mediated graft damage synergizes with short-term costimulatory blockade to prevent cardiac allograft rejection. Circulation 112:320–331. Fan, X., A.C. Patera, A. Pong-Kennedy, G. Deno, W. Gonsiorek, D.J. Manfra, G. Vassileva, M. Zeng, C. Jackson, L. Sullivan, W. Sharif-Rodriguez, G. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme, J.A. Hedrick, D. Lundell, S.A. Lira, and R.W. Hipkin. 2007. Murine CXCR1 is a functional receptor for GCP-2/CXCL6 and interleukin-8/CXCL8. J Biol Chem 282:11658–11666. Fischereder, M. 2007. Chemokines and chemokine receptors in renal transplantation--from bench to bedside. Acta Physiol Hung 94:67–81. Fischereder, M., B. Luckow, B. Hocher, R.P. Wuthrich, U. Rothenpieler, H. Schneeberger, U. Panzer, R.A. Stahl, I.A. Hauser, K. Budde, H. Neumayer, B.K. Kramer, W. Land, and D. Schlondorff. 2001. CC chemokine receptor 5 and renal-transplant survival. Lancet 357:1758–1761. Fleury, S., J. Li, E. Simeoni, E. Fiorini, L.K. von Segesser, L. Kappenberger, and G. Vassalli. 2006. Gene transfer of RANTES and MCP-1 chemokine antagonists prolongs cardiac allograft survival. Gene Ther 13:1104–1109. Forster, R., A. Schubel, D. Breitfeld, E. Kremmer, I. Renner-Muller, E. Wolf, and M. Lipp. 1999. CCR7 coordinates the primary immune response by establishing functional microenvironments in secondary lymphoid organs. Cell 99:23–33. Forster, R., A.C. Davalos-Misslitz, and A. Rot. 2008. CCR7 and its ligands: balancing immunity and tolerance. Nat Rev Immunol 8:362–371. Gao, W., P.S. Topham, J.A. King, S.T. Smiley, V. Csizmadia, B. Lu, C.J. Gerard, and W.W. Hancock. 2000. Targeting of the chemokine receptor CCR1 suppresses development of acute and chronic cardiac allograft rejection. J Clin Invest 105:35–44. Gao, W., K.L. Faia, V. Csizmadia, S.T. Smiley, D. Soler, J.A. King, T.M. Danoff, and W.W. Hancock. 2001. Beneficial effects of targeting CCR5 in allograft recipients. Transplantation 72:1199–1205.

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

89

Ghosh, S., E. Goldin, F.H. Gordon, H.A. Malchow, J. Rask-Madsen, P. Rutgeerts, P. Vyhnalek, Z. Zadorova, T. Palmer, and S. Donoghue. 2003. Natalizumab for active Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 348:24–32. Gondek, D.C., V. Devries, E.C. Nowak, L.F. Lu, K.A. Bennett, Z.A. Scott, and R.J. Noelle. 2008. Transplantation survival is maintained by granzyme B+ regulatory cells and adaptive regulatory T cells. J Immunol 181:4752–4760. Grone, H.J., C. Weber, K.S. Weber, E.F. Grone, T. Rabelink, C.M. Klier, T.N. Wells, A.E. Proudfood, D. Schlondorff, and P.J. Nelson. 1999. Met-RANTES reduces vascular and tubular damage during acute renal transplant rejection: blocking monocyte arrest and recruitment. FASEB J 13:1371–1383. Grossman, W.J., J.W. Verbsky, B.L. Tollefsen, C. Kemper, J.P. Atkinson, and T.J. Ley. 2004. Differential expression of granzymes A and B in human cytotoxic lymphocyte subsets and T regulatory cells. Blood 104:2840–2848. Halloran, P.F., and R.L. Fairchild. 2008. The puzzling role of CXCR3 and its ligands in organ allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 8:1578–1579. Hancock, W.W., B. Lu, W. Gao, V. Csizmadia, K. Faia, J.A. King, S.T. Smiley, M. Ling, N.P. Gerard, and C. Gerard. 2000. Requirement of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 for acute allograft rejection. J Exp Med 192:1515–1520. Hidalgo, L.G., G. Einecke, K. Allanach, and P.F. Halloran. 2008. The transcriptome of human cytotoxic T cells: similarities and disparities among allostimulated CD4(+) CTL, CD8(+) CTL and NK cells. Am J Transplant 8:627–636. Hidalgo, L.G., G. Einecke, K. Allanach, M. Mengel, B. Sis, T.F. Mueller, and P.F. Halloran. 2008. The transcriptome of human cytotoxic T cells: measuring the burden of CTL-associated transcripts in human kidney transplants. Am J Transplant 8:637–646. Hoffmann, U., S. Segerer, P. Rummele, B. Kruger, M. Pietrzyk, F. Hofstadter, B. Banas, and B.K. Kramer. 2006. Expression of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 in human renal allografts–a prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:1373–1381. Horuk, R., C. Clayberger, A.M. Krensky, Z. Wang, H.J. Grone, C. Weber, K.S. Weber, P.J. Nelson, K. May, M. Rosser, L. Dunning, M. Liang, B. Buckman, A. Ghannam, H.P. Ng, I. Islam, J.G. Bauman, G.P. Wei, S. Monahan, W. Xu, R.M. Snider, M.M. Morrissey, J. Hesselgesser, and H.D. Perez. 2001. A non-peptide functional antagonist of the CCR1 chemokine receptor is effective in rat heart transplant rejection. J Biol Chem 276:4199–4204. Horuk, R., S. Shurey, H.P. Ng, K. May, J.G. Bauman, I. Islam, A. Ghannam, B. Buckman, G.P. Wei, W. Xu, M. Liang, M. Rosser, L. Dunning, J. Hesselgesser, R.M. Snider, M.M. Morrissey, H.D. Perez, and C. Green. 2001. CCR1-specific non-peptide antagonist: efficacy in a rabbit allograft rejection model. Immunol Lett 76:193–201. Janka, G.E. 2007. Hemophagocytic syndromes. Blood Rev 21:245–253. Jongstra, J., T.J. Schall, B.J. Dyer, C. Clayberger, J. Jorgensen, M.M. Davis, and A.M. Krensky. 1987. The isolation and sequence of a novel gene from a human functional T cell line. J Exp Med 165:601–614. Kagi, D., B. Ledermann, K. Burki, R.M. Zinkernagel, and H. Hengartner. 1996. Molecular mechanisms of lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity and their role in immunological protection and pathogenesis in vivo. Annu Rev Immunol 14:207–232. King, W.J., R.M. Comer, T. Hudde, D.F. Larkin, and A.J. George. 2000. Cytokine and chemokine expression kinetics after corneal transplantation. Transplantation 70:1225–1233. Kobayashi, N., T. Kondo, H. Takata, S. Yokota, and M. Takiguchi. 2006. Functional and phenotypic analysis of human memory CD8+ T cells expressing CXCR3. J Leukoc Biol 80:320–329. Kotsch, K., M.F. Mashreghi, G. Bold, P. Tretow, J. Beyer, M. Matz, J. Hoerstrup, J. Pratschke, R. Ding, M. Suthanthiran, H.D. Volk, and P. Reinke. 2004. Enhanced granulysin mRNA expression in urinary sediment in early and delayed acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 77:1866–1875. Krensky, A.M. 2000. Molecular biology of transplantation. Nephron 86:260–265.

90

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

Krensky, A.M., and Y.T. Ahn. 2007. Mechanisms of disease: regulation of RANTES (CCL5) in renal disease. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 3:164–170. Krensky, A.M., and C. Clayberger. 2009. Biology and clinical relevance of granulysin. Tissue Antigens 73:193–198. Krensky, A.M., A. Weiss, G. Crabtree, M.M. Davis, and P. Parham. 1990. T-lymphocyte-antigen interactions in transplant rejection. N Engl J Med 322:510–517. Kruger, B., B. Schroppel, R. Ashkan, B. Marder, C. Zulke, B. Murphy, B.K. Kramer, and M. Fischereder. 2002. A Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) polymorphism and outcome after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 13:2585–2589. Kuritzkes, D.R. 2009. HIV-1 entry inhibitors: an overview. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 4:82–87. Lazzeri, E., and P. Romagnani. 2005. CXCR3-binding chemokines: novel multifunctional therapeutic targets. Curr Drug Targets Immune Endocr Metabol Disord 5:109–118. Lederman, M.M., R.S. Veazey, R. Offord, D.E. Mosier, J. Dufour, M. Mefford, M. Piatak, Jr., J.D. Lifson, J.R. Salkowitz, B. Rodriguez, A. Blauvelt, and O. Hartley. 2004. Prevention of vaginal SHIV transmission in rhesus macaques through inhibition of CCR5. Science 306:485–487. Li, B., C. Hartono, R. Ding, V.K. Sharma, R. Ramaswamy, B. Qian, D. Serur, J. Mouradian, J.E. Schwartz, and M. Suthanthiran. 2001. Noninvasive diagnosis of renal-allograft rejection by measurement of messenger RNA for perforin and granzyme B in urine. N Engl J Med 344:947–954. Mansoor, M., and A.J. Melendez. 2008. Recent trials for FTY720 (fingolimod): a new generation of immunomodulators structurally similar to sphingosine. Rev Recent Clin Trials 3:62–69. Mantovani, A., A. Sica, S. Sozzani, P. Allavena, A. Vecchi, and M. Locati. 2004. The chemokine system in diverse forms of macrophage activation and polarization. Trends Immunol 25:677–686. Matloubian, M., C.G. Lo, G. Cinamon, M.J. Lesneski, Y. Xu, V. Brinkmann, M.L. Allende, R.L. Proia, and J.G. Cyster. 2004. Lymphocyte egress from thymus and peripheral lymphoid organs is dependent on S1P receptor 1. Nature 427:355–360. Miller, D.H., O.A. Khan, W.A. Sheremata, L.D. Blumhardt, G.P. Rice, M.A. Libonati, A.J. Willmer-Hulme, C.M. Dalton, K.A. Miszkiel, and P.W. O’Connor. 2003. A controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 348:15–23. Miura, M., T. El-Sawy, and R.L. Fairchild. 2003. Neutrophils mediate parenchymal tissue necrosis and accelerate the rejection of complete major histocompatibility complex-disparate cardiac allografts in the absence of interferon-gamma. Am J Pathol 162:509–519. Molon, B., G. Gri, M. Bettella, C. Gomez-Mouton, A. Lanzavecchia, A.C. Martinez, S. Manes, and A. Viola. 2005. T cell costimulation by chemokine receptors. Nat Immunol 6:465–471. Morris, M.A., and K. Ley. 2004. Trafficking of natural killer cells. Curr Mol Med 4:431–438. Muller, G., P. Reiterer, U.E. Hopken, S. Golfier, and M. Lipp. 2003. Role of homeostatic chemokine and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors in the organization of lymphoid tissue. Ann N Y Acad Sci 987:107–116. Murphy, P.M. 1997. Neutrophil receptors for interleukin-8 and related CXC chemokines. Semin Hematol 34:311–318. Nelson, P.J., and A.M. Krensky. 2001. Chemokines, chemokine receptors, and allograft rejection. Immunity 14:377–386. Nickel, P., J. Lacha, S. Ode-Hakim, B. Sawitzki, N. Babel, U. Frei, H.D. Volk, and P. Reinke. 2001. Cytotoxic effector molecule gene expression in acute renal allograft rejection: correlation with clinical outcome; histopathology and function of the allograft. Transplantation 72:1158–1160. Panzer, U., R.R. Reinking, O.M. Steinmetz, G. Zahner, U. Sudbeck, S. Fehr, B. Pfalzer, A. Schneider, F. Thaiss, M. Mack, S. Conrad, H. Huland, U. Helmchen, and R.A. Stahl. 2004. CXCR3 and CCR5 positive T-cell recruitment in acute human renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 78:1341–1350. Pease, J.E., and R. Horuk. 2005. CCR1 antagonists in clinical development. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 14:785–796. Pease, J.E., and R. Horuk. 2009. Chemokine receptor antagonists: Part 1. Expert Opin Ther Pat 19:39–58.

Chemokines and Cytotoxic Effector Molecules in Rejection

91

Pease, J.E., and R. Horuk. 2009. Chemokine receptor antagonists: part 2. Expert Opin Ther Pat 19:199–221. Proudfoot, A.E., C.A. Power, A.J. Hoogewerf, M.O. Montjovent, F. Borlat, R.E. Offord, and T.N. Wells. 1996. Extension of recombinant human RANTES by the retention of the initiating methionine produces a potent antagonist. J Biol Chem 271:2599–2603. Romagnani, S. 2002. Cytokines and chemoattractants in allergic inflammation. Mol Immunol 38:881–885. Saiura, A., M. Sata, K. Hiasa, S. Kitamoto, M. Washida, K. Egashira, R. Nagai, and M. Makuuchi. 2004. Antimonocyte chemoattractant protein-1 gene therapy attenuates graft vasculopathy. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 24:1886–1890. Salazar-Mather, T.P., J.S. Orange, and C.A. Biron. 1998. Early murine cytomegalovirus (MCMV) infection induces liver natural killer (NK) cell inflammation and protection through macrophage inflammatory protein 1alpha (MIP-1alpha)-dependent pathways. J Exp Med 187:1–14. Sallusto, F., A. Langenkamp, J. Geginat, and A. Lanzavecchia. 2000. Functional subsets of memory T cells identified by CCR7 expression. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 251:167–171. Sarwal, M.M., A. Jani, S. Chang, P. Huie, Z. Wang, O. Salvatierra, Jr., C. Clayberger, R. Sibley, A.M. Krensky, and M. Pavlakis. 2001. Granulysin expression is a marker for acute rejection and steroid resistance in human renal transplantation. Hum Immunol 62:21–31. Satterwhite, T., M.S. Chua, S.C. Hsieh, S. Chang, J. Scandling, O. Salvatierra, and M.M. Sarwal. 2003. Increased expression of cytotoxic effector molecules: different interpretations for steroid-based and steroid-free immunosuppression. Pediatr Transplant 7:53–58. Sbrana, S., S. Bevilacqua, M. Buffa, D. Spiller, M.S. Parri, J. Gianetti, R. De Filippis, and A. Clerico. 2005. Post-reperfusion changes of monocyte function in coronary blood after extracorporeal circulation. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 65:14–21. Schall, T.J., J. Jongstra, B.J. Dyer, J. Jorgensen, C. Clayberger, M.M. Davis, and A.M. Krensky. 1988. A human T cell-specific molecule is a member of a new gene family. J Immunol 141:1018–1025. Selleri, S., S. Deola, Z. Pos, P. Jin, A. Worschech, S.L. Slezak, C. Rumio, M.C. Panelli, D. Maric, D.F. Stroncek, E. Wang, and F.M. Marincola. 2008. GM-CSF/IL-3/IL-5 receptor common beta chain (CD131) expression as a biomarker of antigen-stimulated CD8+ T cells. J Transl Med 6:17. Sharma, V.K., R.M. Bologa, B. Li, G.P. Xu, M. Lagman, W. Hiscock, J. Mouradian, J. Wang, D. Serur, V.K. Rao, and M. Suthanthiran. 1996. Molecular executors of cell death–differential intrarenal expression of Fas ligand, Fas, granzyme B, and perforin during acute and/or chronic rejection of human renal allografts. Transplantation 62:1860–1866. Simmons, G., P.R. Clapham, L. Picard, R.E. Offord, M.M. Rosenkilde, T.W. Schwartz, R. Buser, T.N. Wells, and A.E. Proudfoot. 1997. Potent inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity in macrophages and lymphocytes by a novel CCR5 antagonist. Science 276:276–279. Stepp, S.E., R. Dufourcq-Lagelouse, F. Le Deist, S. Bhawan, S. Certain, P.A. Mathew, J.I. Henter, M. Bennett, A. Fischer, G. de Saint Basile, and V. Kumar. 1999. Perforin gene defects in familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Science 286:1957–1959. Tan, J., and G. Zhou. 2005. Chemokine receptors and transplantation. Cell Mol Immunol 2:343–349. Trapani, J.A., and M.J. Smyth. 2002. Functional significance of the perforin/granzyme cell death pathway. Nat Rev Immunol 2:735–747. Trapani, J.A., and V.R. Sutton. 2003. Granzyme B: pro-apoptotic, antiviral and antitumor functions. Curr Opin Immunol 15:533–543. Ulbrich, H., E.E. Eriksson, and L. Lindbom. 2003. Leukocyte and endothelial cell adhesion ­molecules as targets for therapeutic interventions in inflammatory disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci 24:640–647. Vasconcellos, L.M., A.D. Schachter, X.X. Zheng, L.H. Vasconcellos, M. Shapiro, W.E. Harmon, and T.B. Strom. 1998. Cytotoxic lymphocyte gene expression in peripheral blood leukocytes correlates with rejecting renal allografts. Transplantation 66:562–566.

92

A.M. Krensky and C. Clayberger

Vassalli, G., E. Simeoni, J.P. Li, and S. Fleury. 2006. Lentiviral gene transfer of the chemokine antagonist RANTES 9-68 prolongs heart graft survival. Transplantation 81:240–246. Viola, A., and A.D. Luster. 2008. Chemokines and their receptors: drug targets in immunity and inflammation. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 48:171–197. Wiedermann, C.J., E. Kowald, N. Reinisch, C.M. Kaehler, I. von Luettichau, J.M. Pattison, P. Huie, R.K. Sibley, P.J. Nelson, and A.M. Krensky. 1993. Monocyte haptotaxis induced by the RANTES chemokine. Curr Biol 3:735–739. Yigit, B., N. Bozkurt, I. Berber, I. Titiz, and T. Isbir. 2007. Analysis of CC chemokine receptor 5 and 2 polymorphisms and renal transplant survival. Cell Biochem Funct 25:423–426. Yun, J.J., D. Whiting, M.P. Fischbein, A. Banerji, Y. Irie, D. Stein, M.C. Fishbein, A.E. Proudfoot, H. Laks, J.A. Berliner, and A. Ardehali. 2004. Combined blockade of the chemokine receptors CCR1 and CCR5 attenuates chronic rejection. Circulation 109:932–937. Zipp, F., H.P. Hartung, J. Hillert, S. Schimrigk, C. Trebst, M. Stangel, C. Infante-Duarte, P. Jakobs, C. Wolf, R. Sandbrink, C. Pohl, and M. Filippi. 2006. Blockade of chemokine signaling in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 67:1880–1883. Zlotnik, A., O. Yoshie, and H. Nomiyama. 2006. The chemokine and chemokine receptor superfamilies and their molecular evolution. Genome Biol 7:243.

Clinical Applications of Activated Immune Cells Luciano Castiello, Marianna Sabatino, Ping Jin, Francesco M. Marincola, and David Stroncek

Introduction Adoptive immune therapy has been used for many years to treat viral diseases, hematologic malignancies and cancer. While some diseased have been effectively treated with adoptive T cell immune therapy, many have not. Most successful T cell therapies have required ex vivo T cell expansion and some have required ex vivo T cell sensitization. NK cells and genetically engineered T cells have also be used for adoptive immune therapy. Dendrtic cells have been extensively used and studied to enhance immune therapies and dendritic cell polarized toward Th1 cells appears to be essential to their effectiveness.

Immune Therapy for Viral Infections Cytomegalovirus Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a serious opportunist pathogen in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Antiviral drugs can be used to treat CMV infection, but they are associated with serious toxicities including suppression of hematopoiesis and renal toxicity. CMV-specific T cells are essential for the control of CMV infections (Peggs 2009). Typically, in healthy subjects who have been infected with CMV a very large proportions of all their CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, 3–5%, are CMV-reactive (Sylwester et al. 2005). Furthermore, following hematopoietic transplantation the risk of CMV-infection is inversely correlated with the reconstitution of CMV-specific T cell immunity. The reconstitution of CD8+ T cells specific for the immune dominant

D. Stroncek (*) Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1184, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_7, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

93

94

L. Castiello et al.

CMV protein pp65 provides protective immunity (Cwynarski et  al. 2001; Gratama et al. 2001), but long term control of CMV infection is associated with reconstitution of CMV-specific CD4+ cells responses (Hebart et al. 2002). T cell adoptive immune therapy has been successful in preventing CMV-infection and in treating CMV disease. The adoptive transfer of ex vivo expanded CMV-specific donor derived T cells is effective in preventing and treating CMV disease. Walter et al. (1995) have shown that CMV-specific cytotoxic CD8+ T cell clones from CMVseropostive hematopoietic transplant donors expanded ex vivo with CMV-infected fibroblasts and infused following the transplant prevent CMV infection. Another successful CMV adoptive immune therapy strategy makes use of oligo or polyclonal CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells or a mixed population. These CMVspecific T cells have been generated by ex vivo expansion of peripheral blood T cells from CMV-positive donors using lyzed CMV infected cells as a source of antigens or by expanding T cells with monocyte-derived dendritic cells (DCs) loaded with CMV-lysate or peptides derived from CMV pp65. These ex vivo expanded CMV-specific T cells have been used to prevent and treat CMV-infections (Einsele et al. 2002; Peggs et al. 2003; Micklethwaite et al. 2007). CMV-specific T cells have also been produced ex vivo using EBV-transformed B cell lines (EBVLCL) transduced with an adenovirus vector containing CMV pp65. Cytotoxic T cells produced with these EBV-LCL are specific for EBV, CMV and adenovirus (Leen et al. 2006). The infusion of these cells to 11 hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients resulted in the in vivo expansion of multispecific cytotoxic lymphocytes and was associated with a reduction in the levels of all three viruses with the resolution of virus-associated symptoms and signs (Leen et al. 2006). CMV-specific CTLs can also be selected directly from peripheral blood ­mononuclear cells (Peggs 2009). HLA-Class I multimers loaded with CMV immune dominant ­peptides have been used to select the CTLs. This strategy is effective due to the large proportion of CMV-specific T cells in the peripheral blood of CMV-seropositive subjects. Direct selection of CTLs avoids lengthy ex vivo expansion and allows for the rapid preparation of CMV-specific cytotoxic T cells. HLA class I CMV peptide tetramers coupled to paramagnetic beads have been used to isolate CMV-specific T cells from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected from hematopoietic stem cell transplant donors by apheresis (Cobbold et al. 2005). When used clinically in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients CMV viremia was reduced in all nine patients treated and was cleared completely in eight of the patients (Cobbold et al. 2005).

Immune Therapy for Viral Induce Malignancies Posttransplant EBV-Associated Lymphoproliferative Disease Patients receiving transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors or mismatched unrelated related donors are at risk for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)-positive lympho­ proliferative disease (EBV-LPD). These EBV-associated lymphomas are highly immunogenic tumors that express immune dominant viral antigens such as

Clinical Applications of Activated Immune Cells

95

EBNA3 protein. Immune therapy has been effective for treating EBV-associated lymphomas. Since most people have been infected with EBV and have circulating cytotoxic T cells specific for EBV, peripheral blood leukocytes from hematopoietic stem cell transplant donors have been given to transplant recipients to treat EBV-LPD. The infusion of donor leukocytes isolated from the blood has been found to be effective in 70% of patients. However, donor leukocyte infusions can induce or worsen acute GVHD. To avoid or reduce the risk of developing acute GVHD, many centers are using donor leukocytes that have been highly enriched for EBV-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) to treat EBV-LPD. These adoptively transferred EBVspecific CTLs are produced by culturing the transplant donor’s T cells with EBV-LCLs. A multicenter trial has found that EBV-specific CTLs produced with EBV-LCLs were 100% effective in preventing EBV-associated lymphomas in 101 at risk patients and were effective in treating EBV-associated lymphomas in 11 of 13 patients treated (Heslop et  al. 2010). Gene marking studies showed that the EBV-specific CTLs could be detected in the circulation for up to 9 years (Heslop et al. 2010).

Immune Therapy for Leukemia Donor Leukocyte Infusions Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) collected by apheresis from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplant donors are often given to the transplant recipient as posttransplant adoptive immune therapy (Tomblyn and Lazarus 2008; Loren and Porter 2008). Unmanipulated or minimally manipulated PBMCs are given to speed immune recovery and to prevent leukemia relapse following transplantation with T cell depleted grafts. They are also used to treat leukemia relapse following transplantation. They are most effective treating relapse of CML. They are effective in treating CML relapse in more than 60% of patients and in treating molecular relapse of CML in 90% of cases (Tomblyn and Lazarus 2008). Donor leukocyte infusions (DLIs) are also effective in treating relapsed multiple myeloma with a 40–50% response rate. The major complication of DLI therapy is the development of GVHD. Approximately one-third of patients treated with DLIs develop acute or chronic GVHD. Some of these donor leukocyte products are processed extensively. For example, some hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients are given donor T cells treated to polarized them to a TH2 phenotype to maintain antiviral and antitumor immunity while avoiding GVHD (Fowler et al. 2006).

NK Cells NK cells have potent antitumor activity and play an important role in the treatment of leukemia by allogeneic transplantation. The mismatching of transplant donor

96

L. Castiello et al.

NK cell inhibitor killer-like receptors (KIR) with its HLA Class I antigen ligands expressed in the recipient has been associated with less leukemia relapse in recipients of unrelated donor transplants and in mismatched related donors transplants. Recently, some groups have been using NK cells as primary immune therapy to treat cancer and hematologic malignancies. One challenge of NK cell therapy is delivering an adequate dose of NK cells. Typically NK cells are isolated from PBMC concentrates collected by apheresis. To increase the number of effecter NK cells for clinically therapy NK cells are expanded either in vivo or in vitro. In vivo expansion has been accomplished by the administration of IL-2 and lymphocyte depleting chemotherapy with high dose cyclophosphamide and fludaribine. Lymphocyte depletion results in a transient increase in circulating IL-15 levels. The elevated levels of IL-2 and IL-15 induce in  vivo expansion in most patients. This approach has been used with NK cells isolated from HLA haplotype identical donors to treat patients with hematogic malignancies and was associated with hematological remission in 5 of 19 poor prognosis patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (Miller et al. 2005). Two methods have been reported for in vitro expansion. One protocol involves stimulating NK cells with IL-5 and K562 cells that have been transduced with 4-1BB ligand (Imai et  al. 2005). Another protocol uses IL-2 and EBV-LCLs to stimulate NK cells (Berg et al. 2009). This approach results in more than 100-fold expansion of NK cells and is being used to treat patients with cancer. Adoptive immune cancer clinical trials with NK cells expanded in vitro with EBV-LCLs are underway, but the results are not yet available.

Immune Therapy for Cancer Tumor Infiltrating Leukocytes for Melanoma Adoptive immune therapy with cytotoxic T cells has been effective in treating cancer. Rosenberg and colleagues have found that tumor infiltrating leukocytes (TIL) from metastatic melanoma lesions expanded ex vivo and administered along with intravenous IL-2 therapy induces objective clinical responses in approximately 31–35% of patients with metastatic melanoma (Rosenberg and Dudley 2009). Clinical responses were associated with the in vitro lysis of autologous tumor by the administered TIL. Gene marking studies, however, found that these cells were short lived with less than 0.1% circulating for more than 1 week. Even better clinical responses have been obtained when TIL are given to patients with metastatic melanoma who have been given nonmyeloablative chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the administration of TIL and IL-2 therapy. They have also treated melanoma patients with the same nonmyeloablative chemo­ therapy followed by low dose whole body irradiation and autologous CD34+ cell rescue before TIL infusion. With these modifications the object response rate of

Clinical Applications of Activated Immune Cells

97

TIL therapy increases to 49–72%. Favorable response rate were associated with persistence of the infused cells (Rosenberg and Dudley 2009).

Dendritic Cells Dendritic cells (DCs) are being used for adoptive immune cancer therapy. DCs are key players in both innate and adaptive immune responses. The use of DC-based cellular therapies to enhance innate and adoptive immune mediated tumor rejection is a promising regimen which has shown evidence of improving patient survival and objectively enhancing tumor elimination. DCs are considered essential for the initiation, programming and regulation of antigen-specific immune responses (Steinman and Banchereau 2007). They play a fundamental role in supporting the survival and the effector function of primed T cells while coordinating communication among cells of the immune system. Since DCs were first generated ex vivo for immunotherapy (Mayordomo et al. 1995) and used in clinical trials (Hsu et al. 1996; Nestle et al. 1998), they have been found to be effective in treating patients with lymphoma, melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (Kalinski et al. 2009), although their potential utilization is wider and goes beyond cancer therapy. However, the clinic response rates of DC therapies are only 10–15% (Kalinski et  al. 2009). Various reasons for the limited efficacy of DC-based vaccines have been hypothesized, with inefficient activation of Th1polarized responses due to incomplete DC maturation being the most sited (Kalinski et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2008; Giermasz et al. 2009). Most DC adoptive immune therapy protocols produce DCs from peripheral blood monocytes. The frequency of DCs in the peripheral blood is naturally low and they are difficult to separate from other peripheral blood leukocytes (Nicolette et al. 2007). Large quantities of mononuclear cells can easily be collected from the peripheral blood by leukapheresis and monocytes can be isolated from the other leukocytes with high purity by adherence, elutriation, or selection using immunomagnetic beads (Felzmann et al. 2003; Wong et al. 2001; Berger et al. 2005). In order to produce immature DCs (iDCs), monocytes are usually incubated with GM-CSF and IL-4. Because mature DCs (mDCs) are superior to iDCs for the stimulation of cytotoxic T-cells, iDCs derived from monocytes are often treated with various exogenous stimuli known to induce DCs maturation (Gilboa 2007; Albert et al. 2001). The DC maturation process is complicated: DCs can secrete different cytokines, growth factors and chemokines that can, in turn, attract different immune cells and differentially influence their activation in situ (Muthuswamy et al. 2008; Messmer et al. 2003; Moller et al. 2008). Moreover, the methods that are currently used to produce DCs for adoptive immune therapy may not be optimized: immune responses against tumors, pathogens and autoimmunities need different Th specific polarization (Kalinski and Moser 2005a). For these reasons Th-specific immune responses should be obtained by the stimulation of DCs to produce cells with a

98

L. Castiello et al.

specific Th polarizing ability that has still not well understood, characterized and re-produced ex vivo (Kalinski and Moser 2005b). Several strategies have been used to produce mature DCs, which are characterized by high immune cell activation potential. Factors used to mature immature DCs included lipopolysaccharide (LPS), CD40 ligand (CD40L), tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), IFN-g, IFN-g and cocktails combining several factors, to better re-create the inflammation environment, such as prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), interleukin-1b (IL-1b, IL-6, polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly (I:C)). Global gene expression micro arrays have been used to compare DCs matured with various maturation protocols. DC maturation with LPS plus IFN-g was associated with waves of gene expression changes and the genes upregulated during DC maturation included many involved with immune function, cell differentiation, and migration (Jin et al. 2010). Some genes were upregulated or downregulated throughout maturation and others were upregulated or downregulated after 4 and 8  h of maturation but then returned to baseline levels after 24  h. The upregulated genes were most likely to be in pathways involved with the cellular immune response, cytokine signaling, transcriptional regulation and the inflammatory response, while downregulated genes were most likely to belong to metabolic pathways. The expression of inflammatory chemokine ligands including CCL2/MCP-1, CCL3/MIP1a, CCL4/MIP1b, CXCL1/GROa, CXCL9/MIG and CXCL11/ITAC reached a peak at hour 4 h of LPS plus IFN-g maturation, but then returned to baseline levels (Jin et al. 2010). The expression of chemokines CCL5/RANTES, CCL8/ MCP-2, and CXCL10/IP-10 peaked after 8 h and sustained high expression levels through hour 24. Chemokine ligands that were part of Toll-like receptor signaling pathways such as CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 were all upregulated more than sevenfold during maturation. The levels of most of these genes peaked at hour 4 except for CCL5 and CXCL10 which peaked at hour 8 and sustained high levels of expression through hour 24. Chemokine ligands that preferentially attract Th1 T cells such as CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 were also markedly increased after 4 h. However, two chemokine ligands for CCR4, which are important attractants of Th2 cells CCL17/TARC and CCL22/MDC, were only slightly upregulated or showed no significant change after 24 h of maturation (Jin et al. 2010). Although after 24  h of LPS and IFN-g maturation DCs were well-armed to induce Th1 responses as exemplified by significant elevations in the expression of the Th1 cell attractants CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11 and CCL5 (Jin et al. 2010), another study has found that prostaglandin E2 (PGE2),induces mature DCs which produced high levels of the regulator T cell (Treg) attracting cytokines CCL22 and CXCL12 (Muthuswamy et  al. 2008). These Treg cells can counter the effects of Th1 responses by cytotoxic T cells, Th1 cells, and NK cells. In contrast, LPS and IFN-g maturated DCs did not increase the levels of CCL22 and CXCL12 expression (Jin et al. 2010). We have also reviewed the results of DNA microarray data on the maturation of DCs in order to compare different conditions of maturation (Castiello et al. 2010).

Clinical Applications of Activated Immune Cells

99

Fig. 1  Immune pathways activated during the maturation of DCs. When iDCs are matured with LPS, the interaction of LPS with Toll-like receptors leads to a cascade of events leading to the activation of NF-kb, p38-MAPK, ERK1/2 and JNK. Although IL-1, CD40L and TNF-a bind different receptors, when they activate iDCs their downstream signals activate the NF-kb RelA/B complex. In contrast, IFNs stimulate a different pathway that includes the activation of JAKs, TYK2 and STAT1/2

We categorized the various maturation protocols based on the level of ­overlap of canonical pathways identified by the gene expression data that were believed to be primarily activated by each compound (Fig. 1) (Castiello et al. 2010). We clustered various maturation protocols into three major categories: LPS, CD40L/TNF-a, and IFN-g dependent maturation strategies. In addition, a fourth category was needed for protocols that included cocktails of factors that represented a combination of the other categories. For instance, LPS interacts with Toll-like receptors (TLR)-4 leading to the activation of different transcription factors including nuclear factor -kB (NF-kB), p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38 MAPK), c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase (ERK1/2). On the other hand, although both CD40L and TNF-a activate NF-kB, this activation occurs through different and only partially overlapping signaling cascades. Quite differently, IFN- and IFN-g signal through the Janus kinase (JNK) and tyrosine kinase (TYK) cascade leading to activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription proteins (STATs), which lead to down-stream effects where the action of NF-kB is also complemented by the action of several interferon regulatory factors (IRFs). LPS consistently induced CCL5, CCL4, CCL18, CCL19, CCL20, CCL23 and IMCAM1, SOD2 and MAPK inhibitors (Table 1) (Castiello et  al. 2010). Interferons induced the Th1-polarizing factors CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, MXa, and ISG-15. TNFa and CD40L induced the Th2-polarizing factors CCL17, CXCR4, and IL-10R.

100

L. Castiello et al.

Table  1  Genes consistently induced by each maturation agent and their immune related functions Maturation compound Induced genes Effect Recruitment of a variety of LPS Chemokines: CCL5, CCL4, immune cells; activation CCL20, CCL18, CCL19, of a primary immune CCL23 response against a Inflammatory-related genes: pathogen ICAM1, SOD2 MAPK inhibitors: DUSP1, DUSP5, TNFAIP3 Activation of the Th2-polarized TNF-a/CD40L Chemokines: CCL17 immune response Surface proteins: CXCR4, IL-10R, IL-13R, GM-CSFR Activation of the Th1-polarized IFNs IFN stimulated genes: CXCL-9, immune response CXCL-10, CXCL-11, MXa, ISG-15 Immune-mediated tissue rejection genes: STAT-1, IRF-1, IL-15

New Directions While TIL cell therapy is effective for treating melanoma, TIL cells cannot be produced from all patients since metastatic lesions cannot be biopsied from all patients and lymphocytes cannot be cultured from all biopsies. In addition, T cells from some patients have low affinity T cell receptors. To overcome this limitation several groups are investigating the use of genetically engineered T cells to treat cancer patients. Autologous peripheral blood lymphocytes are genetically modified with genes encoding high affinity TCR a and b chains. High affinity T cell receptor a and b chains from class I HLA-restricted T cell receptors from tumor reactive cytotoxic T cells have been cloned and transferred to T cells from cancer patients. These high affinity T cell receptors give the recipient cells the same antigen specificity as the donor T cells. Melanoma patients have been treated with a genetically modified T cells with MART-1-specific T cells. Synthetic chimeric antigen receptors are also being used to treat patients with cancer. T cells are being genetically modified with chimeric receptors using signaling chains from CD28, 41BB, and CD3 zeta plus antibodies directed to Her2/neu or CD19.

References Albert ML, Jegathesan M, Darnell RB. Dendritic cell maturation is required for the crosstolerization of CD8+ T cells. Nat. Immunol. 2001;2(11):1010–7. Berg M, Lundqvist A, McCoy P, Jr., Samsel L, Fan Y, Tawab A, Childs R. Clinical-grade ex vivoexpanded human natural killer cells up-regulate activating receptors and death receptor ligands and have enhanced cytolytic activity against tumor cells. Cytotherapy. 2009;11(3):341–55.

Clinical Applications of Activated Immune Cells

101

Berger TG, Strasser E, Smith R, Carste C, Schuler-Thurner B, Kaempgen E, Schuler G. Efficient elutriation of monocytes within a closed system (Elutra) for clinical-scale generation of dendritic cells. J. Immunol. Methods 2005;298(1–2):61–72. Castiello L, Sabatino M, Jin P, Clayberger C, Marincola FM, Krensky AM, Stroncek DF. DC maturation strategies and related pathways: a transcriptional veiw. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2010. Cobbold M, Khan N, Pourgheysari B, Tauro S, McDonald D, Osman H, Assenmacher M, Billingham L, Steward C, Crawley C, et al. Adoptive transfer of cytomegalovirus-specific CTL to stem cell transplant patients after selection by HLA-peptide tetramers. J. Exp. Med. 2005;202(3):379–86. Cwynarski K, Ainsworth J, Cobbold M, Wagner S, Mahendra P, Apperley J, Goldman J, Craddock C, Moss PA. Direct visualization of cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell reconstitution after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood 2001;97(5):1232–40. Einsele H, Roosnek E, Rufer N, Sinzger C, Riegler S, Loffler J, Grigoleit U, Moris A, Rammensee HG, Kanz L, et al. Infusion of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific T cells for the treatment of CMV infection not responding to antiviral chemotherapy. Blood 2002;99(11):3916–22. Felzmann T, Witt V, Wimmer D, Ressmann G, Wagner D, Paul P, Huttner K, Fritsch G. Monocyte enrichment from leukapharesis products for the generation of DCs by plastic adherence, or by positive or negative selection. Cytotherapy 2003;5(5):391–8. Fowler DH, Odom J, Steinberg SM, Chow CK, Foley J, Kogan Y, Hou J, Gea-Banacloche J, Sportes C, Pavletic S, et al. Phase I clinical trial of costimulated, IL-4 polarized donor CD4+ T cells as augmentation of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2006;12(11):1150–60. Giermasz AS, Urban JA, Nakamura Y, Watchmaker P, Cumberland RL, Gooding W, Kalinski P. Type-1 polarized dendritic cells primed for high IL-12 production show enhanced activity as cancer vaccines. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2009;58(8):1329–36. Gilboa E. DC-based cancer vaccines. J. Clin. Invest. 2007;117(5):1195–203. Gratama JW, van Esser JW, Lamers CH, Tournay C, Lowenberg B, Bolhuis RL, Cornelissen JJ. Tetramer-based quantification of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD8+ T lymphocytes in T-cell-depleted stem cell grafts and after transplantation may identify patients at risk for progressive CMV infection. Blood 2001;98(5):1358–64. Hebart H, Daginik S, Stevanovic S, Grigoleit U, Dobler A, Baur M, Rauser G, Sinzger C, Jahn G, Loeffler J, et  al. Sensitive detection of human cytomegalovirus peptide-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses by interferon-gamma-enzyme-linked immunospot assay and flow cytometry in healthy individuals and in patients after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood 2002;99(10):3830–7. Heslop HE, Slobod KS, Pule MA, Hale GA, Rousseau A, Smith CA, Bollard CM, Liu H, Wu MF, Rochester RJ, et al. Long-term outcome of EBV-specific T-cell infusions to prevent or treat EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in transplant recipients. Blood 2010;115(5):925–35. Hsu FJ, Benike C, Fagnoni F, Liles TM, Czerwinski D, Taidi B, Engleman EG, Levy R. Vaccination of patients with B-cell lymphoma using autologous antigen-pulsed dendritic cells. Nat. Med. 1996;2(1):52–8. Imai C, Iwamoto S, Campana D. Genetic modification of primary natural killer cells overcomes inhibitory signals and induces specific killing of leukemic cells. Blood 2005;106(1):376–83. Jin P, Han TH, Ren J, Saunders S, Wang E, Marincola FM, Stroncek DF. Molecular signatures of maturing dendritic cells: implications for testing the quality of dendritic cell therapies. J. Transl. Med. 2010;8(1):4. Kalinski P, Moser M. Opinion – Consensual immunity: success-driven development of T-helper-1 and T-helper-2 responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2005;5(3):251–60. Kalinski P, Urban J, Narang R, Berk E, Wieckowski E, Muthuswamy R. Dendritic cell-based therapeutic cancer vaccines: what we have and what we need. Future Oncol. 2009;5(3):379–90. Lee JJ, Foon KA, Mailliard RB, Muthuswamy R, Kalinski P. Type 1-polarized dendritic cells loaded with autologous tumor are a potent immunogen against chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Leukoc Biol. 2008;84(1):319–25.

102

L. Castiello et al.

Leen AM, Myers GD, Sili U, Huls MH, Weiss H, Leung KS, Carrum G, Krance RA, Chang CC, Molldrem JJ, et al. Monoculture-derived T lymphocytes specific for multiple viruses expand and produce clinically relevant effects in immunocompromised individuals. Nat. Med. 2006;12(10):1160–6. Loren AW, Porter DL. Donor leukocyte infusions for the treatment of relapsed acute leukemia after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;41(5):483–93. Mayordomo JI, Zorina T, Storkus WJ, Zitvogel L, Celluzzi C, Falo LD, Melief CJ, Ildstad ST, Kast WM, DeLeo AB, et  al. Bone marrow-derived dendritic cells pulsed with synthetic tumour peptides elicit protective and therapeutic antitumour immunity. Nat. Med. 1995;1(12):1297–302. Messmer D, Messmer B, Chiorazzi N. The global transcriptional maturation program and stimuli-specific gene expression profiles of human myeloid dendritic cells. Int. Immunol. 2003;15(4):491–503. Micklethwaite K, Hansen A, Foster A, Snape E, Antonenas V, Sartor M, Shaw P, Bradstock K, Gottlieb D. Ex vivo expansion and prophylactic infusion of CMV-pp65 peptide-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocytes following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13(6):707–14. Miller JS, Soignier Y, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, McNearney SA, Yun GH, Fautsch SK, McKenna D, Le C, DeFor TE, Burns LJ, et al. Successful adoptive transfer and in vivo expansion of human haploidentical NK cells in patients with cancer. Blood 2005;105(8):3051–7. Moller I, Michel K, Frech N, Burger M, Pfeifer D, Frommolt P, Veelken H, Thomas-Kaskel AK. Dendritic cell maturation with poly(I:C)-based versus PGE2-based cytokine combinations results in differential functional characteristics relevant to clinical application. J. Immunother. 2008;31(5):506–19. Muthuswamy R, Urban J, Lee JJ, Reinhart TA, Bartlett D, Kalinski P. Ability of mature dendritic cells to interact with regulatory T cells is imprinted during maturation. Cancer Res. 2008;68(14):5972–8. Nestle FO, Alijagic S, Gilliet M, Sun Y, Grabbe S, Dummer R, Burg G, Schadendorf D. Vaccination of melanoma patients with peptide- or tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cells. Nat. Med. 1998;4(3):328–32. Nicolette CA, Healey D, Tcherepanova I, Whelton P, Monesmith T, Coombs L, Finke LH, Whiteside T, Miesowicz F. Dendritic cells for active immunotherapy: optimizing design and manufacture in order to develop commercially and clinically viable products. Vaccine 2007;25 Suppl 2:B47–60. Peggs KS. Adoptive T cell immunotherapy for cytomegalovirus. Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther. 2009;9(6):725–36. Peggs KS, Verfuerth S, Pizzey A, Khan N, Guiver M, Moss PA, Mackinnon S. Adoptive cellular therapy for early cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation with virus-specific T-cell lines. Lancet 2003;362(9393):1375–7. Rosenberg SA, Dudley ME. Adoptive cell therapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2009;21(2):233–40. Steinman RM, Banchereau J. Taking dendritic cells into medicine. Nature 2007; 449(7161):419–26. Sylwester AW, Mitchell BL, Edgar JB, Taormina C, Pelte C, Ruchti F, Sleath PR, Grabstein KH, Hosken NA, Kern F, et al. Broadly targeted human cytomegalovirus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells dominate the memory compartments of exposed subjects. J. Exp. Med. 2005;202(5):673–85. Tomblyn M, Lazarus HM. Donor lymphocyte infusions: the long and winding road: how should it be traveled? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42(9):569–79. Walter EA, Greenberg PD, Gilbert MJ, Finch RJ, Watanabe KS, Thomas ED, Riddell SR. Reconstitution of cellular immunity against cytomegalovirus in recipients of allogeneic bone marrow by transfer of T-cell clones from the donor. N. Engl. J. Med. 1995;333(16):1038–44. Wong EC, Maher VE, Hines K, Lee J, Carter CS, Goletz T, Kopp W, Mackall CL, Berzofsky J, Read EJ. Development of a clinical-scale method for generation of dendritic cells from PBMC for use in cancer immunotherapy. Cytotherapy 2001;3(1):19–29.

Part III

Circulating Patterns Associated with Chronic and Acute Immune Pathology

Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects Damien Chaussabel, Nicole Baldwin, Derek Blankenship, Charles Quinn, Esperanza Anguiano, Octavio Ramilo, Ganjana Lertmemongkolchai, Virginia Pascual, and Jacques Banchereau

Abstract  The blood transcriptome affords a comprehensive view of the status of the human immune system. Global changes in transcript abundance have been measured in the blood of patients with a wide range of diseases. This chapter presents an overview of the advances that have led to the identification of therapeutic targets and biomarker signatures in the field of autoimmunity and infectious disease. It also provides technology and data analysis primers as means of introducing blood transcriptome research to a broad readership. Specifically, we compare microarrays with some of the most recent digital gene expression profiling technologies available to date, including RNA sequencing. Furthermore, in addition to the basic steps involved in the analysis of microarray data we also present more advanced data mining approaches for blood transcriptional fingerprinting.

Blood Transcript Profiling A wide range of molecular and cellular profiling assays are now available to study the human immune system (Fig. 1). Among the systems-wide molecular profiling technologies genomics approaches are the most mature and scalable for high throughput use. The human genome can be investigated from two different angles. Sequence variations, which can be detected using for instance Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) chips, permits the identification of common polymorphisms or rare mutations associated with diseases. Hundreds of thousands of SNPs can be typed using these platforms, yielding a genome-wide, hypothesis-free, scan of genetic associations for a given phenotype of interest. The second genome-wide profiling approach employed for the study of immune-mediated diseases consists in the measurement of transcript abundance. Generating transcriptional profiles on

D. Chaussabel (*) Baylor Institute for Immunology Research, Baylor Research Institute, 3434 Live Oak, Dallas, TX 75204, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_8, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

105

106

D. Chaussabel et al.

Fig.  1  The immune profiling armamentarium. The number of high throughput molecular and cellular profiling tools available for the assessment of the human immune system from blood is increasing rapidly

a genome-wide scale is both straightforward and cost-effective, affording the most comprehensive view of the status of the human immune system to date. Indeed, such studies can inform us on mechanisms of pathogenesis and thereby create opportunities for discovering potential therapeutic targets and novel clinically relevant biomarkers (Alizadeh et al. 2000; Baechler et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2003; Sarwal et al. 2003; Wright et al. 2003; Achiron et al. 2004; Batliwalla et al. 2005a; Griffiths et  al. 2005; Pascual et  al. 2005). Transcriptional profiles have been obtained from many human tissues; including for instance the skin (Deonarine et  al. 2007; Panelli et  al. 2007; Greco et  al. 2010; Cole et  al. 2001), muscle (Berchtold et  al. 2009), liver (Frueh et  al. 2001; Flanagan et  al. 2009), kidney (Flechner et al. 2004; Bunnag et al. 2009) or brain (Glatt et al. 2005). Specifically, this review will focus on the use of blood transcript profiling. Blood is the pipeline of the immune system, with immune cells exposed to factors released in the bloodstream or present in peripheral tissues from which they re-circulate. It is an accessible tissue for which sampling can easily be standardized, with robust blood collection and RNA stabilization systems becoming widely available in recent years (Debey et  al. 2006; Asare et  al. 2008). In contrast with

Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects

107

many other tissues blood can also be sampled repeatedly over time, which constitutes a key property for monitoring the immunological status of human subjects.

Profiling Human Subjects in Health and Disease Profiling Autoimmune Diseases The field of autoimmunity has proved a fertile ground for blood transcriptional studies. The work has initially focused on diseases with clear systemic involvement such as SLE (Baechler et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2003). This has contributed to the identification of a type 1 interferon signature in the blood of a majority of lupus patients, prompting the development of therapies targeting this pathway (Yao et al. 2009). Furthermore, the potential value of this and other blood transcriptional signatures for the assessment of disease activity has been examined (Sandrin-Garcia et al. 2009; Petri et al. 2009; Nikpour et al. 2008; Nakou et al. 2008; Bauer et al. 2009; Chaussabel et al. 2008). Systemic onset Juvenile Arthritis (SoJIA) is another disease with systemic involvement that greatly benefited from the study of blood transcriptional profiles, with this proof of principle work leading to the development of both therapeutic and diagnostic modalities (Pascual et al. 2005, 2008; Allantaz et al. 2007a, b). Diseases with specific organ involvement have also been the subjects of significant, yet not always extensive, blood profiling efforts. Thus blood signatures have been obtained from patients with multiple sclerosis (Achiron et  al. 2004; Bomprezzi et al. 2003). Given the inaccessibility of the brain, blood constitutes a particularly attractive source of surrogate molecular markers for this disease. These efforts have yielded a systemic signature and identified potential predictive markers of clinical relapse and response to treatment (van Baarsen et al. 2008; Gurevich et al. 2009; Achiron et al. 2007a). Transcriptional signatures have also been generated in the context of dermatologic diseases. In this case the target organ being readily accessible, efforts have been focusing on profiling transcript abundance in skin tissues (Nomura et  al. 2003; de Jongh et  al. 2005). However, systemic involvement has been recognized in recent years to be an important component of autoimmune skin diseases and unique blood transcriptional profiles have also been identified for example in patients with Psoriasis (Batliwalla et al. 2005a; Stoeckman et al. 2006; Koczan et al. 2005). Blood transcriptional profiles have been generated in the context of many other autoimmune diseases. Indeed, the range of autoimmune/autoinflammatory diseases that have been investigated encompasses: SLE (Baechler et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2003; Crow and Wohlgemuth 2003; Han et al. 2003), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (Pascual et  al. 2005; Allantaz et  al. 2007a; Ogilvie et  al. 2007; Fall et  al. 2007; Barnes et  al. 2009), multiple sclerosis (Achiron et  al. 2007b; Singh et  al. 2007), rheumatoid arthritis (Edwards et al. 2007; van der Pouw Kraan et al. 2007; Lequerre et al. 2006; Batliwalla et al. 2005b), Sjogren’s syndrome (Emamian et al. 2009), diabetes (Kaizer et  al. 2007; Takamura et  al. 2007), inflammatory bowel disease

108

D. Chaussabel et al.

(Burczynski et al. 2006), psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (Batliwalla et al. 2005a; Stoeckman et al. 2006), inflammatory myopathies (Greenberg et al. 2005; Baechler et  al. 2007), scleroderma (Tan et  al. 2006; York et  al. 2007), vasculitis (Alcorta et al. 2007) and antiphospholipid syndrome (Potti et al. 2006). The body of work produced that focuses on blood transcript profiling in the context of autoimmune diseases has been covered at length in a recent review (Pascual et al. 2010).

Profiling Infectious Diseases Global changes in transcript abundance have also been measured in the blood of patients with infectious diseases. In this context, alterations of blood transcriptional profiles are a reflection of the immunological response mounted by the host against pathogens. This response is mediated by specialized receptors expressed at the surface of host cells recognizing pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Janeway and Medzhitov 2002). Different classes of pathogens signal through different combinations of receptors, eliciting in turn different types of immune responses (Aderem and Ulevitch 2000). This translates experimentally in distinct transcriptional programs being induced upon exposure of immune cells in vitro to distinct classes of infectious agents (Nau et al. 2002; Huang et al. 2001; Chaussabel et al. 2003). Similarly, patterns of transcript abundance measured in the blood of patients with infections caused by different etiological agents were found to be distinct (Ramilo et al. 2007). Predictably, dramatic changes were observed in the blood of patients with systemic infections (e.g., sepsis) (Pankla et al. 2009; Tang et al. 2009). However, profound alterations in patterns of transcript abundance were also found in patients with localized infections (e.g., upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infections, pulmonary tuberculosis, skin abscesses) (Allantaz et al. 2007a; Ramilo et al. 2007; Jacobsen et al. 2007). An interferon-inducible neutrophil-driven blood transcriptional signature in human tuberculosis. Measuring changes in host transcriptional profiles may therefore prove of diagnostic value even in situations where the causative pathogenic agent is not present in the test sample. Importantly, it may also help ascertain the severity of the infection and monitor its course. Infections often present as acute clinical events, thus it is important to capture dynamic changes in transcript abundance that occur during the course of the infection from the time of initial exposure. Blood signatures have been described in the context of acute infections caused by a wide range of pathogenic parasites, viruses and bacteria, including: Plasmodium (Griffiths et  al. 2005; Franklin et  al. 2009), respiratory viruses (Influenza, Rhinovirus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus) (Ramilo et al. 2007; Reghunathan et al. 2005; Popper et al. 2009; Zaas et al. 2009; Thach et al. 2005), Dengue virus (Ubol et al. 2008; Nascimento et al. 2009), Adenovirus (Popper et al. 2009), as well as Salmonella (Thompson et al. 2009), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Jacobsen et  al. 2007), Staphylococcus aureus (Ardura et  al. 2009),

Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects

109

Burkholderia pseudomallei (Pankla et al. 2009) and in the general context of bacterial sepsis (Tang et al. 2009; Wong et al. 2009; Payen et al. 2008; Johnson et al. 2007). Some of those pathogens will persist and establish chronic infections (e.g., Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Plasmodium) that may lead to a state of latency (e.g., Tuberculosis), and transcript profiling may in those situations be used as a surveillance tool for the monitoring of disease progression or reactivation. Blood profiling of infectious diseases remains also limited in scale. In particular, additional studies will be necessary to ascertain dynamic changes occurring over time.

Profiling other Diseases Blood transcript profiling studies have been carried out in the cancer research field. While hematological malignancies have led the way (reviewed in (Staratschek-Jox et al. 2009)), blood profiles have also been obtained more recently from patients with solid tumors (Aaroe et  al. 2010). Notably, these signatures can reflect the immunological or physiological changes effected by cancers but also by the presence of rare tumor cells in the circulation (Findeisen et al. 2008; Hayes et al. 2006; Martin et al. 2001). Blood signatures have also been obtained from solid organ transplant recipients in the context of both tolerance (Martinez-Llordella et  al. 2008; Kawasaki et  al. 2007; Brouard et al. 2007) and graft rejection (Flechner et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2009; Alakulppi et al. 2008). While such signatures can also be detected in biopsy material (Sarwal et al. 2003; Mueller et al. 2007; Scherer et al. 2003) blood offers the distinct advantage of being accessible for safely monitoring molecular changes on a routine basis. Some work has also been done in the context of cardiovascular diseases where inflammation is known to play an important role. Hence, profiles have been identified in a wide range of conditions, including stroke, chronic heart failure or acute coronary syndrome (Tang et al. 2001; Nakayama et al. 2008; Moore et al. 2005; Cappuzzello et al. 2009). Other efforts have yielded blood transcriptional signature in patients with neurodegenerative diseases (Maes et al. 2007; Lovrecic et al. 2009; Borovecki et al. 2005), in response to stress, environmental exposure (Peretz et al. 2007; McHale et al. 2009; Bushel et al. 2007), exercise (Kawai et al. 2007; Connolly et al. 2004) or even laughter (Hayashi et al. 2007). The body of published work would be too large to be cited in this review – and it is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, with a lot more unpublished data scattered throughout the public and private space. However, the vast majorities of these studies are underpowered and sometimes lack even the most rudimentary validation steps. All too often primary data are not available for reanalysis either, reflecting a lack of enforcement of editorial policies, or the absence thereof in some journals. Hence one of the main challenges for this field is to move beyond the proof of principle stage and consolidate the wealth of data being generated.

110

D. Chaussabel et al.

Collectively, studies published thus far demonstrate that alterations in transcript abundance can be detected on a genome-wide scale in the blood of patients with a wide range of diseases. We have also learned that: (1) multiple diseases can share components of the blood transcriptional profile. This is for instance the case for inflammation or interferon signatures; (2) while no single element of the profile may be specific to any given disease it is the combination of those elements that makes a signature unique; (3) finally, the work that has been accomplished to date highlights the importance of carrying out analyses aiming at directly comparing transcriptional profiles across diseases. Indeed, much for instance can be learned about autoimmunity from studying responses to infection, and vice and versa. Furthermore, such efforts may eventually lead us closer towards a molecular classification of diseases.

Technology Primer (Fig. 1) Microarray technologies are limited by several factors, such as hybridization noise (background signal, nonspecific binding) and lack of sensitivity for transcripts expressed at very low or very high levels (dynamic range). Additional limitations derive from the fact that they rely on existing sequence knowledge and lack the capacity to quantify alternative messages, such as splice variants of a given gene. When considering human studies with potential clinical applications, perhaps the main limitation, however, is that direct comparability of data across batches and platforms is sometimes impossible. Real-time PCR technology is currently considered the gold standard for measuring transcript abundance. However, the number of transcripts that can be detected using this technique is limited. Products have been introduced recently that partially address this shortcoming. Alternative technology platforms have also become recently available, such as one developed by Nanostring, which can detect transcripts abundance for up to 500 transcripts with high sensitivity (Geiss et al. 2008). The approach is “digital” since it consists in counting individual RNA molecules. But a distinct advantage of this technology, which like microarrays is hybridizationbased, is that sample preparation needs are reduced to a minimum – for instance none of the steps involving enzymatic reactions. Also, given its high sensitivity, fast turnaround time, sample throughput and intermediate multiplexing ability this approach seems particularly promising for bedside applications. Methods relying on high-throughput sequencing for the genome-wide measurement of RNA abundance are also becoming available (Wold and Myers 2008). RNA-seq (RNA sequencing) (Sultan et al. 2008) starts with a population of RNA (total or fractionated, such as poly(A)+) that is converted to a library of cDNA fragments. High thoughput sequencing of such fragments yields short sequences or reads which are typically 30–400 bp in length, depending on the DNA-sequencing technology used. For a given sample, tens of millions of such sequences will then be uniquely mapped against a reference genome. The higher the level of expression

Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects

111

Fig. 2  Cutting-edge RNA profiling technologies. Several technology platforms are available for measuring RNA abundance on large scales. Microarray and Nanostring technologies rely on oligonucleotide probes to capture complementary target sequences. Nanostring and RNA-seq technologies measure abundance at the single molecule level, with results respectively expressed as molecule counts and sequence coverage. Microarray and RNA-seq technologies require extensive sample processing, which include amplification steps

of a given gene the higher the number of reads that will be aligned against it (Fig. 2). Thus, this approach does not rely on probe design and provides information on not only transcript abundance but also transcriptome structure (splice variants), noncoding RNA species such as microRNAs (miRNA), and genetic polymorphisms. The use of RNA-seq has not reached the mainstream. Indeed, challenges ahead are multiple, including sample preparation, storage of massive amounts of data and sequence alignment (Wang et al. 2009). In time, RNA-seq is expected to become sufficiently cost-effective and practical to eventually supersede microarray technologies.

Microarray Data Analysis For years the scale of blood transcriptional studies has been constrained by the cost of the technology. With the price tag on a commercial whole genome microarray decidedly below the $100 USD mark, it is not the case anymore. Also data analysis and exploitation, that has from the start been one of the challenges for transcriptome research, has now clearly become the main rate-limiting step.

112

D. Chaussabel et al.

Analysis Primer This section covers some of the basic steps and considerations involved in microarray data analysis. Per-Chip Normalization: This step controls for array-wide variations in intensity across multiple samples that form a given dataset. After background subtraction, a normalization algorithm is used to rescale the difference in overall intensity to a fixed intensity level for all samples across multiple arrays. Data filtering: Typically more than half of the probes present on a microarray do not detect a signal for any of the samples in a given analysis. Thus, a detection filter is applied to remove such probes. This step avoids the introduction of unnecessary noise in downstream analyses. Unsupervised analysis: The aim of this analysis is to group samples on the basis of their molecular profiles without a priori knowledge of their phenotypic classification. The first step consists in selecting transcripts that are expressed in the dataset (detection filter), and display some degree of variability (which will facilitate sample clustering). For instance, this filter could select transcripts with expression levels that deviate by at least twofold from the median intensity calculated across all samples. Importantly this additional filter is applied independently of any knowledge of sample grouping or phenotype (which makes this type of analysis “unsupervised”). Next, pattern discovery algorithms are often applied to identify molecular phenotypes or trends in the data. Clustering: Clustering is commonly used for the discovery of expression patterns in large datasets. Hierarchical clustering is an iterative agglomerative clustering method that can be used to produce gene trees and condition trees. Condition tree clustering groups samples based on the similarity of their expression profiles across a specified gene list. Other commonly employed clustering algorithms include k-means clustering and self-organizing maps. Class Comparison: Class comparison analyses identify genes differentially expressed among groups and/or time points. The methods for analysis are chosen based on the study design. For studies with independent observations and two or more groups, t-tests, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney U tests, or Kruskal-Wallis tests are used. For more complex studies (e.g., longitudinal) appropriate linear mixed model analyses are chosen. Multiple Testing Correction: Multiple testing correction (MTC) methods provide a means to mitigate the level of noise in sets of transcripts identified by class comparison (in order to lower permissiveness of false positives). While it reduces noise, MTC promotes a higher false negative rate as a result of dampening the signal. The methods available are characterized by varying degrees of stringency, and therefore they produce gene lists with different levels of robustness. • Bonferroni correction is the most stringent method used to control the familywise error rate (probability of making one or more type I errors) and can drastically reduce false positive rates. Conversely, it increases the probability of having false negatives.

Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects

113

• Benjamini and Hochberg false discovery rate (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995) is a less stringent MTC method and provides a good balance between discovery of statistically significant genes while limiting false positives. By using this procedure with a value of 0.01, 1% of the statistically significant transcripts might be identified as significant by chance alone (false positives). Class Prediction: Class prediction analyses assess the classification capability of gene expression data for a study subject or sample. K-nearest neighbors is a commonly used technique for this task. Using Euclidian or other measures of distance, this method identifies the user defined “k” number of closest observations for an unclassified sample. Class prediction is then determined by the lowest p-value, which is calculated for each group. The p-values are based on the likelihood of obtaining the observed number of neighbors for a specific class given the overall class proportion in the data set. Other available class prediction procedures include, but are not limited to, Discriminant Analysis, General Linear Model Selection, Logistic Regression, Distance Scoring, Partial Least Squares, Partition Trees, and Radial Basis Machine. Sample Size: The number of samples necessary for the identification of a robust signature is variable. Indeed, sample size requirements will depend on the amplitude of the difference between and the variability within study groups. A number of approaches have been devised for the calculation of sample size for microarray experiments, but to date little consensus exists (Dobbin et  al. 2008; Jorstad et al. 2008; Pawitan et al. 2005; Yang et al. 2003). Hence, best practices in the field consist in the utilization of independent sets of samples for the purpose of validating candidate signatures. Thus, the robustness of the signature identified will rely on a statistically significant association between the predicted and true phenotypic class in the first and the second test sets.

Analysis of Significance Patterns The diagnosis of SoJIA takes weeks to months, as it is based on clinical criteria which lack specificity (Cassidy and Ross 2001). Indeed, initial symptoms mimic infections or malignancies and it is only when arthritis appears that the disease can be recognized. We surmised that the blood transcriptome of these children could be a source of diagnostic biomarkers. The profiles that differentiate SoJIA patients from healthy controls, however, were highly similar to those of children with febrile infectious diseases of both bacterial and viral origin (Allantaz et  al. 2007a). Additionally, because SoJIA can present at any age during childhood, matching the control groups for this disease and for infections that predominate at earlier or later times during childhood was a challenge. Thus, we devised a custom meta-analysis strategy for biomarker selection relying on the analysis of patterns of significance (Chaussabel et  al. 2005). This approach can be used to compare diseases across multiple datasets, each being analyzed in relation to its own set of healthy controls. First, statistical comparisons were performed between each group of patients

114

D. Chaussabel et al.

(SoJIA, S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, E. coli, influenza A, and SLE) and their respective control groups composed of age- and gender-matched healthy donors. The p-values obtained from each comparison were then subjected to selection criteria. This permitted us to identify genes significantly changed in SoJIA patients vs. their control group, and not in any of the other disease vs. their own control groups. The SoJIA-specific signature that we obtained using this algorithm was composed of 88 transcripts. Treatment with IL1 antagonists was able to extinguish this signature in the majority of patients. Using a more stringent analysis, 12/88 transcripts were used to correctly classify an independent group of patients during the systemic phase of the disease against healthy and febrile disease controls. These 12 genes were not dysregulated however in SoJIA patients who had resolved the systemic phase and were left with chronic arthritis, suggesting that they are specifically dysregulated in the initial phase of the disease, probably the time of greatest sensitivity to IL1 blockade. The specificity of 7/12 genes has been recently validated in an independent study of PBMC transcriptional profiles including different types of JIA patients (Barnes et al. 2009). The same type of analysis has allowed us to identify blood disease-specific transcriptional markers differentiating SLE patients from patients with diseases that also display a Type I IFN signature such as Influenza infection (Chaussabel et al. 2005).

A Modular Analysis Framework A myriad of approaches have been developed for the analysis of genome-wide transcriptional profiling data (Mootha et al. 2003; Segal et al. 2003a; Allison et al. 2006; Horvath & Dong 2008). The main challenges encountered while mining such data are several fold: (a) dimensionality, or how to cope with the fact that the number of parameters measured exceeds by several order of magnitude the number of conditions included in any given experiment; (b) noise; a direct consequence of the first point is that results from microarray analyses are particularly permissive to noise (false discovery); (c) data visualization is critical as it helps promote insight and supports data interpretation. Dimension reduction techniques can help address some of those issues. Several groups have developed approaches that consist in grouping genes into distinct units or “modules”. Those genes may be grouped together based on similarities in transcriptional patterns or function. Multiple approaches have been used for the construction of such modules (Chaussabel et al. 2008; Horvath and Dong 2008; Ruan et al. 2010; Segal et al. 2003b; Suthram et al. 2010; Ulitsky and Shamir 2009). We have developed a modular data mining strategy for the specific purpose of analyzing and interpreting blood transcriptional profiles (Chaussabel et  al. 2008). This approach consists in a priori grouping sets of genes with similar transcriptional patterns. This is repeated for different datasets and subsequently when comparing the cluster membership of all the genes across those datasets, the genes with similar membership are grouped together to form a transcriptional module. Structuring the

Blood Transcriptional Fingerprints to Assess the Immune Status of Human Subjects

115

data permits to focus downstream statistical testing on these sets of transcripts that form coherent transcriptional modular units. This is in contrast with more traditional approaches applying statistical tests iteratively for thousands of individual transcripts that are treated as independent variables. The modular transcriptional framework that we have developed constitutes a dimension reduction technique and as such can: a) facilitate functional interpretation; b) enable comparative analyses across multiple datasets and diseases; c) minimize noise and improve robustness of biomarker signatures; and d) yield multivariate metrics that can be used at the bedside. Data visualization is also of critical importance for the interpretation of large-scale datasets. We have developed a straightforward approach for mapping global transcriptional changes for individual diseases on a modular basis (Fig. 3 and interactive web version: www.biir.net/modules). Briefly, differences in expression levels between study groups are displayed for each module on a grid. Each position on the grid is assigned to a given module; a red spot indicates an increase and a blue spot a decrease in transcript abundance. The spot intensity is determined by the proportion of transcripts reaching significance for a given module. A posteriori, biological interpretation has linked several modules to immune cells or pathways (see legend of Fig. 3).

Interpretation Important technical and biological constraints must be taken into account when interpreting blood transcriptome data. For one, reproducibility issues remains a legitimate concern (Shi et al. 2006, 2008; Tan et al. 2003). It is important to avoid confounding the analysis with technical variables. For example, reuse of pre-existing data for direct group comparison should be avoided. Samples should be run if possible in one single batch. If this is not possible, case and control samples should be randomized across the different runs. Overall, the availability of cost-effective commercial platforms has reduced the number of formats used for analysis and contributes to enhance data quality and reproducibility when compared to early cDNA arrays. Meta-analysis of data obtained using different platforms and from different laboratories is possible, but one must proceed with caution. A common strategy consists in the use of a control group that is common to all datasets under study (e.g., non stimulated or healthy controls) (Allantaz et al. 2007a; Chaussabel et al. 2005; Butte and Kohane 2006; Rhodes et al. 2004). Disease heterogeneity is also an important initial limiting step. Thus, patient clinical characteristics and disease stages should be taken into account and carefully recorded at the time of sample collection. Furthermore, drug treatments and comorbidities may impact blood transcriptional signatures and those variables cannot always be isolated, as patients cannot be taken off treatments. These factors also pose significant challenges in terms of study design and downstream data analysis. We have found that including samples from recently diagnosed and untreated patients is useful to select biomarkers related to disease pathogenesis. Selective inclusion criteria can be subsequently relaxed to broaden the scope and potential clinical impact of a study.

116

D. Chaussabel et al.

Fig. 3  Modular analysis of blood leukocyte transcriptional profiles. (a) Gene expression levels from patients with acute S. pneumoniae infection and respective healthy volunteer PBMCs were compared (p 2.0 fold change with a p value of  T) in the TLR3 gene, associated with rubella virus induced GM-CSF secretion, is the same SNP suggested to be a risk factor for lower antibody and low lympho­ proliferative responses to measles vaccine (Dhiman et  al. 2008). This finding strongly suggests that rs5743305 in the TLR3 gene may play a role in viral immunity and may be a key control point for humoral and cellular immune responses to both measles and rubella vaccines. In the same study have been identified 22 associations of polymorphisms in promoter and intronic regions of vitamin A and vitamin D receptor genes and their downstream mediators of signaling with different immune response to rubellaspecific cytokine. In particular, considering that SNPs in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) genes have been associated also with protection from HIV-1 infection (de la Torre et al. 2008), it can be postulated that proinflammatory immune responses to viral infection or live viral vaccination are influenced by functional polymorphisms in the VDR gene.

Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines

157

Furthermore, a correlation between GM-CSF, IL-6, TNF-a response and SNPs in the non-TLRs PRRS CARD domain and RIG-I gene has been observed, in agreement with recent observations, suggesting that the IFN-g response to Newcastle disease and Influenza viruses infection in human DCs is strongly dependent on the level of RIG-I (DDX58) regulated by a specific polymorphism (Hu et al. 2007). Finally, associations of polymorphisms in the TRIM5 gene with variations in rubella virus-specific immune responses (TNF-a, GM-CSF and IL-2) have been observed, in concordance with recent findings on the role of the same TRIM5-gene SNPs in the immune response to retroviral (HIV-1) infection (van Manen et  al. 2008). Polymorphisms and Response to Pertussis Vaccine The involvement of TLR4 in immunity to B. pertussis vaccine has been extensively shown and specific SNPs in the promoter region of the TLR4 gene influencing the antibody response to the PT vaccine have been identified (Banus et  al. 2007). Several haplotype-tagging SNPs in genes of the TLR signaling pathway have been further associated with the PT-specific antibody response following vaccination (Kimman et al. 2008). The evidence of association was most consistent and strong for the SNPs in the TOLLIP gene, which showed association in three independent analyses. TOLLIP is a small protein that binds the activated IL-1 receptor type I (IL-1RI) complex, as well as TLR2 and TLR4 complexes, coordinating optimal signaling through IL-1RI and TLR4 (Bulut et al. 2001; Didierlaurent et al. 2006). Furthermore, associations of SNPs in TIRAP and TICAM1 genes and immune response to PT vaccine can be explained by the knowledge that these two factors belong to the Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) domain-containing adaptors, also including MyD88, that modulate TLR signaling pathways. Furthermore, the signal transduction mediators of the Toll and IL-1 receptor (IL-1R) families, namely IRAK3 and IRAK4, showed evidence for association with immune response to PT vaccine. The summarized three studies, aiming to identify associations between SNPs in the promoter or intronic regions of PRRs genes and downstream mediators of signaling with different immune response, give strong indications for the involvement of the TLR signaling pathway in the response to vaccination, as well as for the cooperation of its genes in a functional interacting network. Furthermore, they provide evidences that genetic variants are involved in the mechanisms underlying heterogeneous immune responses to vaccines. Of note is the identification of the same SNPs involved in the modulation of immune response to vaccines, suggesting the possible identification of specific shared predictive polymorphisms with a broad application in vaccinology. All these studies, nevertheless, need to be replicated in independent and larger cohorts to validate the findings increasing the statistical association between SNPs and host immune response to vaccines. Overall, these results indicate that a comprehensive analysis at system levels would greatly facilitate screening for responsiveness to vaccines and an understanding of eventual failures in individuals enrolled in clinical trials. On the other hand, it will

158

F.M. Buonaguro et al.

guide the identification of optimal antigens, and antigen formulations (i.e., adjuvanted antigens), inducing the sought cluster of genes and immune pathways leading to the required adaptive immune response.

Conclusions The comprehension of the key role of the innate immunity and in particular of the pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs) in the host responses upon exposure to a foreign antigen, in the form of vaccine or pathogen, is continuously growing. In particular, how the molecular recognition of antigens by cells of the innate immune system plays a significant role in determining the nature as well as the duration (immune memory) of the adaptive T and B cell immune responses. This knowledge acquires even more relevance nowadays when traditional vaccine strategies (i.e., inactivated or killed vaccines) are progressively substituted with safer recombinant vaccines which, however, need to integrate the immunogenic features responsible for effectively inducing neutralizing antibodies or protective immunity. In this regards, the molecular and cellular components of innate and adaptive immunity that are responsible for inducing protective immunity by nonreplicating vaccines mostly remain undefined. The use of TLR signaling to boost vaccine efficacy thus provides a major avenue of further research and the use of several TLR agonists have been documented in several established vaccines. Detailed understanding of the exact mode of action of the synthetic ligands should help to develop more potent vaccine for applicable diseases. In this context, the precise roles played by individual TLRs, specific combinations of TLRs or non-TLR PRRs in the induction of long-term T and B cell responses and memory is an area for fertile exploration. The understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in the induction of an effective immune response can take a great advantage from a system-levels analysis. Systems biology, indeed, holds considerable promises for discovery and new insights into processes as complex as innate immunity and the downstream adaptive immune response. Systems biology not only has the potential to accelerate the discovery of new regulators of innate immunity but will also provide more comprehensive insights into the kinetics of regulation at the transcriptional, protein–protein interaction and post-transcriptional levels. In this way we might, for example, begin to understand how innate immunity can distinguish between different pathogens and danger signals to mount an appropriate response, despite having a much smaller repertoire of receptors and diversity than is utilized in the adaptive response. All these information are of high impact on vaccine development, providing molecular prediction markers of the immunogenicity of a vaccine, uncovering new correlates of vaccine efficacy as well as guiding the design of new vaccine antigens or formulations. Moreover, such system level approaches could permit the identification of vaccine responders vs. nonresponders, allowing a better immunological coverage of the licensed vaccines.

Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines

159

In conclusion, this represents the real switch from the “empirical” to the “knowledge-based” age of the vaccinology which should enable the development of even more successful vaccines for preventive as well as therapeutic intervention strategies for human diseases.

References Abbas AR, Baldwin D, Ma Y et  al. (2005) Immune response in silico (IRIS): immune-specific genes identified from a compendium of microarray expression data. Genes Immun 6:319–331. Agrawal S, Agrawal A, Doughty B et al. (2003) Cutting edge: different Toll-like receptor agonists instruct dendritic cells to induce distinct Th responses via differential modulation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase-mitogen-activated protein kinase and c-Fos. J Immunol 171:4984–4989. Ahmad-Nejad P, Hacker H, Rutz M et  al. (2002) Bacterial CpG-DNA and lipopolysaccharides activate Toll-like receptors at distinct cellular compartments. Eur J Immunol 32:1958–1968. Akira S, Uematsu S, Takeuchi O (2006) Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell 124:783–801. Alderson MR, Smith CA, Tough TW et al. (1994) Molecular and biological characterization of human 4-1BB and its ligand. Eur J Immunol 24:2219–2227. Alexopoulou L, Holt AC, Medzhitov R et  al. (2001) Recognition of double-stranded RNA and activation of NF-kappaB by Toll-like receptor 3. Nature 413:732–738. Alexopoulou L, Thomas V, Schnare M et al. (2002) Hyporesponsiveness to vaccination with Borrelia burgdorferi OspA in humans and in TLR1- and TLR2-deficient mice. Nat Med 8:878–884. Alizadeh AA and Staudt LM (2000) Genomic-scale gene expression profiling of normal and malignant immune cells. Curr Opin Immunol 12:219–225. Allen A, Obaro S, Bojang K et al. (2003) Variation in Toll-like receptor 4 and susceptibility to group A meningococcal meningitis in Gambian children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 22:1018–1019. Alvarez D, Vollmann EH, von Andrian UH (2008) Mechanisms and consequences of dendritic cell migration. Immunity 29:325–342. Andres PG, Howland KC, Nirula A et al. (2004) Distinct regions in the CD28 cytoplasmic domain are required for T helper type 2 differentiation. Nat Immunol 5:435–442. Aricò E, Wang E, Tornesello ML et al. (2005) Immature monocyte derived dendritic cells gene expression profile in response to Virus-Like Particles stimulation. J Transl Med 3:45 Asahi-Ozaki Y, Itamura S, Ichinohe T et  al. (2006) Intranasal administration of adjuvantcombined recombinant influenza virus HA vaccine protects mice from the lethal H5N1 virus infection. Microbes Infect 8:2706–2714. Assudani D, Cho HI, DeVito N et al. (2008) In vivo expansion, persistence, and function of peptide vaccine-induced CD8 T cells occur independently of CD4 T cells. Cancer Res 68:9892–9899. Bachmann MF, Zinkernagel RM, Oxenius A (1998) Immune responses in the absence of costimulation: viruses know the trick. J Immunol 161:5791–5794. Bakal C, Linding R, Llense F et al. (2008) Phosphorylation networks regulating JNK activity in diverse genetic backgrounds. Science 322:453–456. Baldridge JR and Crane RT (1999) Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) formulations for the next generation of vaccines. Methods 19:103–107. Banchereau J and Steinman RM (1998) Dendritic cells and the control of immunity. Nature 392:245–252. Banchereau J, Klechevsky E, Schmitt N et al. (2009) Harnessing human dendritic cell subsets to design novel vaccines. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1174:24–32. Banus S, Bottema RW, Siezen CL et al. (2007) Toll-like receptor 4 polymorphism associated with the response to whole-cell pertussis vaccination in children from the KOALA study. Clin Vaccine Immunol 14:1377–1380.

160

F.M. Buonaguro et al.

Belshe RB, Edwards KM, Vesikari T et  al. (2007) Live attenuated versus inactivated influenza vaccine in infants and young children. N Engl J Med 356:685–696. Beltinger CP, White PS, Maris JM et al. (1996) Physical mapping and genomic structure of the human TNFR2 gene. Genomics 35:94–100. Beutler B (2004) Inferences, questions and possibilities in Toll-like receptor signalling. Nature 430:257–263. Bhat NK, Thompson CB, Lindsten T et  al. (1990) Reciprocal expression of human ETS1 and ETS2 genes during T-cell activation: regulatory role for the protooncogene ETS1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87:3723–3727. Blumenthal SG, Aichele G, Wirth T et al. (1999) Regulation of the human interleukin-5 promoter by Ets transcription factors. Ets1 and Ets2, but not Elf-1, cooperate with GATA3 and HTLV-I Tax1. J Biol Chem 274:12910–12916. Bochud PY, Bochud M, Telenti A et al. (2007a) Innate immunogenetics: a tool for exploring new frontiers of host defence. Lancet Infect Dis 7:531–542. Bochud PY, Hersberger M, Taffe P et al. (2007b) Polymorphisms in Toll-like receptor 9 influence the clinical course of HIV-1 infection. AIDS 21:441–446. Bowie A and O’Neill LA (2000) The interleukin-1 receptor/Toll-like receptor superfamily: signal generators for pro-inflammatory interleukins and microbial products. J Leukoc Biol 67:508–514. Bowie AG and Unterholzner L (2008) Viral evasion and subversion of pattern-recognition receptor signalling. Nat Rev Immunol 8:911–922. Brass AL, Dykxhoorn DM, Benita Y et al. (2008) Identification of host proteins required for HIV infection through a functional genomic screen. Science 319:921–926. Brightbill HD, Libraty DH, Krutzik SR et  al. (1999) Host defense mechanisms triggered by microbial lipoproteins through toll-like receptors. Science 285:732–736. Bulut Y, Faure E, Thomas L et al. (2001) Cooperation of Toll-like receptor 2 and 6 for cellular activation by soluble tuberculosis factor and Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface protein A lipoprotein: role of Toll-interacting protein and IL-1 receptor signaling molecules in Toll-like receptor 2 signaling. J Immunol 167:987–994. Buonaguro L, Racioppi L, Tornesello ML et al. (2002) Induction of neutralizing antibodies and CTLs in Balb/c mice immunized with Virus-like Particles presenting a gp120 molecule from a HIV-1 isolate of clade A (HIV-VLPAs). Antiviral Res 54:189–201. Buonaguro L, Visciano ML, Tornesello ML et al. (2005) Induction of systemic and mucosal crossclade neutralizing antibodies in BALB/c mice immunized with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clade A virus-like particles administered by different routes of inoculation. J Virol 79:7059–7067. Buonaguro L, Tornesello ML, Tagliamonte M et al. (2006) Baculovirus-derived human immunodeficiency virus type 1 virus-like particles activate dendritic cells and induce ex vivo T-cell responses. J Virol 80:9134–9143. Buonaguro L, Devito C, Tornesello ML et al. (2007) DNA-VLP prime-boost intra-nasal immunization induces cellular and humoral anti-HIV-1 systemic and mucosal immunity with crossclade neutralizing activity. Vaccine 25:5968–5977. Buonaguro L, Monaco A, Arico E et  al. (2008) Gene expression profile of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in response to HIV-VLPs stimulation. BMC Bioinformatics 9(Suppl 2):S5 Buonaguro L, Tornesello ML, Gallo RC et  al. (2009a) Th2 polarization in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects, as activated by HIV virus-like particles. J Virol 83:304–313. Buonaguro L, Tornesello ML, Jewis GK et al. (2009b) Short communication: limited induction of IL-10 in PBMCs from HIV-infected subjects treated with HIV-VLPs. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 25:819–822. Ceol A, Chatr AA, Licata L et al. (2010) MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res 38:D532–D539. Chatr-aryamontri A, Ceol A, Peluso D et  al. (2009) VirusMINT: a viral protein interaction database. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D669–D673.

Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines

161

Chaussabel D, Quinn C, Shen J et al. (2008) A modular analysis framework for blood genomics studies: application to systemic lupus erythematosus. Immunity 29:150–164. de Chassey B, Navratil V, Tafforeau L et al. (2008) Hepatitis C virus infection protein network. Mol Syst Biol 4:230 de la Torre MS, Torres C, Nieto G et al. (2008) Vitamin D receptor gene haplotypes and susceptibility to HIV-1 infection in injection drug users. J Infect Dis 197:405–410. den Dunnen J, Gringhuis SI, Geijtenbeek TB (2009) Innate signaling by the C-type lectin DC-SIGN dictates immune responses. Cancer Immunol Immunother 58:1149–1157. Dhiman N, Ovsyannikova IG, Vierkant RA et al. (2008) Associations between SNPs in toll-like receptors and related intracellular signaling molecules and immune responses to measles vaccine: preliminary results. Vaccine 26:1731–1736. Dickinson AM and Holler E (2008) Polymorphisms of cytokine and innate immunity genes and GVHD. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 21:149–164. Didierlaurent A, Brissoni B, Velin D et al. (2006) Tollip regulates proinflammatory responses to interleukin-1 and lipopolysaccharide. Mol Cell Biol 26:735–742. Diebold SS (2008) Recognition of viral single-stranded RNA by Toll-like receptors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60:813–823. Diebold SS, Kaisho T, Hemmi H et  al. (2004) Innate antiviral responses by means of TLR7mediated recognition of single-stranded RNA. Science 303:1529–1531. Dillon S, Agrawal A, van DT et al. (2004) A Toll-like receptor 2 ligand stimulates Th2 responses in vivo, via induction of extracellular signal-regulated kinase mitogen-activated protein kinase and c-Fos in dendritic cells. J Immunol 172:4733–4743. Dillon S, Agrawal S, Banerjee K et al. (2006) Yeast zymosan, a stimulus for TLR2 and dectin-1, induces regulatory antigen-presenting cells and immunological tolerance. J Clin Invest 116:916–928. Draper SJ and Heeney JL (2010) Viruses as vaccine vectors for infectious diseases and cancer. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:62–73. Driscoll T, Dyer MD, Murali TM et al. (2009) PIG--the pathogen interaction gateway. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D647–D650. Elkon R, Linhart C, Halperin Y et  al. (2007) Functional genomic delineation of TLR-induced transcriptional networks. BMC Genomics 8:394 Ferwerda B, McCall MB, Alonso S et al. (2007) TLR4 polymorphisms, infectious diseases, and evolutionary pressure during migration of modern humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:16645–16650. Ferwerda B, McCall MB, Verheijen K et al. (2008) Functional consequences of toll-like receptor 4 polymorphisms. Mol Med 14:346–352. Fraser CK, Diener KR, Brown MP et al. (2007) Improving vaccines by incorporating immunological coadjuvants. Expert Rev Vaccines 6:559–578. Gallant S and Gilkeson G (2006) ETS transcription factors and regulation of immunity. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz ) 54:149–163. Gardy JL, Lynn DJ, Brinkman FS et al. (2009) Enabling a systems biology approach to immunology: focus on innate immunity. Trends Immunol 30:249–262. Gaucher D, Therrien R, Kettaf N et al. (2008) Yellow fever vaccine induces integrated multilineage and polyfunctional immune responses. J Exp Med 205:3119–3131. Geijtenbeek TB, van Vliet SJ, Engering A et al. (2004) Self- and nonself-recognition by C-type lectins on dendritic cells. Annu Rev Immunol 22:33–54. Gelman AE, Zhang J, Choi Y et al. (2004) Toll-like receptor ligands directly promote activated CD4+ T cell survival. J Immunol 172:6065–6073. Georgel P, Macquin C, Bahram S (2009) The heterogeneous allelic repertoire of human toll-like receptor (TLR) genes. PLoS One 4:e7803 Germain RN (2004) An innately interesting decade of research in immunology. Nat Med 10:1307–1320. Gilliet M, Cao W, Liu YJ (2008) Plasmacytoid dendritic cells: sensing nucleic acids in viral infection and autoimmune diseases. Nat Rev Immunol 8:594–606.

162

F.M. Buonaguro et al.

Gluck R, Moser C, Metcalfe IC (2004) Influenza virosomes as an efficient system for adjuvanted vaccine delivery. Expert Opin Biol Ther 4:1139–1145. Groux H, O’Garra A, Bigler M et al. (1997) A CD4+ T-cell subset inhibits antigen-specific T-cell responses and prevents colitis. Nature 389:737–742. Hayashi F, Smith KD, Ozinsky A et al. (2001) The innate immune response to bacterial flagellin is mediated by Toll-like receptor 5. Nature 410:1099–1103. Heil F, Hemmi H, Hochrein H et al. (2004) Species-specific recognition of single-stranded RNA via toll- like receptor 7 and 8. Science 303:1526–1529. Hemmi H, Takeuchi O, Kawai T et  al. (2000) A Toll-like receptor recognizes bacterial DNA. Nature 408:740–745. Hemmi H, Kaisho T, Takeuchi O et al. (2002) Small anti-viral compounds activate immune cells via the TLR7 MyD88-dependent signaling pathway. Nat Immunol 3:196–200. Hemmi H, Kaisho T, Takeda K et al. (2003) The roles of Toll-like receptor 9, MyD88, and DNAdependent protein kinase catalytic subunit in the effects of two distinct CpG DNAs on dendritic cell subsets. J Immunol 170:3059–3064. Heng TS and Painter MW (2008) The Immunological Genome Project: networks of gene expression in immune cells. Nat Immunol 9:1091–1094. Hervas-Stubbs S, Olivier A, Boisgerault F et al. (2007) TLR3 ligand stimulates fully functional memory CD8+ T cells in the absence of CD4+ T-cell help. Blood 109:5318–5326. Hijikata A, Kitamura H, Kimura Y et  al. (2007) Construction of an open-access database that integrates cross-reference information from the transcriptome and proteome of immune cells. Bioinformatics 23:2934–2941. Hoek KL, Carlesso G, Clark ES et al. (2009) Absence of mature peripheral B cell populations in mice with concomitant defects in B cell receptor and BAFF-R signaling. J Immunol 183:5630–5643. Holzer BR, Hatz C, Schmidt-Sissolak D et  al. (1996) Immunogenicity and adverse effects of inactivated virosome versus alum-adsorbed hepatitis A vaccine: a randomized controlled trial. Vaccine 14:982–986. Houghton M and Abrignani S (2005) Prospects for a vaccine against the hepatitis C virus. Nature 436:961–966. Hu J, Sealfon SC, Hayot F et al. (2007) Chromosome-specific and noisy IFNB1 transcription in individual virus-infected human primary dendritic cells. Nucleic Acids Res 35:5232–5241. Huleatt JW, Nakaar V, Desai P et al. (2008) Potent immunogenicity and efficacy of a universal influenza vaccine candidate comprising a recombinant fusion protein linking influenza M2e to the TLR5 ligand flagellin. Vaccine 26:201–214. Inohara, Chamaillard, McDonald C et al. (2005) NOD-LRR proteins: role in host-microbial interactions and inflammatory disease. Annu Rev Biochem 74:355–383. Ishii KJ and Akira S (2007) Toll or toll-free adjuvant path toward the optimal vaccine development. J Clin Immunol 27:363–371. Janeway CA, Jr. and Medzhitov R (2002) Innate immune recognition. Annu Rev Immunol 20:197–216. Jenner RG and Young RA (2005) Insights into host responses against pathogens from transcriptional profiling. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:281–294. Johnston D, Zaidi B, Bystryn JC (2007) TLR7 imidazoquinoline ligand 3M-019 is a potent adjuvant for pure protein prototype vaccines. Cancer Immunol Immunother 56:1133–1141. Kaech SM, Wherry EJ, Ahmed R (2002) Effector and memory T-cell differentiation: implications for vaccine development. Nat Rev Immunol 2:251–262. Kang SM and Compans RW (2009) Host responses from innate to adaptive immunity after vaccination: molecular and cellular events. Mol Cells 27:5–14. Kawabe T, Naka T, Yoshida K et al. (1994) The immune responses in CD40-deficient mice: impaired immunoglobulin class switching and germinal center formation. Immunity 1:167–178. Keam SJ and Harper DM (2008) Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 vaccine (recombinant, AS04 adjuvanted, adsorbed) [Cervarix]. Drugs 68:359–372. Khan WN (2009) B cell receptor and BAFF receptor signaling regulation of B cell homeostasis. J Immunol 183:3561–3567.

Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines

163

Kimberlin DW and Whitley RJ (2007) Varicella-zoster vaccine for the prevention of herpes zoster. N Engl J Med 356:1338–1343. Kimman TG, Banus S, Reijmerink N et al. (2008) Association of interacting genes in the toll-like receptor signaling pathway and the antibody response to pertussis vaccination. PLoS One 3:e3665 Korb M, Rust AG, Thorsson V et al. (2008) The Innate Immune Database (IIDB). BMC Immunol 9:7 Korber BT, Letvin NL, Haynes BF (2009) T-cell vaccine strategies for human immunodeficiency virus, the virus with a thousand faces. J Virol 83:8300–8314. Kozlow EJ, Wilson GL, Fox CH et al. (1993) Subtractive cDNA cloning of a novel member of the Ig gene superfamily expressed at high levels in activated B lymphocytes. Blood 81:454–461. Krieg AM (2006) Therapeutic potential of Toll-like receptor 9 activation. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:471–484. Krieg AM (2008) Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonists in the treatment of cancer. Oncogene 27:161–167. Krishnan MN, Ng A, Sukumaran B et  al. (2008) RNA interference screen for human genes associated with West Nile virus infection. Nature 455:242–245. Kwissa M, Amara RR, Robinson HL et  al. (2007a) Adjuvanting a DNA vaccine with a TLR9 ligand plus Flt3 ligand results in enhanced cellular immunity against the simian immunodeficiency virus. J Exp Med 204:2733–2746. Kwissa M, Kasturi SP, Pulendran B (2007b) The science of adjuvants. Expert Rev Vaccines 6:673–684. Lafaille JJ (1998) The role of helper T cell subsets in autoimmune diseases. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 9:139–151. Lahiri A, Das P, Chakravortty D (2008) Engagement of TLR signaling as adjuvant: towards smarter vaccine and beyond. Vaccine 26:6777–6783. Latz E, Franko J, Golenbock DT et al. (2004a) Haemophilus influenzae type b-outer membrane protein complex glycoconjugate vaccine induces cytokine production by engaging human tolllike receptor 2 (TLR2) and requires the presence of TLR2 for optimal immunogenicity. J Immunol 172:2431–2438. Latz E, Schoenemeyer A, Visintin A et al. (2004b) TLR9 signals after translocating from the ER to CpG DNA in the lysosome. Nat Immunol 5:190–198. Leber JH, Crimmins GT, Raghavan S et al. (2008) Distinct TLR- and NLR-mediated transcriptional responses to an intracellular pathogen. PLoS Pathog 4:e6 Liu YJ (2005) IPC: professional type 1 interferon-producing cells and plasmacytoid dendritic cell precursors. Annu Rev Immunol 23:275–306. Longhi MP, Trumpfheller C, Idoyaga J et  al. (2009) Dendritic cells require a systemic type I interferon response to mature and induce CD4+ Th1 immunity with poly IC as adjuvant. J Exp Med 206:1589–1602. Lorenz E, Mira JP, Frees KL et al. (2002) Relevance of mutations in the TLR4 receptor in patients with gram-negative septic shock. Arch Intern Med 162:1028–1032. Lund JM, Alexopoulou L, Sato A et al. (2004) Recognition of single-stranded RNA viruses by Toll-like receptor 7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:5598–5603. Lynn DJ, Winsor GL, Chan C et al. (2008) InnateDB: facilitating systems-level analyses of the mammalian innate immune response. Mol Syst Biol 4:218 Ma R, Du JL, Huang J et al. (2007) Additive effects of CpG ODN and R-848 as adjuvants on augmenting immune responses to HBsAg vaccination. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 361:537–542. Magistrelli G, Jeannin P, Elson G et al. (1999) Identification of three alternatively spliced variants of human CD28 mRNA. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 259:34–37. McCaffrey RL, Fawcett P, O’Riordan M et al. (2004) A specific gene expression program triggered by Gram-positive bacteria in the cytosol. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:11386–11391. McGuirk P and Mills KH (2002) Pathogen-specific regulatory T cells provoke a shift in the Th1/ Th2 paradigm in immunity to infectious diseases. Trends Immunol 23:450–455. Mikszta JA, Dekker JP, III, Harvey NG et al. (2006) Microneedle-based intradermal delivery of the anthrax recombinant protective antigen vaccine. Infect Immun 74:6806–6810.

164

F.M. Buonaguro et al.

Misch EA and Hawn TR (2008) Toll-like receptor polymorphisms and susceptibility to human disease. Clin Sci (Lond) 114:347–360. Miyairi I and DeVincenzo JP (2008) Human genetic factors and respiratory syncytial virus disease severity. Clin Microbiol Rev 21:686–703. Monaco A, Marincola FM, Sabatino M et  al. (2009) Molecular immune signatures of HIV-1 vaccines in human PBMCs. FEBS Lett 583:3004–3008. Monath TP (2005) Yellow fever vaccine. Expert Rev Vaccines 4:553–574. Monie TP, Bryant CE, Gay NJ (2009) Activating immunity: lessons from the TLRs and NLRs. Trends Biochem Sci 34:553–561. Moser M and Murphy KM (2000) Dendritic cell regulation of TH1-TH2 development. Nat Immunol 1:199–205. Mowen KA and Glimcher LH (2004) Signaling pathways in Th2 development. Immunol Rev 202:203–222. Navabi H, Jasani B, Reece A et  al. (2009) A clinical grade poly I:C-analogue (Ampligen) promotes optimal DC maturation and Th1-type T cell responses of healthy donors and cancer patients in vitro. Vaccine 27:107–115. Navratil V, de CB, Meyniel L et al. (2009) VirHostNet: a knowledge base for the management and the analysis of proteome-wide virus-host interaction networks. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D661–D668. Nguyen TH, Mai NL, Le TP et  al. (2009) Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and typhoid fever in Vietnam. PLoS One 4:e4800. O’Garra A and Robinson D (2004) Development and function of T helper 1 cells. Adv Immunol 83:133–162. O’Garra A and Vieira P (2004) Regulatory T cells and mechanisms of immune system control. Nat Med 10:801–805. Oda K and Kitano H (2006) A comprehensive map of the toll-like receptor signaling network. Mol Syst Biol 2:2006. Ogus AC, Yoldas B, Ozdemir T et al. (2004) The Arg753GLn polymorphism of the human tolllike receptor 2 gene in tuberculosis disease. Eur Respir J 23:219–223. Ott G, Barchfeld GL, Chernoff D et al. (1995) MF59. Design and evaluation of a safe and potent adjuvant for human vaccines. Pharm Biotechnol 6:277–296. Ovsyannikova IG, Dhiman N, Haralambieva IH et  al. (2010) Rubella vaccine-induced cellular immunity: evidence of associations with polymorphisms in the Toll-like, vitamin A and D receptors, and innate immune response genes. Hum Genet 127:207–221. Ozinsky A, Underhill DM, Fontenot JD et  al. (2000) The repertoire for pattern recognition of pathogens by the innate immune system is defined by cooperation between toll-like receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:13766–13771. Pancharoen C, Mekmullica J, Thisyakorn U et al. (2005) Reduced-dose intradermal vaccination against hepatitis A with an aluminum-free vaccine is immunogenic and can lower costs. Clin Infect Dis 41:1537–1540. Pasare C and Medzhitov R (2005) Toll-like receptors: linking innate and adaptive immunity. Adv Exp Med Biol 560:11–18. Pashine A, Valiante NM, Ulmer JB (2005) Targeting the innate immune response with improved vaccine adjuvants. Nat Med 11:S63–S68. Pine SO, McElrath MJ, Bochud PY (2009) Polymorphisms in toll-like receptor 4 and toll-like receptor 9 influence viral load in a seroincident cohort of HIV-1-infected individuals. AIDS 23:2387–2395. Pitti RM, Marsters SA, Lawrence DA et al. (1998) Genomic amplification of a decoy receptor for Fas ligand in lung and colon cancer. Nature 396:699–703. Plotkin SA (2005) Vaccines: past, present and future. Nat Med 11:S5–S11. Poltorak A, He X, Smirnova I et al. (1998) Defective LPS signaling in C3H/HeJ and C57BL/10ScCr mice: mutations in Tlr4 gene. Science 282:2085–2088. Potti A, Dressman HK, Bild A et al. (2006) Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics. Nat Med 12:1294–1300.

Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines

165

Pulendran B and Ahmed R (2006) Translating innate immunity into immunological memory: implications for vaccine development. Cell 124:849–863. Querec T, Bennouna S, Alkan S et  al. (2006) Yellow fever vaccine YF-17D activates multiple dendritic cell subsets via TLR2, 7, 8, and 9 to stimulate polyvalent immunity. J Exp Med 203:413–424. Querec TD, Akondy RS, Lee EK et al. (2009) Systems biology approach predicts immunogenicity of the yellow fever vaccine in humans. Nat Immunol 10:116–125. Ramilo O, Allman W, Chung W et  al. (2007) Gene expression patterns in blood leukocytes discriminate patients with acute infections. Blood 109:2066–2077. Rappuoli R (2004) From Pasteur to genomics: progress and challenges in infectious diseases. Nat Med 10:1177–1185. Rappuoli R (2007) Bridging the knowledge gaps in vaccine design. Nat Biotechnol 25:1361–1366. Read RC, Pullin J, Gregory S et al. (2001) A functional polymorphism of toll-like receptor 4 is not associated with likelihood or severity of meningococcal disease. J Infect Dis 184:640–642. Redecke V, Hacker H, Datta SK et al. (2004) Cutting edge: activation of Toll-like receptor 2 induces a Th2 immune response and promotes experimental asthma. J Immunol 172:2739–2743. Reed SG, Bertholet S, Coler RN et al. (2009) New horizons in adjuvants for vaccine development. Trends Immunol 30:23–32. Rerks-Ngarm S, Pitisuttithum P, Nitayaphan S et  al. (2009) Vaccination with ALVAC and AIDSVAX to Prevent HIV-1 Infection in Thailand. N Engl J Med 361:2209–2220. Rezazadeh M, Hajilooi M, Rafiei A et  al. (2006) TLR4 polymorphism in Iranian patients with brucellosis. J Infect 53:206–210. Ricciardi-Castagnoli P and Granucci F (2002) Opinion: Interpretation of the complexity of innate immune responses by functional genomics. Nat Rev Immunol 2:881–889. Richter JD and Sonenberg N (2005) Regulation of cap-dependent translation by eIF4E inhibitory proteins. Nature 433:477–480. Robbins JB, Schneerson R, Szu SC (1995) Perspective: hypothesis: serum IgG antibody is sufficient to confer protection against infectious diseases by inactivating the inoculum. J Infect Dis 171:1387–1398. Robbins JB, Schneerson R, Szu SC (1996) Hypothesis: how licensed vaccines confer protective immunity. Adv Exp Med Biol 397:169–182. Ron D and Walter P (2007) Signal integration in the endoplasmic reticulum unfolded protein response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8:519–529. Ryan ET and Calderwood SB (2000) Cholera vaccines. Clin Infect Dis 31:561–565. Sallberg M, Frelin L, Weiland O (2009) DNA vaccine therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection: immune control of a moving target. Expert Opin Biol Ther 9:805–815. Santos AP, Matos DC, Bertho AL et al. (2008) Detection of Th1/Th2 cytokine signatures in yellow fever 17DD first-time vaccinees through ELISpot assay. Cytokine 42:152–155. Sato Y, Goto Y, Narita N et al. (2009) Cancer Cells Expressing Toll-like Receptors and the Tumor Microenvironment. Cancer Microenviron 2(Suppl 1):205–214. Schmidt WM, Spiel AO, Jilma B et al. (2009) In vivo profile of the human leukocyte microRNA response to endotoxemia. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 380:437–441. Schonbeck U and Libby P (2001) The CD40/CD154 receptor/ligand dyad. Cell Mol Life Sci 58:4–43. Schroder NW and Schumann RR (2005) Single nucleotide polymorphisms of Toll-like receptors and susceptibility to infectious disease. Lancet Infect Dis 5:156–164. Shimazu R, Akashi S, Ogata H et al. (1999) MD-2, a molecule that confers lipopolysaccharide responsiveness on Toll-like receptor 4. J Exp Med 189:1777–1782. Sioud M (2009) Does our current understanding of immune tolerance, autoimmunity, and immunosuppressive mechanisms facilitate the design of efficient cancer vaccines? Scand J Immunol 70:516–525. Smirnova I, Mann N, Dols A et al. (2003) Assay of locus-specific genetic load implicates rare Toll-like receptor 4 mutations in meningococcal susceptibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:6075–6080.

166

F.M. Buonaguro et al.

Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et  al. (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:10869–10874. Speiser DE, Lienard D, Rufer N et al. (2005) Rapid and strong human CD8+ T cell responses to vaccination with peptide, IFA, and CpG oligodeoxynucleotide 7909. J Clin Invest 115:739–746. Stahl S, Fung E, Adams C et al. (2009) Proteomics and pathway analysis identifies JNK signaling as critical for high linear energy transfer radiation-induced apoptosis in non-small lung cancer cells. Mol Cell Proteomics 8:1117–1129. Stephan MT, Ponomarev V, Brentjens RJ et al. (2007) T cell-encoded CD80 and 4-1BBL induce auto- and transcostimulation, resulting in potent tumor rejection. Nat Med 13:1440–1449. Sun HJ, Xu X, Wang XL et al. (2006) Transcription factors Ets2 and Sp1 act synergistically with histone acetyltransferase p300 in activating human interleukin-12 p40 promoter. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai) 38:194–200. Takeda K and Akira S (2007) Toll-like receptors. Curr Protoc Immunol Chapter 14:Unit PMID: 18432983 DOI: 10.1002/0471142735.im1412s77. Takeda K, Kaisho T, Akira S (2003) Toll-like receptors. Annu Rev Immunol 21:335–376. Takeuchi O, Kawai T, Muhlradt PF et al. (2001) Discrimination of bacterial lipoproteins by Tolllike receptor 6. Int Immunol 13:933–940. Takeuchi O, Sato S, Horiuchi T et al. (2002) Cutting edge: role of Toll-like receptor 1 in mediating immune response to microbial lipoproteins. J Immunol 169:10–14. Tanabe M, Kurita-Taniguchi M, Takeuchi K et al. (2003) Mechanism of up-regulation of human Toll-like receptor 3 secondary to infection of measles virus-attenuated strains. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 311:39–48. Thomas V and Fikrig E (2002) The Lyme disease vaccine takes its toll. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2:217–222. Tong NK, Beran J, Kee SA et al. (2005) Immunogenicity and safety of an adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine in pre-hemodialysis and hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 68:2298–2303. Tsuji S, Matsumoto M, Takeuchi O et al. (2000) Maturation of human dendritic cells by cell wall skeleton of Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette-Guerin: involvement of toll-like receptors. Infect Immun 68:6883–6890. Uehori J, Matsumoto M, Tsuji S et al. (2003) Simultaneous blocking of human Toll-like receptors 2 and 4 suppresses myeloid dendritic cell activation induced by Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette-Guerin peptidoglycan. Infect Immun 71:4238–4249. van Manen D, Rits MA, Beugeling C et  al. (2008) The effect of Trim5 polymorphisms on the clinical course of HIV-1 infection. PLoS Pathog 4:e18. Van DP, Oosterhuis-Kafeja F, Van der WM et  al. (2009) Safety and efficacy of a novel micro­ needle device for dose sparing intradermal influenza vaccination in healthy adults. Vaccine 27:454–459. Vasilescu C, Rossi S, Shimizu M et  al. (2009) MicroRNA fingerprints identify miR-150 as a plasma prognostic marker in patients with sepsis. PLoS One 4:e7405 Velez DR, Wejse C, Stryjewski ME et al. (2010) Variants in toll-like receptors 2 and 9 influence susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis in Caucasians, African-Americans, and West Africans. Hum Genet 127:65–73. Villadangos JA and Young L (2008) Antigen-presentation properties of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Immunity 29:352–361. von Andrian UH and Mempel TR (2003) Homing and cellular traffic in lymph nodes. Nat Rev Immunol 3:867–878. Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2009) RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet 10:57–63. Wille-Reece U, Flynn BJ, Lore K et al. (2006) Toll-like receptor agonists influence the magnitude and quality of memory T cell responses after prime-boost immunization in nonhuman primates. J Exp Med 203:1249–1258.

Immune Signatures and Systems Biology of Vaccines

167

Wurfel MM, Gordon AC, Holden TD et  al. (2008) Toll-like receptor 1 polymorphisms affect innate immune responses and outcomes in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 178:710–720. Yim JJ, Lee HW, Lee HS et al. (2006) The association between microsatellite polymorphisms in intron II of the human Toll-like receptor 2 gene and tuberculosis among Koreans. Genes Immun 7:150–155. Yin JQ, Zhao RC, Morris KV (2008) Profiling microRNA expression with microarrays. Trends Biotechnol 26:70–76. Yoneyama M and Fujita T (2009) RNA recognition and signal transduction by RIG-I-like receptors. Immunol Rev 227:54–65. Yoneyama M, Kikuchi M, Natsukawa T et  al. (2004) The RNA helicase RIG-I has an essential function in double-stranded RNA-induced innate antiviral responses. Nat Immunol 5:730-737. Yoneyama M, Kikuchi M, Matsumoto K et al. (2005) Shared and unique functions of the DExD/ H-box helicases RIG-I, MDA5, and LGP2 in antiviral innate immunity. J Immunol 175:2851–2858. Yoshida A, Inagawa H, Kohchi C et al. (2009) The role of toll-like receptor 2 in survival strategies of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in macrophage phagosomes. Anticancer Res 29:907–910. Zhou R, Hu G, Liu J et  al. (2009) NF-kappaB p65-dependent transactivation of miRNA genes following Cryptosporidium parvum infection stimulates epithelial cell immune responses. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000681.

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State Rebecca J. Critchley-Thorne, Hongxiang Yu, and Peter P. Lee

Abstract  Dysfunction of the host immune system can be detected in many patients with different cancer types, and contributes to tumor escape and failure of therapies that aim to elicit or boost anti-tumor immunity. Yet, immune-mediated tumor rejection and long term cancer control have been documented in a minority of patients. A better understanding of immune dysfunction in the cancer bearing state and the immune mechanisms that lead to tumor rejection will enable design of novel therapeutic approaches to overcome cancer-induced immune dysfunction and augment effective anti-tumor immunity. This chapter discusses the signatures associated with immune dysfunction vs. immune-mediated rejection in cancer patients, and highlights the applications of such signatures in cancer diagnostic testing and as therapeutic opportunities. Keywords  Immune dysfunction • Anergy • Tumor rejection • Immunotherapy • Immune biomarkers

Background Immune dysfunction is an early event in cancer development that continues to develop throughout progression to metastatic disease (Staveley-O’Carroll et  al. 1998). Modulation of the host immune response by cancer is both local and systemic; global immune dysfunction eventually develops in patients with many cancer types (Critchley-Thorne et  al. 2009a). Quantity, phenotype, and functional status of leukocytes can be altered by direct interaction with tumor cells (at the tumor site or tumor-draining lymph nodes) and also via tumor-derived soluble factors, membrane fragments and microvesicles. Endogenous CD8+ T cells specific for tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) are present in patients with many types of

P.P. Lee (*) Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_11, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

169

170

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

cancer; such cells can also be elicited by vaccines and immunotherapies in cancer patients. However, in the majority of cancer patients, TAA-specific CD8+ T cells do not appear to control tumor progression or lead to tumor rejection. Multiple aspects of tumor-immune interactions and immune dysfunction have been identified, however, the mechanisms by which the immune system is impaired in the cancer state are still poorly understood. Immune dysfunction contributes to tumor progression and also poses a significant barrier to cancer immunotherapies, which have yielded disappointing results in clinical trials. A clear understanding of the mechanisms underlying immune dysfunction in the cancer state may enable development of therapies to overcome immune dysfunction and enable effective immune-mediated control of tumors. It is equally important to understand the mechanisms of immune-mediated tumor rejection. While immune dysfunction is evident in the majority of patients and in many cancer types, there are limited numbers of cases of spontaneous or therapy-induced immune-mediated tumor control and rejection. An understanding of the processes involved in tumor rejection will aid in the design of novel immunotherapy approaches to potentiate this process in cancer patients. Immune signatures associated with the cancer bearing state have multiple applications as targets for immunotherapies and as biomarkers in cancer diagnostic testing.

Signatures of Immune Dysfunction in Cancer Patients Multiple signatures of immune modulation and dysfunction have been described in many types of cancer. Tumors evolve mechanisms to escape immune surveillances by progressively disrupting different immune cells in multiple respects.

Increased Apoptosis of Anti-Tumor Effector Cells The viability of leukocytes is affected at the tumor site, draining lymph nodes and in peripheral blood due to “tumor counterattack” mediated directly by interaction with tumor cells, or indirectly via tumor-derived soluble factors and membrane fragments/microvesicles shed from tumors. Increased apoptosis of T cells, natural killer (NK) cells, and dendritic cells (DCs), due in part to interaction with tumorexpressed death ligands, has been observed in the blood of cancer patients and is associated with aberrant homeostasis of these leukocyte subsets (Gastman et  al. 1999; Hoffmann et al. 2002a; Bauernhofer et al. 2003a; Pinzon-Charry et al. 2006). Higher percentages of peripheral blood T cells, and also NK cells and monocytes, are Fas+ in cancer patients (Yuen et al. 2001; Hoffmann et al. 2002a; Bauernhofer et al. 2003a; Demir et al. 2007). Fas expression renders these cells susceptible to apoptosis mediated via FasL expressed on the surface of tumor cells, secreted by tumors and on tumor-shed microvesicles (Reichert et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 2003; Kim et al. 2005). The majority of apoptotic T cells in the blood of cancer patients

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

171

are CD25-negative, whereas T cells expressing high levels of CD25, which are mostly regulatory T cells (Tregs), are protected from FasL-induced apoptosis (Bauernhofer et al. 2003b) and accumulate in cancer patients.

Impaired Effector Cell Activation and Function The activation and effector function of lymphocytes are often impaired in cancer patients and this contributes to anergy/non-responsiveness and escape of tumors from immunity. T cells specific for TAAs are present in the blood of patients with cancer and at the tumor site, however, in most patients these cells fail to control tumors and are anergic (Lee et al. 1999; Zippelius et al. 2004). Impaired signaling via the T cell receptor has been described in peripheral blood T cells from cancer patients. Several components of this signaling pathway are defective in T cells from cancer patients, including p56 lck, CD3z, and translocation of the NF-kB p65 subunit (Finke et  al. 1993). CD3z expression is downregulated at the protein level in T cells and NK cells within tumors, tumor-draining lymph nodes, and in the peripheral blood in many types of cancer (Kono et al. 1996; Reichert et al. 1998; Dworacki et al. 2001). Downregulation of CD3z expression is mediated via various tumor-related mechanisms, including soluble factors secreted by tumors that activate peptidases within T cells (Taylor et al. 2001), tumor-induced apoptosis of T cells, and products of other leukocytes including suppressor cells (Ezernitchi et  al. 2006). Low CD3z is associated with functional defects in T cells, such as low proliferation in response to mitogens (Reichert et al. 2002) and contributes to general anergy of T cells in cancer patients. Lymphocytes from cancer patients also exhibit impaired responses to activating stimuli, including cytokines such as interferons (IFNs). The type-I IFN signaling pathway is impaired in T cells and B cells and type-II IFN signaling is impaired in B cells in the peripheral blood of breast cancer, melanoma and gastrointestinal cancer patients (Critchley-Thorne et al. 2007, 2009a). Interferons act as an antiapoptotic and proliferative “third signal” required in addition to the first (antigen) and second (co-stimulation) signals for full activation, clonal expansion and development of memory vs. tolerance (Dondi et  al. 2004; Curtsinger et  al. 2005; Kolumam et  al. 2005; Le Bon et al. 2006). Thus, defects in interferon signaling in lymphocytes in cancer patients are associated with downstream functional defects in cellular activation (Critchley-Thorne et al. 2009a). Responses to other cytokines such as IL-2 are also altered in lymphocytes in cancer patients (Mortarini et al. 2009). The anti-tumor functions of B cells are limited in cancer patients. Oligoclonal antibody responses specific to TAAs can be detected in patients with various types of cancer (Disis et  al. 1997, 2000; Coronella et  al. 2002; Pavoni et  al. 2007). However, the TAA-specific antibodies do not attain sufficient systemic titers to result in tumor rejection, while responses to non-TAA remain intact (Brydak et al. 2001; Schiffman et al. 2002). In addition to antibody production, B cells have antigen presenting functions and can secrete cytokines to regulate immune responses (Mosmann 2000; Duddy et  al. 2004; Rodriguez-Pinto and Moreno 2005).

172

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

Emerging evidence suggests these functions are also impaired by the cancer bearing state.The relative and absolute count of CD27+ memory B cells in the blood are decreased in advanced melanoma and other cancers. This is accompanied by aberrant systemic plasmacytosis. B cells from these patients also show defective cytokine production and fail to provide sufficient costimulation signal to amplify CD4 T cell responses (Carpenter et al. 2009). There are also signatures of immune dysfunction in the innate immune system of cancer patients. Patients with breast cancer have impaired NK cell activity that limits the potential anti-tumor cytolytic responses of these cells (Sabbioni et  al. 2000; Varker et  al. 2007). The expression of NKG2D on NK cells, and also on CD8 T cells and gd T cells, is reduced in cancer patients due to overexpression of NKG2D ligands, such as MICA/B and ULBP, on the surface of tumors and secretion of soluble NKG2D ligands by tumors (Groh et al. 2002; Madjd et al. 2007; Osaki et  al. 2007), and also by TGF-b produced by tumors and/or Treg cells (Castriconi et  al. 2003; Lee et  al. 2004; Ghiringhelli et  al. 2005a). Excessive NKG2D signaling by these ligands leads to endocytosis and degradation of NKG2D on NK cells and T cells, which disrupts interaction with target tumor cells. Reduced expression of natural cytotoxicity receptors on NK cells has also been observed in cancer patients and is associated with reduced cytotoxic function of these cells (Costello et al. 2002; Le Maux Chansac et al. 2005; Fauriat et al. 2007). Absolute counts of total NK cells are not significantly reduced in cancer patients, however there is a reduction in the CD56bright subtype of NK cells, which are cytokine-producing, and a corresponding increase in the CD56dim subtype, which are cytolytic (Bauernhofer et al. 2003a). Although the cytolytic NK cells are increased in number, their activity is impaired and these cells have high rates of spontaneous apoptosis and rapid turnover in cancer patients (Bauernhofer et al. 2003a). Dendritic cells, particularly myeloid-derived DC1 cells, are reduced in number in the blood of cancer patients. The reduction in DC1 cells alters the DC1:DC2 ratio, which affects the balance between humoral and cell-mediated immunity in cancer patients (Hoffmann et al. 2002b; Della Bella et al. 2003; Ferrari et al. 2005; PinzonCharry et  al. 2007). The loss of DC1 cells is accompanied by accumulation of immature CD11c− CD123− DCs that have low expression of HLA-DR and costimulatory molecules (Pinzon-Charry et al. 2005; Sakakura et al. 2006). These cells are resistant to tumor-induced apoptosis and are dysregulated in antigen presentation (Pinzon-Charry et  al. 2005). Such cells likely prime the differentiation of CD4 T cells to Treg phenotype (Ghiringhelli et al. 2005b; Pinzon-Charry et al. 2005) and cause imbalances between lymphocyte subsets and suppressed T cell activation responses (Gerosa et al. 2002; Sakakura et al. 2006; Chikamatsu et al. 2007).

Polarizing Immune Balance in Favor of Tumor Progression There is a delicate balance between immune mediators that promote tumor progression vs. mediators that promote tumor rejection. This balance is often shifted in

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

173

favor of tumor progression by the cancer bearing state (Ostrand-Rosenberg 2008). Specific immune cell types are polarized or subverted by tumors or tumor-derived products to form immunosuppressive networks and enable malignant progression. The cytokine profiles in cancer patients are frequently polarized towards Th2 rather than Th1. Th1 phenotype produces IL2 and IFNg, which promote the activation and expansion of cytotoxic T cells to kill tumor cells. Th2 phenotype produces IL-4 and IL-13 which help B cells to produce antibodies, thereby directing immunity away from a tumor-rejecting Type 1 response (Lee et al. 1997; Botella-Estrada et al. 2005). Many types of cancers have taken advantage of this regulatory role of cytokines to down-regulate appropriate immune responses targeted to destroy cancer cells. Cancer patients also showed elevated level of immunosuppressive cytokines such as transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-b), IL10 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to further dampen anti-tumor responses (Nemunaitis et al. 2001; Santin et al. 2001; Kim et al. 2003). Peripheral blood T cells, and T cells in tumors and draining lymph nodes, are enriched in cells of regulatory or suppressor phenotype (Liyanage et  al. 2002; Ichihara et al. 2003; Okita et al. 2005; Chikamatsu et al. 2007). In addition to natural Tregs, conventional CD4+ T cells are induced to differentiate to CD4+ Treg cells in cancer patients, which alter the balance between effector cells and regulatory cells in cancer patients. This imbalance contributes to immune tolerance to tumors (Curiel et al. 2004; Jarnicki et al. 2006). The differentiation of CD4 T cells to Tregs is mediated by immunosuppressive factors such as TGF-b and IL-10 (Seo et  al. 2001; Chen et al. 2003; Fantini et al. 2004), which are produced by both tumor cells and by immune cells polarized towards a suppressor phenotype. Suppressor/regulatory subsets of CD8+ T cells are also increased in the blood of cancer patients and within tumors and play a role in maintaining tolerance to tumors (Ebihara et  al. 1991; Yacyshyn et  al. 1995; Nakamura et  al. 2002; Chaput et  al. 2009). Tumorinfiltrating Th17 cells have been reported in ovarian cancer, melanoma and prostate cancer but their function in cancers remains controversial (Miyahara et  al. 2008; Muranski et al. 2008; Sfanos et al. 2008). NKT cells are another subtype of T cells with important immune regulatory functions and serve as a bridge between the innate and adaptive immune system (Cerundolo et  al. 2009). Type I NKT cells show defective IFNg production in many cancer patients (Tahir et al. 2001; Molling et al. 2005) and low levels of circulating type I NKT cells indicates poor survival in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients (Molling et al. 2007). Tumor cells can also hijack myeloid cells to mediate a protective acute inflammatory process to further tumor progression. Macrophages that infiltrate tumors are converted to M2-type tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) that promote tumor progression and facilitate metastasis (DeNardo et  al. 2008; Sica et  al. 2008). Tumor-associated neutrophils (TANs) are polarized toward pro-tumor N2-type TANs that promote tumor angiogenesis (Fridlender et al. 2009; Tazzyman et  al. 2009). DCs can be polarized to an immunosuppressive phenotype that induce both CD4+ and CD8+ regulatory T cells and inhibit the function of cytotoxic T lymphocytes in cancer patients (Ghiringhelli et al. 2005b; Wei et al. 2005; Norian et al. 2009). These tumor-promoting subsets of monocytes and dendritic

174

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

cells accumulate in the blood of cancer patients and are recruited into tumors by various tumor-derived factors including CSF-1, IL-6 and IL-10, VEGF and GM-CSF (Gabrilovich et al. 1998; Bronte et al. 1999; Lin et al. 2002; Steinbrink et  al. 2002; Park et  al. 2004). Such cells can be considered part of a heterogeneous population of cells known as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), which have immature phenotype and regulate adaptive immunity by multiple molecular and cellular mechanisms, including production of arginase I and activation of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) at the tumor site, in draining lymph nodes and in the blood of cancer patients. Arginase I depletes arginine, which is required for T cell effector functions and its depletion by MDSCs is in part responsible for T cell anergy in cancer patients (Rodriguez et  al. 2004; Ochoa et  al. 2007). IDO production by suppressive dendritic cells is involved in the production of immunosuppressive tryptophan metabolites and contributes to immune dysfunction in cancer (von Bergwelt-Baildon et al. 2006). MDSCs also produce immunosuppressive factors such as IL-10 and TGF-b that inhibit the cytolytic activity of NK cells (Li et  al. 2009) and promote the development of regulatory T cells, which in turn prevent anti-tumor immunity (Frey 2006; Huang et al. 2006). In summary, the prominent immune signature in cancer is that of immune dysfunction (summarized in Table  1), wherein tumors directly inhibit anti-tumor responses by inducing apoptosis and a tolerant, anergic phenotype of both TAAspecific adaptive cells and innate cells and indirectly by subverting multiple subsets of immune cells to a tumor-promoting phenotype that induce and maintain tolerance to tumors.

Signatures of Tumor Rejection in Cancer Patients Substantial efforts have been made to establish predictors of clinical outcome in many cancers by gene expression profiling. The presence of signatures associated with immune effector functions often indicates good prognosis and better clinical responses. These signatures can be considered as signatures of tumor rejection. Melanoma is a cancer characterized by predisposition to natural and induced immune rejection. Analysis of melanoma-associated genes has revealed immunological signature resulting from immune cell infiltration of the tumor tissue (Wang et  al. 2004). These immunological signatures of tumor rejection may explain the immune responsiveness in melanoma and can also be used to guide therapy for these patients since the active profile of immune genes related to T cell regulation in melanoma metastases corresponds to clinical responses to therapies (Wang et al. 2002). In breast cancer, an IFN-regulated cluster was identified in an effort to classify breast cancer molecular types (Hu et al. 2006). Interestingly, Teschendorff et al. showed that this subset of patients defined by altered IFN-regulated gene expression had better prognosis compared with the basal and HER2+ groups (Teschendorff et  al. 2007). Additionally, they also observed an immune response gene expression module in ER− breast cancer patients. This immune module consists of complement and

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

175

Table 1  Summary of immune signatures in cancer: immune dysfunction vs. tumor rejection Feature Affected cell types/processes T cells, natural killer (NK) Signatures of immune Apoptosis induced directly cells, dendritic cells dysfunction in cancer by contact with tumor (DCs) cells and indirectly by tumor-secreted factors and shed membrane fragments T cells, B cells, NK cells, DCs, Impaired anti-tumor effector B cells cell activation and functions Anergy/non-responsiveness T cells, B cells, NK cells CD4+ Tregs, CD8+ Tregs, Shift towards regulatory and suppressor Th2 phenotype, tumorphenotype associated macrophages, tumor-associated neutrophils, tumorinfiltrating DCs, myeloidderived suppressor cells Th2-polarized cytokine T cells, B cells profiles Interferon-related genes, T cell Immunological signatures Signatures of tumor regulation genes associated with anti-tumor rejection in cancer effector functions and good prognosis TAA-specific humoral B cells responses TAA-specific cytotoxic T cell CD8+ T cells responses that adapt to escape variants in long term cancer survivors Autoimmunity Vitiligo, thyroid dysfunction, autoantibodies, myalgias

immune response pathways and is associated with good prognosis independent of lymphocytic infiltration and lymph node status (Teschendorff et al. 2007). A recent meta analysis of breast cancer gene expression profiles identified a large cluster of 600 genes with immune functions, which can be classified into seven immune functional clusters (IgG, HCK, MHC-II, LCK, MHC-I, STAT1, interferon) (Rody et al. 2009). Of these, the T cell signature (LCK) indicates a favorable prognosis of ER− and HER2+ patients and the IgG and LCK signatures correspond to better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Rody et  al. 2009). An immune response enriched 72-gene prognostic predictor has also been established for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Roepman et  al. 2009). The immune signatures of tumor rejection are not only limited to tumor tissues. By gene expression profiling of nonneoplastic muscosa, a prognostic signature was established for stage II colon cancer that included genes related to immune responses (Barrier et al. 2007). Gene expression signatures from peripheral blood have also been used to distinguish individuals with early-stage NSCLC from individuals with non-malignant lung disease (Showe et al. 2009). In brief, gene expression profiling studies of cancers frequently reveal

176

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

immune response gene signatures that have prognostic significance. These tumor rejection-associated signatures may be of great importance in understanding the basis of anti-tumor immune responses. Spontaneous rejection of tumors by the immune system is rare; however, such rejections have been documented (Ross et  al. 1982; Nakano et  al. 2000) and the associated immune signatures may provide valuable insight into how the immune system can be manipulated to successfully control and reject tumors. Spontaneous tumor regression or delayed tumor progression can result from endogenous anti-tumor responses or therapy-induced responses. Objective responses to immunotherapies and biological therapies that target the immune system such as IFNs, IL2 and antibodies have been documented in cancer patients. Since TAAs are self antigens, effective anti-tumor responses are often associated with autoimmunity, which can be considered an immune signature of tumor rejection. Tumor regression resulting from immunotherapies including IFNs, IL-2 and anti-CTLA-4-based therapies has been associated with autoimmune responses such as autoantibodies, thyroid dysfunction, vitiligo, myalgias and arthralgias (Nordlund et al. 1983; Vallisa et al. 1995; Phan et al. 2001; Attia et al. 2005; Gogas et al. 2006; Moschos et al. 2008). Endogenous and immunotherapy-induced antitumor humoral responses have been described in cancer patients and are associated with improved prognosis (DiFronzo et  al. 2002; Pavoni et  al. 2007). Such humoral responses are thought to play a role in spontaneous regression of tumors (Nakano et al. 2000), although this is a rare occurrence since production of TAAspecific antibodies is limited in cancer patients and thus has been difficult to characterize. Immune adaptation has been shown to occur in cancer patients, where the immune system adapts over time to counteract tumor escape mechanisms. As immunodominant peptides are lost from tumors in the process of “immune editing” by tumor cells (Dunn et  al. 2002), the adaptive immune system must develop cytolytic T cell responses to remaining epitopes and new epitope variants. Endogenous T cell responses have been shown to adapt in response to new epitope variants in sequential metastases, shifting to development of responses specific to new immunodominant peptides at each round of selection (Yamshchikov et al. 2005). Successful anti-tumor cytolytic T cell responses can persist for many years in long term cancer survivors (Yamshchikov et al. 2001; Ueda et al. 2007) and may provide important insight into effective strategies for tumor control. In summary, although the dominant immune signature in cancer is that of immune dysfunction, immunological signatures of tumor rejection are observed in some cancers (summarized in Table 1). Gene expression profiling of tumors often display signatures related to immune effector functions, suggesting immune-mediated tumor rejection occurs in the cancer bearing state. Other tumor-rejection associated signatures include autoimmune responses, TAA-specific T cells responses that are longlived and adapt to new epitope variants and TAA-specific humoral responses that do not reach sufficient titers in most cancer patients but may be involved in tumor rejection in subsets of patients experiencing responses to immunotherapies or spontaneous tumor rejection. It is important to understand the mechanisms by which

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

177

successful anti-tumor immune responses occur to aid the design of novel immunotherapies that can effectively overcome immune dysfunction.

Applications of Cancer-Associated Immune Signatures in Therapeutics and Diagnostics Therapeutics Research on immune signatures in cancer has identified many immune biomarkers that present attractive opportunities for novel therapies that target the immune system to control and eradicate cancer. Immune targets of therapies under investigation include Treg cells that are elevated in cancer patients and function to inhibit anti-tumor T cell responses. Both natural and induced Treg cells represent significant barriers to immunotherapy strategies. Therapies that target molecules overexpressed in Tregs, including CTLA-4 and GITR, are being clinically evaluated (Ko et al. 2005) with the aim of depleting Tregs in cancer patients to enable effective anti-tumor immunity. This approach is showing promise, however, the limitations include lack of specificity since TAAs are self-antigens and thus depletion of Tregs induces significant autoimmunity, which is a signature of tumor rejection but can also cause severe toxicity. Tumor-associated macrophages are critical symbiotic partners of tumor cells at the tumor site and as such TAMs are the target of therapeutic strategies that aim to breakdown the complex structural networks within tumors to prevent tumor progression and elicit tumor rejection (Sica et al. 2008). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) accumulate in cancer patients and potently inhibit anti-tumor immunity and promote tumor progression; therefore, these cells are also the focus of novel therapeutic approaches to overcome immune dysfunction in cancer patients (Ko et al. 2009a, b). Many aspects of immune dysfunction in cancer have been described; however, the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. A greater understanding of the mechanisms by which the immune system is impaired in the cancer state will enable the development of novel therapeutic approaches that aim to normalize immune function in cancer patients and enable effective anti-tumor immune responses. Such therapies may target specific functions of malignant cells that are responsible for immune dysfunction and/or aim to normalize the levels and functions of specific subsets of immune cells, such as Tregs or MDSCs, to enable effective anti-tumor immunity. The complex interplay between tumor cells and immune cells in the cancer bearing state is a dynamic process, which involves multiple mechanisms and influences multiple cell types. The next generation of therapies should focus on normalizing multiple aspects of this dynamic system rather than aiming at correcting individual immune dysfunction. The significant challenges with these approaches will be to target the appropriate immune processes to effectively overcome immune dysfunction while avoiding significant toxicities related to autoimmunity and to maintain ­effective anti-tumor immunity in the long term to prevent tumor recurrence.

178

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

Prognostic and Predictive Cancer Testing Immune signatures that have been associated with the cancer state have applications in prognostic, therapeutic sensitivity, and therapeutic efficacy testing for cancer. The cellular and molecular immune signatures within tumors, tumor draining lymph nodes, and in peripheral blood correlate with tumor progression and have been found to be independently associated with patient survival and responses to therapies. These signatures include altered frequencies, phenotypes and functions of leukocyte subsets as described in Sect. “Signatures of Immune Dysfunction in Cancer.” Specific immune biomarkers with prognostic significance include CD3z chain expression in peripheral blood T cells and at the tumor site. CD3z is an independent marker of aggressive disease and poor survival in several cancer types (Zea et  al. 1995; Reichert et al. 1998; Whiteside 2004; Gruber et al. 2008). CD3z can be used to predict response to IL-2 therapy in cancer patients (Kuss et al. 2002) and its intensity in NK cells has been correlated with antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) associated with the response to trastuzumab in cancer patients (Varchetta et al. 2007). Additional immune processes with prognostic significance include the density and phenotype of macrophages and dendritic cells in tumor tissues (Tsutsui et al. 2005; Ladanyi et al. 2007), the frequency of Treg cells (Bates et al. 2006) and the tissue expression of inhibitory molecules such as programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Ghebeh et al. 2006; Hamanishi et al. 2007). Profiles of immune cells in tumor-draining lymph nodes have also been demonstrated to have prognostic value and may have applications in the analysis of dissected nodes to accurately determine tumor stage and predict survival (Kohrt et al. 2005; Elliott et al. 2007). Immune signatures in tumors have been shown to have even higher prognostic significance than signatures associated with malignant cells, highlighting the importance of the immune status in influencing tumor progression, and the promising role of immune biomarkers in cancer testing (Budhu et  al. 2006; Seike et  al. 2007; Teschendorff et al. 2007; Finak et al. 2008). For example, Finak et al. (2008) identified a stromal gene signature in breast cancer that includes genes involved in immune responses, angiogenesis and hypoxia. This signature has improved prognostic significance over standard clinical variables and over whole-tumor signatures in predicting clinical outcome in breast cancer. These studies demonstrate the importance of considering cancers not as structures of purely malignant cells but as a tumor system in which immune and stromal processes together determine tumor progression and tumor rejection, and have significance in prognostic and predictive testing. The complex structural network of the tumor system and the critical interactions of tumor cells with multiple types of immune cells and stromal cells highlight the need for a systems biology approach to cancer prognostic and predictive testing, which combines multiplexed panels of key tumor, immune and stromal biomarkers with informatics tools to produce a readout of the tumor system relevant to diagnosis, prognosis or therapeutic sensitivity to improve cancer testing (Critchley-Thorne et al. 2009b). Biological therapies, such as antibodies and cytokines, require intact immune function for efficacy. Therefore, immune signatures in cancer patients may have

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

179

applications in identifying patients likely to benefit from specific therapies and in monitoring response to therapies in follow-up care. Immune signatures have been identified that correlate with survival following treatment of cancer patients with immunotherapies. The leukocyte infiltrate, including macrophages and memory leukocytes, has been shown to correlate with response to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech, CA) in breast cancer (Gennari et al. 2004). The number and function of CD16+CD56+ NK cells have also been correlated with the antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity response to antibodies such as trastuzumab (Varchetta et al. 2007; Beano et al. 2008), and this response forms a key part of the mechanism by which trastuzumab induces apoptosis of tumor cells. T cell signal transduction molecules, such as CD3z, and activation markers, such as CD69 and HLA-DR, expressed by lymphocyte subsets in peripheral blood have also been shown to have significance in predicting clinical outcome following immunotherapy in cancer patients (Yacyshyn et  al. 1995; Kuss et  al. 2002). Immune signatures correlated with response to therapies or possibly even single components of signatures that are identified as key predictive biomarkers may have applications in predicting therapeutic sensitivity prior to initiating therapy and in monitoring the response of patients to immunotherapies during the course of treatment.

Summary Signatures of the immune system in cancer patients reveal immune dysfunction and tumor escape. Immune dysfunction has thus far limited the success of immunotherapies for cancer. For immunotherapy to be successful, the goal in designing such therapies must expand from inducing the maximum possible anti-tumor immune response to include overcoming immune dysfunction to enable endogenous or therapy-induced tumor rejection. Understanding signatures of tumor rejection is equally important; these signatures can be used to measure responses to therapies, and to aid in the design of novel immunotherapeutic approaches. Immune signatures in cancer also hold prognostic and predictive significance in cancer patients, at the tumor site, in tumor-draining lymph nodes, and in the blood. Systems biology approaches that incorporate immune signatures into cancer diagnostic testing have the potential to improve testing to predict survival and response to therapies in cancer patients.

References Attia P, Phan GQ, Maker AV et  al. (2005) Autoimmunity correlates with tumor regression in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4. J Clin Oncol 23 (25): 6043–53. Barrier A, Roser F, Boelle PY et al. (2007) Prognosis of stage II colon cancer by non-neoplastic mucosa gene expression profiling. Oncogene 26 (18): 2642–8.

180

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

Bates GJ, Fox SB, Han C et al. (2006) Quantification of regulatory T cells enables the identification of high-risk breast cancer patients and those at risk of late relapse. J Clin Oncol 24 (34): 5373–80. Bauernhofer T, Kuss I, Henderson B et  al. (2003a) Preferential apoptosis of CD56dim natural killer cell subset in patients with cancer. Eur J Immunol 33 (1): 119–24. Bauernhofer T, Kuss I, Friebe-Hoffmann U et al. (2003b) Role of prolactin receptor and CD25 in protection of circulating T lymphocytes from apoptosis in patients with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 88 (8): 1301–9. Beano A, Signorino E, Evangelista A et al. (2008) Correlation between NK function and response to trastuzumab in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Transl Med 6 (1): 25. Botella-Estrada R, Escudero M, O’Connor JE et  al. (2005) Cytokine production by peripheral lymphocytes in melanoma. Eur Cytokine Netw 16 (1): 47–55. Bronte V, Chappell DB, Apolloni E et  al. (1999) Unopposed production of granulocytemacrophage colony-stimulating factor by tumors inhibits CD8+ T cell responses by dysregulating antigen-presenting cell maturation. J Immunol 162 (10): 5728–37. Brydak LB, Guzy J, Starzyk J et al. (2001) Humoral immune response after vaccination against influenza in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 9 (1): 65–8. Budhu A, Forgues M, Ye QH et al. (2006) Prediction of venous metastases, recurrence, and prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma based on a unique immune response signature of the liver microenvironment. Cancer Cell 10 (2): 99–111. Carpenter EL, Mick R, Rech AJ et al. (2009) Collapse of the CD27+ B-cell compartment associated with systemic plasmacytosis in patients with advanced melanoma and other cancers. Clin Cancer Res 15 (13): 4277–87. Castriconi R, Cantoni C, Della Chiesa M et al. (2003) Transforming growth factor beta 1 inhibits expression of NKp30 and NKG2D receptors: consequences for the NK-mediated killing of dendritic cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100 (7): 4120–5. Cerundolo V, Silk JD, Masri SH et al. (2009) Harnessing invariant NKT cells in vaccination strategies. Nat Rev Immunol 9 (1): 28–38. Chaput N, Louafi S, Bardier A et al. (2009) Identification of CD8+CD25+Foxp3+ suppressive T cells in colorectal cancer tissue. Gut 58 (4): 520–9. Chen W, Jin W, Hardegen N et al. (2003) Conversion of peripheral CD4+CD25-naive T cells to CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells by TGF-beta induction of transcription factor Foxp3. J Exp Med 198 (12): 1875–86. Chikamatsu K, Sakakura K, Whiteside TL et al. (2007) Relationships between regulatory T cells and CD8+ effector populations in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 29 (2): 120–7. Coronella JA, Spier C, Welch M et  al. (2002) Antigen-driven oligoclonal expansion of tumorinfiltrating B cells in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. J Immunol 169 (4): 1829–36. Costello RT, Sivori S, Marcenaro E et al. (2002) Defective expression and function of natural killer cell-triggering receptors in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 99 (10): 3661–7. Critchley-Thorne RJ, Yan N, Nacu S et  al. (2007) Down-regulation of the interferon signaling pathway in T lymphocytes from patients with metastatic melanoma. PLoS Med 4 (5): e176. Critchley-Thorne RJ, Simons DL, Yan N et al. (2009a) Impaired interferon signaling is a common immune defect in human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106 (22): 9010–5. Critchley-Thorne RJ, Miller SM, Taylor DL et al. (2009b) Applications of cellular systems biology in breast cancer patient stratification and diagnostics. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 12 (9): 860–869. Curiel TJ, Coukos G, Zou L et  al. (2004) Specific recruitment of regulatory T cells in ovarian carcinoma fosters immune privilege and predicts reduced survival. Nat Med 10 (9): 942–9. Curtsinger JM, Valenzuela JO, Agarwal P et al. (2005) Type I IFNs provide a third signal to CD8 T cells to stimulate clonal expansion and differentiation. J Immunol 174 (8): 4465–9. Della Bella S, Gennaro M, Vaccari M et al. (2003) Altered maturation of peripheral blood dendritic cells in patients with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 89 (8): 1463–72.

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

181

Demir G, Klein HO, Mandel-Molinas N et al. (2007) Beta glucan induces proliferation and activation of monocytes in peripheral blood of patients with advanced breast cancer. Int Immunopharmacol 7 (1): 113–6. DeNardo DG, Johansson M and Coussens LM (2008) Immune cells as mediators of solid tumor metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev 27 (1): 11–8. DiFronzo LA, Gupta RK, Essner R et al. (2002) Enhanced humoral immune response correlates with improved disease-free and overall survival in American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II melanoma patients receiving adjuvant polyvalent vaccine. J Clin Oncol 20 (15): 3242–8. Disis ML, Pupa SM, Gralow JR et al. (1997) High-titer HER-2/neu protein-specific antibody can be detected in patients with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15 (11): 3363–7. Disis ML, Knutson KL, Schiffman K et al. (2000) Pre-existent immunity to the HER-2/neu oncogenic protein in patients with HER-2/neu overexpressing breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 62 (3): 245–52. Dondi E, Roue G, Yuste VJ et al. (2004) A dual role of IFN-alpha in the balance between proliferation and death of human CD4+ T lymphocytes during primary response. J Immunol 173 (6): 3740–7. Duddy ME, Alter A and Bar-Or A (2004) Distinct profiles of human B cell effector cytokines: a role in immune regulation? J Immunol 172 (6): 3422–7. Dunn GP, Bruce AT, Ikeda H et al. (2002) Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol 3 (11): 991–8. Dworacki G, Meidenbauer N, Kuss I et al. (2001) Decreased zeta chain expression and apoptosis in CD3+ peripheral blood T lymphocytes of patients with melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 7 (3 Suppl): 947–57s. Ebihara T, Sakai N and Koyama S (1991) Suppression by sorted CD8+CD11b-cells from T-cell growth factor-activated peripheral blood lymphocytes on cytolytic activity against tumour in patients with gastric carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 27 (12): 1654–7. Elliott B, Scolyer RA, Suciu S et al. (2007) Long-term protective effect of mature DC-LAMP+ dendritic cell accumulation in sentinel lymph nodes containing micrometastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 13 (13): 3825–30. Ezernitchi AV, Vaknin I, Cohen-Daniel L et al. (2006) TCR zeta down-regulation under chronic inflammation is mediated by myeloid suppressor cells differentially distributed between various lymphatic organs. J Immunol 177 (7): 4763–72. Fantini MC, Becker C, Monteleone G et al. (2004) Cutting edge: TGF-beta induces a regulatory phenotype in CD4+CD25-T cells through Foxp3 induction and down-regulation of Smad7. J Immunol 172 (9): 5149–53. Fauriat C, Just-Landi S, Mallet F et al. (2007) Deficient expression of NCR in NK cells from acute myeloid leukemia: evolution during leukemia treatment and impact of leukemia cells in NCRdull phenotype induction. Blood 109 (1): 323–30. Ferrari S, Malugani F, Rovati B et al. (2005) Flow cytometric analysis of circulating dendritic cell subsets and intracellular cytokine production in advanced breast cancer patients. Oncol Rep 14 (1): 113–20. Finak G, Bertos N, Pepin F et  al. (2008) Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nat Med 14 (5): 518–27. Finke JH, Zea AH, Stanley J et al. (1993) Loss of T-cell receptor zeta chain and p56lck in T-cells infiltrating human renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 53 (23): 5613–6. Frey AB (2006) Myeloid suppressor cells regulate the adaptive immune response to cancer. J Clin Invest 116 (10): 2587–90. Fridlender ZG, Sun J, Kim S et al. (2009) Polarization of tumor-associated neutrophil phenotype by TGF-beta: “N1” versus “N2” TAN. Cancer Cell 16 (3): 183–94. Gabrilovich D, Ishida T, Oyama T et  al. (1998) Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibits the development of dendritic cells and dramatically affects the differentiation of multiple hematopoietic lineages in vivo. Blood 92 (11): 4150–66.

182

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

Gastman BR, Atarshi Y, Reichert TE et al. (1999) Fas ligand is expressed on human squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, and it promotes apoptosis of T lymphocytes. Cancer Res 59 (20): 5356–64. Gennari R, Menard S, Fagnoni F et al. (2004) Pilot study of the mechanism of action of preoperative trastuzumab in patients with primary operable breast tumors overexpressing HER2. Clin Cancer Res 10 (17): 5650–5. Gerosa F, Baldani-Guerra B, Nisii C et al. (2002) Reciprocal activating interaction between natural killer cells and dendritic cells. J Exp Med 195 (3): 327–33. Ghebeh H, Mohammed S, Al-Omair A et al. (2006) The B7-H1 (PD-L1) T lymphocyte-inhibitory molecule is expressed in breast cancer patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma: correlation with important high-risk prognostic factors. Neoplasia 8 (3): 190–8. Ghiringhelli F, Menard C, Terme M et al. (2005a) CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells inhibit natural killer cell functions in a transforming growth factor-beta-dependent manner. J Exp Med 202 (8): 1075–85. Ghiringhelli F, Puig PE, Roux S et al. (2005b) Tumor cells convert immature myeloid dendritic cells into TGF-beta-secreting cells inducing CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cell proliferation. J Exp Med 202 (7): 919–29. Gogas H, Ioannovich J, Dafni U et  al. (2006) Prognostic significance of autoimmunity during treatment of melanoma with interferon. N Engl J Med 354 (7): 709–18. Groh V, Wu J, Yee C et  al. (2002) Tumour-derived soluble MIC ligands impair expression of NKG2D and T-cell activation. Nature 419 (6908): 734–8. Gruber IV, El Yousfi S, Durr-Storzer S et al. (2008) Down-regulation of CD28, TCR-zeta (zeta) and up-regulation of FAS in peripheral cytotoxic T-cells of primary breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res 28 (2A): 779–84. Hamanishi J, Mandai M, Iwasaki M et al. (2007) Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and tumorinfiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes are prognostic factors of human ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104 (9): 3360–5. Hoffmann TK, Dworacki G, Tsukihiro T et al. (2002a) Spontaneous apoptosis of circulating T lymphocytes in patients with head and neck cancer and its clinical importance. Clin Cancer Res 8 (8): 2553–62. Hoffmann TK, Muller-Berghaus J, Ferris RL et al. (2002b) Alterations in the frequency of dendritic cell subsets in the peripheral circulation of patients with squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res 8 (6): 1787–93. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS et al. (2006) The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 7: 96. Huang B, Pan PY, Li Q et al. (2006) Gr-1+CD115+ immature myeloid suppressor cells mediate the development of tumor-induced T regulatory cells and T-cell anergy in tumor-bearing host. Cancer Res 66 (2): 1123–31. Ichihara F, Kono K, Takahashi A et  al. (2003) Increased populations of regulatory T cells in peripheral blood and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with gastric and esophageal cancers. Clin Cancer Res 9 (12): 4404–8. Jarnicki AG, Lysaght J, Todryk S et al. (2006) Suppression of antitumor immunity by IL-10 and TGF-beta-producing T cells infiltrating the growing tumor: influence of tumor environment on the induction of CD4+ and CD8+ regulatory T cells. J Immunol 177 (2): 896–904. Kim HK, Song KS, Park YS et al. (2003) Elevated levels of circulating platelet microparticles, VEGF, IL-6 and RANTES in patients with gastric cancer: possible role of a metastasis predictor. Eur J Cancer 39 (2): 184–91. Kim JW, Wieckowski E, Taylor DD et al. (2005) Fas ligand-positive membranous vesicles isolated from sera of patients with oral cancer induce apoptosis of activated T lymphocytes. Clin Cancer Res 11 (3): 1010–20. Ko K, Yamazaki S, Nakamura K et al. (2005) Treatment of advanced tumors with agonistic anti-GITR mAb and its effects on tumor-infiltrating Foxp3+CD25+CD4+ regulatory T cells. J Exp Med 202 (7): 885–91.

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

183

Ko JS, Zea AH, Rini BI et al. (2009a) Sunitinib mediates reversal of myeloid-derived suppressor cell accumulation in renal cell carcinoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 15 (6): 2148–57. Ko JS, Bukowski RM and Fincke JH (2009b) Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: a novel therapeutic target. Curr Oncol Rep 11 (2): 87–93. Kohrt HE, Nouri N, Nowels K et al. (2005) Profile of immune cells in axillary lymph nodes predicts disease-free survival in breast cancer. PLoS Med 2 (9): e284. Kolumam GA, Thomas S, Thompson LJ et al. (2005) Type I interferons act directly on CD8 T cells to allow clonal expansion and memory formation in response to viral infection. J Exp Med 202 (5): 637–50. Kono K, Ressing ME, Brandt RM et al. (1996) Decreased expression of signal-transducing zeta chain in peripheral T cells and natural killer cells in patients with cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2 (11): 1825–8. Kuss I, Rabinowich H, Gooding W et al. (2002) Expression of zeta in T cells prior to interleukin-2 therapy as a predictor of response and survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 17 (6): 631–40. Ladanyi A, Kiss J, Somlai B et  al. (2007) Density of DC-LAMP(+) mature dendritic cells in combination with activated T lymphocytes infiltrating primary cutaneous melanoma is a strong independent prognostic factor. Cancer Immunol Immunother 56 (9): 1459–69. Le Bon A, Thompson C, Kamphuis E et al. (2006) Cutting edge: enhancement of antibody responses through direct stimulation of B and T cells by type I IFN. J Immunol 176 (4): 2074–8. Le Maux Chansac B, Moretta A, Vergnon I et  al. (2005) NK cells infiltrating a MHC class I-deficient lung adenocarcinoma display impaired cytotoxic activity toward autologous tumor cells associated with altered NK cell-triggering receptors. J Immunol 175 (9): 5790–8. Lee PP, Zeng D, McCaulay AE et al. (1997) T helper 2-dominant antilymphoma immune response is associated with fatal outcome. Blood 90 (4): 1611–7. Lee PP, Yee C, Savage PA et al. (1999) Characterization of circulating T cells specific for tumorassociated antigens in melanoma patients. Nat Med 5 (6): 677–85. Lee JC, Lee KM, Kim DW et al. (2004) Elevated TGF-beta1 secretion and down-modulation of NKG2D underlies impaired NK cytotoxicity in cancer patients. J Immunol 172 (12): 7335–40. Li H, Han Y, Guo Q et  al. (2009) Cancer-expanded myeloid-derived suppressor cells induce anergy of NK cells through membrane-bound TGF-beta 1. J Immunol 182 (1): 240–9. Lin EY, Gouon-Evans V, Nguyen AV et  al. (2002) The macrophage growth factor CSF-1 in mammary gland development and tumor progression. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 7 (2): 147–62. Liyanage UK, Moore TT, Joo HG et al. (2002) Prevalence of regulatory T cells is increased in peripheral blood and tumor microenvironment of patients with pancreas or breast adenocarcinoma. J Immunol 169 (5): 2756–61. Madjd Z, Spendlove I, Moss R et al. (2007) Upregulation of MICA on high-grade invasive operable breast carcinoma. Cancer Immun 7: 17. Miyahara Y, Odunsi K, Chen W et al. (2008) Generation and regulation of human CD4+ IL-17producing T cells in ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 (40): 15505–10. Molling JW, Kolgen W, van der Vliet HJ et  al. (2005) Peripheral blood IFN-gamma-secreting Valpha24+Vbeta11+ NKT cell numbers are decreased in cancer patients independent of tumor type or tumor load. Int J Cancer 116 (1): 87–93. Molling JW, Langius JA, Langendijk JA et al. (2007) Low levels of circulating invariant natural killer T cells predict poor clinical outcome in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 25 (7): 862–8. Mortarini R, Vegetti C, Molla A et  al. (2009) Impaired STAT phosphorylation in T cells from melanoma patients in response to IL-2: association with clinical stage. Clin Cancer Res 15 (12): 4085–94. Moschos SJ, Mandic M, Kirkwood JM et  al. (2008) Focus on FOCIS: interleukin 2 treatment associated autoimmunity. Clin Immunol 127 (2): 123–9. Mosmann T (2000) Complexity or coherence? Cytokine secretion by B cells. Nat Immunol 1 (6): 465–6.

184

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

Muranski P, Boni A, Antony PA et al. (2008) Tumor-specific Th17-polarized cells eradicate large established melanoma. Blood 112 (2): 362–73. Nakamura H, Saji H, Ogata A et  al. (2002) Immunologic parameters as significant prognostic factors in lung cancer. Lung Cancer 37 (2): 161–9. Nakano M, Kawanishi Y, Kuriyama Y et al. (2000) Spontaneous reduction of leukemic lymphoma cells possibly by anti-tumor antibody-mediated phagocytosis; a kappa lambda-dual-positive B cell lymphoma. Leukemia 14 (2): 278–84. Nemunaitis J, Fong T, Shabe P et al. (2001) Comparison of serum interleukin-10 (IL-10) levels between normal volunteers and patients with advanced melanoma. Cancer Invest 19 (3): 239–47. Nordlund JJ, Kirkwood JM, Forget BM et  al. (1983) Vitiligo in patients with metastatic melanoma: a good prognostic sign. J Am Acad Dermatol 9 (5): 689–96. Norian LA, Rodriguez PC, O’Mara LA et al. (2009) Tumor-infiltrating regulatory dendritic cells inhibit CD8+ T cell function via L-arginine metabolism. Cancer Res 69 (7): 3086–94. Ochoa AC, Zea AH, Hernandez C et  al. (2007) Arginase, prostaglandins, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 13 (2 Pt 2): 721–26s. Okita R, Saeki T, Takashima S et  al. (2005) CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells in the peripheral blood of patients with breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep 14 (5): 1269–73. Osaki T, Saito H, Yoshikawa T et al. (2007) Decreased NKG2D expression on CD8+ T cell is involved in immune evasion in patients with gastric cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13 (2 Pt 1): 382–7. Ostrand-Rosenberg S (2008) Immune surveillance: a balance between protumor and antitumor immunity. Curr Opin Genet Dev 18 (1): 11–8. Park SJ, Nakagawa T, Kitamura H et al. (2004) IL-6 regulates in vivo dendritic cell differentiation through STAT3 activation. J Immunol 173 (6): 3844–54. Pavoni E, Monteriu G, Santapaola D et al. (2007) Tumor-infiltrating B lymphocytes as an efficient source of highly specific immunoglobulins recognizing tumor cells. BMC Biotechnol 7 (1): 70. Phan GQ, Wang E and Marincola FM (2001) T-cell-directed cancer vaccines: mechanisms of immune escape and immune tolerance. Expert Opin Biol Ther 1 (3): 511–23. Pinzon-Charry A, Ho CS, Laherty R et  al. (2005) A population of HLA-DR+ immature cells accumulates in the blood dendritic cell compartment of patients with different types of cancer. Neoplasia 7 (12): 1112–22. Pinzon-Charry A, Maxwell T, McGuckin MA et al. (2006) Spontaneous apoptosis of blood dendritic cells in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 8 (1): R5. Pinzon-Charry A, Ho CS, Maxwell T et  al. (2007) Numerical and functional defects of blood dendritic cells in early- and late-stage breast cancer. Br J Cancer 97 (9): 1251–9. Reichert TE, Day R, Wagner EM et al. (1998) Absent or low expression of the zeta chain in T cells at the tumor site correlates with poor survival in patients with oral carcinoma. Cancer Res 58 (23): 5344–7. Reichert TE, Strauss L, Wagner EM et al. (2002) Signaling abnormalities, apoptosis, and reduced proliferation of circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with oral carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 8 (10): 3137–45. Rodriguez PC, Quiceno DG, Zabaleta J et al. (2004) Arginase I production in the tumor microenvironment by mature myeloid cells inhibits T-cell receptor expression and antigen-specific T-cell responses. Cancer Res 64 (16): 5839–49. Rodriguez-Pinto D and Moreno J (2005) B cells can prime naive CD4+ T cells in  vivo in the absence of other professional antigen-presenting cells in a CD154-CD40-dependent manner. Eur J Immunol 35 (4): 1097–105. Rody A, Holtrich U, Pusztai L et  al. (2009) T-cell metagene predicts a favorable prognosis in estrogen receptor-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res 11 (2): R15. Roepman P, Jassem J, Smit EF et al. (2009) An immune response enriched 72-gene prognostic profile for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 15 (1): 284–90.

Immune Signatures Associated with the Cancer Bearing State

185

Ross MB, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN et al. (1982) Spontaneous regression of breast carcinoma: follow-up report and literature review. J Surg Oncol 19 (1): 22–4. Sabbioni ME, Siegrist HP, Bacchi M et al. (2000) Association between immunity and prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer patients before adjuvant treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 59 (3): 279–87. Sakakura K, Chikamatsu K, Takahashi K et al. (2006) Maturation of circulating dendritic cells and imbalance of T-cell subsets in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Immunol Immunother 55 (2): 151–9. Santin AD, Bellone S, Ravaggi A et al. (2001) Increased levels of interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor-beta in the plasma and ascitic fluid of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG 108 (8): 804–8. Schiffman K, Rinn K and Disis ML (2002) Delayed type hypersensitivity response to recall antigens does not accurately reflect immune competence in advanced stage breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 74 (1): 17–23. Seike M, Yanaihara N, Bowman ED et al. (2007) Use of a cytokine gene expression signature in lung adenocarcinoma and the surrounding tissue as a prognostic classifier. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (16): 1257–69. Seo N, Hayakawa S, Takigawa M et  al. (2001) Interleukin-10 expressed at early tumour sites induces subsequent generation of CD4(+) T-regulatory cells and systemic collapse of antitumour immunity. Immunology 103 (4): 449–57. Sfanos KS, Bruno TC, Maris CH et al. (2008) Phenotypic analysis of prostate-infiltrating lymphocytes reveals TH17 and Treg skewing. Clin Cancer Res 14 (11): 3254–61. Showe MK, Vachani A, Kossenkov AV et al. (2009) Gene expression profiles in peripheral blood mononuclear cells can distinguish patients with non-small cell lung cancer from patients with nonmalignant lung disease. Cancer Res 69 (24): 9202–10. Sica A, Larghi P, Mancino A et al. (2008) Macrophage polarization in tumour progression. Semin Cancer Biol 18 (5): 349–55. Staveley-O’Carroll K, Sotomayor E, Montgomery J et  al. (1998) Induction of antigen-specific T cell anergy: an early event in the course of tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95 (3): 1178–83. Steinbrink K, Graulich E, Kubsch S et al. (2002) CD4(+) and CD8(+) anergic T cells induced by interleukin-10-treated human dendritic cells display antigen-specific suppressor activity. Blood 99 (7): 2468–76. Tahir SM, Cheng O, Shaulov A et  al. (2001) Loss of IFN-gamma production by invariant NK T cells in advanced cancer. J Immunol 167 (7): 4046–50. Taylor DD, Bender DP, Gercel-Taylor C et  al. (2001) Modulation of TcR/CD3-zeta chain expression by a circulating factor derived from ovarian cancer patients. Br J Cancer 84 (12): 1624–9. Taylor DD, Gercel-Taylor C, Lyons KS et al. (2003) T-cell apoptosis and suppression of T-cell receptor/CD3-zeta by Fas ligand-containing membrane vesicles shed from ovarian tumors. Clin Cancer Res 9 (14): 5113–9. Tazzyman S, Lewis CE and Murdoch C (2009) Neutrophils: key mediators of tumour angiogenesis. Int J Exp Pathol 90 (3): 222–31. Teschendorff AE, Miremadi A, Pinder SE et  al. (2007) An immune response gene expression module identifies a good prognosis subtype in estrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Genome Biol 8 (8): R157. Tsutsui S, Yasuda K, Suzuki K et al. (2005) Macrophage infiltration and its prognostic implications in breast cancer: the relationship with VEGF expression and microvessel density. Oncol Rep 14 (2): 425–31. Ueda R, Low KL, Zhu X et al. (2007) Spontaneous immune responses against glioma-associated antigens in a long term survivor with malignant glioma. J Transl Med 5: 68. Vallisa D, Cavanna L, Berte R et  al. (1995) Autoimmune thyroid dysfunctions in hematologic malignancies treated with alpha-interferon. Acta Haematol 93 (1): 31–5.

186

R.J. Critchley-Thorne et al.

Varchetta S, Gibelli N, Oliviero B et  al. (2007) Elements related to heterogeneity of antibodydependent cell cytotoxicity in patients under trastuzumab therapy for primary operable breast cancer overexpressing Her2. Cancer Res 67 (24): 11991–9. Varker KA, Terrell CE, Welt M et  al. (2007) Impaired natural killer cell lysis in breast cancer patients with high levels of psychological stress is associated with altered expression of killer immunoglobin-like receptors. J Surg Res 139 (1): 36–44. von Bergwelt-Baildon MS, Popov A, Saric T et al. (2006) CD25 and indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase are up-regulated by prostaglandin E2 and expressed by tumor-associated dendritic cells in vivo: additional mechanisms of T-cell inhibition. Blood 108 (1): 228–37. Wang E, Miller LD, Ohnmacht GA et  al. (2002) Prospective molecular profiling of melanoma metastases suggests classifiers of immune responsiveness. Cancer Res 62 (13): 3581–6. Wang E, Panelli MC, Zavaglia K et al. (2004) Melanoma-restricted genes. J Transl Med 2 (1): 34. Wei S, Kryczek I, Zou L et al. (2005) Plasmacytoid dendritic cells induce CD8+ regulatory T cells in human ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 65 (12): 5020–6. Whiteside TL (2004) Down-regulation of zeta-chain expression in T cells: a biomarker of ­prognosis in cancer? Cancer Immunol Immunother 53 (10): 865–78. Yacyshyn MB, Poppema S, Berg A et  al. (1995) CD69+ and HLA-DR+ activation antigens on peripheral blood lymphocyte populations in metastatic breast and ovarian cancer patients: ­correlations with survival following active specific immunotherapy. Int J Cancer 61 (4): 470–4. Yamshchikov G, Thompson L, Ross WG et  al. (2001) Analysis of a natural immune response against tumor antigens in a melanoma survivor: lessons applicable to clinical trial evaluations. Clin Cancer Res 7 (3 Suppl): 909–16s. Yamshchikov GV, Mullins DW, Chang CC et al. (2005) Sequential immune escape and shifting of T cell responses in a long-term survivor of melanoma. J Immunol 174 (11): 6863–71. Yuen MF, Hughes RD, Heneghan MA et al. (2001) Expression of Fas antigen (CD95) in peripheral blood lymphocytes and in liver-infiltrating, cytotoxic lymphocytes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 92 (8): 2136–41. Zea AH, Curti BD, Longo DL et al. (1995) Alterations in T cell receptor and signal transduction molecules in melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 1 (11): 1327–35. Zippelius A, Batard P, Rubio-Godoy V et al. (2004) Effector function of human tumor-specific CD8 T cells in melanoma lesions: a state of local functional tolerance. Cancer Res 64 (8): 2865–73.

Part IV

Tissue-Specific Patterns Associated with Chronic Inflammatory Processes

HTLV-1 Infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Disregulate Balance of Inflammation and Tolerance in HTLV-1 Associated Neuroinflammatory Disease Yoshihisa Yamano and Steven Jacobson

Abstract  HTLV-1 is a T lymphotropic human retrovirus that is the causative agent of adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma and is associated with multiorgan immunological disorders such as chronic myelitis, uveitis, Sjögren syndrome, bronchoalveolitis, arthritis, and polymyositis. HTLV-1 infection of T-cells induces a variety of abnormalities such as cellular activation, proinflammatory changes, and proliferation. Here, we discuss the mechanism of HTLV-1 infection-induced immune dysregulation. Since the majority of autoimmune diseases are of unknown etiology, the discovery of HTLV-1 and its association with these immunological disorders has greatly enhanced our understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms of organspecific immune abnormalities. Keyword  ATL • CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cell • exFoxp3+ cell • HAM/TSP • HTLV-1 • Regulatory T cell

Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Type 1 (HTLV-1) and Associated Disorders Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is a human retrovirus that is associated with chronic, persistent infection of T-cells. Although HTLV-1 has been reported to infect a number of cell types in vitro and in vivo (Koyanagi et al. 1993; Nagai et al. 2001a, b, c; Yamano et  al. 2004; Jones et  al. 2008; Enose-Akahata et  al. 2008; Azakami et al. 2009), CD4+ T-cells, especially CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-cells, are the predominant viral reservoir in the peripheral blood (Yamano et al. 2009). HTLV-1 provirus genome encodes structural genes (gag, pro, pol, env), and nonstructural genes (tax, rex). A regulatory gene, tax, the protein product of which, Tax, acts in

S. Jacobson (*) Viral Immunology Section, Neuroimmunology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_12, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

189

190

Y. Yamano and S. Jacobson

trans both to up-regulate the transcription of viral genes itself and also to regulate the transcription of host genes (Matsuoka and Jeang 2007), which consequently induce the functional abnormality in the infected cells. HTLV-1 infection is associated with a variety of human diseases, including an aggressive mature T-cell malignancy termed adult T-cell leukemia (ATL) (Uchiyama et al. 1977), which is defined as a neoplastic growth of HTLV-1-infected T-cells with severe organ infiltration. HTLV-1 is also associated with non-neoplastic immunological disorders characterized by multiorgan lymphocytic infiltrates, including HTLV1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP) (Gessain et al. 1985; Osame et al. 1986), uveitis (Mochizuki et al. 1992), Sjögren syndrome (Eguchi et al. 1992), bronchoalveolitis (Maruyama et al. 1992), arthritis (Nishioka et al. 1989), and polymyositis (Morgan et al. 1989). Importantly, some patients have more than one of these HTLV-1-associated immunological disorders (Nakagawa et al. 1995). A progressive course and persistent inflammation affecting various organs are common features of idiopathic autoimmune disorders of unknown etiology. Therefore, these HTLV-1associated multiorgan immunological disorders are extremely important models for understanding the pathogenic mechanisms of organ-specific immune disease.

Immunopathogenesis of HAM/TSP Although HTLV-1-associated disorders have been extensively studied, the exact mechanism by which HTLV-1 induces these immunological disorders is not completely understood. The viral load of HTLV-1 could contribute to the development of these HTLV-1-associated immunological disorders, since the circulating number of HTLV-1 infected T-cells in the peripheral blood is higher in patients with HAM/ TSP than in asymptomatic HTLV-1-infected individuals (Nagai et al. 1998; Yamano et al. 2002), and even higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with HAM/TSP (Nagai et  al. 2001b). In HAM/TSP patients, the proviral load correlates with the percentage of activated CD4+ T-cells as well as HTLV-1-specific CD8+ CTLs (Nagai et al. 2001c; Yamano et al. 2002; Yakova et al. 2005). These HTLV-1 specific CTLs produce various factors including IFN-g and TNF-a that may suppress viral replication and kill infected cells or promote bystander activation and killing of nearby resident cells in the central nervous system (CNS) (Jacobson et al. 1990; Kubota et al. 2000a, b; Hanon et al. 2001; Vine et al. 2004). In addition, increased viral expression particularly of the transactivating viral gene encoding HTLV-1 Tax has been suggested to play a role in HTLV-1 disease progression (Nagai et al. 2001b; Yamano et al. 2002). HTLV-1 Tax induces the expression of various cellular genes, including IL-2 (Siekevitz et  al. 1987), the a-chain of IL-2 receptor (IL-2Ra) (Cross et  al. 1987), IL-15 (Azimi et  al. 1998), and IL-15Ra (Mariner et  al. 2001). Increased expressions of these critical immune mediators directly contributes to CD8+ T-cell activation and the ex vivo T-cell proliferation observed in patients with HAM/TSP (Waldmann 2006). These evidences suggest that invasion by HTLV-1-infected T-cells triggers, together with viral gene expression and cellular-signaling mechanisms, a strong virus-specific immune response and increased proinflammatory cytokine production, leading to CNS inflammation and autologous tissue damage (Fig.  1).

HTLV-1 Infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Disregulate Balance

191

Fig. 1  Model of immunopathogenesis in HAM/TSP. HTLV-1-infected and uninfected T-cells are attracted to the CNS where they are activated and proliferate. They secrete proinflammatory cytokines that activate bystander cells such as HTLV-1 specific CD8+ CTLs, macrophages and glial cells and recruit more cells to the CNS. These activated cells secrete cytokines such as interferon-g and tumor necrosis factor-a, which may contribute to tissue destruction

192

Y. Yamano and S. Jacobson

However, the precise mechanisms underlying the induction of uncontrolled immune reactions by HTLV-1-infected T cells, and the induction of autologous tissue damages by the accelerated immune responses are not well understood.

HTLV-1 and Regulatory T-Cells The recent discovery of regulatory T-cells (Treg cells) has provided new opportunities and generated increased interest in elucidating mechanisms associated with HTLV-1 immunopathogenesis. In healthy individuals, a subset of CD4+CD25+ T-cells, namely, Treg cells has been demonstrated to suppress the proliferation of and cytokine production by pathogenic T-cells, and thereby plays a key role in the maintenance of immune system homeostasis (Sakaguchi et  al. 1995). Although Treg cells are phenotypically similar to activated T cells, they can be identified ex vivo by the intracellular expression of the transcriptional regulator Foxp3 (Hori et al. 2003). Foxp3 is critical for the development and function of Treg cells in both mice and humans. Significant reductions in Foxp3 expression and/or Treg cell function have been observed in several human autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS), myasthenia gravis, and type I diabetes (Sakaguchi et al. 2008), suggesting that defects in Foxp3 expression and/or Treg function may precipitate the loss of immunologic tolerance. CD4+CD25+ T cells are also the predominant viral reservoir in the peripheral blood of HTLV-1-infected individuals (Yamano et  al. 2004). Recently, significant reductions in Foxp3 expression and Treg cell function have also been observed in CD4+CD25+ T cells from patients with HAM/TSP (Yamano et al. 2005; Oh et al. 2006; Michaëlsson et al. 2008; Hayashi et al. 2008). Notably, overexpression of HTLV-1 tax can reduce Foxp3 expression and inhibit the suppressive function of Treg cells (Yamano et al. 2005). Furthermore, we have demonstrated that because of a Tax induced defect in TGF-b signaling, Foxp3 expression is decreased, and Treg functions are impaired in HAM/TSP patients (Grant et  al. 2008). HTLV-1 induced dysfunction of CD4+CD25+ Treg cells may therefore be one of the mechanisms underlying the induction of uncontrolled immune reactions by HTLV-1-infected T cells.

HTLV-1 Infected Foxp3−CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Are Proinflammatory and Increased in HAM/TSP Patients Recently, the chemokine receptor CCR4 has been shown to be expressed on HTLV1-infected leukemia cells in ATL patients (Yoshie et  al. 2002). Since CCR4 is known to be selectively expressed on Th2, Th17, and Treg cells (Yoshie et al. 2001) and since ATL cells have been shown to express high levels of Foxp3, a specific marker of Treg (Karube et  al. 2004), it was hypothesized that ATL cells may be derived from Treg (Kohno et  al. 2005). However, in HAM/TSP patients, we and

HTLV-1 Infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Disregulate Balance

193

others have demonstrated that CD4+CD25+ T cells exhibit reduced Foxp3 expression and Treg suppression (Yamano et al. 2005; Oh et al. 2006; Michaëlsson et al. 2008; Hayashi et al. 2008). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that HTLV-1infected CD4+ T cells in HAM/TSP patients produce Th1 cytokines (IFN-g) (Hanon et  al. 2001; Yamano et  al. 2005). Therefore, it was expected that CD4+CD25+ T cells might exhibit reduced CCR4 expression in HAM/TSP patients. However, we clearly demonstrated that CCR4 was selectively overexpressed on HTLV-1-infected T cells (Yamano et  al. 2009). We also demonstrated that the majority of CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells were infected with HTLV-1 and that this T cell subset was increased in HAM/TSP patients (Yamano et al. 2009). Thus, CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-cells are a major reservoir of HTLV-1 infected T-cells whose numbers are increased both in HAM/TSP and ATL patients. More detailed flow cytometric analysis of Foxp3 expression in the CD4+CD25+ CCR4+ T-cells demonstrated that the frequency of “Foxp3− population” was increased in CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells of HAM/TSP patients (Yamano et al. 2009). Moreover, analysis of the proinflammatory cytokine expression in this Foxp3−CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cell subset demonstrated that these cells were unique because they produced multiple proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-2, IL-17, and few IFN-g in healthy individuals while Foxp3+CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells (Treg cells) did not. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that HAM/TSP patients exhibited only few Foxp3+CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells that do not produce such cytokines. Rather, the Foxp3−CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells in HAM/TSP were increased and found to overproduce IFN-g. Further, the frequency of these IFN-g-producing Foxp3−CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells may have a functional consequence since this population was associated with increased clinical disease activity and severity in HAM/TSP (Yamano et  al. 2009). These results suggest that IFN-g-producing Foxp3−CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells (tentatively designated THAM cells) that are rarely encountered in healthy individuals, may play an important pathogenic role in HAM/ TSP by augmenting inflammation in the CNS. Since some HAM/TSP patients are known to experience complications with other autoimmune disorders (Nakagawa et al. 1995), it would be of interest to determine if this newly defined T cell subset (THAM cells: IFN-g+ Foxp3−CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells) may also be abnormally increased and functionally deregulated in other immunological diseases. Notably, it has recently been reported that Foxp3lowCD4+CD25+ memory T cells are increased in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (Miyara et al. 2009). Although CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells are predominantly infected with HTLV-1 in both HAM/TSP and ATL (Yoshie 2005; Yamano et  al. 2009), it was demonstrated that the ratio of THAM cells (CCR4+Foxp3− with IFN-g production) to Treg cells (CCR4+Foxp3+ with no cytokine production) in the CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cell subset were high in HAM/TSP and low in ATL (Yamano et al. 2009). This differential THAM/Treg ratio in HTLV-1-infected T cells may be associated with the differential immune responses observed between HAM/TSP and ATL (Fig.  2). ATL patients have very low frequencies of Tax-specific CD8+ T cells in PBMCs and tend to develop opportunistic infections (Kannagi 2007; Matsuoka 2005), while HAM/TSP is characterized by extraordinarily high levels of Tax-specific CD8+ CTL (Jacobson et  al. 1990; Kubota et  al. 2000b; Nagai et  al. 2001b;

194

Y. Yamano and S. Jacobson

Differential Immune Responses between HAM/TSP and ATL HAM/TSP

Healthy condition

ATL

effector cell

effector cell

effector cell

accelerate

equilibrium

suppress

+

IFN-γ Foxp3−

Foxp3+ Treg

CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-cell

Foxp3− cells

Foxp3+ Treg

CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-cell

Foxp3− cells

Foxp3+ Treg

CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-cell

Fig. 2  Differential immune responses between HAM/TSP and ATL. An imbalance in the THAM/ Treg ratio in HTLV-1-infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells may be an important factor that contri­ butes to immunological differences of the host immune response between HAM/TSP and ATL

Yamano et al. 2002). It has been reported that the immunosuppressive function of CD4+CD25+ T cells with high expression of Foxp3 in ATL patients is intact (Chen et al. 2006). Thus, the increased CD4+CD25+CCR4+ leukemia T cells with Treg function may also contribute to the clinically observed cellular immunodeficiency in ATL patients. However, HAM/TSP patients show extremely high cellular and humoral immune responses such as high frequencies of Tax-specific CD8+ T cells as well as cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific CD8+ T cells in PBMCs (Jacobson et al. 1990; Hayashi et al. 2008); high antibody titer to HTLV-1 (Nakagawa et al. 1995); and increased production of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-12 and IFN-g (Furuya et  al. 1999). It has been reported that HAM CD4+CD25+ T cells with low expression of Foxp3 (Yamano et  al. 2005) or HTLV-1 Tax-expressing Foxp3+ Treg cells (Toulza et al. 2008) are defective in their immunosuppressive function. Moreover, it was demonstrate that HTLV-1-infected IFN-g overproducing CD4+CD25+CCR4+Foxp3− T cells (THAM cells) are increased in HAM/TSP patients, and these levels can be correlated with disease severity (Yamano et  al. 2009). Thus, CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells with increased proinflammatory function together with a defective Treg compartment (Yamano et al. 2005; Oh et al. 2006; Michaëlsson et al. 2008; Hayashi et al. 2008; Yamano et al. 2009) may overcome the regulatory effect of HTLV-1-uninfected Treg cells (Toulza et al. 2008) and at least partly account for the heightened immune response observed in HAM/TSP patients. Collectively, these observations support the hypothesis that imbalance of the THAM/Treg ratio in HTLV-1-infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells is an important factor that contributes to immunological differences of the host immune response between HAM/TSP and ATL (Fig. 2).

HTLV-1 Infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Disregulate Balance

195

Do THAM Cells Include exFoxp3+ Cells? Recently, Hieshima et al. demonstrated the molecular mechanism of HTLV-1 tropism to CCR4+CD4+ T cells. Although HTLV-1 Tax cannot induce the expression of CCR4, Tax induces the expression of CCL22, which is the ligand for CCR4. Therefore, HTLV-1-infected T cells produce CCL22 through Tax and selectively interact with CCR4+CD4+ T cells, resulting in preferential transmission of HTLV-1 to CCR4+CD4+ T cells (Fig.  3). In HTLV-1-seronegative healthy individuals, CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells mainly include suppressive T cell subsets such as Th2 and Treg (Yoshie et  al. 2001). However, as mentioned above, this T-cell subset becomes Th1-like cells with overproduction of IFN-g in patients with HAM/TSP, while in ATL patients leukemogenesis develops and maintains the Foxp3+ Treg phenotype (Fig.  3). To determine whether HTLV-1 expression contribute to this different fate of HTLV-1 infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells between HAM/TSP and ATL patients, the differences in the HTLV-1 provirus DNA load and the HTLV-1 tax mRNA expression of this population were analyzed. HTLV-1 tax Differential fate of HTLV-1 infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+T cells between HAM/TSP and ATL

*

* HTLV-1

*

Foxp3+

Virus Expression ?

*

IFN-γ+ Foxp3-

HAM/TSP

tax

16 Relative tax expression

THAM

* * *

leukemogenesis

*

12

*

8

Foxp3+

Treg

4 0

HAM

ATL

ATL

Fig. 3  Differential fate of HTLV-1 infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells between HAM/TSP and ATL. After HTLV-1 infection of CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-cells that are mainly Th2 and Treg cells in healthy condition, they become IFN-g+Foxp3− T cells (THAM cells) with high intracellular HTLV-1 tax expression in patients with HAM/TSP. In ATL patients, leukemogenesis develops and maintains the Foxp3+ Treg phenotype

196

Y. Yamano and S. Jacobson

mRNA expression in CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells was significantly increased in HAM/TSP patients than in the ATL patients, while the HTLV-1 provirus DNA loads between the two groups were equivalent (Yamano et  al. 2009). This high HTLV-1 tax expression in HAM/TSP CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells (Foxp3−) and low HTLV-1 tax expression in ATL CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells (Foxp3+) suggests that intracellular HTLV-1 expression may act as a “switch” that directs T cell plasticity from Foxp3+ Treg cells to IFN-g+Foxp3− T cells. Indeed, a recent report highlighted that loss of Foxp3 in Treg cells and acquisition of IFN-g may result in the conversion of suppressor T cells into highly autoaggressive lymphocytes (exFoxp3+ cells), which can favor the development of autoimmune conditions (Zhou et  al. 2009; Tsuji et al. 2009). These findings support the hypothesis that HTLV-1 tax may be one of the exogenous retrovirus genes responsible for immune dysregulation through the induction of failure in maintaining a tight control of the equilibrium between inflammation and tolerance. This hypothesis is currently under investigation to elucidate the precise molecular mechanisms by which HTLV-1 influences the fate and function of CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T cells, especially Foxp3+ Treg cells. Since the majority of autoimmune diseases are of unknown etiology, the discovery of HTLV-1 and its association with multiorgan immunological disorders has greatly enhanced our understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms underlying organ-specific immune disorders. Further investigations on the mechanism of HTLV-1 action in immunological disorders may result in the identification of new molecular pathways that will further elucidate the basic mechanisms underlying immune-mediated disorders.

References Azakami K, Sato T, Araya N et  al. (2009) Severe loss of invariant NKT cells exhibiting antiHTLV-1 activity in patients with HTLV-1-associated disorders. Blood 111(12):5601–5609 Azimi N, Brown K, Bamford RN et  al. (1998) Regulation of the human interleukin-2 receptor alpha chain promoter: activation of a nonfunctional promoter by the transactivator gene of HTLV-I. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:2452–2457 Chen S, Ishii N, Ine S et al. (2006) Regulatory T cell-like activity of Foxp3+ adult T cell leukemia cells. Int Immunol 18:269–277 Cross SL, Feinberg MB, Wolf JB et  al. (1987) Regulation of the human interleukin-2 receptor alpha chain promoter: activation of a nonfunctional promoter by the transactivator gene of HTLV-I. Cell 49:47–56 Eguchi K, Matsuoka N, Ida H et  al. (1992) Primary Sjögren’s syndrome with antibodies to HTLV-I: clinical and laboratory features. Ann Rheum Dis 51(6):769–776 Enose-Akahata Y, Oh U, Grant C et al. (2008) Retrovirally induced CTL degranulation mediated by IL-15 expression and infection of mononuclear phagocytes in patients with HTLV-Iassociated neurologic disease. Blood 112:2400–2410 Furuya T, Nakamura T, Fujimoto T et al. (1999) Elevated levels of interleukin-12 and interferongamma in patients with human T lymphotropic virus type I-associated myelopathy. J Neuroimmunol 95:185–189 Gessain A, Barin F, Vernant JC et al. (1985) Antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type-I in patients with tropical spastic paraparesis. Lancet 2:407–410

HTLV-1 Infected CD4+CD25+CCR4+ T-Cells Disregulate Balance

197

Grant C, Oh U, Yao K et al. (2008) Dysregulation of TGF-beta signaling and regulatory and effector T-cell function in virus-induced neuroinflammatory disease. Blood 111:5601–5609 Hanon E, Goon P, Taylor GP et al. (2001) High production of interferon gamma but not interleukin-2 by human T-lymphotropic virus type I-infected peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Blood 98:721–726 Hayashi D, Kubota R, Takenouchi N et al. (2008) Reduced Foxp3 expression with increased cytomegalovirus-specific CTL in HTLV-I-associated myelopathy. J Neuroimmunol 200:115–124 Hori S, Nomura T, Sakaguchi S (2003) Control of regulatory T cell development by the transcription factor Foxp3. Science 299:1057–1061 Jacobson S, Shida H, McFarlin DE et al. (1990) Circulating CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for HTLV-I pX in patients with HTLV-I associated neurological disease. Nature 348:245–248 Jones KS, Petrow-Sadowski C, Huang YK et al. (2008) Cell-free HTLV-1 infects dendritic cells leading to transmission and transformation of CD4(+) T cells. Nat Med 14:429–436 Kannagi M (2007) Immunologic control of human T-cell leukemia virus type I and adult T-cell leukemia. Int J Hematol 86:113–117 Karube K, Ohshima K, Tsuchiya T et al. (2004) Expression of FoxP3, a key molecule in CD4CD25 regulatory T cells, in adult T-cell leukaemia/lymphoma cells. Br J Haematol 126:81–84 Kohno T, Yamada Y, Akamatsu N, Kamihira S, Imaizumi Y et al. (2005) Possible origin of adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma cells from human T lymphotropic virus type-1-infected regulatory T cells. Cancer Sci 96:527–533 Koyanagi Y, Itoyama Y, Nakamura N et  al. (1993) In vivo infection of human T-cell leukemia virus type I in non-T cells. Virology 196:25–33 Kubota R, Kawanishi T, Matsubara H et al. (2000a) HTLV-I specific IFN-gamma+ CD8+ lymphocytes correlate with the proviral load in peripheral blood of infected individuals. J Neuroimmunol 102(2):208–215 Kubota R, Nagai M, Kawanishi T et al. (2000b) Increased HTLV type 1 tax specific CD8+ cells in HTLV type 1-asociated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis: correlation with HTLV type 1 proviral load. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 16:1705–1709 Mariner JM, Lantz V, Waldmann TA et al. (2001) Human T cell lymphotropic virus type I Tax activates IL-15R alpha gene expression through an NF-kappa B site. J Immunol 166:2602–2609 Matsuoka M (2005) Human T-cell leukemia virus type I (HTLV-I) infection and the onset of adult T-cell leukemia (ATL). Retrovirology 2:27 Matsuoka M and Jeang KT (2007) Human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1) infectivuty and cellular transformation. Nat Rev Cancer 7(4):270–280 Maruyama I, Mori S, Kawabata M, Osame M (1992) Bronchopneumonopathy in HTLV-1 associated myelopathy (HAM) and non-HAM HTLV-1-carriers [Japanese]. Nihon Kyobu Shikkan Gakkai Zasshi 30:775–779 Michaëlsson J, Barbosa HM, Jordan KA et  al. (2008) The frequency of CD127low expressing CD4+CD25high T regulatory cells is inversely correlated with human T lymphotrophic virus type-1 (HTLV-1) proviral load in HTLV-1-infection and HTLV-1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis. BMC Immunol 9:41 Miyara M, Yoshioka Y, Kitoh A et al. (2009) Functional delineation and differentiation dynamics of human CD4+ T cells expressing the FoxP3 transcription factor. Immunity 30:899–911 Mochizuki M, Watanabe T, Yamaguchi K et al. (1992) Uveitis associated with human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I. Am J Ophthalmol 114:123–129 Morgan OS, Rodgers-Johnson P, Mora C et  al. (1989) HTLV-1 and polymyositis in Jamaica. Lancet 2(8673):1184–1187 Nagai M, Usuku K, Matsumoto W et al. (1998) Analysis of HTLV-I proviral load in 202 HAM/ TSP patients and 243 asymptomatic HTLV-I carriers: high proviral load strongly predisposes to HAM/TSP. J Neurovirol 4(6):586–593 Nagai M, Brennan MB, Sakai JA et al. (2001a) CD8(+) T cells are an in vivo reservoir for human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I. Blood 98:1858–1861 Nagai M, Yamano Y, Brennan MB et al. (2001b) Increased HTLV-I proviral load and preferential expansion of HTLV-I Tax-specific CD8+ T cells in cerebrospinal fluid from patients with HAM/TSP. Ann Neurol 50(6):807–812

198

Y. Yamano and S. Jacobson

Nagai M, Kubota R, Greten TF et  al. (2001c) Increased activated human T cell lymphotropic virus type I (HTLV-I) Tax11-19-specific memory and effector CD8+ cells in patients with HTLV-I-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis: correlation with HTLV-I provirus load. J Infect Dis 183:197–205 Nakagawa M, Izumo S, Ijichi S et  al. (1995) HTLV-I-associated myelopathy: analysis of 213 patients based on clinical features and laboratory findings. J Neurovirol 1:50–61 Nishioka K, Maruyama I, Sato K et al. (1989) Chronic inflammatory arthropathy associated with HTLV-I. Lancet 1:441. Oh U, Grant C, Griffith C et  al. (2006) Reduced Foxp3 protein expression is associated with inflammatory disease during human t lymphotropic virus type 1 Infection. J Infect Dis 193:1557–1566 Osame M, Usuku K, Izumo SI et al. (1986) HTLV-I associated myelopathy, a new clinical entity. Lancet 1:1031–1032 Sakaguchi S, Sakaguchi N, Asano M et  al. (1995) Immunologic self-tolerance maintained by activated T cells expressing IL-2 receptor alpha-chains (CD25). Breakdown of a single mechanism of self-tolerance causes various autoimmune diseases. J Immunol 155:1151–1164 Sakaguchi S, Yamaguchi T, Nomura T et al. (2008) Regulatory T cells and immune tolerance. Cell 133:775–787 Siekevitz M, Feinberg MB, Holbrook N et al. (1987) Activation of interleukin 2 and interleukin 2 receptor (Tac) promoter expression by the trans-activator (tat) gene product of human T-cell leukemia virus, type I. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84:5389–5393 Toulza F, Heaps A, Tanaka Y et al. (2008) High frequency of CD4+Foxp3+ cells in HTLV-1 infection: inverse correlation with HTLV-1 specific CTL response. Blood 111:5047–5053 Tsuji M, Komatsu N, Kawamoto S et al. (2009) Preferential generation of follicular B helper T cells from Foxp3+ T cells in gut Peyer’s patches. Science 323:1488–1492 Uchiyama T, Yodoi J, Sagawa K et  al. (1977) Adult T-cell leukemia: clinical and hematologic features of 16 cases. Blood 50:481–492 Vine AM, Heaps AG, Kaffantzi L et  al. (2004) The role of CTLs in persistent viral infection: cytolytic gene expression in CD8+ lymphocytes distinguishes between individuals with a high or low proviral load of human T cell lymphotropic virus type 1. J Immunol 173(8):5121–5129 Waldmann TA (2006) The biology of interleukin-2 and interleukin-15: implications for cancer therapy and vaccine design. Nat Rev Immunol 6:595–601 Yakova M, Lezin A, Dantin F et al. (2005) Increased proviral load in HTLV-1-infected patients with rheumatoid arthritis or connective tissue disease. Retrovirology 1:2–4 Yamano Y, Nagai M, Brennan MB et al. (2002) Correlation of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) mRNA with proviral DNA load, virus-specific CD8(+) T cells, and disease severity in HTLV-1-associated myelopathy (HAM/TSP). Blood 99:88–94 Yamano Y, Cohen CJ, Takenouchi N et al. (2004) Increased expression of human T lymphocyte virus type I (HTLV-I) Tax11-19 peptide-human histocompatibility leukocyte antigen A*201 complexes on CD4+ CD25+ T cells detected by peptide-specific, major histocompatibility complex-restricted antibodies in patients with HTLV-I-associated neurologic disease. J Exp Med 199(10):1367–1377 Yamano Y, Takenouchi N, Li HC et al. (2005) Virus-induced dysfunction of CD4+CD25+ T cells in patients with HTLV-I-associated neuroimmunological disease. J Clin Invest 115:1361–1368 Yamano Y, Araya N, Sato T et  al. (2009) Abnormally high levels of virus- infected IFNg+CCR4+CD4+CD25+ T cells in a retrovirus-associated neuroinflammatory disorder. PLoS One 4(8):1–14 Yoshie O (2005) Expression of CCR4 in adult T-cell leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 46:185–190 Yoshie O, Imai T, Nomiyama H (2001) Chemokines in immunity. Adv Immunol 78:57–110 Yoshie O, Fujisawa R, Nakayama T et  al. (2002) Frequent expression of CCR4 in adult T-cell leukemia and human T-cell leukemia virus type 1-transformed T cells. Blood 99:1505–1511 Zhou X, Bailey-Bucktrout SL, Jeker LT et al. (2009) Instability of the transcription factor Foxp3 leads to the generation of pathogenic memory T cells in vivo. Nat Immunol 10:1000–1007

D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer Zoltán Pós and Jérôme Galon

Prediction of disease outcome in cancer is usually achieved by histological evaluation of tissue samples obtained during surgical extirpation of the primary tumor, mostly focusing on histological characteristics of cancer cells in the tumor mass, such as the extent of atypical cell morphology, of tissue integrity, aberrant expression of protein markers or malignant transformation, senescence and proliferation, various characteristics of the invasive margin and surrounding tumor stroma, depth of invasion, and the extent of vascularization. In addition, histological or radiological analysis of both tumor draining- and distant lymph nodes and remote organs can be carried out looking for evidence of metastases. Based on these data, evaluation of cancer progression can be performed and serve as an estimate of patient prognosis. This is done on the basis of statistical data available of patients exhibiting similar progression characteristics and their actual outcome parameters, such as average disease-free (DFS), disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS). To this end, several dozens of tumor-type specific staging and grading systems have been developed such as Clark’s and Breslow’s indexes for melanoma, Gleason’s score for prostate cancer, Duke’s for colorectal cancer, Boden-Gibb’s staging for testicular cancer, the Evans staging system for neuroblastoma, etc., and also more universal ones such as the TNM system, which summarizes data on tumor burden (T), presence of cancer cells in draining and distant lymph nodes (N) and evidence for metastases (M). With the large body of statistical data available on cancer patients’ survival with a given progression stage, such approaches have been shown to be valuable and in many cases of acceptable accuracy in estimating disease outcome in cancer.

Z. Pós (*) Infectious Disease and Immunogenetics Section, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, and Center for Human Immunology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_13, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

199

200

Z. Pós and J. Galon

Still, it is well known that cancer outcome can significantly vary between patients within the same histological progression stage. Progression of advanced stage cancer can remain stable for years, and partial or full regression of large ­metastatic lesions can also occur spontaneously. On the other hand, rapid relapse and death of patients diagnosed with early stage cancer, even after an apparently complete surgical removal of the tumor, with no signs of metastasis and with undetectable levels of residual tumor burden also frequently happens. It has been argued that one reason for the apparently limited accuracy of traditional tumor staging techniques in predicting disease outcome could result from the fact that they usually estimate cancer progression as a largely autonomous procedure, focusing mostly on cancer cells, without considering that cancer progression is actually determined by a balance of various external and internal factors which can either support or suppress the tumor. As the sporadic cases of rejection of even advanced cancer demonstrate, the popular assumption that clinically manifested tumors are already advanced enough to repel any antitumor mechanisms maintaining tissue integrity and immune homeostasis, is probably not always true. Similarly, seemingly well-contained, less advanced lesions can evolve into rapidly progressing tumors. In fact, a large body of evidence supports the hypothesis that cancer development is aggressively controlled by the host’s immune system, suggesting that even at the level of clinically apparent tumors, systemic and local immunological biomarkers must be evaluated when predicting disease outcome. Moreover, evidence is available that under circumstances, such markers can be even superior to conventional histologic criteria in estimating DFS or OS (Galon et al. 2006). It has been well documented that developing cancer cells are exposed to and usually eliminated by an intact immune system (cancer immunosurveillance). Growth of established cancers can be effectively suppressed and contained over large periods of time (immunological equilibrium). Cancer progression at the molecular level is strongly influenced by this immunological pressure (cancer immunoediting) (Dunn et al. 2002, 2004) and even tumor cells escaping this control and developing large tumor masses can be rejected by the host’s immune system upon proper re-stimulation (Rosenberg et al. 2008; Schon and Schon 2008).

Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Colorectal Cancer In a large series of studies conducted on several hundreds of colorectal cancer samples with well documented histological and molecular data, it was convincingly demonstrated that absence of a set of histological markers of ongoing metastatic invasion, i.e., vascular emboli, lymphatic invasion, and perineural invasion (collectively termed as VELIPI), closely associated with both longer disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and infiltration of the tumor with CD3+ T cells, CD3+CD4+ T helper and CD3+CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (Pages et al. 2005). Expression of genes involved in cytotoxic antitumor responses, such as granzyme B (GZMB) and granulysin (GLNY), genes of Th1-differentiation, such as the

D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer

201

transcription factors T-box protein 21 (T-BET), interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF-1), and the characteristic Th1 cytokine interferon g (IFNG) were increased in patients with VELIPI-negative tumors without relapse, compared to VELIPI-positive patients with relapse. Interestingly, it was demonstrated that striking differences between VELIPI-positive and VELIPI-negative tumors can be found in the number of CD45RO+ memory T cell compartment, including both early memory T cells (CD45RO+CCR7-CD28+CD27+) and effector memory T cells (CD45RO+CCR7CD28-CD27-) suggesting that properly stimulated memory T cells are involved in the suppressed progression of colorectal cancers and in general, they are associated with a favorable outcome (Pages et al. 2005). Extending the results of this study, it was demonstrated that in a selected group of gene expression markers, Th1 response related genes CD3-z, CD8b, GZMB, GLNY, T-BET, IRF-1, IFNG actually create an extremely tightly regulated gene cluster (Galon et  al. 2006), the expression of which was in an almost linear inverse correlation with probability of relapse. Although frequency of immune cells staining positive for these markers were sometimes highly variable in different tumor areas, (such as the tumor core compared to the margin of the tumor), assessing the density of CD3+, CD8+, GZMB+, and CD45RO+ cells in both areas by immunostaining, the results could be confirmed at the protein level too. Strikingly, it was very convincingly shown that combination stain for CD3 and CD45RO of colorectal cancer can predict disease outcome more reliably than conventional TNM histopathology-based evaluation (Galon et al. 2006). These results suggest that proper spatial organization and high density of effector T cells associated with optimal gene expression-level activation correlated with a good prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Interestingly, similar conclusions can be made by comparing colorectal cancer patient cohorts categorized by high or low density of immune infiltrate (Hi and Lo) and presence or absence of metastases (META+ and META−, respectively) (Camus et al. 2009). Although there are no striking differences in the composition of the infiltrate of Lo META− and Lo META+ patients, however, brisk infiltration of the primary tumor, along with increased numbers of CD3+CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, NKT cells and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) is associated with absence of metastases (typical for the Hi META− patient group). Conversely, decreased frequency of cells involved in cellular immune responses, and a shift towards B-cell infiltration was typical for patients developing metastasis in spite of immune infiltration (Hi META+ group). Furthermore, a massive immune infiltrate predicted absence of metastases, provided that the late stage memory T cell arm (CD45RA-CD27-) was well presented, while there was no major difference between Hi META− and Hi META+ patients in earlier phases of memory T cell differentiation. Correlation analysis of various T cell markers suggested that it was mainly CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, the memory cell development of which is compromised in Hi META+ patients. Not surprisingly, in Hi META- patients, markers of early T cell activation (CD45RA+CD27+/CD25+/CD28+/CD69+) showed strong correlation with intense macrophage and DC immigration, while in contrast, in Hi META+ patients, all such clusters of coexpression were dramatically disrupted (Camus et al. 2009).

202

Z. Pós and J. Galon

Taken together, these data suggest that sufficient immune infiltration, successful priming of CD8 T cells and their differentiation is vital for successful suppression of metastasis development. In case of weak immune cell infiltration (Lo), however, practically all the above correlations were completely absent, regardless of the presence or absence of metastases (Lo META+ vs. Lo META−), implying that either immune suppression and escape can be locally initiated before actual metastatic spread, and/or factors other than immune activation are also frequently involved in suppression of metastasis development in colorectal cancer. Finally, the apparent inefficiency of the immune infiltrate to reach a critical level of organization and significantly influence metastatic spread in Lo META+ and Lo META− patients can also indicate that a given level of immune infiltration is a prerequisite of successful organization of an antitumor immune response. When, instead of metastasis formation, the impact of an organized immune response was measured on the primary tumor mass by Ki67 as a marker of proliferation, and M30 as a marker of apoptosis, it was also demonstrated that the primary tumor mass is largely resistant to immune-mediated attacks, which is in striking contrast with the apparent vulnerability of developing metastases, ultimately determining disease outcome. Interestingly, mRNA level markers of efficient cytotoxic response, such as coexpression of GLNY and IRF-1, predicted more than nine times longer DFS than DFS observed in their absence (Camus et  al. 2009), while many classic tumor markers of apoptotic resistance, cancer spread, vascularization and general progression, e.g., survivin, carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1), CD97, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE), estrogen receptor-binding fragment-associated gene 9 (EBAG9), matrix metallopeptidase 7 (MMP7), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) had little impact on actual clinical disease outcome (Mlecnik et al. 2010). Markers of TH2 commitment, e.g., gata binding protein 3 (GATA3) and immunesuppression, such as interleukin 10 (IL-10) and forkhead box P3 (FoxP3) were not found to be important in affecting DFS (Mlecnik et al. 2010). Still, high levels of EGFR expression predisposed patients to a short DFS (Mlecnik et al. 2010) and although VEGF did not have a clear impact on DFS when analyzed in all colorectal cancer patients, it decreased DFS in patients with an otherwise favorable GLNY+IRF-1+ infiltrate, probably suggesting that enhanced capillary formation is an escape option from immune-mediated destruction of early metastases (Camus et al. 2009). It seems that in general, effective immune infiltration, response and long DFS in colorectal cancer is orchestrated by a well defined set of chemokines, known as capable of attracting T cells, macrophages, and to some extent dendritic and NK cells, consisting of CX3CL1, CXCL10, CXCL9, that support infiltration via upregulation of some adhesion molecules on both activated endothelial cells in capillaries surrounding the tumor, and immune cells infiltrating it, e.g., mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 (MADCAM1), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM1) and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1). Specific subsets of T cells could be identified as more or less sensitive to these stimuli, as the CD8+ cytotoxic T cell compartment as such was sensitive to all three, CD45RO+ memory

D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer

203

T cells were attracted by CXCL9 and CXCL10, while CX3CL1 seemed to attract rather effector T cells and activated Th1-commited T cells in colorectal cancer (Mlecnik et al. 2010).

Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Other Cancers Data obtained from prognostic immune markers in other cancer types at this depth are rather rare, but similar to the case of colorectal carcinoma, observations made in various other cancers support the conclusion that immune phenotyping of cancer can be of value for prediction of disease outcome. Such data typically underline similarities between various cancers in several areas, such as, T cell infiltration and T cell activation markers, but, on the other hand, also point out the fact that immunity against distinct cancer types is probably highly different, as illustrated for example by differences in the relevance of regulatory T cells in the prediction of disease outcome. One example for common patterns of cancer rejection is ovarian cancer, where, in a study analyzing both the primary tumor and metastases by tissue microarrays, similar to colorectal carcinoma, strong tumor infiltration by T cells, predominantly CD8+ T cells and CD45RO+ memory T cells, and only limited presence of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells was associated with a favorable outcome and increased DSS, independently of other predictors of disease outcome (Leffers et al. 2009). In another study, also performing tissue microarrays on a large cohort of patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma, it was shown that patient survival assessed by local, nodal, or distant recurrence (NED survival) was significantly improved in patients with increased numbers of CD3+ T cells, CD8+ cytotoxic T cells in the tumor infiltrate, elevated levels of GZMB, while density of CD68+ macrophages and FoxP3+ T regs was considered to be irrelevant (Grabenbauer et al. 2006). On the other hand, this study also demonstrated that although these markers showed good correlation with NED survival, they were not sufficient to predict overall survival. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a highly immunogenic cancer, which is exploited in IL-2-based immunotherapy. In RCC, it was shown that CXCR3, receptor of CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11, is an independent predictor of disease outcome, as high levels of CXCR3 predict longer DFS in RCC (Klatte et al. 2008). This is highly interesting because, as discussed previously, these interferon inducible chemokines are also involved in the immunity against colorectal cancer, and it was convincingly shown that CXCR3 is capable of promoting Th1-oriented and cytotoxic T cell recruitment, cellular cytotoxicity, and also suppressing neoplastic capillary formation. In metastatic melanoma, it was shown that massive presence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes predicts decreased potential for metastatic spread to draining lymph nodes, and also a slightly improved DFS, on the other hand, it is not associated with any significant benefit in OS (Taylor et  al. 2007). In a large scale study performed on laser microdissected breast cancer samples and publicly available breast cancer gene expression data, it was shown that stromal gene

204

Z. Pós and J. Galon

expression profiles can predict disease outcome independently from tumor subtype. This is in contrast with intratumoral gene expression patterns that stratify breast cancer samples according to tumor subtypes, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive, estrogen receptor or progesterone receptor (ER/ PR+) positive, or triple negative breast cancer, which are all well-characterized independent predictors of disease outcome, however, do not provide much information about immune infiltration and activation (Finak et  al. 2008). In this study, a stroma-derived classifier of 26 genes, highly predictive of disease outcome independently from disease subtype, was created based on more than 50 microdissected stroma samples, and successfully tested on several hundred publicly available gene expression data. Interestingly, out of the 26 genes, many were involved in immigration, activation and extended survival of T cells and NK cells, such as CXCL14, CD3-z, CD8A, T cell receptor b variable 5-4 (TRBV5-4), granzyme A (GZMA), CD48, CD52, and GTPase IMAP family member 5 (GIMAP5) (Finak et al. 2008). Finally, studies conducted on nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) also suggest that a specific T cell response provides an advantage in DFS, DSS and OS also for NSCLC patients (Dieu-Nosjean et al. 2008; Kawai et al. 2008). In one such study, formation of tertiary lymphatic structures in the tumor microenvironment, designated as tumor-induced bronchus-associated lymphoid tissues (Ti-BALT) was found in a subset of NSCLC patients, and identified as a predictor of favorable disease outcome. Ti-BALT, like other “tertiary” (sometimes also referred to as “ectopic”) lymphoid tissues, are structurally and functionally identical to follicles of canonical secondary lymphoid organs (e.g., lymph nodes), containing fully active and interacting dendritic cells, T and B cells. In contrast to secondary lymph follicles however, tertiary follicles are rather uncommon, arise temporarily, usually at sites of massive inflammation and ongoing immunological activity, and are suspected to provide additional temporary support for local adaptive immune responses. Analysis of Ti-BALT structures observed around NSCLC lesions disclosed that high numbers of immigrating mature DC-Lamp+ dendritic cells, suspected organizers of such structures, is a predictor of favorable disease outcome. Interestingly, it was shown that Ti-BALT contain large numbers of B cells, CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, and that in Ti-BALT, a sufficient number of DC-Lamp+ dendritic cell is particularly critical for the maintenance of CD4+ T helper cells, and stable expression of the T-BET, the transcription factor serving as master inducer of type 1 T helper cell polarization (Dieu-Nosjean et al. 2008). In addition to markers of immune infiltration associated with good prognosis and extended survival, markers of immune cell immigration and activation can also predict rapid prognosis or relapse in cancer. It is well documented that in contrast to acute inflammation that is generally thought to be protective against cancer, smoldering chronic inflammation, immunocomplexes, some leukocytes, such as, regulatory T cells, B cells, mast cells, neutrophils and various forms of myeloid suppressor cells, can be attracted, exploited by the tumor and forced to compromise antitumor activity, or enhance progression via various mechanisms, for example by masquerading tumor invasion as a reparative/wound healing process (Aggarwal et al. 2006; Balkwill and Mantovani 2001; Ben Baruch 2006; Bui and Schreiber 2007;

D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer

205

Coussens and Werb 2002; Denardo et al. 2008; Dhodapkar et al. 2008; Mager 2006; Strieter et al. 2006; Talmadge et al. 2007). Hence, depending on tumor type, stage of progression, composition of the infiltrate, immune activity can be detrimental and a predictor of a bad prognosis. Discrimination between the two sides of this “immune coin” can be a daunting task for clinicians and pathologists. The list of immune markers predicting poor outcome is long; in peritoneal and pleural effusions of patients diagnosed with ovarian carcinoma, NK cells and B cells were found to be associated with more advanced stage of cancer and in general, shorter OS (Dong et  al. 2006). In a study looking at myeloid cells in localized clear cell renal cancer, it was also shown that brisk infiltration of the primary tumor by mature activated CD66b+ neutrophils is an independent predictor of poor outcome, and similar conclusions could be made in patients with metastases (Jensen et al. 2009; Donskov 2006). In addition, it has been argued that data available on blood neutrophil counts, and neutrophil infiltration in other cancers suggest that elevated numbers of neutrophils ether in the tumor or in the blood are generally predictors of shorter DFS and OS, and that this phenomenon is not limited to renal cell cancer (Jensen et  al. 2009). In hepatocellular carcinoma, several groups have demonstrated that increased numbers of CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T lymphocytes are associated with both shorter DFS and OS (Gao et  al. 2007; Unitt et  al. 2006; Fu et  al. 2007). A unified interpretation of these findings is not yet available, but it was suggested that T regs probably interfere with cytotoxic T cell activity, as various markers of accumulation and appropriate activation of CD8+ activated T cells (perforin, GZMA, GZMB) are absent or deregulated in their presence, or that T regs might directly contribute to tumor progression and enhanced tumor vascularization (Gao et  al. 2007; Unitt et  al. 2006; Fu et al. 2007). In renal cell cancer, there is substantial evidence that elevated levels of B7-H4 (also known as B7x) expression, a negative regulator of T cell activation, member of the B7 costimulatory molecule family, and independently, also a putative enhancer of cancer cell survival, is associated with poor disease outcome. B7-H4 is mainly expressed by T cells and APCs interacting with T cells, but also frequently upregulated by many tumors. In RCC, it is strongly displayed by both tumor cells and cells of the tumor vasculature, and in soluble form, it is also present in the blood; markers the elevated levels of which are associated with decreased DSS and/or RCC stage, respectively (Krambeck et al. 2006; Thompson et al. 2008). Similar to RCC, compromised activity of the B7 costimulatory axis was also described in prostate cancer. Enhanced expression of B7-H3 is a marker associated with several markers of prostate cancer progression, e.g., tumor size, Gleason score and progression-free survival (Roth et  al. 2007). Finally, there is a large body of evidence available on the immunosuppressive properties of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), an enzyme involved in Trp catabolism and, if aberrantly expressed, exhaustion of Trp reserves in lymphocytes. It was shown that in some cancers, for example endometrial cancer, high IDO expression in tumor cells interferes with infiltration of the tumor by CD8+ T cells and NK cells, and predicts faster tumor invasion and metastasis formation. In line with this, it was possible to confirm that IDO was an independent

206

Z. Pós and J. Galon

prognostic marker of progression-free survival, however, it did not significantly affect OS (Ino et al. 2008). In summary, although many immune markers predict clinical outcome, the adaptive immune reaction within the tumor appeared to be the most important parameter predicting the outcome after surgical treatment with curative intent, and may change the paradigm of cancer prognosis (Galon et al. 2006). These adaptive immune parameters include the nature (CD3, CD8, CD45RO), the density, the functional orientation (Th1) and the location of immune cells within the tumor. Indeed, natural adaptive immune reaction influenced clinical outcome at all stages of the disease. The immune reaction at tumor site determined cancer evolution and clinical outcome regardless of the local extent and spread of the tumor. A weak adaptive immune reaction correlated with a very poor prognosis even in patients with a minimal tumor invasion. Conversely, a high density of adaptive immune cells correlated with a highly favorable prognosis whatever the local extent of the tumor and the invasion of regional lymph nodes. Beneficial in situ adaptive immune reaction was not restricted to patients with minimal tumor invasion, indicating that in situ immunological forces may persist along with tumor progression. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that the immune criteria remained the unique parameter significantly associated with prognosis. The histopathogical staging system (T-stage, N-stage and tumor differentiation) did not present a significant predictive value anymore. Compared to the immune contexture, no immune marker and no tumor parameter associated with survival has been reported to achieve a similarly high level of significance in colorectal cancer. The strength of the immune reaction identified in our studies could advance our understanding of cancer evolution and have important consequences in clinical practice (Galon et al. 2006).

Immunotherapy in Cancer Besides prognostic markers of disease outcome discussed so far, a new generation of biomarkers is required to assess disease outcome in cancer immunotherapy. Unfortunately, at the moment, only a limited number of FDA-approved or promising intensively developed therapies (e.g., therapies with ongoing or finished Phase III trials) are available. Examples of such therapeutic strategies include, but are not limited to administration of immune activating cytokines (e.g., IFNa, IL-2), vaccination with cancer antigens (e.g., gp100 melanoma antigen, new york esophageal squamous cell carcinoma 1/NY-ESO1, melanoma-associated antigen 3/MAGEA3), administration of ex vivo selected, activated, expanded and/or TCR-engineered autologous or allogeneic T cells with or without selective immunodepletion (adoptive cell therapy), blockade of inhibitory signaling (e.g., cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4/CTLA-4 blockade), viral introduction of tumor antigens (e.g., TroVax expressing the tumor antigen 5T4) with or without further potentiating the immune response (e.g., PANVAC-VF expressing CEA and MUC-1 tumor antigen and B7.1, ICAM-1, and leukocyte function-­ associated antigen 3/LFA-3) (Rosenberg et al. 2008; Kirkwood et al. 2008; Tahara

D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer

207

et  al. 2009; Brichard and Lejeune 2008). In general, such therapies are frequently limited in their effectiveness, associated with significant toxicity and many sideeffects, such as autoimmune responses, can require hospitalization or even intensive care for some patients. Still, it is clear that they can induce objective response, either partial or complete, in a reproducible number of patients. Hence, it is imperative to identify biomarkers predictive of treatment outcome in immunotherapy, thereby decreasing the numbers of patients that have to cope with side effects without any significant chance of a benefit. So far, however, only a few studies addressed the question of predictive markers for response in immunotherapy; data about mechanistic or end-point markers, assessing direct treatment efficacy rather than overall disease outcome, are more frequently reported. In case of IL-2 therapy for metastatic melanoma, it was recently shown that high levels of serum VEGF and fibronectin can predict nonresponse to the therapy with relatively high accuracy. These results are in line with observations suggesting that besides its proangiogenic activities, VEGF can induce immunosuppression in cancer per se, and that fibronectin acts by further potentiating this effect. On the other hand, the same data also suggest that low levels VEGF and fibronectin in metastatic melanoma do not necessarily predict a favorable treatment outcome in IL-2 therapy, and it is not yet clear to what extent these markers are independent predictors of disease outcome, or rather markers of disease burden which is known to be inversely correlated with response to IL-2 (Sabatino et  al. 2009; Kirkwood and Tarhini 2009; Guminski and Thompson 2009). As for IL-2 therapy in renal cell cancer, it was demonstrated that classic histological analysis extended by staining for carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) can be of additional value for outcome prediction. CAIX is regulator of pH that is usually not expressed in normal tissues but is frequently elevated under hypoctic conditions, acidosis and in many types of cancer. In renal cell cancer, evidence is available that CAIX expression is downmodulated as cancer progresses to the metastatic phase, and in line with this, high levels of CAIX in the primary tumor before IL-2 therapy predict relatively low risk of relapse (Atkins et al. 2005). For adjuvant IFNa therapy in metastatic melanoma, although no widely accepted predictor of disease outcome is available, it seems that intact signaling via the IFNAR pathway, as measured by analyzing levels of STAT1 phosphorylation (STAT1-p) in T cells of the host, is frequently disrupted in patients. This is observed at frequencies comparable to that of the percentage of nonresponse to therapy. Therefore, it is suspected that this step, along with other treatment end-point markers, such as treatment-induced CD69 expression on the surface of affected T cells could be exploited as a marker for response (Critchley-Thorne et al. 2007). Also, ratio of baseline STAT1-p/STAT3-p signals in the affected tumor, two STAT proteins in intense cross-talk in melanoma cells, the balance of which has critical impact of cell survival, has been suggested as a predictive marker for therapy success (Wang et al. 2007), and there is data available that high pre-treatment inflammatory activity, as assessed by measuring serum levels of IL-1b, IL-1a, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-a (TNFa) and the chemokines CCL3 and CCL4, is also associated with longer DFS in the context of IFNa therapy (Yurkovetsky et al. 2007).

208

Z. Pós and J. Galon

For adoptive cell therapy combined with lymphodepletion, it seems that one of the most useful predictive markers of disease outcome is telomere length of the antigen-specific T lymphocytes utilized for ACT (Shen et  al. 2007; Zhou et  al. 2005). Availability of tumor-specific T cells with shorter telomeres, that is, the number of T cells with broad replicative potential and no sign of early activationinduced senescence, is a predictive marker of positive therapeutic response. It seems that in ACT, persistence of adoptively transferred T cell clones is critical for successful eradication of the tumor, because even if a large number of T cells is prepared capable of tumor recognition, and availability of T cell supporting growth factors is secured by eliminating competitive T cells by lymphodepletion prior to ACT, number of transferred T cells can rapidly diminish unless sufficient telomere length is maintained. Finally, in MAGEA3-based vaccination for metastatic melanoma, unpublished data from initial studies utilizing high throughput gene expression profiling suggest that a combination of genes with immune-related function including CCL5, CCL11, IFNG, inducible T-cell costimulator (ICOS) and CD20 expression could predict response to therapy, and a similar approach has been used to identify immunologic signature predicting response to MAGEA3 in nonsmall cell lung cancer (Louahed et al. 2008; Vansteenkiste et al. 2008).

Summary In summary, there is strong evidence to suggest that favorable disease outcome in cancer can be predicted more accurately if appropriate immune markers of cancer rejection are added to classic histological analysis. Selection of such markers is a challenging research task but is of obvious importance in predicting patient survival. Data available indicate that (1), antitumor immunity has a relevant impact on disease outcome in cancer, although in advanced stage cancer this is frequently shifted towards an impact more on DFS than OS (2) significant differences can be observed between predictive markers identified in different cancers, possibly not only because of actual biological differences between the cancers, but also because validation of the same marker in various cancer types is a goal difficult to achieve and therefore not frequently aimed at in basic research (3) similarities suggest that appropriate activation of T and NK cell-mediated immunity, markers of Th1-commitment, memory T cell development, and efficient cytotoxic response, are all predictors of favorable outcome in cancer.

References Aggarwal, B.B., Shishodia, S., Sandur, S.K., Pandey, M.K. & Sethi, G. Inflammation and cancer: how hot is the link? Biochem. Pharmacol. 72, 1605–1621 (2006). Atkins, M. et al. Carbonic anhydrase IX expression predicts outcome of interleukin 2 therapy for renal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 11, 3714–3721 (2005).

D/2 Predictors of Favorable Outcome in Cancer

209

Balkwill, F. & Mantovani, A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet 357, 539–545 (2001). Ben Baruch, A. Inflammation-associated immune suppression in cancer: the roles played by cytokines, chemokines and additional mediators. Semin. Cancer Biol. 16, 38–52 (2006). Brichard, V.G. & Lejeune, D. Cancer immunotherapy targeting tumour-specific antigens: towards a new therapy for minimal residual disease. Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther. 8, 951–968 (2008). Bui, J.D. & Schreiber, R.D. Cancer immunosurveillance, immunoediting and inflammation: independent or interdependent processes? Curr. Opin. Immunol. 19, 203–208 (2007). Camus, M. et  al. Coordination of intratumoral immune reaction and human colorectal cancer recurrence. Cancer Res. 69, 2685–2693 (2009). Coussens, L.M. & Werb, Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature 420, 860–867 (2002). Critchley-Thorne, R.J. et al. Down-regulation of the interferon signaling pathway in T lymphocytes from patients with metastatic melanoma. PLoS. Med. 4, e176 (2007). Denardo, D.G., Johansson, M. & Coussens, L.M. Immune cells as mediators of solid tumor metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 27, 11–18 (2008). Dhodapkar, M.V., Dhodapkar, K.M. & Palucka, A.K. Interactions of tumor cells with dendritic cells: balancing immunity and tolerance. Cell Death. Differ. 15, 39–50 (2008). Dieu-Nosjean, M.C. et al. Long-term survival for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with intratumoral lymphoid structures. J Clin Oncol 26, 4410–4417 (2008). Dong, H.P. et al. NK- and B-cell infiltration correlates with worse outcome in metastatic ovarian carcinoma. Am. J Clin Pathol. 125, 451–458 (2006). Donskov, F. & von der, M.H. Impact of immune parameters on long-term survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 24, 1997–2005 (2006). Dunn, G.P., Bruce, A.T., Ikeda, H., Old, L.J. & Schreiber, R.D. Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat. Immunol. 3, 991–998 (2002). Dunn, G.P., Old, L.J. & Schreiber, R.D. The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity 21, 137–148 (2004). Finak, G. et al. Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nat. Med. 14, 518–527 (2008). Fu, J. et al. Increased regulatory T cells correlate with CD8 T-cell impairment and poor survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Gastroenterology 132, 2328–2339 (2007). Galon, J. et al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 313, 1960–1964 (2006). Gao, Q. et al. Intratumoral balance of regulatory and cytotoxic T cells is associated with prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. J Clin Oncol 25, 2586–2593 (2007). Grabenbauer, G.G., Lahmer, G., Distel, L. & Niedobitek, G. Tumor-infiltrating cytotoxic T cells but not regulatory T cells predict outcome in anal squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 12, 3355–3360 (2006). Guminski, A.D. & Thompson, J.F. Predicting response to IL-2 therapy for metastatic melanoma. Expert. Rev. Anticancer Ther. 9, 1571–1575 (2009). Ino, K. et al. Inverse correlation between tumoral indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in endometrial cancer: its association with disease progression and survival. Clin Cancer Res. 14, 2310–2317 (2008). Jensen, H.K. et  al. Presence of intratumoral neutrophils is an independent prognostic factor in localized renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27, 4709–4717 (2009). Kawai, O. et al. Predominant infiltration of macrophages and CD8(+) T Cells in cancer nests is a significant predictor of survival in stage IV nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 113, 1387–1395 (2008). Kirkwood, J.M. & Tarhini, A.A. Biomarkers of therapeutic response in melanoma and renal cell carcinoma: potential inroads to improved immunotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 2583–2585 (2009). Kirkwood, J.M. et  al. Next generation of immunotherapy for melanoma. J Clin Oncol 26, 3445–3455 (2008). Klatte, T. et al. The chemokine receptor CXCR3 is an independent prognostic factor in patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 179, 61–66 (2008).

210

Z. Pós and J. Galon

Krambeck, A.E. et al. B7-H4 expression in renal cell carcinoma and tumor vasculature: associations with cancer progression and survival. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 103, 10391–10396 (2006). Leffers, N. et al. Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes in primary and metastatic lesions of advanced stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 58, 449–459 (2009). Louahed, J. et  al. Expression of defined genes identified by pretreatment tumor profiling: Association with clinical responses to the GSK MAGE- A3 immunotherapeutic in metastatic melanoma patients (EORTC 16032-18031). J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 26, 9045 (2008). Mager, D.L. Bacteria and cancer: cause, coincidence or cure? A review. J. Transl. Med. 4, 14 (2006). Mlecnik, B. et al. Biomolecular network reconstruction identifies T cell homing factors associated with survival in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 138, 1429–1440 (2010). Pages, F. et al. Effector memory T cells, early metastasis, and survival in colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 2654–2666 (2005). Rosenberg,S.A., Restifo,N.P., Yang,J.C., Morgan,R.A. & Dudley,M.E. Adoptive cell transfer: a clinical path to effective cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8, 299–308 (2008). Roth, T.J. et  al. B7-H3 ligand expression by prostate cancer: a novel marker of prognosis and potential target for therapy. Cancer Res. 67, 7893–7900 (2007). Sabatino, M. et  al. Serum vascular endothelial growth factor and fibronectin predict clinical response to high-dose interleukin-2 therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 2645–2652 (2009). Schon, M.P. & Schon, M. TLR7 and TLR8 as targets in cancer therapy. Oncogene 27, 190–199 (2008). Shen, X. et al. Persistence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in adoptive immunotherapy correlates with telomere length. J. Immunother. 30, 123–129 (2007). Strieter, R.M. et al. Cancer CXC chemokine networks and tumour angiogenesis. Eur. J. Cancer 42, 768–778 (2006). Tahara, H. et  al. Emerging concepts in biomarker discovery; the US-Japan Workshop on Immunological Molecular Markers in Oncology. J. Transl. Med. 7, 45 (2009). Talmadge, J.E., Donkor, M. & Scholar, E. Inflammatory cell infiltration of tumors: Jekyll or Hyde. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 26, 373–400 (2007). Taylor, R.C., Patel, A., Panageas, K.S., Busam, K.J. & Brady, M.S. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 25, 869–875 (2007). Thompson, R.H. et al. Serum-soluble B7x is elevated in renal cell carcinoma patients and is associated with advanced stage. Cancer Res. 68, 6054–6058 (2008). Unitt, E. et al. Tumour lymphocytic infiltrate and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma following liver transplantation. J. Hepatol. 45, 246–253 (2006). Vansteenkiste, J.F. et  al. Association of gene expression signature and clinical efficacy of MAGE-A3 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapeutic (ASCI) as adjuvant therapy in resected stage IB/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 26, 7501 (2008). Wang, W. et al. Modulation of signal transducers and activators of transcription 1 and 3 signaling in melanoma by high-dose IFNalpha2b. Clin Cancer Res. 13, 1523–1531 (2007). Yurkovetsky, Z.R. et al. Multiplex analysis of serum cytokines in melanoma patients treated with interferon-alpha2b. Clin Cancer Res. 13, 2422–2428 (2007). Zhou, J. et al. Telomere length of transferred lymphocytes correlates with in vivo persistence and tumor regression in melanoma patients receiving cell transfer therapy. J. Immunol. 175, 7046–7052 (2005).

The Microenvironment of Ovarian Cancer: Lessons on Immune Mediated Tumor Rejection or Tolerance Lana E. Kandalaft and George Coukos

Introduction Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) is the fourth most common cancer in women, and the most lethal gynecologic malignancy in the United States, accounting for approximately 22,000 new cases and 15,000 deaths per year. Due to incremental improvements in surgery and chemotherapy, the 5-year survival rate has increased from 37% in the 1970s to 45% in the 1990s (Bukowski et al. 2007). Based on large cooperative randomized clinical trials, the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel still remains the best performing chemotherapy regimen. Yet, no substantial decrease has been seen in death rates, as the majority of patients relapse and die from their disease despite response to first-line therapy (Ozols 2006). Thus novel therapeutic approaches are direly needed. Although traditionally considered unresponsive to immune therapy, increasing evidence indicates that ovarian cancers are, in fact, immunogenic tumors. This evidence comes from diverse epidemiologic and clinical data comprising evidence of spontaneous antitumor immune response and its association with longer survival in a proportion of ovarian cancer patients; evidence of tumor immune evasion mechanisms and their association with short survival in some ovarian cancer patients; and finally pilot data supporting the efficacy of immune therapy. In EOC, antigen characterization has not been systematic, but evidence exists that tumor-associated antigens are present. The best differentiation tumor rejection antigen identified to date is the onconeuronal protein cdr2, shared by ovarian cancer cells and cerebellar Purkinje cells. Its recognition by cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTLs) is associated with paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration and occult ovarian cancer (Albert et  al. 1998). Other antigens identified in ovarian cancer include HER-2 protein, the product of c-erBb-2 oncogene; p53 tumor suppressor gene protein product; topoisomerase-IIa; folate binding protein; amino enhancer of split protein; sialylated TN (sTN), a mucin antigen; MUC-1; NY-ESO-1, a testis differentiation antigen; and mesothelin (reviewed in Coukos et al. (2005)). In addition, universal G. Coukos (*) Ovarian Cancer Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_14, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

211

212

L.E. Kandalaft and G. Coukos

tumor antigens such as the human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT), cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 and survivin (Gordan and Vonderheide 2002) are expressed by EOC (Vonderheide et al. 1999; Counter et al. 1994). Tumor-specific T cells secreting interferon-gamma (IFN-g) were also reported in peripheral blood of patients with advanced stage ovarian carcinoma, indicating that tumor antigens are in fact recognized spontaneously in vivo (Schlienger et al. 2003). Below we will discuss the biology underlying ovarian cancer immune rejection or tolerance and we will discuss its association with clinical outcome. We believe that understanding these pathways at the tumor microenvironment will lead to novel strategies for enhancing ovarian cancer immunotherapy.

T Cells in Ovarian Cancer and Their Correlation with Outcome T cells bearing the ab T cell receptor are the dominant adaptive immune effector cells that target human ovarian tumors. T cells have been detected in both solid tumor nodules and in ascites. In ovarian tumors, T cells have been observed within tumor cell islets (called intratumoral or intraepithelial T cells) and/or the stroma surrounding tumor islets (Zhang et al. 2003). Although most ovarian tumors harbor T cells in the stroma surrounding tumor islets, approximately 50% of ovarian tumors lack intraepithelial T cells. The presence of intraepithelial CD3+ T cells within tumor islets was evaluated as a prognostic factor for overall survival (Zhang et al. 2003). The presence of intraepithelial tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) predicted significantly longer survival in ovarian cancer. We first reported this finding in an Italian cohort of patients. Patients whose tumors had intraepithelial T cells experienced longer progression-free and overall survival as compared to patients whose tumors lacked intraepithelial T cells. Survival at 5 years was substantial (38%) in patients whose tumors had intraepithelial T cells (n = 102) and was negligible (4.5%) in patients lacking them (n = 72), even after complete response to chemotherapy (Zhang et al. 2003). Another subsequent study showed a strong predictive value of CD8+ T cells, the subset of T cells that comprises mainly CTL. Patients with higher frequencies of intraepithelial CD8+ T cells demonstrated improved survival compared with patients with lower CD8+ T cell frequencies (median survival 55 vs. 26 months; hazard ratio = 0.33; P  IIR (KvRM) + AIR (EvTM)

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

285

Wang and Marincola 2000) may provide insights about the mechanisms of cancer rejection (“how” is rejection occurring) and guide future therapeutic strategies. Experimental animal tumor models have been useful in testing distinct principles of tumor immunology but are unlikely to shed useful information about the actual mechanisms regulating the relationship between the human hosts and their cancer. The reason is a quantitative one. Animal experiments have shown that, given enough manipulation of the system, almost anything can be achieved in tumor immunology. A recent good example is IL-23 that according to animal model can either foster or hamper tumor growth (Shan et  al. 2006; Hao and Shan 2006; Overwijk et  al. 2006; Langowski et  al. 2006; Oniki et  al. 2006; Hu et  al. 2006). Similar discordant and surprising results could be observed with IL-10 (Mocellin et  al. 2002). Human cancers, however, differ from experimental models because each one is the result of a different evolutionary process that has reached a final favorable balance against the host’s immune response by adopting its own biological solution. Considering the enormous redundancy of immune functions, it may not surprise that a monothematic approach to the understanding of such balance has been so far incapable of shedding information about the actual mechanism(s) regulating cancer growth in the host in spite of the innumerable hypotheses that very well apply to the individual experimentally-controlled homogeneity of each animal tumor model (Wang et al. 2009). It is our hypothesis that the human tumor microenvironment does not differ substantially in its biological qualities from spontaneous or induced animal tumor models. The salient differences are quantitative and relate to the different proportion of various immune regulatory vs. pro-inflammatory processes that act in each individual human tumor. This variability makes challenging the identification of a common pattern that may be targeted for therapy. On the contrary, animal models can be manipulated by exaggerating each individual components one at the time by drastically enhancing or eliminating its function. This exaggeration of individual factors can give the false impression that each one is pivotal in determining the individual history of each human cancer. However, it is likely that in humans, none of the potential mechanisms plays individually a role of the weight that can be created by over-expressing or eliminating the expression of a protein in animals. Thus in humans, it is the sum of all potential vectors that determines the natural history of each tumor and its responsiveness to therapy. This fine balance is dictated by a large variety of immunological variables. These properties favor the survival of cancer cells and at the same time affect the microenvironment through the production of factors that may hamper the function of immune cells; these factors can be the result of a direct secretion of soluble molecules or act through cell-to-cell contact (Mocellin and Nitti 2007); moreover, tumors may produce substances that recruit within their microenvironment immune cells such as macrophages which foster tumor growth while hampering immune effector functions (Mantovani et al. 2002). In addition tumor cells may lose functions that are not necessary for tumor cell survival but may be important for their recognition by a competent immune system such as those related to TAA processing and presentation (Marincola et al. 2000, 2003). These formidable adaptations are unique for each individual tumor and are

286

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

continuously evolving (Dunn et al. 2004). Thus, attempts to correlate one or a few of these variables with clinical parameters with the ultimate goal of understanding the principles of tumor/host interactions is unlikely to provide a comprehensive picture (Wang and Marincola 2008). Thus, we concluded that the understanding of the mechanisms of tumor rejection in humans required a non-linear approach (Cucuianu 1998; Coffey 1998; Callard et  al. 1999; Dalgleish 1999; Rew 1999) applied to the study of the tumor microenvironment at appropriate time points (Marincola et al. 2003). This strategy allows the detection of dynamic changes such as the switch from a chronic inflammatory process (i.e., pre-treatment biopsies) to an acute one capable of causing cancer rejection (i.e., biopsies during treatment or after treatment during tumor regression). Because, even synchronous tumor metastases are quite heterogeneous and rapidly evolving (Wang et al. 2002; Cormier et al. 1998; Ohnmacht et al. 2001), we suggested that minimally invasive biopsies that allow retention of biopsied tissues in vivo, constitute a more suitable approach to the understanding of the phenomenon because they allow serial sampling of the same lesion (comparison of pre-treatment vs. treatment-induced transcriptional patterns) and direct comparison of the transcriptional profile identified in one lesion with its own history. The latter is important because the response of individual lesions to immunotherapy can widely vary and in extreme cases “mixed responses” can be observed whereby some lesions completely regress while others continue undisturbed their growth in response to the same treatment thus, excluding the host’s genetic background and environmental conditions as independent determinants of responsiveness (Aptsiauri et al. 2008; Carretero et al. 2008). Thus, we propose the following strategy for the understanding the mechanisms of tumor rejection: samples should be studied obtaining minimally invasive biopsies to allow in vivo retention of the tumor: 1 . At a time when immune rejection is likely to occur (Panelli et al. 2002, 2006) 2. Comparing serial time points to delineate the dynamic changes associated with the inflammatory switch (Mantovani et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2008b) 3. Applying high-throughput discovery-driven approaches that can inform about the global status of a given lesion (Wang et al. 2005) We have previously shown that fine needle aspirated (FNAs), tru-cut or punch biopsies minimally perturb the tumor microenvironment (Deonarine et al. 2007; Wang et  al. 2002; Panelli et  al. 2002, 2006) without affecting the outcome of therapy (Ohnmacht et al. 2001). By analyzing a lesion left in place, it is possible to directly link biological information to treatment outcome (Wang and Marincola 2000; Wang et al. 2005). This is important since we have previously shown at the histological and transcriptional level that synchronously biopsied metastatic lesions are quite heterogeneous (Wang et  al. 2002; Cormier et  al. 1998). This heterogeneity questions the accuracy of utilizing biological information obtained from one lesion to predict the behavior of another. We have successfully applied this strategy to monitor the effects of anti-cancer vaccination (Wang et al. 2002), characterize the mechanism of action of IL-2 within the tumor microenvironment (Panelli et  al. 2002) in melanoma, and the effects of Toll-like receptor (TLR)-7 agonists for the

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

287

treatment of basal cell cancer (Panelli et al. 2006). Biopsies were performed in an easily accessible lesion under local anesthesia obtaining two consecutive FNA (or other non-invasive biopsies) passages according to a previously described four quadrant aspiration technique (Wang et  al. 2002; Wang and Marincola 2000). For FNAs, a first aspiration is used for cytospin preparation and assessment of cellular content and a second is immediately stored at the bedside in RNAlater in ice for total RNA preparation. Messenger RNA can be amplified with high-fidelity for transcriptional analysis (Wang et al. 2000; Wang and Marincola 2002; Wang 2005). The same lesion is biopsied again for assessment of treatment effects. The sequential approach causes some alterations in the transcriptional profiling of the lesion at the time of the second biopsy, however, such changes are limited and mostly irrelevant to the biological phenomenon studied (Deonarine et al. 2007). We have extensively studied the transcriptional changes caused by the procedure itself and a data base is available for interpretation of the specificity of experimental results (Deonarine et al. 2007; Panelli et al. 2002, 2006).

Immunological Signatures from the Tumor Microenvironment The inflammation that promotes cancer growth provides a fertile ground for immune manipulation of cancer-infiltrating immune cells. In the following paragraphs we will summarize our understanding of the mechanisms that trigger a switch from a chronic inflammatory process that tolerates tumor growth to an acute one capable of causing cancer rejection. It is fair to assume that although qualitatively similar, the biology of human cancers may differ significantly among them quantitatively due to the diverse contribution of biological vectors potentially affecting cancer growth (Table 1). Thus, mono or oligothematic approaches to the study of human tumor rejection is unlikely to provide a broad enough view of each lesion’s biology and the dynamics of its transformation during therapy. However, it may be possible to identify converging themes that are required for the determinism of tumor rejection and may, therefore, consistently occur independently of tumor heterogeneity as clouds inevitably populate the skies in a rainy day (Wang and Marincola 2000; Wang et al. 2004, 2005, 2008b). Although innumerable reasons could be envisioned to explain why tumor cells could escape or succumb to immune rejection by the host, we observed, by studying directly human tumors undergoing immune therapy, that common patterns seem necessary for the occurrence of cancer rejection. Here we will focus primarily on the mechanism leading to rejection of metastatic melanoma following systemic administration of human recombinant IL-2 (Wang et al. 2002; Panelli et al. 2002) and the reproducible immune-mediated dissolution of basal cell carcinomas in response to local treatment with TLR-7 agonists (Panelli et al. 2006). We observed that the occurrence of tumor rejection is associated with extensive changes in the transcriptional profile of responding lesions while no changes are observed when lesions to do respond to therapy (Wang et al. 2002; Ohnmacht et al. 2001).

288

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Thus, we hypothesized that while tumor rejection is associated with significant enhancement of immune cell activation, lack of rejection is associated with minimal effects of therapy at the tumor side; this distinction is important because it downplays the role that the insurgence of escape variants cells could play in this situation (Marincola et  al. 2003). We concluded that tumor cell escape variants are more likely to appear after successful immune therapy if eradication of tumor cells is incomplete (Lee et  al. 1998). Supporting the hypothesis that lesions undergoing regression upon immune therapy are subjected to a powerful acute inflammatory process is the clinical observation that during IL-2 therapy these lesions become tender and swell before disappearing. Similarly, basal cell carcinomas become extremely inflamed and ulcerated during treatment with TLR agonists while the surrounding skin remains unaffected. In our first study in which the tumor microenvironment of lesions ultimately undergoing complete remission was monitored with serial biopsies, we identified interferon regulatory factor (IRF)-1 as the most significantly and consistently upregulated transcript compared to its level of expression in paired pre-treatment biopsies (Wang et al. 2002). This finding, subsequently supported by larger studies by our group strongly emphasizes the central role that this transcription factor associated with the activation of acute inflammatory processes plays in determining the switch from chronic to acute inflammation (Hochhaus et al. 1997; Taniguchi 1997; Ogasawara et al. 1998; Girdlestone et al. 1993; Paun and Pitha 2007). The study was designed to compare pre-treatment biopsies with biopsies of the same lesions performed about 3 weeks after the end of treatment when patients would return to the clinics for follow up. At that time, the remnant of transcriptional changes caused by treatment could be observed as a contracting yet still active immune response continued to attack cancerous cells. However, the broader effects of therapy could not be observed at such a late time point. To better understand the inflammatory switch, we have been interested in following the mechanism of action of immune stimulators by comparing the transcriptional profile of lesions before and during therapy (Panelli et  al. 2002, 2006). With this approach we could clearly observe that, contrary to what previously believed, systemic administration of recombinant human IL-2 does not promote migration of cytotoxic T cells to the tumor microenvironment nor their activation or proliferation but rather induces a cytokine storm (Panelli et  al. 2003, 2004) responsible for the release of a broad array of immune stimulatory cytokines by circulating immune cells. These cytokines reach secondarily the tumor microenvironment and activate several innate immune mechanisms which in turn are responsible for the killing of tumor cells, uptake and presentation of antigen and release of chemo-attractants that can within a few days promote the localization of adaptive immune cells at the tumor site. These studies were performed through serial biopsies of the same lesions using FNAs. Using this strategy the response of each lesion could be followed accurately and transcriptional signatures could be directly linked to clinical parameters demonstrating that several alterations due to the effects of IL-2 therapy occurred independently of treatment outcome such as the up-regulation of classical ISGs induced by type I IFNs. Conversely, clinical response was more closely

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

289

related to the expression of ISGs induced preferentially by IFN-g/STAT-1/IRF-1 pathways including the expression of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I and II molecules (Panelli et al. 2002; Girdlestone et al. 1993) and genes associated with effector function (TIA, NK-4/IL-32) (Panelli et al. 2002) (Figs. 1 and 2). A more comprehensive analysis of signatures associated with immune responsiveness could be performed by serially following the response of BCC to local applications of the TLR-7 agonist Imiquimod because this treatment consistently causes tumor rejection particularly at the dosing schedule evaluated by the study (Panelli et al. 2006). Although this local treatment does not represent a potential cure for a systemic disease like cancer, it provides in principle an outstanding model for the study of the mechanism of immune-mediated tumor rejection. This model emphasizes the quantitative aspects of immunotherapy suggesting that the high concentrations of immune stimulator that could be achieved with a topical treatment could shift the balance between host and cancer cell interactions in favor of the host by local manipulations of the microenvironment that cannot easily and specifically achieved through systemic routes. The study provided the first comprehensive glance of transcriptional signatures associated with tumor rejection in the earliest

Fig. 1  Partial description of genes involved in the immunologic constant of rejection (ICR). This image focuses on genes in regressing melanoma metastases following immunotherapy that are included in the first network according to Ingenuity Pathway analysis (in red, up-regulated genes)

290

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Fig. 2  Overlay of genes associated with the ICR presenting their expression in response to IFN-a (a) or IFN-g (b). In red, genes up-regulated and in green, genes down regulated. The IFN-specific expression was obtained stimulating peripheral monocytes with either IFN-a2b or IFN-g in parallel culture conditions; gene expression is presented in comparison with unstimulated monocytes

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

291

phases when causative pathways rather than downstream effects take the lead. TRL agonists could clearly induce activation of specific signatures that could be differentiated from artifacts related to the biopsies themselves or the eccipients used for the delivery of the active component since this was a double blinded placebo controlled randomized study. The result of this analysis demonstrated that the eradication of BCC is a complex multi factorial phenomenon. Of 637 genes specifically induced by Imiquimod, only a minority (98 genes) were canonical type I IFNinduced ISGs (Panelli et al. 2006) while the rest portrayed activation of immune functions involving innate and adaptive immune effector mechanisms. Thus, also in this model, ISGs appeared to be necessary but not uniquely responsible for tissue specific immune rejection. More recently, we observed strikingly identical signatures in two melanoma metastases undergoing tumor regression after immunotherapy compared with three synchronous lesions that continued to progress in their growth (Aptsiauri et al. 2008; Carretero et al. 2008). Transcriptional comparisons between responding and non-responding lesions identified IRF-1 as the central modulator of the top functional network activated in responding lesions (Carretero et al. manuscript in preparation). Analysis of the genes over expressed in the predominant transcriptional network activated in the responding lesions strongly pointed to the activation of genes induced by IFN-g as the central modulator of rejection while IFN-a induced ISGs only minimally influenced the transcriptional profile associated with rejection. Importantly, however, the expression of several genes observed to be over expressed in regressing lesions compared to the autologous synchronous non responding ones could not be explained by either IFN-a or IFN-g signatures, suggesting that other pathways may be involved which we have not been able as yet to characterize. Analysis of the genes associated with tumor rejection in this model clearly suggested that some functional families were predominantly included among the signatures of rejection (Table 2). As we will later discuss, these functional categories are not only associated constantly with various models of tumor rejection but represent the core transcriptional changes associated with several other aspects of immune-mediated tissuespecific destruction (TSD).

Immune Aspects of Chemotherapy Conventional anti-cancer therapy with chemotherapy or radiotherapy is generally believed to induce cancer cell elimination through direct cytostatic or cytotoxic mechanisms; this concept has been recently questioned (Apetoh et  al. 2007a, b, 2008; Tesniere et  al. 2008, 2010; Zitvogel et  al. 2008). It is now clear that DNA damage caused by conventional therapies that disrupt cell cycle has direct immune stimulatory effects (Zitvogel et al. 2008). Several agents induce, through DNA damage, the expression of NKG2D ligands by cancer cells which are target of natural killer cells and activated T cells (Gasser and Raulet 2006). Interestingly, it has also been

Table  2  Summary of transcriptional studies in which signatures of rejection were identified by studying the affected tissues directly in humans or in experimental model STAT-1/1RF-1 T-bet+/IFN-g// GNLY/GZM CXCL-9 to -11 CCL2, 3, 5 IL-15 TIA CXCR3 CCR5 References Cancer Prognosis   Colon hu CA ↑ ↑ Camus et al. (2009); Pages et al. (2005)   Lung hu CA ↑ ↑ Dieu-Nosjean et al. (2008)   Melanoma hu rexo n.t. n.t. ↑ ↑ Harlin et al. (2009)   Ovarain hu CA xeno ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Benencia et al. (2005) Rejection   Masto cytoma mus ↑ ↑ Shanker et al. (2007)   Breast hu CA xeno ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Worschech et al. (2009a, b)   BCC hu CA ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Panelli et al. (2006) Allo Tx Rejection   Kideney hu ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Reeve et al. (2009); SaintMezard et al. (2009); Sarwal et al. (2003);   Heart hu n.t. n.t. ↑ n.t. Karason et al. (2006)   Islet pig n.t. ↑ ↑ ↑ Hardstedt et al. (2005)   Liver rat ↑ ↑ ↑ Hama et al. (2009) GVHD ↑ ↑ ↑ n.t. Imanguli et al. (2009) HCV Viral clearance   Chimp ↑ ↑ ↑ Bigger et al. (2001); Nanda et al. (2008)

292 E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Human

↑

↑

Asselah et al. (2008); Feld et al. (2007); He et al. (2006) Acute cardiovascular ↑ ↑ Okamoto et al. (2008); Zhao events (human) et al. (2002) COPD (human) ↑ Costa et al. (2008) ↑ ↑ ↑ Kim et al. (2009) Villitis (human) Four functional categories often observed to be activated during immune-mediated tissue-specific destruction (TSD) are shown

 

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection 293

294

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

shown that irradiation of a local single metastasis may have generalized effects on distant ones, which are mediated by the immune system (Reits et  al. 2006). Experimental evidence suggests that the immune system involvement is critical to induce cancer regression in response to chemotherapy; tumors do not regress in immune depleted animals treated with doxorubicin given in combination with IL-12. Several other agents have been shown to induce powerful immune responses against cancer when given with cytostatic and cytotoxic purposes (Zitvogel et  al. 2008). Indirect evidence of the involvement of innate immunity in modulating the effect of chemotherapy is suggested by the prognostic significance of a functional polymorphism in the extra-cellular domain of TLR-4, which affects binding of HMGB1 and is negatively correlated with survival and time to recurrence in patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer (Apetoh et al. 2007b). Although the effects of most chemotherapeutic agents are due to the induction of cellular damage and subsequent activation of innate immune responses through the release of DAMPs, no information is available about the transcriptional signatures induced by chemotherapy or radiotherapy within the tumor microenvironment. However, a few experimental models suggest that at least some anti-vascular flavonoids act by inducing the release of cytokines and chemokines such as CXCL-9, CLCX-10, CCL2, CCL3, CCL5, IL-6, IFN-g and TNF (Jassar et al. 2005), a signature shared with immune-mediated tumor rejection (Roberts et  al. 2007) The relevance of IFN-g involvement in chemotherapy-induced tumor regression is also supported by the immune stimulatory effects of imatinib mesylate that induces activation of IFN-g secreting natural killer cells and, in the presence of IL-2, the activation of interferon-producing killer DCs (Taieb et al. 2006).

Immune Aspects of Viral Oncolytic Therapy In the last few years an increasing number of pre-clinical and clinical trials have been carried out using tumor-tropic, oncolytic viruses. As for chemotherapy, this approach is believed to work by a direct virally-induced oncolytic process. However, viral oncolytic therapy might operate with the “assistance” of the host’s immune system (Worschech et al. 2009a, b). The oncolytic properties of certain viruses were first noticed in the early twentieth century when some cancer patients were observed to experience tumor regression after systemic viral infections (Sinkovics and Horvath 1993; Dock 1904). The realization that some viruses with lytic properties selectively colonize tumors (Parato et al. 2005) steered interest in the concept of oncolytic therapy (Vaha-Koskela et al. 2007). Vaccinia virus (VACV) has been a promising candidate for oncolytic therapy due the extensive experience gathered in humans because of its use as an anti smallpox vaccine. Immune reactions against VACV infection have been studied and appear to differ according to the route of administration (Reading and Smith 2003; Jacobs et al. 2006; Selin et al. 2001). However, IFN-g appears to be critical for the clearance of acute VACV infection (Karupiah et  al. 1990; Huang et  al. 1993).

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

295

Whereas a type II IFN-mediated immune response is responsible for the activation of the acute inflammatory response associated with oncolytic therapy and is central to the activation of cell-mediated immunity (Farrar and Schreiber 1993), both type I and type II IFNs are equally important in the containment of poxvirus infections (Huang et al. 1993; Schellekens et al. 1981; Deonarain et al. 2000). In addition to its direct antiviral effects, IFN-a orchestrates a wide array of immune regulatory effects (Garcia-Sastre and Biron 2006) including the regulation of NK cell activation (Biron et al. 1999; Biron and Brossay 2001). Direct signaling of IFN-a on NK cells and not on dendritic cells (DCs) through IL-15 secretion (Lucas et al. 2007) seems to be required for activation and exhibition of their effector function which leads to VACV clearance both in vitro and in vivo (Martinez et al. 2008). Transcriptional analysis of mouse xenografts using a mouse-specific platform to identify the host’s response genes revealed the activation of innate immune mechanisms in regressing GI-101A tumors compared to non-infected control tumors (Zhang et al. 2007). Up-regulation of pro-inflammatory chemokine ligands such as CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL12, CCL2, CCL9, and CCL12 was seen together with an increase in interleukin (IL), and chemokine receptors (IL-13r, IL-18, and CCR2) transcripts. Additionally, a significant activation of ISGs was observed in association with increased STAT-1. This strongly suggested that type I and/or type II IFNs are critically involved in the process. Immunohistochemistry of VACV-infected, regressing xenografts showed an intense peri- and intra-tumoral infiltration of mononuclear cells, which confirmed the up-regulation of CD69, CD48, CD52, and Cd53 seen on the host’s gene expression arrays. These markers are expressed on activated T-cells, NK cells, macrophages, granulocytes and DCs, and are associated with leukocyte activation and NK cytolytic function (Zhang et al. 2007). To better dissect the mechanisms associated with VACV-driven tumor destruction, we compared VACV-infected GI-101A xenografts sensitive to oncolytic therapy to GI-101A xenografts from non-infected animals and HT-29 colon cancer xenografts that do not respond to oncolytic therapy in spite of VACV colonization. Moreover, we evaluated gene expression profiles of the oncolytic interaction by adopting organism-specific microarray platforms. We applied 36k whole genome human arrays to test for alterations in the human cancer cells; 36k whole genome mouse arrays to examine the host’s infiltrating stromal cells and lastly; custommade 1K VACV arrays to characterize changes in viral transcription patterns. Human transcript analysis revealed no differences in non-responding, infected HT-29 tumors compared to control tumors and only a limited set of genes which was altered after GLV-1h68 inoculation in regressing GI-101A xenografts; most transcriptional changes were observed in the infected responding tumors at a time when cell death had not occurred yet and revealed profound down-regulation of genes associated with cellular metabolic processes reflecting the shutdown of cancer cell metabolism due to VACV infection. Analysis of mouse expression arrays representing the host’s infiltrating cells demonstrated that infected, non-responsive HT-29 tumor were not affected by the viral presence in cancer cells similarly to HT-29 tumors from non-infected control animals. On the contrary, a large number of genes were up-regulated in GI-101A tumors after VACV delivery compared to non-infected

296

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

GI-101 xenografts. Further analysis discovered a significant enrichment of immunerelated genes; among those, ISGs and other IFN signaling genes represented the most up-regulated canonical pathways at an early time point where tumors were still continuing to grow (21 days post infection) and later on (42 days post infection) at the time when tumor rejection started to occur. These signatures strictly resembled those previously observed in human basal cell cancers treated with TLR-7 agonists (Panelli et al. 2006). Up-regulation of IL-18 and IL-18 binding protein played a dominant role early in the infection, whereas IL-15 became the predominant cytokine expressed at later stages at a time when tumors growth reached a plateau and started to revert. Among chemokines, CXCL 9, 10, 11 and 12 were strongly expressed in regressing GI-101A xenografts together with CCL5 (Table 2). Based on these findings, we concluded that in this immune deficient mouse model, the activation of innate immune responses may be sufficient to lead to tumor regression in cooperation with the viral oncolytic process.

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection as a Mechanism Shared by Other Pathologies: The Immunologic Constant of Rejection In 1969, Jonas Salk proposed that chronic infections, allograft rejection, autoimmune disorders and cancers belong to a common phenomenon that he termed the “delayed allergy reaction” (Salk 1969). The underlying mechanisms of these pathologies are variable and distinct from each other. Infectious diseases like hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections become chronic if the pathogen is not cleared through acute hepatitis (Rehermann and Nascimbeni 2005). Allograft rejection can be controlled only through immune suppression because broad antigenic differences between allograft and host can trigger a strong immune response. Whereas both allograft rejection and pathogen clearance represents an immune reaction against non-self structures, the immune system can also attack “self” tissues as observed in autoimmunity. Immune responses against tumors fit self or non-self discrimination, as tumor cells derive from normal progenitor cells and mostly express non-mutated TAAs (Kawakami et  al. 1998). However, some cancers display mutated antigens (Robbins et al. 1996) unique for the tumor cells that can be recognized as non-self by the immune system. Even though the underlying triggering mechanisms differ among distinct immune pathologies, we postulated that TSD follows a common pathway which we called the “immunologic constant of rejection (ICR)” (Wang et al. 2008b). We formulated four axioms that summarize the phenomenon: (1) TSD does not necessarily occur because of non-self recognition but also occurs against self or quasi-self; (2) the requirements for the induction of a cognate immune response differ from those necessary for the activation of an effector one; (3) although the prompts leading to TSD vary in distinct pathologic states, the effector immune response converges into a single mechanism; and (4) adaptive immunity participates as a tissue-specific trigger, but it is not always sufficient or necessary (Wang et al. 2008b).

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

297

The limited work so far performed by our group to study in real-time the events occurring before and during therapy in the tumor microenvironment suggests that immune rejection is associated with the activation of ISGs accompanied by the activation of genes that are expressed naturally by NK cells and by CTLs upon activation. Among them we observed that NK cell and activated CTL function seems to predominate during the phases of acute rejection. Interestingly, comparison with other human system of immune-mediated tissue rejection suggests that this final effector pathway is common to other pathologies. Over expression of perforin, granzymes, IL-2 receptor a and b chain, IL-15 receptor, IL-15 itself seem to be part of a general pathway that occurs also during acute rejection of renal allografts (Sarwal et  al. 2003). We recently summarized the common functional units associated with TSD. These include overlapping yet distinct themes that are consistently present when TSD occurs: 1 . The STAT-1/IRF-1/T-bet/IFN-g, IL-15 path 2. The Granzyme A/B, TIA-1 pathway 3. The CXCR3 ligand chemokine pathway 4. The CCR5 ligand chemokine pathway We observed, in different disease models, their presence; studies in humans have identified these signatures to be associated with improved survival of patients with colon, lung and ovarian cancer or melanoma (Galon et al. 2006, 2007; Pages et al. 2005; Harlin et al. 2009; Benencia et al. 2005; Dieu-Nosjean et al. 2008; Camus et al. 2009); the same patterns were observed in neoplastic lesions responsive to immunotherapy both in humans (Wang et al. 2002; Panelli et al. 2002, 2006) and in experimental models (Shanker et  al. 2007). Allografts have been studied by biopsying organs during the acute phases of rejection and several studies have reported recurrent themes (Sarwal et al. 2003; Hardstedt et al. 2005; Karason et al. 2006; Reeve et al. 2009; Saint-Mezard et al. 2009; Hama et al. 2009). In particular, Saint-Mezard et al. (2009) analyzed three independent data set of renal biopsies identifying a robust transcriptional signature of acute allograft rejection which well summarizes most of the components of the ICR. Imanguli et  al. (2009), observed similar patterns by studying biopsies of tissues suffering chronic graft vs. host disease and similar patters where observed in the liver during clearance of HCV infection (Bigger et al. 2001; He et al. 2006; Feld et al. 2007; Nanda et al. 2008; Asselah et al. 2008). Recently similar signatures were observed in the destructive phases of acute cardiovascular events (Zhao et al. 2002; Okamoto et al. 2008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Costa et al. 2008) and placental villitis (Kim et al. 2009) (Table 2).

Conclusions Immune-mediated rejection of human cancer is a reality that occurs reproducibly in specific model systems such as the regression of melanoma and RCC in response to systemic IL-2 therapy, BCC treated locally with TLR-7 agonists or the adoptive transfer of EBV-specific CTL in lymphoproliferative disorders. It is likely that each

298

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

model system has its own idiosyncrasies but, at the same time, commonalities dictate the final outcome of rejection. Similarly, other tissue destructive immune pathologies seem to share common effector pathways. Understanding the basic mechanisms that can switch a chronic inflammatory process incapable of eradicating its cause into an acute reaction with the power of destroying completely the triggering cause, may shed insights that may guide the development of novel therapeutic strategies. Even more importantly, identifying the mechanisms that lead to this final common pathway in individual tumors may define a better rational for targeted therapies that may take advantage of each individual cancer’s biology.

References Andres A: Cancer incidence after immunosuppressive treatment following kidney transplantation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005, 56:71–85. Apetoh L, Ghiringhelli F, Tesniere A, Criollo A, Ortiz C, Lidereau R, Mariette C, Chaput N, Mira JP, Delaloge S et al.: The interaction between HMGB1 and TLR4 dictates the outcome of anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Immunol Rev 2007, 220:47–59. Apetoh L, Ghiringhelli F, Tesniere A, Obeid M, Ortiz C, Criollo A, Mignot G, Maiuri MC, Ullrich E, Saulnier P et al.: Toll-like receptor 4-dependent contribution of the immune system to anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Nat Med 2007, 13:1050–1059. Apetoh L, Tesniere A, Ghiringhelli F, Kroemer G, Zitvogel L: Molecular interactions between dying tumor cells and the innate immune system determine the efficacy of conventional anticancer therapies. Cancer Res 2008, 68:4026–4030. Aptsiauri N, Carretero R, Garcia-Lora A, Real LM, Cabrera T, Garrido F: Regressing and progressing metastatic lesions: resistance to immunotherapy is predetermined by irreversible HLA class I antigen alterations. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2008, 57:1727–1733. Asselah T, Bieche I, Narguet S, Sabbagh A, Laurendeau I, Ripault MP, Boyer N, MartinotPeignoux M, Valla D, Vidaud M et al.: Liver gene expression signature to predict response to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin combination therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gut 2008, 57:516–524. Balkwill F, Mantovani A: Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet 2001, 357:539–545. Barry JM, Rosenberg SA: The transformed cell: unlocking the mysteries of cancer. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 1992. Benencia F, Courreges MC, Conejo-Garcia JR, Mohamed-Hadley A, Zhang L, Buckanovich RJ, Carroll R, Fraser N, Coukos G: HSV oncolytic therapy upregulates interferon-inducible chemokines and recruits immune effector cells in ovarian cancer. Mol Ther 2005, 12:789–802. Bianchi ME: HMGB1 loves company. J Leukoc Biol 2009, 86:573–576. Bigger CB, Brasky KM, Lanford RE: DNA microarray analysis of chimpanzee liver during acute resolving hepatitis C virus infection. J Virol 2001, 75:7059–7066. Biron CA, Brossay L: NK cells and NKT cells in innate defense against viral infections. Curr Opin Immunol 2001, 13:458–464. Biron CA, Nguyen KB, Pien GC, Cousens LP, Salazar-Mather TP: Natural killer cells in antiviral defense: function and regulation by innate cytokines. Annu Rev Immunol 1999, 17:189–220. Brichard VG, Lejeune D: GSK’s antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy programme: pilot results leading to phase III clinical development. Vaccine 2007, 25 Suppl 2:B61–B71. Burnet FM: The concept of immunological surveillance. Prog Exp Tumor Res 1970, 13:1–27.

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

299

Callard R, George AJT, Stark J: Cytokines, chaos and complexity. Cell 1999, 11:513. Camus M, Tosolini M, Mlecnik B, Pages F, Kirilovsky A, Berger A, Costes A, Bindea G, Charoentong P, Bruneval P et  al.: Coordination of intratumoral immune reaction and human colorectal cancer recurrence. Cancer Res 2009, 69:2685–2693. Carretero R, Romero JM, Ruiz-Cabello F, Maleno I, Rodriguez F, Camacho FM, Real LM, Garrido F, Cabrera T: Analysis of HLA class I expression in progressing and regressing metastatic melanoma lesions after immunotherapy. Immunogenetics 2008, 60:439–447. Coffey DS: Self-organization, complexity and chaos: the new biology for medicine. Nat Med 1998, 4:882–885. Cormier JN, Hijazi YM, Abati A, Fetsch P, Bettinotti M, Steinberg SM, Rosenberg SA, Marincola FM: Heterogeneous expression of melanoma-associated antigens (MAA) and HLA-A2 in metastatic melanoma in vivo. Int J Cancer 1998, 75:517–524. Costa C, Rufino R, Traves SL, Lapa E, Silva JR, Barnes PJ, Donnelly LE: CXCR3 and CCR5 chemokines in induced sputum from patients with COPD. Chest 2008, 133:26–33. Cucuianu A: Chaos in cancer? Nat Med 1998, 4:1342–1343. Dalgleish A: The relevance of non-linear mathematics (chaos theory) to the treatment of cancer, the role of the immune response and the potential for vaccines. QJM 1999, 92:347–359. Davis SD, Koizumi JH, Pitts WR: Spontaneous regression of pulmonary metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1989, 33:141–144. Deonarain R, Alcami A, Alexiou M, Dallman MJ, Gewert DR, Porter AC: Impaired antiviral response and alpha/beta interferon induction in mice lacking beta interferon. J Virol 2000, 74:3404–3409. Deonarine K, Panelli MC, Stashower ME, Jin P, Smith K, Slade HB, Norwood C, Wang E, Marincola FM, Stroncek DF: Gene expression profiling of cutaneous wound healing. J Transl Med 2007, 5:11. Dieu-Nosjean MC, Antoine M, Danel C, Heudes D, Wislez M, Poulot V, Rabbe N, Laurans L, Tartour E, de Chaisemartin L et  al.: Long-term survival for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with intratumoral lymphoid structures. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:4410–4417. Dock G: Rabies virus vaccination in a patient with cervical carcinoma. Am J Med Sci 1904, 127:563. Dunn GP, Bruce AT, Ikeda H, Old LJ, Schreiber RD: Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol 2002, 3:991–998. Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD: The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity 2004, 21:137–148. Farrar MA, Schreiber RD: The molecular cell biology of interferon-gamma and its receptor. Annu Rev Immunol 1993, 11:571–611. Feld JJ, Nanda S, Huang Y, Chen W, Cam M, Pusek SN, Schweigler LM, Theodore D, Zacks SL, Liang TJ et al.: Hepatic gene expression during treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin: identifying molecular pathways for treatment response. Hepatology 2007, 46:1548–1563. Fuchs EJ, Matzinger P: Is cancer dangerous to the immune system? Semin Immunol 1996, 8:271–280. Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F, Kirilovsky A, Mlecnik B, Lagorce-Pages C, Tosolini M, Camus M, Berger A, Wind P et  al.: Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 2006, 313:1960–1964. Galon J, Fridman WH, Pages F: The adaptive immunologic microenvironment in colorectal cancer: a novel perspective. Cancer Res 2007, 67:1883–1886. Garcia-Sastre A, Biron CA: Type 1 interferons and the virus-host relationship: a lesson in detente. Science 2006, 312:879–882. Gasser S, Raulet DH: The DNA damage response arouses the immune system. Cancer Res 2006, 66:3959–3962. Ghelani D, Saliba R, Lima M: Secondary malignancies after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005, 56:115–126.

300

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Girdlestone J, Isamat M, Gewert D, Milstein C: Transcriptional regulation of HLA-A and -B: differential binding of members of the Rel and IRF families of transcription factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993, 90:11568–11572. Gottschalk S, Heslop HE, Rooney CM: Treatment of Epstein-Barr virus-associated malignancies with specific T cells. Adv Cancer Res 2002, 84:175–201. Green M: Management of Epstein-Barr virus-induced post-tranplant lymphoproliferative disease in recipients of solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant 2001, 1:103–108. Hama N, Yanagisawa Y, Dono K, Kobayashi S, Marubashi S, Nagano H, Umeshita K, Watanabe S, Uchiyama Y, Monden M: Gene expression profiling of acute cellular rejection in rat liver transplantation using DNA microarrays. Liver Transpl 2009, 15:509–521. Hao JS, Shan BE: Immune enhancement and anti-tumour activity of IL-23. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2006, 55:1426–1431. Haque T, Taylor C, Wilkie GM, Murad P, Amlot PL, Beath S, McKiernan PJ, Crawford DH: Complete regression of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease using partially HLAmatched Epstein Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T cells. Transplantation 2001, 72:1399–1402. Hardstedt M, Finnegan CP, Kirchhof N, Hyland KA, Wijkstrom M, Murtaugh MP, Hering BJ: Post-transplant upregulation of chemokine messenger RNA in non-human primate recipients of intraportal pig islet xenografts. Xenotransplantation 2005, 12:293–302. Harlin H, Meng Y, Peterson AC, Zha Y, Tretiakova M, Slingluff C, McKee M, Gajewski TF: Chemokine expression in melanoma metastases associated with CD8+ T-cell recruitment. Cancer Res 2009, 69:3077–3085. He XS, Ji X, Hale MB, Cheung R, Ahmed A, Guo Y, Nolan GP, Pfeffer LM, Wright TL, Risch N et al.: Global transcriptional response to interferon is a determinant of HCV treatment outcome and is modified by race. Hepatology 2006, 44:352–359. Heslop HE, Rooney CM: Adoptive cellular immunotherapy for EBV lymphoproliferative disease. Immunol Rev 1997, 157:217–222. Hochhaus A, Yan XH, Willer A, Hehlmann R, Gordon MY, Goldman JM, Melo JV: Expression of interferon regulatory factor (IRF) genes and response to interferon-alpha in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 1997, 11:933–939. Hu J, Yuan X, Belladonna ML, Ong JM, Wachsmann-Hogiu S, Farkas DL, Black KL, Yu JS: Induction of potent antitumor immunity by intratumoral injection of interleukin 23-transduced dendritic cells. Cancer Res 2006, 66:8887–8896. Huang S, Hendriks W, Althage A, Hemmi S, Bluethmann H, Kamijo R, Vilcek J, Zinkernagel RM, Aguet M: Immune response in mice that lack the interferon-gamma receptor. Science 1993, 259:1742–1745. Imanguli MM, Swaim WD, League SC, Gress RE, Pavletic SZ, Hakim FT: Increased T-bet+ cytotoxic effectors and type I interferon-mediated processes in chronic graft-versus-host disease of the oral mucosa. Blood 2009, 113:3620–3630. Ippoliti G, Rinaldi M, Pellegrini C, Vigano M: Incidence of cancer after immunosuppressive treatment for heart transplantation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005, 56:101–113. Jacobs N, Chen RA, Gubser C, Najarro P, Smith GL: Intradermal immune response after infection with vaccinia virus. J Gen Virol 2006, 87:1157–1161. Jassar AS, Suzuki E, Kapoor V, Sun J, Silverberg MB, Cheung L, Burdick MD, Strieter RM, Ching LM, Kaiser LR et al.: Activation of tumor-associated macrophages by the vascular disrupting agent 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid induces an effective CD8+ T-cellmediated antitumor immune response in murine models of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Cancer Res 2005, 65:11752–11761. Karason K, Jernas M, Hagg DA, Svensson PA: Evaluation of CXCL9 and CXCL10 as circulating biomarkers of human cardiac allograft rejection. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2006, 6:29. Karupiah G, Blanden RV, Ramshaw IA: Interferon gamma is involved in the recovery of athymic nude mice from recombinant vaccinia virus/interleukin 2 infection. J Exp Med 1990, 172:1495–1503. Kawakami Y, Robbins P, Wang RF, Parkhurst MR, Kang X, Rosenberg SA: Tumor antigens recognized by T cells. The use of melanosomal proteins in the immunotherapy of melanoma. J Immunother 1998, 21:237–246.

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

301

Kepp O, Tesniere A, Schlemmer F, Michaud M, Senovilla L, Zitvogel L, Kroemer G: Immunogenic cell death modalities and their impact on cancer treatment. Apoptosis 2009, 14:364–375. Khanna R, Bell S, Sherritt M, Galbraith A, Burrows SR, Rafter L, Clarke B, Slaughter R, Falk MC, Douglass J et  al.: Activation and adoptive transfer of Epsten-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T cells in solid organ transplant patients with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96:10391–10396. Kim MJ, Romero R, Kim CJ, Tarca AL, Chhauy S, LaJeunesse C, Lee DC, Draghici S, Gotsch F, Kusanovic JP et  al.: Villitis of unknown etiology is associated with a distinct pattern of chemokine up-regulation in the feto-maternal and placental compartments: implications for conjoint maternal allograft rejection and maternal anti-fetal graft-versus-host disease. J Immunol 2009, 182:3919–3927. Langowski JL, Zhang X, Wu L, Mattson JD, Chen T, Smith K, Basham B, McClanahan T, Kastelein RA, Oft M: IL-23 promotes tumour incidence and growth. Nature 2006, 442:461–465. Lee K-H, Panelli MC, Kim CJ, Riker A, Roden M, Fetsch PA, Abati A, Bettinotti MP, Rosenberg SA, Marincola FM: Functional dissociation between local and systemic immune response following peptide vaccination. J Immunol 1998, 161:4183–4194. Lokich J: Spontaneous regression of metastatic renal cancer. Case report and literature review. Am J Clin Oncol 1997, 20:416–418. Lucas M, Schachterle W, Oberle K, Aichele P, Diefenbach A: Dendritic cells prime natural killer cells by trans-presenting interleukin 15. Immunity 2007, 26:503–517. Mandruzzato S, Callegaro A, Turcatel G, Francescato S, Montesco MC, Chiarion-Sileni V, Mocellin S, Rossi CR, Bicciato S, Wang E et  al.: A gene expression signature associated with survival in metastatic melanoma. J Transl Med 2006, 4:50. Mantovani A: Cancer: inflammation by remote control. Nature 2005, 435:752–753. Mantovani A, Gray PA, Van Damme J, Sozzani S: Macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC). J Leukoc Biol 2000, 68:400–404. Mantovani A, Sozzani S, Locati M, Allavena P, Sica A: Macrophage polarization: tumorassociated macrophage as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes. Trends Immunol 2002, 23:549–555. Mantovani A, Romero P, Palucka AK, Marincola FM: Tumor immunity: effector response to tumor and the influence of the microenvironment. Lancet 2008, 371:771–783. Marincola FM, Jaffe EM, Hicklin DJ, Ferrone S: Escape of human solid tumors from T cell recognition: molecular mechanisms and functional significance. Adv Immunol 2000, 74:181–273. Marincola FM, Wang E, Herlyn M, Seliger B, Ferrone S: Tumors as elusive targets of T cellbased active immunotherapy. Trends Immunol 2003, 24:335–342. Martin DN, Boersma BJ, Yi M, Reimers M, Howe TM, Yfantis HG, Tsai YC, Williams EH, Lee DH, Stephens RM et  al.: Differences in the tumor microenvironment between AfricanAmerican and European-American breast cancer patients. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e4531. Martinez J, Huang X, Yang Y: Direct action of type I IFN on NK cells is required for their activation in response to vaccinia viral infection in vivo. J Immunol 2008, 180:1592–1597. Mocellin S, Nitti D: Therapeutics targeting tumor immune escape: towards the development of new generation anticancer vaccines. Med Res Rev 2007, 28(3):413–414, 2008. Mocellin S, Panelli MC, Wang E, Nagorsen D, Marincola FM: The dual role of IL-10. Trends Immunol 2002, 24:36–43. Monsurro’ V, Beghelli S, Wang R, Barbi S, Coin S, Di Pasquale G, Bersani S, Castellucci M, Sorio C, Eleuteri S et al.: Anti-viral status segregates two pancreatic adenocarcinoma molecular phenotypes with potential relevance for adenoviral gene therapy. J Transl Med 2009, 8:10, 2010. Nanda S, Havert MB, Calderon GM, Thomson M, Jacobson C, Kastner D, Liang TJ: Hepatic transcriptome analysis of hepatitis C virus infection in chimpanzees defines unique gene expression patterns associated with viral clearance. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e3442. Ogasawara K, Hida S, Azimi N, Tagaya Y, Sato T, Yokochi-Fukuda T, Waldmann TA, Taniguchi T, Taki S: Requirement for IRF-1 in the microenvironment supporting development of natural killer cells. Nature 1998, 391:700–703.

302

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Ohnmacht GA, Wang E, Mocellin S, Abati A, Filie A, Fetsch PA, Riker A, Kammula US, Rosenberg SA, Marincola FM: Short term kinetics of tumor antigen expression in response to vaccination. J Immunol 2001, 167:1809–1820. Okamoto Y, Folco EJ, Minami M, Wara AK, Feinberg MW, Sukhova GK, Colvin RA, Kihara S, Funahashi T, Luster AD et  al.: Adiponectin inhibits the production of CXC receptor 3 chemokine ligands in macrophages and reduces T-lymphocyte recruitment in atherogenesis. Circ Res 2008, 102:218–225. Oniki S, Nagai H, Horikawa T, Furukawa J, Belladonna ML, Yoshimoto T, Hara I, Nishigori C: Interleukin-23 and interleukin-27 exert quite different antitumor and vaccine effects on poorly immunogenic melanoma. Cancer Res 2006, 66:6395–6404. Overwijk WW, De Visser KE, Tirion FH, de Jong LA, Pols TW, van der Velden YU, van den Boorn JG, Keller AM, Buurman WA, Theoret MR et  al.: Immunological and antitumor effects of IL-23 as a cancer vaccine adjuvant. J Immunol 2006, 176:5213–5222. Pages F, Berger A, Camus M, Sanchez-Cabo F, Costes A, Molidor R, Mlecnik B, Kirilovsky A, Nilsson M, Damotte D et al.: Effector memory T cells, early metastasis, and survival in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:2654–2666. Pages F, Kirilovsky A, Mlecnik B, Asslaber M, Tosolini M, Bindea G, Lagorce C, Wind P, Bruneval P, Zatloukal K et al.: The in situ cytotoxic and memory T cells predict outcome in early-stage colerectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(35):5944–5951. Pages F, Galon J, Dieu-Nosjean MC, Tartour E, Sautes-Fridman C, Fridman WH: Immune infiltration in human tumors, a prognostic factor that should not be ignored. Oncogene 2010, 29(8):1093–1102. Panelli MC, Wang E, Phan G, Puhlman M, Miller L, Ohnmacht GA, Klein H, Marincola FM: Gene-expression profiling of the response of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and melanoma metastases to systemic IL-2 administration. Genome Biol 2002, 3:RESEARCH0035. Panelli MC, Martin B, Nagorsen D, Wang E, Smith K, Monsurro’ V, Marincola FM: A genomic and proteomic-based hypothesis on the eclectic effects of systemic interleukin-2 administration in the context of melanoma-specific immunization. Cells Tissues Organs 2003, 177:124–131. Panelli MC, White RL Jr., Foster M, Martin B, Wang E, Smith K, Marincola FM: Forecasting the cytokine storm following systemic interleukin-2 administration. J Transl Med 2004, 2:17. Panelli MC, Stashower M, Slade HB, Smith K, Norwood C, Abati A, Fetsch PA, Filie A, Walters SA, Astry C et  al.: Sequential gene profiling of basal cell carcinomas treated with Imiquimod in a placebo-controlled study defines the requirements for tissue rejection. Genome Biol 2006, 8:R8. Parato KA, Senger D, Forsyth PA, Bell JC: Recent progress in the battle between oncolytic viruses and tumours. Nat Rev Cancer 2005, 5:965–976. Paun A, Pitha PM: The IRF family, revisited. Biochimie 2007, 89:744–753. Reading PC, Smith GL: A kinetic analysis of immune mediators in the lungs of mice infected with vaccinia virus and comparison with intradermal infection. J Gen Virol 2003, 84:1973–1983. Reeve J, Einecke G, Mengel M, Sis B, Kayser N, Kaplan B, Halloran PF: Diagnosing rejection in renal transplants: a comparison of molecular- and histopathology-based approaches. Am J Transplant 2009, 9:1802–1810. Rehermann B, Nascimbeni M: Immunology of hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infection. Nat Rev Immunol 2005, 5:215–229. Reits EA, Hodge JW, Herberts CA, Groothuis TA, Chakraborty M, Wansley EK, Camphausen K, Luiten RM, de Ru AH, Neijssen J et  al.: Radiation modulates the peptide repertoire, enhances MHC class I expression, and induces successful antitumor immunotherapy. J Exp Med 2006, 203:1259–1271. Rew DA: Tumour biology, chaos and non-linear dynamics. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999, 25:86–89.

Immune-Mediated Tumor Rejection

303

Robbins PF, el-Gamil M, Li YF, Kawakami Y, Loftus D, Appella E, Rosenberg SA: A mutated beta-catenin gene encodes a melanoma-specific antigen recognized by tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. J Exp Med 1996, 183:1185–1192. Roberts ZJ, Goutagny N, Perera PY, Kato H, Kumar H, Kawai T, Akira S, Savan R, van Echo D, Fitzgerald KA et al.: The chemotherapeutic agent DMXAA potently and specifically activates the TBK1-IRF-3 signaling axis. J Exp Med 2007, 204:1559–1569. Rooney CM, Roskrow MA, Smith CA, Brenner MK, Heslop HE: Immunotherapy of EpsteinBarr virus-associated cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1998, 23:89–93. Saint-Mezard P, Berthier CC, Zhang H, Hertig A, Kaiser S, Schumacher M, Wieczorek G, Bigaud M, Kehren J, Rondeau E et al.: Analysis of independent microarray datasets of renal biopsies identifies a robust transcript signature of acute allograft rejection. Transpl Int 2009, 22:293–302. Salk J: Immunological paradoxes: theoretical considerations in the rejection or retention of grafts, tumors, and normal tissue. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1969, 164:365–380. Sanchez-Ortiz RF, Tannir N, Ahrar K, Wood CG: Spontaneous regression of pulmonary metastases from renal cell carcinoma after radio frequency ablation of primary tumor: an in situ tumor vaccine? J Urol 2003, 170:178–179. Sarwal M, Chua MS, Kambham N, Hsieh SC, Satterwhite T, Masek M, Salvatierra O, Jr.: Molecular heterogeneity in acute renal allograft rejection identified by DNA microarray profiling. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:125–138. Schellekens H, de Reus A, Bolhuis R, Fountoulakis M, Schein C, Ecsodi J, Nagata S, Weissmann C: Comparative antiviral efficiency of leukocyte and bacterially produced human alphainterferon in rhesus monkeys. Nature 1981, 292:775-776 Selin LK, Santolucito PA, Pinto AK, Szomolanyi-Tsuda E, Welsh RM: Innate immunity to viruses: control of vaccinia virus infection by gamma delta T cells. J Immunol 2001, 166:6784–6794. Shan BE, Hao JS, Li QX, Tagawa M: Antitumor activity and immune enhancement of murine interleukin-23 expressed in murine colon carcinoma cells. Cell Mol Immunol 2006, 3:47–52. Shankaran V, Ikeda H, Bruce AT, White JM, Swanson PE, Old LJ, Schreiber RD: IFN-g and lymphocytes prevent primary tumour development and shape tumour immunogenicity. Nature 2001, 410:1107–1111. Shanker A, Verdeil G, Buferne M, Inderberg-Suso EM, Puthier D, Joly F, Nguyen C, Leserman L, Auphan-Anezin N, Schmitt-Verhulst AM: CD8 T cell help for innate antitumor immunity. J Immunol 2007, 179:6651–6662. Sinkovics J, Horvath J: New developments in the virus therapy of cancer: a historical review. Intervirology 1993, 36:193–214. Srikrishna G, Freeze HH: Endogenous damage-associated molecular pattern molecules at the crossroads of inflammation and cancer. Neoplasia 2009, 11:615–628. Tahara H, Sato M, Thurin M, Wang E, Butterfield LH, Disis ML, Fox BA, Lee PP, Khleif SN, Wigginton JM et al.: Emerging concepts in biomarker discovery; the US-Japan workshop on immunological molecular markers in oncology. J Transl Med 2009, 7:45. Taieb J, Chaput N, Menard C, Apetoh L, Ullrich E, Bonmort M, Pequignot M, Casares N, Terme M, Flament C et al.: A novel dendritic cell subset involved in tumor immunosurveillance. Nat Med 2006, 12:214–219. Taniguchi T: Transcription factors IRF-1 and IRF-2: linking the immune responses and tumor suppression. J Cell Physiol 1997, 173:128–130. Taylor AL, Marcus R, Bradley JA: Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) after solid organ transplantation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005, 56:155–167. Tesniere A, Apetoh L, Ghiringhelli F, Joza N, Panaretakis T, Kepp O, Schlemmer F, Zitvogel L, Kroemer G: Immunogenic cancer cell death: a key-lock paradigm. Curr Opin Immunol 2008, 20(5):504–511. Tesniere A, Schlemmer F, Boige V, Kepp O, Martins I, Ghiringhelli F, Aymeric L, Michaud M, Apetoh L, Barault L et al.: Immunogenic death of colon cancer cells treated with oxaliplatin. Oncogene 2010, 29(4):482–491.

304

E. Wang and F.M. Marincola

Vaha-Koskela MJ, Heikkila JE, Hinkkanen AE: Oncolytic viruses in cancer therapy. Cancer Lett 2007, 254:178–216. Vallejo GH, Romero CJ, de Vicente JC: Incidence and risk factors for cancer after liver transplantation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005, 56:87–99. Wallace TA, Prueitt RL, Yi M, Howe TM, Gillespie JW, Yfantis HG, Stephens RM, Caporaso NE, Loffredo CA, Ambs S: Tumor immunobiological differences in prostate cancer between African-American and European-American men. Cancer Res 2008, 68:927–936. Wang E: RNA amplification for successful gene profiling analysis. J Transl Med 2005, 3:28. Wang E, Marincola FM: A natural history of melanoma: serial gene expression analysis. Immunol Today 2000, 21:619–623. Wang E, Marincola FM: Amplification of small quantities of mRNA for transcript analysis. In DNA arrays – a molecular cloning manual. First edition. Edited by Bowtell D, Sambrook J. Cold Springs Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2002:204–213. Wang E, Marincola FM: Bottom up: a modular view of immunology. Immunity 2008, 29:9–11. Wang E, Miller L, Ohnmacht GA, Liu E, Marincola FM: High fidelity mRNA amplification for gene profiling using cDNA microarrays. Nat Biotechnol 2000, 17:457–459. Wang E, Miller LD, Ohnmacht GA, Mocellin S, Petersen D, Zhao Y, Simon R, Powell JI, Asaki E, Alexander HR et al.: Prospective molecular profiling of subcutaneous melanoma metastases suggests classifiers of immune responsiveness. Cancer Res 2002, 62:3581–3586. Wang E, Panelli MC, Monsurro’ V, Marincola FM: Gene expression profiling of anti-cancer immune responses. Curr Opin Mol Ther 2004, 6:288–295. Wang E, Panelli MC, Marincola FM: Gene profiling of immune responses against tumors. Curr Opin Immunol 2005, 17:423–427. Wang E, Panelli M, Marincola FM: Autologous tumor rejection in humans: trimming the myths. Immunol Invest 2006, 35:437–458. Wang E, Selleri S, Sabatino M, Monaco A, Pos Z, Stroncek DF, Marincola FM: Spontaneous and tumor-induced cancer rejection in humans. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2008, 8:337–349. Wang E, Worschech A, Marincola FM: The immunologic constant of rejection. Trends Immunol 2008, 29:256–262. Wang E, Albini A, Stroncek DF, Marincola FM: New take on comparative immunology: relevance to immunotherapy. Immunotherapy 2009, 1:355–366. Worschech A, Chen N, Yu YA, Zhang Q, Pos Z, Weibel S, Raab V, Sabatino M, Monaco A, Liu H et  al.: Systemic treatment of xenografts with vaccinia virus GLV-1h68 reveals the immunologic facets of oncolytic therapy. BMC Genomics 2009, 10:301. Worschech A, Haddad D, Stroncek DF, Wang E, Marincola FM, Szalay AA: The immunologic aspects of poxvirus oncolytic therapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2009, 58(9):1355–1362. Zhang L, Conejo-Garcia JR, Katsaros D, Gimotty PA, Massobrio M, Regnani G, Makrigiannakis A, Gray H, Schlienger K, Liebman MN et al.: Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:203–213. Zhang Q, Yu YA, Wang E, Chen N, Danner RL, Munson PJ, Marincola FM, Szalay AA: Eradication of solid human breast tumors in nude mice with an intravenously injected light-emitting oncolytic vaccinia virus. Cancer Res 2007, 67:10038–10046. Zhao DX, Hu Y, Miller GG, Luster AD, Mitchell RN, Libby P: Differential expression of the IFN-gamma-inducible CXCR3-binding chemokines, IFN-inducible protein 10, monokine induced by IFN, and IFN-inducible T cell alpha chemoattractant in human cardiac allografts: association with cardiac allograft vasculopathy and acute rejection. J Immunol 2002, 169:1556–1560. Zitvogel L, Apetoh L, Ghiringhelli F, Kroemer G: Immunological aspects of cancer chemotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol 2008, 8:59–73.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection Davide Bedognetti

Abstract  The physiopathology of immune-mediated tissue injury of acute allograft rejection is not completely understood. Although several mechanicistic experiments have been conducted in  vitro and in animal models, only few hypotheses have been confirmed in humans and, paradoxically, findings in humans often lack mechanistic explanations. Before high throughput gene expression analysis advent (microarrays), the use of optic microscopy, immunohistochemistry and reverse transcriptase protein chain reaction (RT-PCR), allowed the “in situ” evaluation of only a few variables simultaneously. Conversely, the integration of the aforementioned methodologies with microarrays has cast new lights on unrecognized mechanisms that are now deemed as central for the development of the alloresponse. Pari passu with underlining the molecular heterogeneity between apparently similar lesions, this approach has also unveiled the activation of common mechanisms among clinically and histopathologically different lesions. Universal standardization procedures were slowly and incompletely developed while microarray methodology was at its dawn and in continuing evolution. Moreover, the lack of uniformity among different investigating groups (in terms of sample collection, microarray platforms, genes coverage, bioinformatic analysis and study design) has probably been one of the reasons accounting for the relatively small overlap in the relevant genes detected by individual studies. Nevertheless, in spite of the aforementioned limitations, it is difficult to ignore the relevance of those gene/gene pathways consistently detected as simultaneously upregulated among independent studies even in the presence of such technical and analytic limitations. The aim of this chapter is to shed some light on the physiopathology of allorejection, pointing at the activation of genes and molecular pathways thought to play

D. Bedognetti (*) Infectious Disease and Immunogenetics Section (IDIS), Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, and Trans-NIH Center for Human Immunology (CHI), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA and Department of Oncology, Biology and Genetics, and Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F.M. Marincola and E. Wang (eds.), Immunologic Signatures of Rejection, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7219-4_19, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

305

306

D. Bedognetti

a leading role in the development and/or maintenance of the tissue destructive process, which characterizes acute rejection. Rather than trying to explain the cause of the activation of this acute response, we will try to depict a molecular fresco of the battlefield where tissue destruction is fought. To this purpose, we will focus on human microarray studies performed on tissue biopsies taken during episodes of acute allograft rejection, providing also a brief description of the results obtained with other approaches (RT-PCR or immunohistochemistry). We will apply the knowledge derived from mechanicistic studies and from inductive and deductive reasoning to explain the possible roles and relations of the described pathways.

A Brief Historical Perspective The first observations about the role that genetic differences among individuals may play in the development of allograft rejection were made by Emile Holman, a young surgeon working in Boston, in the 1920s (Tilney 2000; Starzl 1995). He noted, studying skin-grafted burnt childrens, that the healing process occurred when autologous but not maternal skin grafts were transplanted and that the intensity of the destruction increased after a second grafting from the initial donor but not from a third party (Tilney 2000). This clinical observation was placed in a scientific context by a young Oxford zoologist, Peter Medawar, who would be sharing in 1960 the Nobel Prize for his work on acquired immunological tolerance (Medawar 1944; Billingham et al. 1953). He showed, initially in human studies involving World War II burn victims, and later in elegant experiments in rabbits, that the skin rejection was an immune-mediated mechanism (Starzl 1995; Medawar 1944). In the mid ’50s, this phenomenon was shown to be analogous to the process that confers immunity to infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, a cell mediated tissue destruction process, also named cellmediated delayed hypersensitivity (Mitchison 1954; Billingham et al. 1954). In the same years, while Peter Medawar proposed the cellular immunity theory, another influent scientist, Peter Gorer advocated the role of humoral response in the development of acute rejection (Gorer 1942). We now know that both humoral and cellular mechanisms are involved in allograft rejection, and the international pathologic classification divides it in T-cell mediated and antibody mediated rejection (Solez et al. 2008). In spite of distinct morphologic features of the two conditions, highthroughput gene expression analyses suggested that both the humoral and cellular rejection converge in to identical molecular mechanisms (Reeve et  al. 2009; Mueller et  al. 2007). These molecular pathways observed while acute allograft rejection occurs are similar to the pathways activated in other forms of immunemediated rejection, such as tumor rejection, autoimmune disease, or pathogens clearance (Wang et al. 2008; Bedognetti et al. 2010). Thus, the analogies between allograft rejection and cell-mediated delayed hypersensitivity, cunningly observed more than 50 years ago, seem to have found today their molecular explanation.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

307

Introduction Allorecognition, acute allograft rejection, and allo-response – The adjective “acute” could be deceiving. In fact, this process can occur not only days or weeks after transplantation but even months or years following an apparently successful engraftment (Alausa et al. 2005; Bagnasco et al. 2007; Doria et al. 2006; Hippen et al. 2005; Kayler et al. 2007; Krukemeyer et al. 2004; Tsai et al. 2006; Sarwal et  al. 2003). The term allorecognition refers to the ability of the host immune system to detect nonself antigens expressed by organs received from a donor belonging to the same species (Larosa et al. 2007; Le Moine et al. 2002). The activation of the alloreactive T cells can occur via a direct pathway, driven by donor antigen presenting cells (APCs), which are “passengers” in the transplanted tissue, or via indirect pathway, mediated by recipients APCs (Larosa et al. 2007; Le Moine et al. 2002). CD8+ alloreactive T cell cells can also be partially activated directly in the graft, independently of professional APCs (Kreisel et al. 2002). This allo-recognition per se is, however, not sufficient to induce rejection: there must be in addition an appropriate environment of cell surface molecules and cytokines to fully activate the effector function of T cells (Larosa et al. 2007; Le Moine et al. 2002; Matzinger 2002). However, B cells, by virtue of their antigen specific B cell receptor (BCR), can, directly bind and process surface antigens, such as nonself major histocompatibility complexes in the transplanted organ. This direct binding leads to their in situ activation, where they function as APCs (Balin et  al. 2009; Noorchashm et  al. 2006). Activated alloreactive B cells can participate to the alloresponse trough the production of antibodies (Balin et  al. 2009; Noorchashm et  al. 2006; Terasaki 2003). Thus, the rejection is due to cell-mediated injury (acute cellular rejection) but it can also be mediated by antibodies (acute humoral rejection). Topics of the chapter – It is not the purpose of this chapter to describe the physiopathological process of allorecognition, nor debate the humoral or cellular theories of the allorejection (Terasaki 2003). Accepting that both humoral and cellular responses are involved in alloresponse, we will describe the final steps (the tissue destruction) that occur in the graft during rejection, summarizing molecular events observed through gene expression profiling studies conducted directly in the grafted tissues. Other microarray studies have been conducted analyzing gene expression profiles of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Weintraub and Sarwal 2006; Li et al. 2008; Deng et al. 2006; Horwitz et al. 2003; Flechner et al. 2004). They also offer an interesting and non invasive diagnostic/predictive tool, and contribute the explanation of the physiopathology of allograft rejection (Weintraub and Sarwal 2006; Li et  al. 2008; Deng et al. 2006; Horwitz et al. 2003; Flechner et al. 2004). However, our aim is to describe what happens inside the graft during this specific tissue destruction process. For these reasons the latter studies will not be analyzed here. We will focus on pathways that have been most consistently observed by different studies. Since microarray studies greatly differ in terms of the organ analyzed, the platform used, the number of genes investigated and the sample size, we briefly summarized in Table  1 the main features of acute allograft rejection microarray

308

D. Bedognetti

studies conducted in humans, in order to provide the reader with a useful tool to weight the conclusions we reached in interpreting their findings. If one dataset was used by the same group to generate different analyses, we will summarize in this table only one pubblication. However, if useful, we will describe in the text additional results obtained by subsequent integrative analyses. We will also provide the reader with a table summarizing relevant genes detected in such studies (Table 2). A list of 50 key genes consistently observed by the studies will also be used to generate networks, in the attempt to provide an overview of the complex relations occurring between them (Fig.  1a, b). We will describe the microarray studies respecting, approximately, the chronologic order in which they were published. However, when a relevant biological pathway is encountered, we will give a partial explanation of it, and we will also briefly illustrate confirmatory or contradicting results obtained by other investigators.

Early Studies in Kidney and Liver Acute Allograft Rejection and the Detection of Recurrent Themes After being used to study gene expression in multiple sclerosis lesions (Whitney et al. 1999), melanoma (Bittner et al. 2000), colon (Alon et al. 1999), breast (Nacht et  al. 1999) at the beginning of the century, microarrays were employed to study allograft rejection. One of the first studies utilizing such technology in the field of solid organ transplantation was published by Akalin et  al. (2001), which analyzed ten kidney recipients. The authors simply compared seven acute rejection samples with the three control samples. This study, in spite of the small sample size, identified several genes that would be confirmed in subsequent microarray studies (see Table 2). This achievement was probably due to the restrictive criteria chosen for the selection of the annotated transcripts, which had to be highly upregulated (> fourfold) in at least six out seven biopsies. Among the ten transcripts associated with acute rejection, most genes coded for proteins associated with immunity and inflammation. In particular, the overexpression of CXCL9/HuMig (human monokine induced by interferon-g – IFN-g (Zhao et al. 2002; Murphy et al. 2000; Fahmy et al. 2003; Qin et al. 1998)), STAT-1 (signal transducer and activation of transcription 1, a transcription factor activated by IFNs (Platanias 2005; Reich and Liu 2006; Pos et al. 2010)), and TAP-1 (transporter 1, ATP-binding cassette, sub-family B, a member of MHC peptide transporters, regulated by IFN-g (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002)), suggested the activation of IFN-g pathway during the acute reaction. Interestingly, although transcripts associated with B cell presence in allograft rejection biopsies would be described later (Sarwal et al. 2003; Morgun et al. 2006; Gimino et al. 2003), the authors detected the over-expression of CCL19/ Mip-3b (macrophage inflammatory protein-3beta), a chemokine that is critical not only for T and dendritic cell trafficking, but also plays a role in B cell chemotaxis (Qin et  al. 1998; Sanchez-Sanchez et  al. 2004). However, the data from this

Atlas human cDNAb ~600 Genes

Affymetrix HU6800a ~6,400 Genes

Tannapfel et al. (2001) Liver (biopsies)

Sreekumar et al. (2002) Liver (biopsies)

Results This was the first study analyzing gene expression during kidney allograft using microarrays. Comparison analysis shows that between 32 and 219 gene transcripts are up-regulated (>fourfold) during acute rejection. Of these transcripts, ten were expressed in acute rejection in the majority of acute rejection biopsy samples: HuMig(CXCL9), TCR-b, IL-2-stimulated phosphoprotein , RING4/TAP-1, SGFG3/ STAT-1, C3, NNMT, MCL1, MIP3-b (CCL19), CD18 95 Genes were aberrantly expressed among the Aim. To investigate the expression of multiple inflammatory and subgroups. These included genes involved apoptosis related genes in allograft rejection in stress response, cytokine production, Methods. 97 biopsies, 62 patients. Acute allograft rejection (n = 32), cell cycle regulation, signal transduction, HCV reinfection (n = 18), CMV infection (n = 5), acute rejection apoptosis and growth-factor and hormoneand HCV infection (n = 3), stable graft function (n = 30) and after receptor production. IL-3, MMP-9, TIMP-1, treatment of acute rejection (n = 9) TNF-a, IL-10, clusterin and TGF-b1-3 were expressed differentially in allograft rejection specimens as compared to those with viral hepatitis or stable graft Acute cellular rejection was associated with Aim. To study intragraft gene expression patterns in acute cellular overexpression of MHC class I and II, IGF-1, rejection and during recurrence of HCV in HCV infected recipients apoptosis induction (TNF-a) and T/NK-cell Methods. Four patients with HCV infection and ACR and 4 patients activation: granzyme B, IL-2, IRF9. C1q and C3 with HCV infection without ACR genes were also overexpressed (continued)

Table 1  Microarray studies evaluating gene expression profile in acute allograft rejection in humans References (dataset) Organ (samples) Array Aim and methods Akalin et al. (2001) Affymetrix Aim. To analyze gene expression profile using microarrays in acute GeneChip HU6800a Kidney the allograft rejection biopsies) ~6,400 Genes Methods. Seven human renal allograft biopsies with histological evidence of acute cellular rejection and three renal allograft biopsies without evidence of rejection. All biopsies were performed within 8 weeks after transplantation. Each acute rejection sample was compared with each control sample, leading 21 comparison analyses

Array

c

Gimino et al. (2003) (Minneapolis) Lung (BAL)

Affymetrix Human Genome U133Ad ~18,000 Genes

Sarwal et al. (2003) Lymphochip   > 12,000 (Stanford) Genes Kidney (biopsies)

Table 1  (continued) References (dataset) Organ (samples) Results

Aim. To investigate the possibility that variations in gene-expression Biopsy samples from patients with similar clinical diagnoses clustered together on patterns in allograft-biopsy samples from patients with acute the basis of corresponding similarities rejection and related disorders would permit the identification of in gene expression, irrespective of the molecularly distinct subtypes of acute rejection that may be related immunosuppressive administered regimen. to differences in clinical behavior Biopsy samples from patients with acute Methods. 50 pediatric recipients. 67 biopsies: 52 during acute or rejection that are indistinguishable on chronic allograft dysfunctions (between 1 month and 10 years conventional histological analysis reveal after transplantation). The others were obtained at the time of the extensive differences in gene expression, engraftment or when graft function was stable which are associated with differences in immunologic and cellular features and clinical course. Surprisingly, the authors detected a B-cell infiltration in a subgroup of patients with acute rejection. However, the presence of dense B cell clusters was strongly associated with severe graft rejection. Finally, such B cell infiltrate was not correlated with diagnosis of antibody mediated rejection, suggesting a pivotal role of infiltrating B cells also in acute cellular rejection Two-dimensional hierarchical clustering grouped Aim. To determine markers of acute rejection in lung recipients all acute rejection samples into one cluster Methods. 26 patients. 7 samples with diagnosis of acute rejection and the majority of non rejection samples and 27 without diagnosis of rejection were analyzed into a second cluster. T cell rereceptors, granzymes, perforin, Lectin-like NK receptor, C4B, CD3, CD8, CD28, STAT4, IL-2 related genes and IFN-g were among genes upregulated during acute rejection

Aim and methods

Affymetrix   GeneChip HG-U95Av2e ~10,000 Genes

Karason et al. (2006) Affymetrix Human Heart (biopsies) Genome U133Ad ~18,000 Genes

Flechner et al. (2004) (Cleveland) Kidney (biopsies and PBLs)

 

The authors developed a data analysis schema Aim. To determine gene expression profiling in transplants patients based on expression signal determination, including normal donor kidneys, well functioning transplants class comparison and prediction, hierarchical without rejection, kidneys undergoing acute rejection, and clustering, statistical power analysis and qRTtransplants with renal dysfunction without rejection PCR. However the Investigators identified Methods. Patients. Biopsies were obtained from 9 living donor gene expression signatures for both biopsies controls, 7 recipients with diagnosis of acute rejection, 5 recipient with renal dysfunction without rejection on biopsy, and 10 biopsies and PBLs that correlated significantly with each of the different classes of transplants carried out more than 1 year post transplant in patient with patients. CCR5, IL10RA, IL10RB, CD64, good transplant function and normal histology. PBLs were also CD16, Granzyme A, immunoglobulins, collected. qRT-PCR was also performed and IFN-g stimulated genes were among genes upregulated in acute rejection samples compared to samples with stable functions The authors identified genes that were Aim. To utilize DNA microarray analysis to search for upregulated during the rejection episode and potential biomarkers of cardiac allograft rejection. Routine returned to baseline levels with its resolution. endomyocardial biopsies were performed according to the Among these were CXCL9, CXCL10 protocol and many IFN-g stimulated genes (e.g., Methods. Twenty patients were enrolled, episode rejection was HLAs, STAT-1, IGFBP4, PSME2, GBP1, observed in 14 patients. The Authors matched myocardial tissue RARRES3). C3, C4A and NPPA were also and serum samples at 3 points: biopsy with normal histology, upregulated. qRT-PCR confirmed the trend biopsy with rejection episode, biopsy with normal histology after observed for CXCL9. CXCL10 displayed a the rejection episode. qRT-PCR was performed for selected genes similar pattern without reaching statistical (CXCL9, CXCL10, NNPA) significance. No change in serum level before, after and during the rejection episode was observed for both the chemokines (continued)

Table 1  (continued)

Array

Morgun et al. (2006) In-house oligonucleotide San Paulo Heart arrayf (biopsies) ~14.000 Genes

References (dataset) Organ (samples)

Results

The most significant category among the Aim. To analyze gene expression differences between rejection, no upregulated genes was related to the rejection and Trypanosoma cruzi infection immune response and included groups Methods. 76 cardiac biopsies from 40 hearth recipients undergoing rejection, no rejection and Trypanosoma cruzi infection recurrence. of genes involved in innate and adaptive Biopsies were routinely performed during follow-up and additional immunity, antigen presentation, cytokine binding and chemotaxis and upregulated biopsies were taken where rejection was suspected. The authors both in rejection and in infection samples. reanalyzed the data from Cleveland (Kidney) Stanford (Kidney) Immunoglobulin genes were among those and Minneapolis (Lung) datasets. Expression of selected genes most up-regulated suggesting that B cells may were confirmed by RT-PCR have a local effect at the site of inflammation. Energy metabolism pathways were also downregulated in both pathologies. However the Authors found a set of genes that discriminated between rejection and infection. The authors found high agreement , using their predictors set, with the histology of the other three studies in kidneys

Aim and methods

(continued)

Affymetrix Human Saint-Mezard et al. Aim. To identify a robust and reliable molecular signature for Acute This work identifies a consistent molecular signature for renal acute allograft rejection Genome U133 Plus (2009) (Paris) Rejection in human in biopsies. Between the three data-sets, 2.0g > 38,000 Genes Methods. 16 patients (adults), 18 biopsies. 47 renal biopsies for Kidney (biopsies) (Paris, Stanford, Cleveland, NHP, including clinical indications from 45 patients: patients with AR or CAN 36 AR, 3 borderline, 32 non rejecting (chronic allograft nephropathy or borderline) were analyzed. and 34 nontransplanted control samples) Mean time of biopsy after transplantations differed between a common transcriptional profile of 70 groups (3–53 months) represented genes was characterized. This As controls, normal kidney tissue was obtained from transcriptional profile, defined as acute histopathologically unaffected areas of the cortex of native rejection transcripts set (ARTS) strongly nephrectomies performed for renal carcinoma. This dataset correlates with the severity of Banff AR (Paris) was compared with two public human datasets: (1) types. However the ARTS scores correlate Stanford° dataset and (2) Cleveland dataset and with one Non with the lesion intensity of interstitial Human Primate (NHP) model of acute renal allograft. However, inflammation, tubulitis and vasculitis in a the authors used 143 biopsy microarray data from University of very similar way to the PBTs defined by the Alberta (Edmont dataset) as in independent confirmation set Edmont’s group. Indeed, most of the genes constituting the ARTS are associated to antigen presenting cells (e.g., CD52, CD163, MHCs), CTLs (e.g., CD 8, Granzyme A), or IFN-g responses (e.g., CCL5, CXCL9, STAT-1). The relationship between the ARTS and IFN-g signaling is further supported by a functional transcriptional analysis using MetaCore, which identifies the most significant regulatory networks centered on STAT-1, IRF-1. PU.1 and NF-kB were other transcription factors that regulate most significantly the genes represented in the ARTS

 

Array

Aim and methods Results

a

BOS bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome; PBLs peripheral blood lymphocyte; qRT-PCR quantitative real time protein chain reaction Affymetrix GeneChip HU6800 Array containing >7,000 oligonucleotide probe sets representing ~6,400 human genes (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA) b Atlas human cDNA microarrays ~588 gene analyzed c In-house microarrays containing >28,000 cDNA probes representing >12,000 genes (Lymphochip, Stanford University) d Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array containing >22,000 oligonucleotide probe sets representing >18,000 transcripts (~14,500 human genes) (Affymetrix) e Affymetrix GeneChip HG-U95Av2 Array containing ~12,000 oligonucleotide probes representing ~10,000 human genes f In-house oligonucleotide array platform designed by Qiangen/Operon (Alameda, CA) and printed at NIAID Microarray Facility, representing ~14,000 human genes g Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array containing >54,000 oligonucleotide probe sets representing >47,000 transcripts (~38,500 human genes) (Affymetrix)

This study meticulously investigates the Mueller et al. (2007) Affymetrix Human Aim. To analyze pathogenesis based transcripts (PBT, previously relationship between transcript sets, Genome U133 Plus (Edmont) defined in mouse kidney transplants and confirmed in cell which represent major biologic event, 2.0g > 38,000 Genes Kidney (biopsies) cultures by the same group) in human kidney transplants biopsies and histopathological lesions and clinical for clinical indications diagnoses on a global scale not done before. Methods. PBTs representing three biologic processes were PBTs correlated with histopathological previously developed: (1) CATs (cytotoxic lymphocyte associated lesions and were the highest in biopsies transcripts); (2) GRIT (IFN-g transcripts); (3) KT (parenchymal with clinically apparent rejection episodes. deterioration causing loss of kidney transcript). 109 patients. 143 Surprisingly, antibody mediated rejection had biopsies for clinical indications obtained between 1 week and 20 changes similar to T-cell mediated rejection. years posttransplant (median 19 months). Results were validated Biopsies lacking PBT disturbances did not in 51 additional biopsies. As controls, normal kidney tissue was have rejection. Expression of selected genes obtained from histopathologically unaffected areas of the cortex (CD8A, GZMB, CXCL9, CXCL11 and of native nephrectomies performed for renal carcinoma FAB1) was confirmed by qRT-PCR

References (dataset) Organ (samples)

Table 1  (continued)

Table 2  Key Genes associated with acute allograft rejection in human microarray studies

Akalin et al. (2001) Organ: kidney CXCL9a C3a CD18 MIP-3b ISGF-3 MCL1a a a (ITGB2 ) (CCL19a) (STAT1 ) Tannapfel et al. (2001) Organ: liver IL3 MMP9 TGFB1-3 TIMP1 TNF-2 CLUSTERIN Sreekumar et al. (2002) Organ: liver C1QB C3 LIPC GZMB HSPA1A IGF1 HLA-I HLA-II PCK1 SELPG TGFB1 TNF CTPS UBE2N ADAM17 GYS2 Sarwal et al. (2003) (STANFORD dataset) Organ: kidney HLA-A HLA-B HLA-C HLA-E HLA-DR HLA-DQ TCR DARC C4B CXCL9 SCYA3 (CCL3) SCYA5 (CCL5) CD53 NFKB1 NK4 CX3CR1 GZMA STK17B STAT1 CASP10 IFNGR1 IGHG3 IGKC IGL Gimino et al. (2003); Lande et al. (2007) (MINNEAPOLIS dataset) Organ: lung C4B CCR7 CD28 CD3E CD84 CTLA4 IGKC ITK KIR PRF1 STAT4 IL2RA Flechner et al. 2004 (CLEVELAND dataset) Organ: kidney C1QB CCL5 CD14 CD163 TRB@ CD16 CD53 CD64 CD8 CDW52 CXCR4 GZMA IL4R ISG20 PKR RAGE4 TNFRSF1b Karason et al. 2006  Organ: heart C3 C4A CXCL9 CXCL10 GBP1 HLA-C PSME2 RARRES3 STAT1 (IRF9a) TNFSF10

HLA-DMB4 SCYA2 (CCL2) IL2RB LENG-4 GZMK Zap-70 CD27 IFI30

HLA-J

HLA-DMA CCR5 IL6R IGHM CXCR3 IL2RB CD2 HLA-F

HLA-F

IGFBP4

CD3D IL10RA

GZMA LCK-kinase

TGFBR2 CD20 IL15R CD59

STAT1 UBB

RING4 (TAP1a) TCR-Bb

IL2 TNFAIP3

IL-10

NNMTa

(continued)

NPPA

CD48 IL10RB

IFNG

TGFR1 PERFORIN IL16 VCAM1

ACADM UBA1

IL2-SFc (LCP1a)

Table 2  (continued)

CG012 FLJ11151 HSPC043 KIAA1348 PAK4 SMG1

CD48 GBP2 HLA-DQB1 IL10RA NMI SERPING1 WARS CXCL11 LILRB1 XCL2

CD74 FLJ11106 HSD17B7 KIAA1257 NT5C2 SLC14A2 WSX1

CD44 GBP1 HLA-DPA1 IGHM MMP7 RUNX3 UBE2L6 CXL10 LCP2 XCL1

FAM26F NLRC5

CD52 GMFG HLA-DQB2 ISG20 PLEK SLA WFDC2

CHD3 FLJ11467 HSPC129 LIAS PCDHGA8 SORL1

GBP1 PSMB9

CD53 GZMA HLA-DRA ITGB2 PLSCR1 STAT1 T3JAM

CORO1A FY IGKC LOC90586 PSCD4 STAT1

List of 50 key genes often described as upregulated in human microarrays allograft rejection studies (highlighted in bright green): C1QB, C3, C4B, CASP1, CCL4, CCL5, CD14, CD3D, CD3E, CD53, CD8A, CXCL9, CXCL10, GBP1, GBP2, GZMA, GZMB, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DMA, HLA-DMB, HLADPA1, HLA-DQB1, HLADQB2, HLA-DRA, HLA-DRB3, HLA-DRB4, HLA-E, HLA-F, HLA-G, IFI30, IFITM1, IGKC, IL10RA, IL2RB, ITGB2, LCP2, MMP7, PRF1, PSMB8, PSMB9, RARRES3, STAT1, TAP1, TIMP1, TNF, TRB@, UBD, UBE2LS, WARS This table reports genes associated with acute allograft rejection detected by microarrays technology analyzing human graft samples (bronchoalveolar lavage for lung samples biopsies for the others). Comprehensive lists of relevant upregulated genes, in according with the original publication, are reported for the following studies: Akalin et al., Tannapfel et al., Sreekumar et al., Karason et al. (genes most frequently upregulated during the rejection episode and returned to baseline levels with its resolution, Reeve et  al. (genes most frequently represented in the predictive analysis for microarrays classifier),

Morgun et al. 2006 (SAN PAULO dataset) Organ: heart + lung + kidney Prediction analysis (SAN PAULO+ MINNEAPOLIS+STANFORD+CLEVELAND datasets) ABCA7 BTN3A3 C1QA CCL18 CCL5 CD14 CTSS D21S2056E ZNRD1 F2R FKBP14 FLJ10244 GMFG HA-1 HLA-DMA HLA-DRB3 HLA-E HLA-F ITGB2 KCNJ5 KCNK6 KIAA0924 KIAA1030 KIAA1170 LOC92033 LTB MAFF MSH3 NM23-H6 NPHP1 RAB7L1 RARRES3 RASGRP2 RBL1 RIMS1 RU2 SULT1A3 TAPBP TRB@ UBE2B UBE2L6 UCP2 Saint-Mezard et al. (2008); Saint-Mezard et al. (2009) (PARIS dataset) Organ: kidney Comparative analysis (PARIS+STANFORD+CLEVELAND+non humanprimates datasets) ARHGDIB ARPC2 CASP1 CASP4 CCL5 CD163 CD8A CSPG2 CXCL10 CXCL9 FCER1G FER1L3 HCK HCLS1 HLA-B HLA-C HLA-DMA HLA-DMB HLA-DRB3 HLA-E HLA-F HLA-G IFI30 IFITM1 LAPTM5 LCK LCP1 LCP2 LTF LYZ PRG1 PRKCB1 PSMB10 PSMB8 PSMB9 RAC2 TAP1 TCIRG1 TIMP1 TNC TNFRSF7 UBD Reeve et al. 2009 (EDMONT dataset) Organ: kidney APOBEC3G CCL4 CCL5 CD8A CRTAM CXCL9 GBP2 GBP4 GBP5 GZMA GZMB INDO PTPRC SLAMF7 TAP1 TLR8 UBD WARS

316 D. Bedognetti

Saint-Mezard et al.; Morgun et al.: we reported the upregulated genes selected from the list of 98 genes belonged to the first predictor set that discriminate acute cardiac, renal and lung rejection from non rejection. CCL5 belonged to the second prediction set. Sarwal et al.: we selected key genes from the list of genes upregulated in three different subtypes of acute allograft rejection see also Monsfield et al. 2004 and Weintraub et al. 2006. Gimino et al. and Lande et al.: we selected key genes from a list of genes reported as upregulated during acute rejection according to the first (Gimino et al.) and second (Lande et  al.) analyses. Flechner et  al.: we selected key genes a list of genes upregulated in acute rejection samples compared to samples without diagnosis of rejection Others upregulated genes included in the original list were: Morgun et al.: Homo sapiens cDNA FLJ10266 fis, clone HEMBB1001024; Homo sapiens cDNA FLJ10580 fis, clone NT2RP2003533, mRNA sequence; Homo sapiens cDNA FLJ10981 fis, clone PLACE1001610; Homo sapiens mRNA, cDNA DKFZp434P1019; Homo sapiens mRNA; cDNA DKFZp564P073; Homo sapiens mRNA; cDNA DKFZp586H0718; Homo sapiens mRNA; cDNA DKFZp761G0924; Homo sapiens mRNA; cDNA DKFZp761P221; DKFZP434B033; Unknown (protein for IMAGE:4251653) [Homo sapiens], mRNA sequence; Unnamed protein product [Homo sapiens]. Karason et al.: Homo sapiens Alu repeat (LNXI) mRNA sequence. Reeve et al.: affymetrix id 235529_at and 238725_at a Gene symbols, according with Gene Bank or Affymetrix id reported in the original publications are provided in the brackets b The original name reported in the publication was: TCR Active b-chain related gene (MI2886: unsnopped) c The original name reported in the publication was: IL-2-stimulated phosphoprotein d The original name reported in the publication was: ubiquitin

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection 317

Fig. 1  First two Networks according to Ingenuity Pathways Analysis software (http://wwwingenuity. com), representing schematic relations among some genes upregulated in acute allograft rejection. The gene list uploaded was represented by 50 key transcripts commonly described in human microarrays studies (see Table 2). The genes from the aforementioned list are represented with brightgreen background. Red border: IFN-g stimulated genes (for this purpose genes upregulated in peripheral monocytes after IFN-g stimulation were selected). (a) The first Network focuses on HLAs, TNF-a, and IFN-g. (b) The second Network focuses on STAT-1, NF-kB, CXCR3 ligands (CXCL9 and CXCL10) and CCR5 ligands (CCL4 and CCL5). The bold line indicate direct interaction, the dotted one indicates indirect interaction

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

319

study also suggested that a tight communication between cells of innate and adaptive immunity might play a central role in the acute rejection process. This was underlined, among others, by the over-expression of two pathways associated with the switch from innate to adaptive immunity such as IFN-g and CXCR3/CXCL9 pathways (Wang et al. 2008). Several other studies would be needed before these initial genomic hints about the acute rejection process, could find further confirmation and, eventually, be explained. Interferon-g (IFN-g) pathway – IFN-g is a pleiotropic cytokine and plays a complex role in the modulation of many aspects of the immune response. Studies conducted involving IFN-g−/− mice suggested that this cytokine, in addition to its proinflammatory functions, might be important for the graft acceptance, preventing early graft necrosis and maintaining microvascular viability (Hidalgo et al. 2002, 2005). However, the molecular mechanisms through which it exerts these antiinflammatory actions during the early phases of the engraftment are unclear. IFN-g is produced predominantly by NK cells as part of the innate immune response, and by CD4 T helper 1 cells (Th1) and CD8 cytotoxic T cells (CTLs) once antigen-specific immunity develops (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Schoenborn and Wilson 2007). Its over expression has been also observed in acute allograft rejection in several human studies where RT-PCR was applied (Gimino et al. 2003; Kirk et al. 1995; Moudgil et al. 1999; Nast et al. 1994). Microarray studies allowed to detect not only the expression of IFN-g gene but also the consequence of its downstream effects, e.g., by detecting genes over expressed following IFN-g stimulation (IFN-g stimulated genes). Nevertheless, the simple detection of IFN-g stimulated genes is not enough to discriminate its effect from the effect of other molecules, due to the induction of many IFN-g stimulated genes even by other cytokines, such as IFN-a (de Veer et al. 2001), which also could be involved in the mechanism of acute rejection. However, the detection of IFN-g transcripts (Kirk et al. 1995; Moudgil et al. 1999; Nast et al. 1994; Lande et  al. 2002), the flurry of IFN-g stimulated genes described in several microarrays studies (Reeve et al. 2009; Sarwal et al. 2003; Flechner et al. 2004; Akalin et al. 2001; Gimino et al. 2003; Lande et al. 2002; Sreekumar et al. 2002), and the display of genes/signaling pathways that, directly or indirectly, enhance the INF-g loop (e.g., TNF-a, CCR5 pathway and CXCR3 pathway as described later), rank the IFN-g as a driving pathway sustaining acute allograft rejection (Reeve et  al. 2008, 2009; Mueller et al. 2007; Sarwal et al. 2003; Lande et al. 2002; Saint-Mezard et al. 2009). Although for each individual IFN-g stimulated genes, some functions have been described; their overall orchestration is not completely understood. A partial description of the relations among frequently described IFN-g stimulated genes detected in microarrays studies is illustrated in Fig. 1a, b. IFN-g, primarily through interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF-1, see also Sect. “Comparative Analyses and Role of STAT-1/IRF-1 and NF-kB”), upregulates both MHC class I and II, by increasing, for example, the expression of antigen peptide transporters TAP1-2, or class I transactivator CIITA, respectively (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Ramassar et al. 1996; Goes et al. 1996). Indeed, IFN-g promotes the differentiation of naïve T CD4 cells into Th1 cells, which are, among the lineage of

320

D. Bedognetti

CD4 T cells (Th1, Th2, Th17 and T Reg) the only ones that produce a consistent amount of IFN-g (Schoenborn and Wilson 2007; Zhu and Paul 2008). This cytokine in turn, and usually in synergy with tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), induces the expression of CXCR3 ligands (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Ramsey et  al. 2008; Yeruva et al. 2008) and CCR5 ligands (Liu et al. 2005). CXCR3/CXCR3 ligands (CXCL9, -10, and 11) and CCR5/CCR5 ligands (CCL3, -4, and -5) – CXCR3 ligands and CCR5 ligands are the chemokine most frequently described as upregulated during acute allograft rejection in human studies performed by microarrays (Reeve et al. 2009; Sarwal et al. 2003; Flechner et al. 2004; Akalin et al. 2001; Karason et al. 2006) or RT-PCR (Zhao et al. 2002; Fahmy et al. 2003; Belperio et al. 2000, 2002, 2003; Melter et al. 2001) (see also Table 2). Accordingly, the upregulation of CXCR3 and CCR5, has been also often described (Reeve et  al. 2009; Sarwal et  al. 2003; Zhao et  al. 2002; Fahmy et  al. 2003; Gimino et al. 2003; Belperio et al. 2003; Melter et al. 2001). Of interest, in clinical trials evaluating the presence of the proteins encoded by the above mentioned genes, high urinary CXCR3 ligands levels were found elevated in patients that experienced acute kidney rejection urinary (Schaub et al. 2009; Hauser et al. 2005; Hu et al. 2004; Tatapudi et al. 2004). Indeed, CCR5 delta 32 polymorphism, that encodes for a non functional CCR5 receptor, resulted in highly reduced risk of acute rejection in kidney (Fischereder et al. 2001) and liver transplantation (Heidenhain et al. 2009). The driving role of these two pathways in allograft rejection was suggested by in vivo models one decade ago (Hancock et al. 2000, 2001, 2003; Gao et al. 2001). The lack of host CCR5 caused a threefold increase in allograft survival rate, but the targeting of any of the three main ligands using knockout mice or monoclonal antibodies had no effect on allograft survival (Gao et al. 2003). Conversely, a significant improvement in survival was observed in CXCL10−/− recipients (Hancock et al. 2001), and the lack of CXCR3 led to accept the graft indefinitely (Hancock et al. 2000). However, this supposed non redundant effect of CXCR3 that has been assumed as correct for almost 10 years, is today object of debate (Halloran and Fairchild 2008). Recently, in fact, three independent studies reported that disruption or blockade of recipient CXCR3 had relatively little effect on rejection (Haskova et al. 2007; Kwun et al. 2008; Zerwes et al. 2008). Here, we will try to illustrate the hypothetic role of these two pathways during the alloresponse. Upon antigen stimulation, the co-expression of CXCR3 and CCR5 is a marker of Th1 cell polarization, whereas CCR3, CCR4, CCR8, and CRTh2 are expressed in Th2 cells (Zhu and Paul 2008). The genes/gene pathways frequently over-expressed during acute allograft rejection are consistent with the predominance of Th1 cell polarization. Among CXCR3 and CCR5 ligands, CXCL9-10 and CCL4-5 were the most frequently reported chemokines associated with acute rejection in microarray studies (Reeve et al. 2009; Mueller et al. 2007; Sarwal et al. 2003; Flechner et al. 2004; Akalin et al. 2001; Karason et al. 2006) (see also Table 2). Although CXCL9-10 (through CXCR3) and CCL4 (through CCR5) are specific chemo-attractant factors for Th1 cells, CCL5 (RANTES) is a ligand for both CCR5 and CCR3, therefore involved also in Th2 cell trafficking (Murphy et  al. 2000; Moser et  al. 2004).

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

321

However, this latter positive stimulus on Th2 cells evoked by CCL5, is probably nullified by the action of CXCL9-10, which also have a potent antagonistic activity on CCR3, thereby blocking the migration of CCR3+ cells (Moser et al. 2004). This contributes further to Th1 type immune-response polarization. These chemokines expressed by dendritic cells, activated macrophages and endothelial cells (Zhao et al. 2002; Murphy et al. 2000; Fahmy et al. 2003; Qin et al. 1998; Moser et al. 2004) attract, in addition to the Th1 cells, CTLs and NK cells, since all of them have both CXCR3 and CCR5 receptors (Murphy et al. 2000). The recruitment and activation of these cells leads to an increased production of IFN-g, with consequent amplification of the Th1 cascade. Thus, these molecules contribute to the switch from innate to adaptive immunity, while strengthening the innate cytotoxic mechanisms by sustaining NK responses. Even though up to 25% of circulating B cells express CXCR3 (Qin et al. 1998; Jones et al. 2000), and these cells can also produce CXCR3 ligands (Deola et al. 2008), the recruitment of B cells through this mechanism during acute allograft rejection has not been described yet. Furthermore, this complex cascade of cytokines and the coordinate activation of specific pathways so far described, leads, when tissue destruction occurs, to the activation of immune effector function (IEF) genes (perforin, granzymes A/B, Fas/ Fas ligand and caspases). Immune-effector function genes (IEF) genes – The release of granzymes, perforines and the activation of Fas/Fas ligand and caspases by CTLs and NK cells, represent the major effector mechanism of cell-mediated immunity (Rosado et al. 2007). Before microarray studies, IEF genes have been found upregulated during acute (Sharma et  al. 1996; Strehlau et  al. 1997; Li et  al. 2001), but not chronic (Sharma et al. 1996) kidney rejection by RT-PCR. Transcripts associated with IEFs (i.e., granzyme B) were first detected with the microarray technology (in a broader contest of immune-mediate stimuli) in a study conducted by Sreekumar et al. (2002) who compared the gene expression profiles of eight liver transplants with or without acute cellular rejection during hepatitis C virus infections reactivation. These transcripts would constantly be described as associated with allograft acute rejection in subsequent microarray studies (Sarwal et al. 2003; Flechner et al. 2004; Gimino et al. 2003; Saint-Mezard et al. 2009). Tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), and innate immunity as mechanisms of sustaining or triggering the allograft rejection – In the Sreekumer study (2002), many of the 24 genes overexpressed in the rejection group were associated with innate immunity: TNF-a, ubiquitin, C3, Heat shock protein 70 (HSPA1A, which is the endogenous ligand of Toll-like receptor 4, TLR4 (Matzinger 2002; Vabulas et al. 2002)) and IRF9 (a protein that interacts with STAT-1-2 to form ISGF3, transcription factor of IFN-a (Platanias 2005; Reich and Liu 2006)). These genes suggest also the activation of innate immunity mechanisms, possibly upstream of those previously described as responsible, like CXCR3-ligand chemokines and the activation of IEFs, for the switch from innate to adaptive immunity with production of IFN-g (Wang et al. 2008; Larosa et al. 2007; Akira et al. 2006). Most transcripts upregulated in this study, and several genes described in other acute allograft rejection studies, are either Interferon stimulated genes (ISGs) canonically involved in the IFN-a pathway

322

D. Bedognetti

but most also IFN-g dependent (Fig.  1a, b). Although the activation of ISGs is a mechanism often described in immune-mediated tissue destruction (and does not necessarily require a de novo synthesis of IFNs, (Worschech et al. 2009; Navarro et  al. 1998)), the individual role of IFN-a in the pathogenesis of the allograft rejection is unknown, and mechanicistic studies are lacking. The upregulation of the TNF-a pathway, detected by the Sreekumar study, is another signature often associated with acute allograft rejection (Sreekumar et al. 2002; Tannapfel et al. 2001). This signature is not indicative of acute inflammation, and is usually seen also in chronically inflamed tissues (Wang et al. 2008; MullerLadner et al. 2009; Connolly et al. 2009). Although the process of transformation from an indolent process to an acute one is unknown, it seems plausible that innate stimuli, that lead to increase TNF-a, could contribute to elicit a cascade of events associated with acute response (Wang et  al. 2008). Rather than the increase of TNF-a per se, these stimuli could produce a series of interconnected events, of which TNF-a upregulation might be one of the consequences. For example, the engagement of toll-like-receptors (TLRs), by the endogenous danger-associated molecules (the rise of which can be caused by the intervention itself or by the ischemia-reperfusion injury (Larosa et  al. 2007; Matzinger 2002)), may lead to NF-kB (nuclear factor kappa B) activation and transcription of NF-kB induced genes, among which TNF-a (Bonizzi and Karin 2004). This latter cytokine is a potent activator of NF-kB, thus amplifying a positive loop. Moreover, NF-kB, through the induction of transcription of CXCR3- and CCR5-ligands (Bonizzi and Karin 2004), could trigger and then sustain the IFN-g cascade by promoting the migration of IFN-g-producing Th1 T cells, cytotoxic T cells and NK cells. At the same time, the activation of TLRs on antigen presenting cells (APCs) could also enhance antigen presentation and induce up-regulation of costimulatory molecules, prompting adaptive responses and recruiting CTLs (Akira et al. 2006; Iwasaki and Medzhitov 2004), whit further amplification of the immune response. The important role of innate immunity in the pathogenesis of allograft rejection has been observed in vivo using RAG−/− mice, which lack both T and B cells. He et al. showed that the expression of chemokine receptors and proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-1, CCL3 and CCL4) occurred soon after transplantation and was similar in immunodeficent RAG−/− mice and wild type allogeneic recipients, thereby demonstrating the existence of innate rejection mechanisms independent of adaptive immunity (He et  al. 2002). However, comparing the immune-response between RAG−/− recipients, syngeneic recipients (which lack adaptive immunity) and allogeneic wild type recipients, the same authors showed that expression of markers induced by innate stimuli (e.g., IL-1, IL1-RA, CCR5), were present in RAG−/− mice, and further amplified in the wild type allogeneic but not in syngeneic recipients (He et al. 2003). Thus, this model represented an in vivo demonstration of a positive feedback on innate immunity by the adoptive one (He et  al. 2003). Nevertheless, while the innate (antigen-independent) stimuli can be important in mouse models, the relative weight of this process in humans, compared with the adaptive (antigen-dependent) mechanism, is not completely defined. Intriguingly,

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

323

the fact that kidneys from living donors are accepted more easily than those from cadavers (D’Alessandro et al. 1998) could be explained by the stronger activation of “danger signals” in this latter condition supporting the hypothesis of innateimmunity triggering (Matzinger 2002). In allograft, the continuous and abundant availability of antigens from the surface of donor cells, and the interaction with T and possibly with B cells (directly through interaction of B cell receptor and MHCs), cause a labile condition particularly prone to be easily switched into a destructive acute response. Thus, whether this condition is per se sufficient to determine an acute response (according to the self-non self model) or needs to be prompted (according with the danger model), is object of an ongoing debate (Matzinger 2002; Brent 2003). In conclusion, we could hypothesize that both innate and adaptive mechanisms synergize in generating/ sustaining the immune-response. As a matter of fact, the common presence of such strong stimuli leads almost inevitably to a progressive destructive response, thereby requiring (except for rare cases of spontaneous tolerance than are an interesting object of study (Brouard et al. 2007)) prolonged and deep immunosuppression. Innate mechanisms as the final effectors of allograft rejection – The upregulation of common effector molecular pathways (e.g., CXCR3 and CCR5 pathways and IFN-g pathways) that are able to lead the activation of adaptive and innate immunity suggests that both of them could play a role not only in initiating or sustaining, but also to completing the tissue destruction process. In humans, however, studies analyzing the individual contribution of innate immune cells in mediating the final step of the alloresponse are lacking. NK cells, for example, are present in allograft rejection infiltrates (Andersen et  al. 1994; Meehan et  al. 1997; Kitchens et  al. 2006), but their evaluation through a molecular-gene expression approach has some intrinsic difficulty. A study conducted by Hidalgo et al. (2008) showed that cytolytic NK cells, alloactivated CD4 effector T cells and CTLs have a strictly similar gene expression profile. IEF genes (perforin 1, granzyme B, Fas-ligand), evaluated by microarray and confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR), were highly expressed among the three cell populations, and did not allow to discriminate from one another. In addition, similar transcripts were also found in T effector memory cells. These data can also be interpreted as evidence that different cell phenotypes share common cytotoxic “NK-like” functions. Therefore, the frequent observation of IEF gene upregulation during allograft rejection could mirror the activation of such “NK like” effector function. This also appears to be a convergent molecular mechanism of other immuno-mediated tissue destruction processes (Wang et al. 2008). In animal models, NK cells do not seem to be sufficient to reject solid organs directly since mice that have intact NK cell function but absence of adaptive immunity (RAG−/− or SCID) accept indefinitely skin and cardiac graft transplants (Larosa et al. 2007; Kitchens et al. 2006; Bingaman et al. 2000). However, these findings should not be misunderstood. The inability to reject the graft does not prove that innate cells (in this case NK cells) are unable to mediate tissue destruction. A possible explanation could be that, in these models, the lack of stimuli derived from a reciprocal

324

D. Bedognetti

feed-back between innate and adaptive cells (as previously illustrated), does not allow to trigger or sustain a strong enough “NK like” cytotoxic effector function. Conversely, it has been recently observed that nude mice treated with oncolytic viruses can reject tumor xenografts (Worschech et  al. 2009). This rejection was associated with the activation of ISGs (both IFN-g and IFN-a stimulated genes), upregulation of CXCR3 and CCR5 pathways and activation of IEF genes (granzyme B, caspase 8). Since these mice lack both T and B cells, this immunemediate tissue destruction is supposed to be induced by innate immune effectors such as NK cells and activated macrophages. This study suggests that, at least in this model, innate immunity can be an independent effector of tissue-specific destruction not requiring the adaptive immunity. Complement and allograft – C3 was described as upregulated in the aforementioned Akalin et Sreekumar studies (Akalin et al. 2001; Sreekumar et al. 2002). However, C3 and other complement components (C1 and C4) have been often associated with acute allograft rejection in several other microarray studies, conducted in renal (Flechner et al. 2004), heart (Morgun et al. 2006; Karason et al. 2006) and lung (Gimino et al. 2003) transplants. Recently, interest in the role of the complement as a regulator of the alloresponse is rising (Lin et al. 2007; Sacks et al. 2009; Naesens et al. 2009). In a recent study conducted by Naesens et al. (Stanford group (2009)) the authors observed upregulation, before transplant, of complement genes in deceased donor kidney biopsies, compared to living donor ones. In the same publication, the authors reported a significant overexpression of complement cascade genes (including C1 and C3) comparing 32 acute rejection samples and 20 nonrejection samples obtained from pediatric kidney recipients (Naesens et al. 2009). Complement is the archetypal innate defense mechanism, and provides a vital link between innate and adaptive functions (Lin et al. 2007; Sacks et al. 2003, 2009). Briefly, the central event in complement activation is the proteolysis of C3 (activated by antibodies or microbial cell surfaces) to generate biologically active products that lead to the formation of membrane attack complexes and result in the activation of granulocytes and cell lysis (Lin et al. 2007; Sacks et al. 2003, 2009). Most of the circulating complement is produced by hepatic synthesis; however, the detection of C3 transcription during acute allograft rejection by gene expression profile indicates that local production also occurs. Local sources of complement include endothelial cells, macrophages and neuthrophils, as well as epithelial cells (particularly renal tubular epithelial cells). The molecular pathways that lead, during the alloresponse, to the activation of complement transcription are not completely clear but the activation of NF-kB pathway could play a role in the synthesis of C3 (Lee and Burckart 1998; Schreiber et al. 2006). C3 could also be responsible of the Th1 response observed during the allorejection, directly, sustaining Th1 development (Peng et al. 2006), or by inhibiting Th2 polarization (Kawamoto et  al. 2004). Priming mice with C3 deficient dendritic cells led to delayed skin allograft rejection. In addition, complement can activate B cells and initiate humoral responses (Carroll 2004). Even in kidney transplantation, local renal C3 production leads to faster allograft rejection in animal models (Pratt et  al. 2002; Li et  al. 2004). An opposite results to what has been described so far was reached in three independent studies which analyzed liver

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

325

transplant models. These works found an association between overexpression of C3 and tolerance (Cordoba et al. 2006; Fujino et al. 2004; Pan et al. 2004). Thus, at least in animal models, it is possible to hypothesize the existence of diverse regulatory mechanisms in different organs.

Studies in Heart and Lung Acute Allograft Rejection, and Continuum from Acute to Chronic Rejection Kidney and liver transplants protocols usually do not schedule bioptic assessment in the absence of clinical indication; however, the determination of the health of transplanted hearth needs intense surveillance in the absence of symptoms of organ failure through frequent endo-myocardial biopsies. Biopsies may be obtained at least monthly for the first year after transplantation (Morgun et al. 2006; Karason et al. 2006). A similar situation occurs in lung transplantation, where the follow up is usually performed by serial sampling, consisting of bronchoalveolar lavage and transbronchial biopsies (Gimino et al. 2003; Belperio et al. 2002; 2003). The need for repeated biopsies facilitates the search for biological markers and yields a unique in-depth longitudinal examination of gene expression variations related to the clinical condition. These studies allow not only to compare a cross section of phenotypes (e.g., rejecting vs. tolerant patients) but also to determine intra-individual variations, employing the patients as their own controls. In this context, a microarray study conducted by Karason et al. (2006), involving twenty heart transplant recipients, identified 16 genes that were upregulated during the rejection and returned to baseline after its resolution. Among them, CXCL9 and CXCL10 (CXCR3 ligands) were found. Most other transcripts were IFN-g stimulated genes (HLAs, STAT-1, IGFBP4, PSME2, GBP1), suggesting the activation of these pathways specifically in course of acute rejection (see also Table  2). CXCL9, IFN-g stimulated genes together with CCL5 (CCR5 ligand), were independently described as upregulated during cardiac acute rejection in another microarray study conducted by Morgun et al. (2006) (see also Sect. “Comparative Analyses and Role of STAT-1/IRF-1 and NF-kB”). In the lung microarray study conducted by Gimino et al. (Minneapolis dataset) INF-g, CXCR3 and IEF genes (granzyme A and perforin) were among the genes overexpressed during acute rejection (Gimino et al. 2003; Lande et al. 2002). Thus, this perturbation in gene expression profiling, induced by a complex cascade of cytokine and coordinate activation of specific pathways, shows inter-organ similarities. These data are consistent with the results of other four longitudinal large clinical trials (analyzing altogether more than 400 samples) which investigated, by quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) and/or Immunohistochemistry, the role of CXCR3/CXCR3 ligands (Zhao et al. 2002; Belperio et al. 2002, 2003; Melter et al. 2001) and CCR5/CCR5 ligands (Fahmy et al. 2003; Melter et al. 2001; Belperio et al. 2000) in heart (Zhao et al. 2002; Fahmy et al. 2003; Melter et  al. 2001) and lung transplants (Belperio et  al. 2000, 2002, 2003). Although such approaches do not allow to obtain a comprehensive overview of molecular processes, the combined immunohistochemistry and quantitative RT-PCR

326

D. Bedognetti

(qRT-PCR) analysis are important to confirm microarray data and to establish the individual contribution of different cells to gene expression perturbations. In such way, Zhao et al. (2002) found that, despite the expression by macrophages of all three CXCR ligands (CXCL9, -10 and -11), CXCL10 was primarily expressed by donor vascular cells. This reveals a complex synergistic intertwining between donors and recipients in the recruitment of lymphocytes in to transplanted organ. The detection of CXCR3 even on vascular cells and the association with persistently elevated expression of CXCL9 and CXCL10 in cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), purport a dual role of these chemokines, in either sustaining inflammation, or directly generating morphologic vascular alterations (Zhao et al. 2002). Accordingly, Belperio et al. (2002), examining lung transplants, detected the upregulation of CXCL9, -10 and -11 (evaluated by qRTPCR) in association with acute rejection and bronchiolitis obliterans, underlying a continuum from acute to chronic rejection. Similarly, in renal transplantation, glomerular infiltration by CXCR3+ T cells was associated with the development of chronic allograft nephropathy (Akalin et  al. 2003). Moreover, in a recent microarray study conducted in kidney transplants, CCR5 pathways, IFN-g pathways, and IEFs (granzyme B), were upregulated during tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis (Maluf et al. 2008). These molecular findings fit with previously clinical observation that acute rejection, particularly the low grade one, predisposes to chronic process (Zhao et al. 1995; Kobashigawa et  al. 1995; Arcasoy and Kotloff 1999). Basadonna et  al. (1993), for example, observed that in kidney allograft recipients, patients that experienced acute allograft rejection had less than 1% chances of developing chronic disease as compared with up to 35% in patients who sustained such episode in the first 2 months. It is therefore conceivable that the same pathways that are activated during the acute tissue destruction process, could even mediate chronic processes, directly or through the activation of other pathways, such, for example the tumor grow factor-b (TGF-b) pathway, which is a potent inductor of collagen synthesis and fibroblast proliferation (Demirci et al. 1996; Shihab et al. 1995; Aziz et al. 2000). In allograft, differently from other immuno-mediated rejections (e.g., tumor rejection), the transition from an acute to an indolent process is not spontaneous; since immunosuppression is required to prevent the otherwise unavoidable organ destruction. Nonetheless, according to the above mentioned findings in chronic conditions, even after the clinical resolution of the acute episode, the same molecular pathways, that are responsible for the acute process, can somehow remain active though to a lower degree (Maluf et al. 2008). It is presently unclear if the benefit of pharmacological intervention (or spontaneous tolerance mechanism) is derived by keeping these pathways below a critical activation threshold or by avoiding their coordinated interactions necessary for full activation of the effector arm. Ruster et al. (2004), observed that CCL5 and CCR5 were highly upregulated during acute rejection but lower detectable levels were expressed during chronic allograft nephropathy, supporting the hypothesis that some of the changes leading to rejection may quantitative and not only qualitative. Nevertheless, neither the threshold that these pro inflammatory effect need to reach to cause rejection, nor the triggers that cause their rapid unbalanced activation (required for the re-exacerbation of the acute rejection) are known. Understanding such key questions is one of the remaining big challenges of transplantation immunology.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

327

Acute Allograft Rejection in Heterogeneous Condition and the Emerging Role of B Cells Acute rejection is a heterogeneous condition, with different features in terms of clinical presentation, response to therapy, and pathologic classification. In the previous study on kidney transplantation, the small sample size (Akalin et al. 2001) did not allow the detection of subtle differences. Sarwal et  al. (Stanford group) (2003) studied 50 pediatric transplant patients and analyzed 67 biopsies obtained during an overt episode of acute allograft dysfunction, chronic dysfunction, at the time of the engraftment, or when graft function was stable. The sample size allowed meaningful stratification of cases according to clinical and pathological diagnosis (Tusher et al. 2001). Unsupervised analysis clustered all the acute rejection samples separately from normal kidneys. However, biopsies with diagnosis of acute rejection were molecularly heterogeneous: with some grouping together with histopathologically classified chronic nephropathy, infection or drug toxicity samples. The acute rejection samples that clustered with chronic rejection biopsies over expressed genes involved in cellular proliferation and cell cycling suggesting that active repair and regeneration was occurring despite the histopathology classification of acute rejection. Another group of specimens, with mild form of acute rejection, showed a genomic profile close to that of samples with diagnosis of drug toxicity or infection. Thus, the similar patterns of expression of immune-related genes, including CCL5, CXCL9, CCR5, and other cytokines/cytokine receptors, suggested the activation of common mechanism during the alloresponse against pathogens and allo-antigens. The most populated cluster was represented by samples with an aggressive infiltration of lymphocytes, macrophages and NK-cells. The signature of this severe form of acute rejection was characterized by the activation of the INF-g and NF-kB pathways (e.g., HLAs, STAT-1, IL-2RB, IL-15R), CXCR3/ CCR5 pathways (e.g., CXCL9, CCR5 and CCL5) and the overexpression of IEF genes (granzyme A) (Sarwal et al. 2003; Mansfield and Sarwal 2004). Surprisingly, the authors found, in this cluster also a robust signature related to immunoglobulin production and B-cell presence. B cells – The unexpected of CD20+ B-cell infiltration (suggested by a strong presence of B Cells transcripts and confirmed by immunohistochemistry) in a consistent proportion of biopsy samples deserves discussion (Sarwal et al. 2003). Although ectopic germinal center formation with B-cell activation and plasma cell activation can occur locally in chronically inflamed tissue (Cassese et  al. 2001; Magalhaes et al. 2002), the in situ presence of B cells was not historically reported in acute allograft rejection (Sarwal et al. 2003; Platt et al. 1982; Zarkhin and Sarwal 2008). This CD20+ B cell infiltration, was not associated with intra-graft C4d deposition or with the detection of donor-specific antibodies, indicating that it was not necessarily related with the presence of humoral reaction. The presence of such CD20+ dense clusters in a significant proportion of samples from patients diagnosed with acute allograft rejection would, thereafter, be confirmed by several independent studies (Alausa et al. 2005; Bagnasco et al. 2007; Doria et al. 2006;

328

D. Bedognetti

Hippen et al. 2005; Kayler et al. 2007; Krukemeyer et al. 2004; Tsai et al. 2006; Mengel et al. 2005), with an incidence varying from 15 (Mengel et al. 2005) to 60% (Kayler et  al. 2007). However, the correlation with poor outcome suggested by Sarwal et  al. (2003), was confirmed by some studies (Hippen et  al. 2005; Krukemeyer et al. 2004; Tsai et al. 2006; Martins et al. 2007) but not others (Alausa et al. 2005; Bagnasco et al. 2007; Doria et al. 2006; Kayler et al. 2007; Einecke et al. 2008). B cell transcripts (immunoglobulins) have been detected as up regulated during acute rejection, even in lung and heart transplants (Morgun et  al. 2006; Gimino et al. 2003). The subsequent lineage analysis revealed that CD20+ cells cluster expressed MHC class II antigens and are surrounded by CD4+ T cells, suggesting a putative role of these cells in antigen presentation, driving a T-cell dependent cellular rejection (Zarkhin et  al. 2008). Another cluster of B cells was represented by CD138+ mature plasma cells (Zarkhin et al. 2008). Recently, studies conducted in heart transplantation models, showed that a deficiency in B cell mediated antigen presentation leads to lack in CD4 T cell activation and alloantibody production (Noorchashm et al. 2006). Other in vivo observations pointed to the possible pilot role of B cells in the context of the pathogens (Schultz et  al. 1990; Yang and Brunham 1998) or auto-immune (Cross et  al. 2006) induced T cell response. However, in addition to functioning as antigen presenting cells, B cells may promote T cell mediated rejection. A novel T/B cell interaction, independent of Ag presentation by B cells, has recently been described. Here, B cells play a helper role recruiting T cells in areas of inflammation. As activated, T cells enter into contact with B cells, they are stimulated to proliferate. This interaction between activated T and B cells leads to the release of chemo-attractant cytokines such as CXCR3 ligands by B cells, which may act on the corresponding receptor expressed by activated T cells (Deola et al. 2008). These chemokines, as described before, play an important role trafficking CTLs and NK cells into the graft. Finally, targeting B cells, is now emerging as possible new therapeutic perspective, and the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody Rituximab, seems to be a promising drug for the treatment of antibody-mediated and cell-mediated acute allograft rejection (Sarwal et al. 2007; Becker et al. 2006).

Other Studies in Kidneys Acute Allograft Rejection, Role of IL-10, and Molecular Analogies Among Cellular and Humoral Rejection Before Sarwal’s study (2003), allograft microarray study analyses were based on the dichotomy separating samples with or without diagnosis of rejection. Since spontaneous and long term graft acceptance is rarely observed in solid organ transplantation (Brouard et  al. 2007), patients are routinely treated with immunosuppressive drugs and, therefore, the independent effects of the suppressive regimen

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

329

cannot be easily discerned. Furthermore, no normal autologous or heterologous kidney biopsies are available (Akalin et al. 2001; Sreekumar et al. 2002). Aware of these limitations, Flechner et al. (Cleveland dataset) (2004), conducted a study in adults kidney recipients following a study design similar to that implemented in pediatric patients by Sarwal et  al. The authors analyzed 31 allograft-samples including a control group of normal kidney specimens collected from living donors. Unsupervised analysis clustered in separate groups donor samples, biopsies from transplant patients with normal kidney function, and those from patients with acute rejection. However, it was not possible to distinguish acute rejection samples from samples with acute dysfunctions without such a diagnosis, underlining similarities among different mechanisms of acute inflammation. Supervised analysis compared samples from transplant recipients with stable organ function (treated with immunosuppressive drugs) to normal donor kidneys. The largest group within the immune/inflammatory genes upregulated in the well-functioning transplants was histocompatibility antigens, consistently with the hypothesis of an ongoing but low-grade immune response. Nevertheless, the concurrent presence of TNF-a, IFN-g pathway, chemokines (e.g., CCL5) and IEFs (granzyme A) was detectable only in the acute rejection group, in accordance with the hypothesis that, when a strong destructive response occurs, it is characterized by a coordinate activation of these pathways. Interestingly, IL-10 receptor alpha (IL-10RA) upregulation would be later confirmed by a comparative analysis of three independent human acute allograft rejection microarray-datasets (Saint-Mezard et al. 2009). Interleukin 10 (IL-10) – Although the canonical effects of IL-10 are regulatory limiting and ultimately terminating the inflammatory process (Moore et al. 2001), this cytokine cannot be merely classified as anti-inflammatory due to its pleiotropic ability of influencing positively and negatively the function of innate and adaptive immunity in preclinical models (Mocellin et  al. 2003, 2004, 2005). In humans, intravenous administration of recombinant IL-10 produces proinflammatory effects by enhancing the release of IFN-g, TNF-a and IL-1 and appears to induce the activation of CTLs and NK cells, as reflected by increased plasma levels of granzyme-B (Tao et al. 2001; Lauw et al. 2000). In human monocyte lineage cells, IL-10 increases the expression of TLR, which might sensitize these cells to “danger signal” mediators. This suggests an important role of this cytokine in the early phase of the acute immune response. Systemic administration of IL-10 exacerbates allo-reactions in murine models (Qian et al. 1996; Li et al. 1997), and, accordingly, the administration of anti-IL-10 monoclonal antibody prolongs graft survival (Li et al. 1998). In addition, by inhibiting APCs maturation and postponing their migration to lymphnodes, this cytokine might lead to a more efficient antigen loading and might activate locally adaptive effectors (Mocellin et al. 2003, 2004, 2005). In humans, posttransplant levels of IL-10 were associated with risk of kidney acute rejection (Karczewski et al. 2009) and IL-10 transcript was described as upregulated during acute rejection in liver transplant recipients (Tannapfel et  al. 2001). Finally, an association between acute rejection and homozygosity for specific IL-10 polymorphisms has been reported in kidney transplants (Grinyo et al. 2008).

330

D. Bedognetti

Molecular analogies between cellular and humoral rejection – A different analysis approach was attempted by the Edmont’s group researchers (Reeve et al. 2009; Mueller et al. 2007; Einecke et al. 2005; Famulski et al. 2006). First, they defined a priori three major biological processes in allograft rejection: cytotoxic T cell infiltration (CAT), interferon-g effects (GRIT) and parenchymal deterioration causing loss of kidney transcripts (KT) (Einecke et al. 2005; Famulski et al. 2006). Thereafter, they used mouse transplants and cultured cells to annotate the corresponding three pathogenesis-based transcripts and correlated their relationships with histopathological lesions and clinical diagnosis in humans (Mueller et  al. 2007; Einecke et al. 2005; Famulski et al. 2006). The investigators assigned to each sample a score (disturbance) based on the presence and upregulation (compared to normal control) of genes associated with the three processes. Analyzing 143 samples, the authors found that the score they created had a strong quantitative but not qualitative correlation with lesion phenotype (Banff histopathological score) (Mueller et al. 2007). In fact, although biopsies with histopathological diagnosis of acute rejection had elevated scores, whether categorized as antibody-mediated and cellular-mediated rejection, displayed similar expression patterns demonstrating cytotoxic T cell infiltration and Interferon-g affect transcripts. Activation of IEF genes such perforin, granzyme B, and Fas ligand, occurred in T cell-mediated rejection but also in antibody-mediated rejection (Reeve et al. 2009; Mueller et al. 2007). This observation suggests that effector T cells and antibodies lead to activation of a common final pathway of tissue destruction. Moreover, cells of innate immunity such as NK cells, which produce IFN-g and release granzyme and perforin, can also be recruited by complement and Fc receptor, representing another commonality between cellular and antibody mediated tissue destruction. In a subsequent study, the same authors analyzed in detail the gene expression profile associated with allograft rejection (Reeve et al. 2009). Among the top 100 genes significantly upregulated in acute rejection samples (compared to nonrejected samples) most (93%) were cytotoxic T cell infiltration transcripts and interferon-g transcripts. Furthermore, they built a classifier to distinguish rejection from non rejecting samples using predictive analysis for microarray (Tibshirani et al. 2002). As showed in Table 2, most of the genes selected by this analysis can be incorporated in the pathways previously described, namely IFN-g pathway (GBP2, PSMB9 TAP1), CXCR3 pathway (CXCL 9, -10 and 11), CCR5 pathway (CCL4 and CCL5), and IEFs pathway (granzyme A and granzyme B) (Reeve et al. 2009).

Comparative Analyses and Role of STAT-1/IRF-1 and NF-kB The comparative analysis between different microarray datasets is difficult for several reasons. (i) Microarrays used in the different studies cover a different range of genes, according to the platform utilized. (ii) The procedures employed for data collection, as well as the tools for data processing and statistical analysis differ greatly among laboratories. (iii) The methods of sample collection vary strongly

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

331

among pathologies: whereas, for example, heart and kidney studies are performed directly using biopsies of the target tissue, lung gene expression analyses are often carried out with specimens derived from bronchoalveolar lavage (Gimino et  al. 2003; Lande et  al. 2002). (iv) The design of the studies, as well as the samples selected as a control are frequently different (e.g., healthy organ rather than transplanted grafts without histopathological alterations). (v) Uniform database designs are absent with consequent frequent difficulties in retrieving patients clinical data. In spite of these technical differences, cross comparison of data sets has been remarkably revealing (Morgun et  al. 2006; Saint-Mezard et  al. 2009), probably because of the highly conserved molecular patterns associated with immunemediated tissue destruction. The first comparative analysis was performed by Morgun et al. (Morgun et al. 2006) who, after identifying a gene sets predictive of acute-rejection in a series of hearth allograft recipients, analyzed the data from two published studies on kidney (Stanford (Sarwal et al. 2003) and Cleveland (Flechner et  al. 2004) databases) and lung (Minneapolis database (Gimino et  al. 2003)) transplants. The authors observed a striking agreement with the histological diagnosis of the three studies. The predictive accuracy of the gene set obtained from studying hearts was close to 95% in kidney and lung acute rejection underlining the similarity among pathways activated in different damaged organ transplants. Similarly to what observed in kidney transplants (Sarwal et  al. 2003), B cell transcripts (immunoglobulins) were among those most up regulated, suggesting that B cells may have a local effect also in heart rejection. Another interesting finding was the similar pattern of immuno-response gene expression (antigen presentation, innate immunity, chemotaxis, immunoglobulins and cytokines) among samples with diagnosis of acute rejection vs. infection. Here, the gene expression of rejection transplant recipients was similar to that of patients with Trypanosoma cruzi infection (which represents a frequent cause of chronic heart failure and consequently of heart transplant in Latin America, where the study was conducted). Again, the immuno-mediated process at the root of the two types of tissue destruction, namely allograft rejection and infection, pin pointed the activation of common pathways, as previously suggested by Sarwal et al. (2003). A more systematic comparative analysis has been recently conducted by SaintMezard et al. This group reanalyzed the data from the two aforementioned Stanford (Sarwal et al. 2003) and Cleveland (Flechner et al. 2004) kidney datasets, comparing those with their own, which consisted of human and nonhuman primate kidney acute rejection biopsies. By doing so the authors analyzed 36 acute rejection samples, identifying 70 genes that systematically upregulated during acute allograft rejection. Importantly, the authors validate successfully their findings using 143 microarrays from Edmont dataset (Mueller et al. 2007). Most of these genes were associated with antigen presenting cells (e.g., CD52, CD163, HLAs), IEFs activation (granzyme A, caspases), CCR5 and CXCR3 pathways (CCL5 and CXCL9-10, respectively), and IFN-g response (e.g., STAT-1, IFI30, PSMB 8-9-10, GBP1). These genes recapitulated a scenario often seen in other immune-mediate rejection processes (e.g., tumor rejection, pathogen clearance, graft vs. host disease) (Wang et  al. 2008). This strengthens the concept of the immunologic-constant of rejection.

332

D. Bedognetti

Utilizing GeneGo Meta Core algorithms (a web-based suite for functional analysis of experimental data (https://portal.genego.com/ez.html)) STAT-1, Interferon Regulatory Factor (IRF-1), Nuclear Factor Kappa B (NF-kB), and PU.1 (a transcription factor involved in the in the development of myeloid and lymphoid cells (Bonadies et al. 2010)) were identified as the main transcription factors that regulated the 70 genes consistently represented in the three aforementioned kidney studies. Similarly, we identified the same transcription factors regulating a set of 50 key-genes represented in most of the microarray studies so far performed, including also other genes detected in liver, lung and heart transplants (Fig. 2a, b). We must however underline that the analysis we conducted is of a strictly explorative nature, aimed mainly at understanding the possible interconnections of the genes so far discovered, and far from being a complete and exhaustive metanalysis of the existing literature. With these limitations, the first two networks generated by such analyses were centered on STAT-1 (p value = 8.50 × 10−58) and IRF-1 (p value = 2.34 × 10−47) followed by a network centered on RELA (NF-kB p 65 subunit, p value = 2.46 × 10−32). The relationship among different protein–protein interactions, activation of transcription factors, and functional response are often difficult to establish because there are complex and based on incompletely understood relationship among signaling pathways. In simplistic terms, in alloresponse, NF-kB reflects a constitutive activation of innate immunity (e.g., TNF-a pathway), and IRF-1 super imposes a switch toward the adaptive one (trough IFN-g pathway). As described in Sect. “Early Studies in Kidney and Liver Acute Allograft Rejection and the Detection of Recurrent Themes,” these two pathways can amplify each other, and can also collaborate in inducing the transcription of common genes. For example, IFN-g through IRF-1 and TNF-a (through NF-kB) can synergize in promoting the overexpression of common genes such as CXR3 ligands (Yeruva et al. 2008) and CCR5 ligands (Bonizzi and Karin 2004). Figure 3 summarizes a likely reciprocal enhancement of function between the NF-kB and the STAT-1/IRF-1 pathway during allograft rejection. Beyond the function of master regulator of innate immunity, NF-kB is also important in driving the adaptive response. In fact, it plays a key role in IL-2 and TCR signaling, and in the regulation of immunoglobulin production (Lee and Burckart 1998). It is noteworthy that most of the drugs effective in the treatment and/or prevention of acute allograft rejection (e.g., glucocorticoids, cyclosporine and tacrolymus), interact with NF-kB pathway, resulting in reduced production of several cytokines such as IL-2 and TNF-a (Lee and Burckart 1998). Accordingly, NF-kB activity impairment leads to an attenuation of acute rejection in heart (Finn et al. 2001; Basil et al. 2006; Tiao et al. 2005), lung (Ohmori et al. 2005) and skin (Zhou et al. 2003) animal models. The in depth description of the NF-kB pathway, is beyond our purposes and will therefore not be covered here. We will conclude our chapter providing a brief description of the other master of inflammation: IRF-1. Interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF-1) – IRF-1 is an inducible second generation IFN-g transcription factor and is it transcribed in response to IFN-g via STAT-1 (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Honda and Taniguchi 2006). This transcription factor

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

333

Fig.  2  Transcription regulatory network analysis according to Meta Core algorithms (https:// portal.genego.com/ez.html). The gene list uploaded was represented by 50 key transcripts often described as upregulated in human microarray studies (see Table 2). This analysis generates subnetworks centered on transcription factors. These sub-networks are ranked by a p-value. The first two networks (a) were centered on STAT-1 (p = 8.50 × 10−58) and IRF-1 (p = 2.34 × 10−47) The third network (b) was centered on RELA (NF-kB p65 subunit) (p = 2.46 × 10−32). Line colors indicate inhibition (red), activation (green) and no clear link (gray)

334

D. Bedognetti

Fig.  3  Possible mechanism of reciprocal enhancing between innate and adaptive immunity, through NF-kB system and STAT-1/IRF-1-pathway. This sketch is built according to genes often described as upregulated during acute allograft rejection in human studies. NF-kB can be activated by a variety of inflammatory stimuli. For example, the engagement of toll-like-receptors (TLRs) by the endogenous danger-associated molecules may lead to NF-kB activation and transcription of NF-kB induced genes, among which also TNF-a. This latter chemokine is itself a potent activator of NF-kB, thus forming an amplifying feed forward loop. Indeed, NF-kB, through the induction of transcription of CXCR3- and CCR5-ligands (e.g., CXCL9, -10 and CCL5 respectively), engages Th1 cells, CTLs and NK cells, since all of them express CXCR3 and CCR5. These cells in turn produce IFN-g with consequent activation of the STAT-1/IRF-1 pathway, that leads to further production of chemoattractant CCR5 and CXCR3 ligands with amplification of the IFN-g response. Furthermore, IRF-1 can also induce the TNF-a production, with further amplification of the loop

could mediate the upregulation of several genes/gene pathways during acute allograft rejection, as showed in Fig. 2a. Genes upregulated by IRF-1 include proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., TNF-a (Vila-del Sol et  al. 2008)), chemokines (e.g., CXCL10 (Ramsey et al. 2008; Yeruva et al. 2008), CCL5 (Liu et al. 2005)), and MHC class I and class II molecules (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Penninger et al. 1997). It could also drive the synthesis of IL-10 RA (Ramsey et al. 2008). Another important proinflammatory function of this gene consists in the induction of IL-12 (Taki et al. 1997) and IL-15 (Ogasawara et al. 1998) with consequent enhancement of the IFN-g cascade. IRF-1 has been better described in relationship to tumor rejection (Wang et al. 2002). In a study conducted in melanoma patients by Wang et al. (2002), IRF-1 was the most significantly and consistently upregulated transcript in metastatic melanoma lesions undergoing clinical regression after the systemic administration of

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

335

high-dose interleukin-2. IRF-1 appeared to play a central role in orchestrating the immune-concert, generating the switch from chronic to acute inflammation in that and several subsequent studies (see Chap. “Immune Mediated Tumor Rejection” by Wang and Marincola). Regarding the allograft, although statistical algorithms recognize IRF-1 as one of the main transcription factors that regulate genes involved in acute allograft rejection, it should be noted that its overexpression per se has not been yet identified in human microarray studies. Thus, these data must be interpreted with care. Nevertheless, STAT-1 has been nearly always described as upregulated during acute allograft rejection (see Table 2), suggesting the regulation of IRF-1 through the IFN-g/STAT-1 pathway as a plausible phenomenon. In a recent microarray study in mice liver transplant models, IRF-1 was one of the two genes overexpressed both in leukocytes and in graft during acute cellular rejection (together with GBP2, an other IFN-g inducible gene) (Hama et al. 2009). Accordingly, other groups have reported an association between IRF-1 and acute cellular rejection in heart transplant models (Stegall et al. 2002; Erickson et al. 2003). On the other hand, other authors have reported STAT-1/IRF-1 pathway to be upregulated in tolerant models (Cordoba et al. 2006; Fujino et al. 2004). In order to explain these findings, the investigators proposed the induction of T cells apoptosis by IFN-g signaling (Cordoba et al. 2006): STAT-1/IRF1 are transcripts involved also in the induction of apoptosis via a caspase-mediated mechanism (Kroger et al. 2002) (see also Fig. 2a). Thus, it is likely that IRF-1 plays a different role according to the independent coactivation of different pathways, which can greatly differ from cells to cells but can also vary with changes in the surrounding environment (Kroger et al. 2002). Although IRF-1 seems to be primarily regulated by IFN-g signaling (Honda and Taniguchi 2006), in vivo and in vitro observations suggested that IRF-1 regulation does not necessarily require the intervention of such cytokine. Indeed, IRF-1 has been observed in response to IL-2 stimulation in vitro (Jin et al. 2007) and in the absence of IFNs upregulation in animal models (Worschech et al. 2009). In addition, IRF-1−/− mice have defects not seen in IFN-g or IFN-g- receptor−/− animals (such as alterations in CD8+ T cells and thymocyte development), supporting the existence of an IRF-1, IFN-g-independent activation pathway (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Matsuyama et al. 1993). Viceversa, even supposing a central role for this protein in the induction of proinflammatory mediators, a recent microarray study in heart transplanted mice suggested that IRF-1 functions could be bypassed by other mediators (Erickson et al. 2004). In this latter cited study the authors showed that the expression profile of the allograft from IRF-1−/− mice and wild type mice were nearly identical to each other and very different from the profile of isograft control.

Conclusions Some of the pathways thought to be central during acute allograft rejection have been described in this chapter. Most of the pathways analyzed (IFN-g/STAT-1/IRF-1 path, CXCR3/CXCR3 ligands path, CCCR5/CCR5 ligands path, and IEFs path) have also been associated with other immune-mediated processes, underlining the

336

D. Bedognetti

existence of common molecular convergent mechanisms (Wang et  al. 2008; Bedognetti et al. 2010), but it is clear that many other signaling molecules are also involved in generating the allo-response. Even if the pathways analyzed are consistently observed in humans, experiments in animal models failed to demonstrate them as necessary or sufficient for the development of rejection, in concordance with the high redundancy of mammalian immune system (Hidalgo and Halloran 2002; Kwun et al. 2008; Zerwes et al. 2008; Zhou et al. 2003). Moreover, some of the genes associated with acute rejection seem also to play a role in tolerance models (e.g., STAT-1/IRF-1 (Cordoba et  al. 2006; Fujino et  al. 2004)), stressing the pleiotropism of such molecules, as well as reminding us of the complexity of their networks. Moreover, although their current presence is often associated with acute rejection, these genes are also overexpressed, to a various degree, in chronic inflammation (Zhao et al. 2002; Belperio et al. 2002; Maluf et al. 2008; Ruster et al. 2004). Thus, the codes that govern the balance between tolerance and rejection, as well as the events than can suddenly induce the switch from an indolent process into an acute one are still far from being decrypted. Nevertheless, we can conclude that, when an immune-mediated tissue destruction occurs, common pathways are activated in a coordinate fashion (Wang et al. 2008; Bedognetti et al. 2010). In conclusion, we hope we contributed a description of how tissue specific destruction occurs. The understanding of the why is one of the more intriguing and big challenges of modern human immunology. Acknowledgments  I would like to say thanks to Dr. Gabriele Zoppoli, MD and Prof. Alessandro Materietti not only for their useful suggestions and comments, but, especially, for their outstanding friendship. A special thanks to my Mentor (and friend!), Prof. Mario Roberto Sertoli, MD.

References Akalin E, Hendrix RC, Polavarapu RG, Pearson TC, Neylan JF, Larsen CP et al. Gene expression analysis in human renal allograft biopsy samples using high-density oligoarray technology. Transplantation 2001;72(5):948–53. Akalin E, Dikman S, Murphy B, Bromberg JS, Hancock WW. Glomerular infiltration by CXCR3+ICOS+ activated T cells in chronic allograft nephropathy with transplant glomerulopathy. American Journal of Transplantation 2003;3(9):1116–20. Akira S, Uematsu S, Takeuchi O. Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell 2006;124(4): 783–801. Alausa M, Almagro U, Siddiqi N, Zuiderweg R, Medipalli R, Hariharan S. Refractory acute kidney transplant rejection with CD20 graft infiltrates and successful therapy with rituximab. Clinical Transplantation 2005;19(1):137–40. Alon U, Barkai N, Notterman DA, Gish K, Ybarra S, Mack D et al. Broad patterns of gene expression revealed by clustering analysis of tumor and normal colon tissues probed by oligonucleotide arrays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1999;96(12):6745–50.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

337

Andersen CB, Ladefoged SD, Larsen S. Acute kidney graft-rejection – a morphological and immunohistological study on zero-hour and follow-up biopsies with special emphasis on cellular infiltrates and adhesion molecules. APMIS 1994;102(1):23–37. Arcasoy SM, Kotloff RM. Lung transplantation. N Engl J Med 1999;340(14):1081–91. Aziz T, Hasleton P, Hann AW, Yonan N, Deiraniya A, Hutchinson IV. Transforming growth factor beta in relation to cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2000;119(4):700–7. Bagnasco SM, Tsai W, Rahman MH, Kraus ES, Barisoni L, Vega R et al. CD20-positive infiltrates in renal allograft biopsies with acute cellular rejection are not associated with worse graft survival. American Journal of Transplantation 2007;7(8):1968–73. Balin SJ, Platt JL, Cascalho M. Noncognate function of B cells in transplantation. Transplant International 2009;22(6):593–8. Basadonna GP, Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Payne WD, Dunn DL, Sutherland DER et  al. Early versus late acute renal-allograft rejection – impact on chronic rejection. Transplantation 1993;55(5):993–5. Basil CF, Zhao YD, Zavaglia K, Jin P, Panelli MC, Voiculescu S et al. Common cancer biomarkers. Cancer Research 2006;66(6):2953–61. Becker YT, Samaniego-Picota M, Sollinger HW. The emerging role of rituximab in organ transplantation. Transplant International 2006;19(8):621–8. Bedognetti D, Wang E, Sertoli MR, Marincola FM. Gene-expression profiling in vaccine therapy and immunotherapy of cancer. Expert Rev Vaccines 2010;9(6):555–565. Belperio JA, Burdick MD, Keane MP, Xue YY, Lynch JP, Daugherty BL et al. The role of the CC chemokine, RANTES, in acute lung allograft rejection. Journal of Immunology 2000;165(1):461–72. Belperio JA, Keane MP, Burdick MD, Lynch JP, Xue YY, Li KW et al. Critical role for CXCR3 chemokine biology in the pathogenesis of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Journal of Immunology 2002;169(2):1037–49. Belperio JA, Keane MP, Burdick MD, Lynch JP, Zisman DA, Xue YY et  al. Role of CXCL9/ CXCR3 chemokine biology during pathogenesis of acute lung allograft rejection. Journal of Immunology 2003;171(9):4844–52. Billingham RE, Brent L, Medawar PB. Actively acquired tolerance of foreign cells. Nature 1953;172(4379):603–6. Billingham RE, Brent L, Medawar PB. Quantitative studies on tissue transplantation immunity .2. The origin, strength and duration of actively and adoptively acquired immunity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 1954;143(910):58–80. Bingaman AW, Ha J, Waitze SY, Durham MM, Cho HR, Tucker-Burden C et  al. Vigorous allograft rejection in the absence of danger. Journal of Immunology 2000;164(6):3065–71. Bittner M, Meitzer P, Chen Y, Jiang Y, Seftor E, Hendrix M et al. Molecular classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma by gene expression profiling. Nature 2000;406(6795): 536–40. Bonadies N, Neururer C, Steege A, Vallabhapurapu S, Pabst T, Mueller BU. PU.1 is regulated by NF-kappaB through a novel binding site in a 17 kb upstream enhancer element. Oncogene 2010;29(7):1062–72. Bonizzi G, Karin M. The two NF-kappa B activation pathways and their role in innate and adaptive immunity. Trends in Immunology 2004;25(6):280–8. Brent L. The 50th anniversary of the discovery of immunologic tolerance. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(14):1381–3. Brouard S, Mansfield E, Braud C, Li L, Giral M, Hsieh SC et al. Identification of a peripheral blood transcriptional biomarker panel associated with operational renal allograft tolerance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007;104(39):15448–53. Carroll MC. The complement system in B cell regulation. Molecular Immunology 2004;41(2–3):141–6.

338

D. Bedognetti

Cassese G, Lindenau S, de Boer B, Arce S, Hauser A, Riemekasten G et al. Inflamed kidneys of NZB/W mice are a major site for the homeostasis of plasma cells. European Journal of Immunology 2001;31(9):2726–32. Connolly MK, Bedrosian AS, Clair JMS, Mitchell AP, Ibrahim J, Stroud A et al. In liver fibrosis, dendritic cells govern hepatic inflammation in mice via TNF-alpha. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2009;119(11):3213–25. Cordoba SP, Wang CM, Williams R, Li J, Smit L, Sharland A et al. Gene array analysis of a rat model of liver transplant tolerance identifies increased complement C3 and the STAT-1/IRF-1 pathway during tolerance induction. Liver Transplantation 2006;12(4):636–43. Cross AH, Stark JL, Lauber J, Ramsbottom MJ, Lyons JA. Rituximab reduces B cells and T cells in cerebrospinal fluid of multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2006;180(1–2):63–70. D’Alessandro AM, Pirsch JD, Knechtle SJ, Odorico JS, Van der Werf WJ, Collins BH et al. Living unrelated renal donation: The University of Wisconsin experience. Surgery 1998;124(4):604–11. de Veer MJ, Holko M, Frevel M, Walker E, Der S, Paranjape JM et al. Functional classification of interferon-stimulated genes identified using microarrays. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 2001;69(6):912–20. Deng MC, Eisen HJ, Mehra MR, Billingham M, Marboe CC, Berry G et al. Noninvasive discrimination of rejection in cardiac allograft recipients using gene expression profiling. American Journal of Transplantation 2006;6(1):150–60. Deola S, Panelli MC, Maric D, Selleri S, Dmitrieva NI, Voss CY et al. Helper B cells promote cytotoxic T cell survival and proliferation independently of antigen presentation through CD27/CD70 interactions. Journal of Immunology 2008;180(3):1362–72. Doria C, di Francesco F, Ramirez CB, Frank A, Iaria M, Francos G et al. The presence of B-cell nodules does not necessarily portend a less favorable outcome to therapy in patients with acute cellular rejection of a renal allograft. Transplantation Proceedings 2006;38(10): 3441–4. Einecke G, Melk A, Ramassar V, Zhu LF, Bleackley RC, Famulski KS et al. Expression of CTL associated transcripts precedes the development of tubulitis in T-cell mediated kidney graft rejection. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(8):1827–36. Einecke G, Reeve J, Mengel M, Sis B, Bunnag S, Mueller TF et  al. Expression of B cell and immunoglobulin transcripts is a feature of inflammation in late allografts. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(7):1434–43. Erickson LM, Pan F, Ebbs A, Kobayashi M, Jiang HS. Microarray-based gene expression profiles of allograft rejection and immunosuppression in the rat heart transplantation model. Transplantation 2003;76(3):582–8. Erickson L, Crews G, Pan F, Fisniku O, Jang MS, Wynn C et al. Unique gene expression profiles of heart allograft rejection in the interferon regulatory factor-1-deficient mouse. Transplant Immunology 2004;13(3):169–75. Fahmy NM, Yamani MH, Starling RC, Ratliff NB, Young JB, McCarthy PM et al. Chemokine and chemokine receptor gene expression indicates acute rejection of human cardiac transplants. Transplantation 2003;75(1):72–8. Famulski KS, Einecke G, Reeve J, Ramassar V, Allanach K, Mueller T et  al. Changes in the transcriptome in allograft rejection: IFN-gamma-induced transcripts in mouse kidney allografts. American Journal of Transplantation 2006;6(6):1342–54. Finn PW, Stone JR, Boothby MR, Perkins DL. Inhibition of NF-kappa B-dependent T cell activation abrogates acute allograft rejection. Journal of Immunology 2001;167(10):5994–6001. Fischereder M, Luckow B, Hocher B, Wuthrich RP, Rothenpieler U, Schneeberger H et al. CC chemokine receptor 5 and renal-transplant survival. Lancet 2001;357(9270):1758–61. Flechner SM, Kurian SM, Head SR, Sharp SM, Whisenant TC, Zhang J et al. Kidney transplant rejection and tissue injury by gene profiling of biopsies and peripheral blood lymphocytes. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(9):1475–89.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

339

Fujino M, Kitazawa Y, Kawasaki M, Funeshima N, Kimura H, Nakajima T et al. Differences in lymphocyte gene expression between tolerant and syngeneic liver grafted rats. Liver Transplantation 2004;10(3):379–91. Gao W, Faia KL, Csizmadia V, Smiley ST, Soler D, King JA et al. Beneficial effects of targeting CCR5 in allograft recipients. Transplantation 2001;72(7):1199–205. Gao P, Zhou XY, Yashiro-Ohtani Y, Yang YF, Sugimoto N, Ono S et al. The unique target specificity of a nonpeptide chemokine receptor antagonist: selective blockade of two Th1 chemokine receptors CCR5 and CXCR3. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 2003; 73(2):273–80. Gimino VJ, Lande JD, Berryman TR, King RA, Hertz MI. Gene expression profiling of bronchoalveolar lavage cells in acute lung rejection. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2003;168(10):1237–42. Goes N, Hobart M, Ramassar V, Halloran PF. Role of IFN-gamma and IRF-1 in injury-induced and basal MHC class I and II expression. Faseb Journal 1996;10(6):2184. Gorer PA. The role of antibodies in immunity to transplanted leukaemia in mice. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 1942;54(1):51–65. Grinyo J, Vanrenterghem Y, Nashan B, Vincenti F, Ekberg H, Lindpaintner K et al. Association of four DNA polymorphisms with acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplant International 2008;21(9):879–91. Halloran PF, Fairchild RL. The puzzling role of CXCR3 and its ligands in organ allograft rejection. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(8):1578–9. Hama N, Yanagisawa Y, Dono K, Kobayashi S, Marubashi S, Nagano H et al. Gene expression profiling of acute cellular rejection in rat liver transplantation using DNA microarrays. Liver Transplantation 2009;15(5):509–21. Hancock WW, Lu B, Gao W, Csizmadia V, Faia K, King JA et al. Requirement of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 for acute allograft rejection. Journal of Experimental Medicine 2000;192(10):1515–9. Hancock WW, Gao W, Csizmadia V, Faia KL, Shemmeri N, Luster AD. Donor-derived IP-10 initiates development of acute allograft rejection. Journal of Experimental Medicine 2001;193(8):975–80. Hancock WW, Wang LQ, Ye QR, Han RX, Lee I. Chemokines and their receptors as markers of allograft rejection and targets for immunosuppression. Current Opinion in Immunology 2003;15(5):479–86. Haskova Z, Izawa A, Contreras AG, Flynn E, Boulday G, Briscoe DM. Organ-specific differences in the function of MCP-1 and CXCR3 during cardiac and skin allograft rejection. Transplantation 2007;83(12):1595–601. Hauser IA, Spiegler S, Kiss E, Gauer S, Sichler O, Scheuermann EH et al. Prediction of acute renal allograft rejection by urinary monokine induced by IFN-gamma (MIG). Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2005;16(6):1849–58. He HZ, Stone JR, Perkins DL. Analysis of robust innate immune response after transplantation in the absence of adaptive immunity. Transplantation 2002;73(6):853–61. He HZ, Stone JR, Perkins DL. Analysis of differential immune responses induced by innate and adaptive immunity following transplantation. Immunology 2003;109(2):185–96. Heidenhain C, Pulhl G, Moench C, Lautem A, Neuhaus P. Chemokine receptor 5 delta 32 mutation reduces the risk of acute rejection in liver transplantation. Annals of Transplantation 2009;14(3):36–44. Hidalgo LG, Halloran PF. Role of IFN-gamma in allograft rejection. Critical Reviews in Immunology 2002;22(4):317–49. Hidalgo LG, Urmson J, Ramassar V, Halloran PF. IFN-gamma directly modulates lymphocyte cytotoxicity. Faseb Journal 2002;16(5):A1086. Hidalgo LG, Urmson J, Halloran PF. IFN-gamma decreases CTL generation by limiting IL-2 production: A feedback loop controlling effector cell production. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(4):651–61.

340

D. Bedognetti

Hidalgo LG, Einecke G, Allanach K, Halloran PF. The transcriptome of human cytotoxic T cells: Similarities and disparities among allostimulated CD4(+) CTL, CD8(+) CTL and NK cells. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(3):627–36. Hippen BE, DeMattos A, Cook WJ, Kew CE, Gaston RS. Association of CD20+infiltrates with poorer clinical outcomes in acute cellular rejection of renal allografts. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(9):2248–52. Honda K, Taniguchi T. IRFs: master regulators of signalling by Toll-like receptors and cytosolic pattern-recognition receptors. Nature Reviews Immunology 2006;6(9):644–58. Horwitz PA, Epstein JA, Lepore JJ, Parmacek MS, Kao AC, Desai S et al. Novel predictors of cardiac allograft rejection determined by peripheral blood gene expression. Circulation 2003;108(17):389. https://portal.genego.com/ez.html. 2010. Hu HZ, Aizenstein BD, Puchalski A, Burmania JA, Hamawy MM, Knechtle SJ. Elevation of CXCR3-binding chemokines in urine indicates acute renal-allograft dysfunction. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(3):432–7. Iwasaki A, Medzhitov R. Toll-like receptor control of the adaptive immune responses. Nature Immunology 2004;5(10):987–95. Jin P, Wang E, Provenzano M, Stroncekl D, Marincoial FM. Gene expression signatures of interleukin-2 in  vivo and in  vitro and their relation to anticancer therapy. Critical Reviews in Immunology 2007;27(5):437–48. Jones D, Benjamin RJ, Shahsafaei A, Dorfman DM. The chemokine receptor CXCR3 is expressed in a subset of B-cell lymphomas and is a marker of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2000;95(2):627–32. Karason K, Jernas M, Hagg DA, Svensson PA. Evaluation of CXCL9 and CXCL10 as circulating biomarkers of human cardiac allograft rejection. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2006;6:29. Karczewski J, Karczewski M, Wiktorowicz K, Glyda M. Cytometric analysis of Th1/Th2 cytokines in the urine of patients prior to the kideny transplantation. Transplant International 2009;22:145. Kawamoto S, Yalcindag A, Laouini D, Brodeur S, Bryce P, Lu B et al. The anaphylatoxin C3a downregulates the Th2 response to epicutaneously introduced antigen. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2004;114(3):399–407. Kayler LK, Lakkis FG, Morgan C, Basu A, Blisard D, Tan HP et al. Acute cellular rejection with CD20-positive lymphoid clusters in kidney transplant patients following lymphocyte depletion. American Journal of Transplantation 2007;7:357. Kirk AD, Bollinger RR, Finn OJ. Rapid, comprehensive analysis of human cytokine messengerRNA and its application to the study of acute renal-allograft rejection. Human Immunology 1995;43(2):113–28. Kitchens WH, Uehara S, Chase CM, Colvin RB, Russell PS, Madsen JC. The changing role of natural killer cells in solid organ rejection and tolerance. Transplantation 2006;81(6):811–7. Kobashigawa JA, Miller L, Yeung A, Hauptman P, Ventura H, Wilensky R et al. Does acute rejection correlate with the development of transplant coronary artery disease? A multicenter study using intravascular ultrasound. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 1995;14(6):S221–26. Kreisel D, Krupnick AS, Gelman AE, Engels FH, Popma SH, Krasinskas AM et  al. Nonhematopoietic allograft cells directly activate CD8(+) T cells and trigger acute rejection: An alternative mechanism of allorecognition. Nature Medicine 2002;8(3):233–9. Kroger A, Koster M, Schroeder K, Hauser H, Mueller PP. Activities of IRF-1. Journal of Interferon and Cytokine Research 2002;22(1):5–14. Krukemeyer MG, Moeller J, Morawietz L, Rudolph B, Neumann U, Theruvath T et al. Description of B lymphocytes and plasma cells, complement, and chemokines/receptors in acute liver allograft rejection. Transplantation 2004;78(1):65–70. Kwun J, Hazinedaroglu SM, Schadde E, Kayaoglu HA, Fechner J, Hu HZ et al. Unaltered graft survival and intragraft lymphocytes infiltration in the cardiac allograft of Cxcr3(−/−) mouse recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(8):1593–603.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

341

Lande JD, Patil J, Li N, Berryman TR, King RA, Hertz MI. Novel insights into lung transplant rejection by microarray analysis. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007;4(1):44–51. Larosa DF, Rahman AH, Turka LA. The innate immune system in allograft rejection and tolerance. Journal of Immunology 2007;178(12):7503–9. Lauw FN, Pajkrt D, Hack CE, Kurimoto M, van Deventer SJH, van der Poll T. Proinflammatory effects of IL-10 during human endotoxemia. Journal of Immunology 2000;165(5):2783–9. Le Moine A, Goldman M, Abramowicz D. Multiple pathways to allograft rejection. Transplantation 2002;73(9):1373–81. Lee JI, Burckart GJ. Nuclear factor kappa B: important transcription factor and therapeutic target. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1998;38(11):981–93. Li W, Lu L, Li Y, Fu F, Fung JJ, Thomson AW et al. High-dose cellular IL-10 exacerbates rejection and reverses effects of cyclosporine and tacrolimus in mouse cardiac transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1997;29(1–2):1081–2. Li W, Fu F, Lu L, Narula SK, Fung JJ, Thomson AW et al. Systemic administration of anti-interleukin-10 antibody prolongs organ allograft survival in normal and presensitized recipients. Transplantation 1998;66(12):1587–96. Li BG, Hartono C, Ding RC, Sharma VK, Ramaswamy R, Qian B et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of renal-allograft rejection by measurement of messenger RNA for perforin and granzyme B in urine. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;344(13):947–54. Li K, Patel H, Farrar CA, Hargreaves REG, Sacks SH, Zhou WD. Complement activation regulates the capacity of proximal tubular epithelial cell to stimulate alloreactive T cell response. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2004;15(9):2414–22. Li L, Ying LH, Naesens M, Xiao WZ, Sigdel T, Hsieh S et al. Interference of globin genes with biomarker discovery for allograft rejection in peripheral blood samples. Physiological Genomics 2008;32(2):190–7. Lin T, Zhou WD, Sacks SH. The role of complement and Toll-like receptors in organ transplantation. Transplant International 2007;20(6):481–9. Liu JG, Guan XQ, Ma XJ. Interferon regulatory factor 1 is an essential and direct transcriptional activator for interferon gamma-induced RANTES/CC15 expression in macrophages. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2005;280(26):24347–55. Magalhaes R, Stiehl P, Morawietz L, Berek C, Krenn V. Morphological and molecular pathology of the B cell response in synovitis of rheumatoid arthritis. Virchows Archiv 2002;441(5): 415–27. Maluf DG, Mas VR, Archer KJ, Yanek K, Gibney EM, King AL et  al. Molecular pathways involved in loss of kidney graft function with tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis. Molecular Medicine 2008;14(5–6):276–85. Mansfield ES, Sarwal MM. Arraying the orchestration of allograft pathology. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(6):853–62. Martins HL, Silva C, Martini D, Noronha IL. Detection of B lymphocytes (CD20(+)) in renal allograft biopsy specimens. Transplantation Proceedings 2007;39(2):432–4. Matsuyama T, Kimura T, Kitagawa M, Pfeffer K, Kawakami T, Watanabe N et al. Targeted disruption of IRF-1 Or IRF-2 results in abnormal type-I IFN gene induction and aberrant lymphocyte development. Cell 1993;75(1):83–97. Matzinger P. The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science 2002;296(5566):301–5. Medawar PB. The behaviour and fate of skin autografts and skin homografts in rabbits. Journal of Anatomy 1944;78:176–99. Meehan SM, McCluskey RT, Pascual M, Preffer FI, Anderson P, Schlossman SF et al. Cytotoxicity and apoptosis in human renal allografts: Identification, distribution, and quantitation of cells with a cytotoxic granule protein GMP-17 (TIA-1) and cells with fragmented nuclear DNA. Laboratory Investigation 1997;76(5):639–49. Melter M, Exeni A, Reinders MEJ, Fang JC, McMahon G, Ganz P et  al. Expression of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 and its ligand IP-10 during human cardiac allograft rejection. Circulation 2001;104(21):2558–64.

342

D. Bedognetti

Mengel M, Bogers J, Bosmans JL, Seron D, Moreso F, Carrera M et al. Incidence of C4d stain in protocol biopsies from renal allografts: Results from a multicenter trial. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(5):1050–6. Mitchison NA. passive transfer of transplantation immunity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 1954;142(906):72–87. Mocellin S, Panelli MC, Wang E, Nagorsen D, Marincola FM. The dual role of IL-10. Trends in Immunology 2003;24(1):36–43. Mocellin S, Panelli M, Wang E, Rossi CR, Pilati P, Nitti D et  al. IL-10 stimulatory effects on human NK cells explored by gene profile analysis. Genes and Immunity 2004;5(8):621–30. Mocellin S, Marincola FM, Young HA. Interleukin-10 and the immune response against cancer: a counterpoint. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 2005;78(5):1043–51. Moore KW, Malefyt RD, Coffman RL, O’Garra A. Interleukin-10 and the interleukin-10 receptor. Annual Review of Immunology 2001;19:683–765. Morgun A, Shulzhenko N, Perez-Diez A, Diniz VZ, Sanson GF, Almeida DR et al. Molecular profiling improves diagnoses of rejection and infection in transplanted organs. Circulation Research 2006;98(12):E74–83. Moser B, Wolf M, Walz A, Loetscher P. Chemokines: multiple levels of leukocyte migration control. Trends in Immunology 2004;25(2):75–84. Moudgil A, Bagga A, Toyoda M, Nicolaidou E, Jordan SC, Ross D. Expression of gamma-IFN mRNA in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid correlates with early acute allograft rejection in lung transplant recipients. Clinical Transplantation 1999;13(2):201–7. Mueller TF, Einecke G, Reeve J, Sis B, Mengel M, Jhangri GS et al. Microarray analysis of rejection in human kidney transplants using pathogenesis-based transcript sets. American Journal of Transplantation 2007;7(12):2712–22. Muller-Ladner U, Alten R, Heiligenhaus A, Kekow J, Koletzko S, Mrowietz U et al. “TRECID”, TNF alpha related chronic inflammatory diseases – a new multiple diseases bridging concept. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 2009;134(42):2132–6. Murphy PM, Baggiolini M, Charo IF, Hebert CA, Horuk R, Matsushima K et  al. International union of pharmacology. XXII. Nomenclature for chemokine receptors. Pharmacological Reviews 2000;52(1):145–76. Nacht M, Ferguson AT, Zhang W, Petroziello JM, Cook BP, Gao YH et  al. Combining serial analysis of gene expression and array technologies to identify genes differentially expressed in breast cancer. Cancer Research 1999;59(21):5464–70. Naesens M, Li L, Ying LH, Sansanwal P, Sigdel TK, Hsieh SC et al. Expression of complement components differs between kidney allografts from living and deceased donors. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2009;20(8):1839–51. Nast CC, Zuo XJ, Prehn J, Danovitch GM, Wilkinson A, Jordan SC. Gamma-interferon geneexpression in human renal-allograft fine-needle aspirates. Transplantation 1994;57(4): 498–502. Navarro L, Mowen K, Rodems S, Weaver B, Reich N, Spector D et al. Cytomegalovirus activates interferon immediate-early response gene expression and an interferon regulatory factor 3-containing interferon-stimulated response element-binding complex. Molecular Biology of the Cell 1998;9:357A. Noorchashm H, Reed AJ, Rostami SY, Mozaffari R, Zekavat G, Koeberlein B et  al. B cellmediated antigen presentation is required for the pathogenesis of acute cardiac allograft rejection. Journal of Immunology 2006;177(11):7715–22. Ogasawara K, Hida S, Azimi N, Tagaya Y, Sato T, Yokochi-Fukuda T et al. Requirement for IRF-1 in the microenvironment supporting development of natural killer cells (vol 391, pg 700, 1998). Nature 1998;392(6678):843. Ohmori K, Takeda S, Miyoshi S, Minami M, Nakane S, Ohta M et al. Attenuation of lung injury in allograft rejection using NF-kappa B decoy transfection - novel strategy for use in lung transplantation. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 2005;27(1):23–7. Pan TL, Wang PW, Huang CC, Goto S, Chen CL. Expression, by functional proteomics, of spontaneous tolerance in rat orthotopic liver transplantation. Immunology 2004;113(1):57–64.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

343

Peng Q, Li K, Patel H, Sacks SH, Zhou WD. Dendritic cell synthesis of C3 is required for full T cell activation and development of a Th1 phenotype. Journal of Immunology 2006;176(6):3330–41. Penninger JM, Sirard C, Mittrucker HW, Chidgey A, Kozieradzki I, Nghiem M et al. The interferon regulatory transcription factor IRF-1 controls positive and negative selection of CD8(+) thymocytes. Immunity 1997;7(2):243–54. Platanias LC. Mechanisms of type-I- and type-II-interferon-mediated signalling. Nature Reviews Immunology 2005;5(5):375–86. Platt JL, Lebien TW, Michael AF. Interstitial mononuclear cell-populations in renal graft-rejection – identification by monoclonal-antibodies in tissue-sections. Journal of Experimental Medicine 1982;155(1):17–30. Pos Z, Selleri S, Spivey TL, Wang JK, Liu H, Worschech A et al. Genomic scale analysis of racial impact on response to IFN-alpha. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010;107(2):803–8. Pratt JR, Basheer SA, Sacks SH. Local synthesis of complement component C3 regulates acute renal transplant rejection. Nature Medicine 2002;8(6):582–7. Qian SG, Li W, Li YP, Fu FM, Lu LN, Fung JJ et al. Systemic administration of cellular interleukin-10 can exacerbate cardiac allograft rejection in mice. Transplantation 1996;62(12):1709–14. Qin SX, Rottman JB, Myers P, Kassam N, Weinblatt M, Loetscher M et  al. The chemokine receptors CXCR3 and CCR5 mark subsets of T cells associated with certain inflammatory reactions. Journal of Clinical Investigation 1998;101(4):746–54. Ramassar V, Urmson J, Hobart M, Goes N, Halloran PF. Class II transactivator (CIITA) mediates the in vivo induction of class II in mouse tissues. Faseb Journal 1996;10(6):2262. Ramsey SA, Klemm SL, Zak DE, Kennedy KA, Thorsson V, Li B et al. Uncovering a macrophage transcriptional program by integrating evidence from motif scanning and expression dynamics. Plos Computational Biology 2008;4(3). Reeve J, Einecke G, Kaplan B, Halloran PF. A microarray-based classifier for diagnosing rejection in kidney transplants: The top diagnostic genes for rejection are interferon-gamma induced. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8:246. Reeve J, Einecke G, Mengel M, Sis B, Kayser N, Kaplan B et al. Diagnosing rejection in renal transplants: a comparison of molecular- and histopathology-based approaches. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(8):1802–10. Reich NC, Liu L. Tracking STAT nuclear traffic. Nature Reviews Immunology 2006;6(8):602–12. Rosado CJ, Buckle AM, Law RHP, Butcher RE, Kan WT, Bird CH et al. A common fold mediates vertebrate defense and bacterial attack. Science 2007;317(5844):1548–51. Ruster M, Sperschneider H, Funfstuck R, Stein G, Grone HJ. Differential expression of betachemokines MCP-1 and RANTES and their receptors CCR1, CCR2, CCR5 in acute rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy of human renal allografts. Clinical Nephrology 2004;61(1):30–9. Sacks SH, Chowdhury P, Zhou WD. Role of the complement system in rejection. Current Opinion in Immunology 2003;15(5):487–92. Sacks S, Lee Q, Wong W, Zhou W. The role of complement in regulating the alloresponse. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 2009;14(1):10–5. Saint-Mezard P, Berthier CC, Zhang H, Hertig A, Kaiser S, Schumacher M et  al. Analysis of independent microarray datasets of renal biopsies identifies a robust transcript signature of acute allograft rejection. Transplant International 2009;22(3):293–302. Sanchez-Sanchez N, Riol-Blanco L, de la Rosa G, Puig-Kroger A, Garcia-Bordas J, Martin D et  al. Chemokine receptor CCR7 induces intracellular signaling that inhibits apoptosis of mature dendritic cells. Blood 2004;104(3):619–25. Sarwal M, Chua MS, Kambham N, Hsieh SC, Satterwhite T, Masek M et al. Molecular heterogeneity in acute renal allograft rejection identified by DNA microarray profiling. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(2):125–38. Sarwal M, Zarkhin V, Mohile S, Kambham N, Li L, Martin J et al. Randomized trial of rituximab vs. standard of care for B cell dense acute renal transplant rejection. American Journal of Transplantation 2007;7:287.

344

D. Bedognetti

Schaub S, Nickerson P, Rush D, Mayr M, Hess C, Golian M et al. Urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels correlate with the extent of subclinical tubulitis. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(6):1347–53. Schoenborn JR, Wilson CB. Regulation of interferon-gamma during innate and adaptive immune responses. Advances in Immunology 2007;96:41–101. Schreiber J, Jenner RG, Murray HL, Gerber GK, Gifford DK, Young RA. Coordinated binding of NF-kappa B family members in the response of human cells to lipopolysaccharide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006;103(15):5899–904. Schultz KR, Klarnet JP, Gieni RS, Hayglass KT, Greenberg PD. The role of B-Cells for invivo T-Cell responses to a friend virus-induced leukemia. Science 1990;249(4971):921–3. Sharma VK, Bologa RM, Li BG, Xu GP, Lagman M, Hiscock W et al. Molecular executors of cell death differential intrarenal expression of Fas ligand, Fas, granzyme B, and perforin during acute and/or chronic rejection of human renal allografts. Transplantation 1996;62(12):1860–6. Shihab FS, Yamamoto T, Nast CC, Cohen AH, Noble NA, Gold LI et al. Transforming growthfactor-beta and matrix protein expression in acute and chronic rejection of human renalallografts. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1995;6(2):286–94. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, Haas M, Sis B, Mengeld M et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(4):753–60. Sreekumar R, Rasmussen DL, Wiesner RH, Charlton MR. Differential allograft gene expression in acute cellular rejection and recurrence of hepatitis C after liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 2002;8(9):814–21. Starzl TE. Medawar,Peter,Brian – father of transplantation. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 1995;180(3):332–6. Stegall M, Park W, Kim D, Kremers W. Gene expression during acute allograft rejection: novel statistical analysis of microarray data. American Journal of Transplantation 2002;2(10):913–25. Strehlau J, Pavlakis M, Lipman M, Shapiro M, Vasconcellos L, Harmon W et al. Quantitative detection of immune activation transcripts as a diagnostic tool in kidney transplantation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1997;94(2):695–700. Taki S, Sato T, Ogasawara K, Fukuda T, Sato M, Hida S et al. Multistage regulation of Th1-type immune responses by the transcription factor IRF-1. Immunity 1997;6(6):673–9. Tannapfel A, Geissler F, Witzigmann H, Hauss J, Wittekind C. Analysis of liver allograft rejection related genes using cDNA-microarrays in liver allograft specimen. Transplantation Proceedings 2001;33(7–8):3283–4. Tao M, Li BR, Nayini J, Sivaraman S, Song SW, Larson A et al. In vivo effects of IL-4, IL-10, and amifostine on cytokine production in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2001;41(1–2):161–8. Tatapudi RR, Muthukumar T, Dadhania D, Ding R, Li BG, Sharma VK et al. Noninvasive detection of renal allograft inflammation by measurements of mRNA for IP-10 and CXCR3 in urine. Kidney International 2004;65(6):2390–7. Terasaki PI. Humoral theory of transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation 2003;3(6):665–73. Tiao MM, Lu L, Tao R, Wang L, Fung JJ, Qian SG. Prolongation of cardiac allograft survival by systemic administration of immature recipient dendritic cells deficient in NF-kappa B activity. Annals of Surgery 2005;241(3):497–505. Tibshirani R, Hastie T, Narasimhan B, Chu G. Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2002;99(10):6567–72. Tilney NL. Transplantation and its biology: from fantasy to routine. Journal of Applied Physiology 2000;89(5):1681–9. Tsai EW, Rianthavorn P, Gjertson DW, Wallace WD, Reed EF, Ettenger RB. CD20+lymphocytes in renal allografts are associated with poor graft survival in pediatric patients. Transplantation 2006;82(12):1769–73.

Signatures Associated with Acute Rejection: Allograft Rejection

345

Tusher VG, Tibshirani R, Chu G. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response (vol 98, pg 5116, 2001). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2001;98(18):10515. Vabulas RM, Ahmad-Nejad P, Ghose S, Kirschning CJ, Issels RD, Wagner H. HSP70 as endogenous stimulus of the toll/interleukin-1 receptor signal pathway. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2002;277(17):15107–12. Vila-del Sol V, Punzon C, Fresno M. IFN-gamma-induced TNF-alpha expression is regulated by interferon regulatory factors 1 and 8 in mouse macrophages. Journal of Immunology 2008;181(7):4461–70. Wang E, Miller LD, Ohnmacht GA, Mocellin S, Perez-Diaz A, Petersen D et  al. Prospective molecular profiling of melanoma metastases suggests classifiers of immune responsiveness. Cancer Research 2002;62(13):3581–6. Wang E, Worschech A, Marincola FM. The immunologic constant of rejection. Trends in Immunology 2008;29(6):256–62. Weintraub LA, Sarwal MM. Microarrays: a monitoring tool for transplant patients? Transplant International 2006;19(10):775–88. Whitney LW, Becker KG, Tresser NJ, Caballero-Ramos CI, Munson PJ, Prabhu VV et al. Analysis of gene expression in multiple sclerosis lesions using cDNA microarrays. Annals of Neurology 1999;46(3):425–8. Worschech A, Chen NH, Yu YA, Zhang Q, Pos Z, Weibel S et al. Systemic treatment of xenografts with vaccinia virus GLV-1h68 reveals the immunologic facet of oncolytic therapy. BMC Genomics 2009;10:301. Yang X, Brunham RC. Gene knockout B cell-deficient mice demonstrate that B cells play an important role in the initiation of T cell responses to Chlamydia trachomatis (mouse pneumonitis) lung infection. Journal of Immunology 1998;161(3):1439–46. Yeruva S, Ramadori G, Raddatz D. NF-kappa B-dependent synergistic regulation of CXCL10 gene expression by IL-1 beta and IFN-gamma in human intestinal epithelial cell lines. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 2008;23(3):305–17. Zarkhin V, Sarwal MM. Microarrays: monitoring for transplant tolerance and mechanistic insights. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 2008;28(3):385. Zarkhin V, Kambham N, Li L, Kwok S, Hsieh SC, Salvatierra O et al. Characterization of intragraft B cells during renal allograft rejection. Kidney International 2008;74(5):664–73. Zerwes HG, Li J, Kovarik J, Streiff M, Hofmann M, Roth L et al. The chemokine receptor Cxcr3 is not essential for acute cardiac allograft rejection in mice and rats. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(8):1604–13. Zhao XM, Citrin BS, Miller GG, Frist WH, Merrill WH, Fischell TA et al. Association of acidic fibroblast growth-factor and untreated low-grade rejection with cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Transplantation 1995;59(7):1005–10. Zhao DXM, Hu YY, Miller GG, Luster AD, Mitchell RN, Libby P. Differential expression of the IFN-gamma-inducible CXCR3-binding chemokines, IFN-inducible protein 10, monokine induced by IFN, and IFN-inducible T cell alpha chemoattractant in human cardiac allografts: association with cardiac allograft vasculopathy and acute rejection. Journal of Immunology 2002;169(3):1556–60. Zhou P, Hwang KW, Palucki DA, Guo Z, Boothby M, Newell KA et al. Impaired NF-kappa B activation in T cells permits tolerance to primary heart allografts and to secondary donor skin grafts. American Journal of Transplantation 2003;3(2):139–47. Zhu JF, Paul WE. CD4 T cells: fates, functions, and faults. Blood 2008;112(5):1557–69.

Index

A Activated immune cells. See Adoptive immune therapy Acute graft versus host disease (AGVHD), 261–263 Acute infections rejection, 19–20 Adaptive immune systems, 142 Adjuvants, 146, 154 Adoptive cell therapy, cancer prognosis, 208 Adoptive immune therapy cancer affinity, T cell receptors, 100 dendritic cells (DCs), 97–100 induced genes and maturation compound, 100 TIL, melanoma, 96–97 leukemia donor leukocyte infusions, 95 NK cells, 95–96 viral induce malignancies, 94–95 viral infections, 93–94 Adult T-cell leukemia (ATL) Foxp3 expression, 194 THAM/Treg ratio, 193–194 Allograft rejection. See also Graft dysfunction analogy with, 306 B cells role, 327–328 comparative analyses of B cell transcripts, 331 difficulties, 330–331 interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF-1), 332–335 STAT-1, 332 definition, 307 heart and lung transplantation, 325–326 kidney and liver transplantation acquired immunological tolerance, 306 chemokines role, 308 complement system, 324–325

CXCR3/CXCL9 pathway, 320–321 immune effector function (IEF) genes, 321 innate immunity role, 322–324 interferon-g (IFN-g) pathway, 319–320 interleukin 10 (IL-10) role, 329 molecular analogies, 330 tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), 321–322 microarray gene expression profile, 307–314 ingenuity pathways analysis, 318 key genes, 315–317 Meta Core algorithms, 333 Anergy, 171, 174 Angiogenesis. See Angiogenic switch Angiogenic switch dendritic cells (DCs) angiogenesis, 65–66 tumor microenvironment, 65 granulocytes neutrophils, 62–64 TGFb blockade, 64 innate immunity macrophage polarization paradigm, 59 Tie2 expressing macrophages, 61–62 tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), 60–61 mast cells, 64–65 myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCS), 62 NK cells localization, 67 subsets, 66 specific immunity, 67 Annotation database, graft dysfunction, 245 Anti-CTLA-4 mAbs melanoma, 234–235

347

348 B Blood transcriptional fingerprints. See Peripheral lymphocytes Bronchiolitis obliterans, 267 C Cancer bearing state applications prognostic and predictive testing, 178–179 therapeutic, 177 immune dysfunction apoptotic T cells, 170–171 immune mediators balance, 172–174 impaired effector cell activation and function, 171–172 vs. tumor rejection, 170, 175 tumor rejection autoimmune responses, TAAs, 176 breast cancer gene expression, 174–175 immune adaptation, T cells, 176 vs. immune dysfunction, 170, 175 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) gene expression, 175 Cancer prognosis colorectal, 200–203 immune activity mechanisms, 204–205 immunotherapy adoptive cell therapy, 208 IFNa therapy, 207 IL-2 therapy, 207 therapeutic strategies, 206–207 NED survival, 203 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 204 poor outcome markers, 205 renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 203–204 staging and grading systems, 199 Cancer related inflammation. See Tumor associated macrophages Chemokines acute rejection, 80–81 allograft rejection, 79 chronic rejection, 81 clinical data, 82–83 clinical utility translation gene deletion mice, 81–82 gene transfer, 82 human vs. mouse, 83 neutralizing antibodies, 82 preclinical evaluation, 81 small molecules, 82 early events, 79–80 T cell trafficking, 232

Index Chemotherapy, tumor rejection, 291–294 Chimpanzee, 128, 131, 132, 135, 136 Chronic fibrosis cytokines, 268 mechanism, 267 myofibroblasts, 267–268 T cells role, 268–269 Chronic graft versus host disease (CGVHD) autoimmune disorder allo-activated donor T cells, 270 CD4 T cells, 272 dentritic cells, 273 T effectors cells, 269–270 Th17 cells, 270–271 thymic epithelial cells (TEC), 272–273 Treg cells, 271–274 clinical presentation of, 263 cytotoxic effectors infiltration, 265 fibrosis, 267–269 cytokines, 268 mechanism, 267 myofibroblasts, 267–268 T cells role, 268–269 interferon (IFN) role, 263–264, 266–267 lichenoid forms, 265–266 Chronic HCV infection, 132–134 Chronic inflammation, humoral immunity and fibrosis Colorectal cancer prognosis chemokines, 202–203 effector T cells density, 201 histological markers, 200 metastasis development, 201–202 Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, 93–94 Cytotoxic effector molecules clinical utility, 86 cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL), 84–86 granulysin, 84–85 granzymes, 85 molecular profiling studies, 86 perforin, 85 D Delayed allergy reaction, 3 Dendritic cells (DCs) angiogenesis, 65–66 tumor microenvironment, 65 E Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) antigen characterization, 211–212

Index endothelial barrier endothelin (ET) peptide ligands, 220 ETBR activity, 220–221 TNF-a, 221 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), 220–221 VEGF, 219 epidemiology, 211 T cells CD8+ intraepithelial cells, 212–213 chemokines role, 217 IFN-g, 214–215 regulatory (Treg) cells role, 218–219 T helper 17 (Th17) cells, 215–217 Experimental models of rejection acute infections, 19–20 chronic inflammation, obesity, 20–21 intestinal microbiota, 18–19 T cell–NK cell cooperation, 22 tumor rejection, natural killer (NK) cells, 21–23 F Fibrosis. See Chronic fibrosis Functional class scoring (FCS) method, graft rejection, 247–249 Functional pathway analysis, graft dysfunction, 244–246 G Gene ontology (GO) annotation database Genetic polymorphisms, 152 Graft dysfunction. See also Allograft rejection; Graft versus host disease (GVHD) deconvolution, 251 functional pathway analysis annotation database, 245 common rejection mechanism, 244 functional class scoring (FCS) method, 247–249 necessity, 244–245 over-representation analysis (ORA), 245–246 pathway topology (PT)-based method, 249–251 integrative meta-analysis, 252 microarray applications, 241–243 multiple ‘omics technology, 252 Graft versus host disease (GVHD). See also Graft dysfunction acute GVHD (AGVHD), 261–263

349 chronic GVHD (CGVHD) autoimmune disorder, 269–274 clinical presentation of, 263 cytotoxic effectors infiltration, 265 fibrosis, 267–269 interferon (IFN) role, 263–264, 266–267 lichenoid forms, 265–266 clinical signs, 260 definition, 259 Granulocytes neutrophils, 62–64 TGFb blockade, 64 Granulysin, 84–85 Granzymes, 85 H HCV infections. See Hepatitis C virus infections Heart transplantation, allograft rejection, 325–326 Hepatic ISG response acute HCV infection, 130–132 chronic HCV infection, 132–134 IFN therapy IP-10 (CXCL10), 130–131 relationship factors, 134 Hepatitis C virus infections acute infection, 130–132 chronic infection, 132–134 hepatic gene expression, 132–134 innate response modulation, 129–130 intrahepatic induction, ISGs, 130–132 polyprotein, 129 T cell response, 135–136 therapy, 128 tumor rejection, 296 viral clearance IL28B (IFNl3), IFNa therapy, 134–135 T cell response, 135–136 Hepatocyte, 130–132 HIV-VLPs vaccine, 154–155 HTLV-1. See Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 HTLV-1-associated myelopathy (HAM) immunopathogenesis, 190–191 T-cells proinflammation flow cytometric analysis, 193 Foxp3 expression and Treg suppression, 192 THAM/Treg cell ratio, 193–194

350 Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) autologous tissue damage, 190–191 genome, 189–190 myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP) immunopathogenesis, 190–191 tax mRNA expression, 195–196 T-cells proinflammation, 192–194 and regulatory T-cells, 192 I ICR. See Immunologic constant of rejection Immune biology adoptive immune therapy cancer, 96–100 leukemia, 95–96 viral induce malignancies, 94–95 viral infections, 93–94 angiogenic switch dendritic cells (DCs), 65–66 granulocytes, 62–64 innate immunity, 59–62 mast cells, 64–65 myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCS), 62 NK cells, 66–67 cancer and inflammation, 11–13 chemokines acute rejection, 80–81 allograft rejection, 79 chronic rejection, 81 clinical data, 82–83 clinical utility translation, 81–84 early events, 79–80 cytotoxic effector molecules clinical utility, 86 granulysin, 84–85 granzymes, 85 molecular profiling studies, 86 perforin, 85 experimental models of rejection acute infections, 19–20 chronic inflammation, obesity, 20–21 intestinal microbiota, 18–19 tumor rejection, 21–23 immunological switch IL-10, 31–34, 37–40 STAT3 transcription factor, 40–42, 44–47 T helper (Th) cells, 27–31 Immune biomarkers, 170, 177–179 Immune dysfunction, cancer bearing state apoptotic T cells, 170–171

Index immune mediators balance cytokine profiles, 173 myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), 174 T cells, 173 impaired lymphocytes B cells, 171–172 CD3z expression, 171 dendritic cells, 172 NK cells, 172 T cells, 171 vs. tumor rejection, 170, 175 Immune-mediated tumor rejection chemotherapy, 291–294 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, 296 immunological signatures, 287–291 MAGE-3-based vaccine, 283 mechanism, 284–287 melanoma metastases, 282–283 tissue-specific destruction (TSD), 296–297 viral oncolytic therapy, 294–296 Immune reactivity. See Experimental models of rejection Immune signatures cancer bearing state applications, 177–179 immune dysfunction, 169–174 tumor rejection, 170, 174–177 peripheral lymphocytes blood transcript profiling, 105–107 human subjects profiling, 107–110 microarray data analysis, 111–117 technologies, 110–111 vaccines, systems biology development, PRRs, 142–148 system levels analyses, 149–158 Immunogenomics, vaccines HIV-VLPs, 154–155 measle vaccine, 155–156 pertussis vaccine, 157–158 rubella vaccine, 156–157 YF-17D, 152–153, 155 Immunological signatures, tumor rejection IL-2 and TLR-7 agonists, 287 immunologic constant of rejection (ICR), 289–290 IRF-1, 288 TLR-7 agonist, 289 TRL agonists, 291 Immunological switch IL-10 anti-inflammatory effects, mechanisms, 37–40

Index blockade of, pro-inflammatory cytokine production, 47 inflammation controls, 31–33 regulation of, production, 33–34 TLR signaling, 37 STAT3 transcription factor in cancer, 41–42 cancer-associated inflammation, 42 CpG treatment, 46–47 DC maturation, 45–46 in health and disease, 40–41 hematopoietic cell ablation, 45–46 inhibition of, 44–45 T helper (Th) cells CD4 cell lineages, 27–29 differentiation and activation, 29–30 function and plasticity, in vivo, 30–31 Immunologic constant of rejection (ICR), 4 Immunotherapy, cancer prognosis adoptive cell therapy, 208 IFNa therapy, 207 IL-2 therapy, 207 therapeutic strategies, 206–207 Inactivated vaccines, 143 Innate immune response, 129, 132, 134, 135 Innate immune systems, 142 Innate immunity macrophage polarization paradigm, 59 Tie2 expressing macrophages, 61–62 tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), 60–61 Innate signatures Hepatitis C virus infections acute infection, 130–132 chronic infection, 132–134 hepatic gene expression, 132–134 innate response modulation, 129–130 intrahepatic induction, ISGs, 130–132 polyprotein, 129 T cell response, 135–136 therapy, 128 viral clearance, 128–129, 134–136 Integrative meta-analysis, graft rejection, 252 Interferon regulatory factor-1 (IRF-1) allograft rejection tumor rejection, 334–335 upregulated genes, 334 inflammatory process, 5 Interferon (IFN) role CGVHD, 263–264, 266–267 IFN-a cancer prognosis, 207 Interferon stimulated genes (ISGs) response, HCV infections hepatic gene expression, 132–134

351 intrahepatic induction innate vs. adaptive immune response, 131 microarray analysis, 130 RNA levels and hepatocytes, 131–132 Interleukin 10 (IL-10) anti-inflammatory effects, mechanisms, 37–40 blockade of, pro-inflammatory cytokine production, 47 inflammation controls, 31–33 kidney and liver transplantation, 329 regulation of, production, 33–34 TLR signaling, 37 Interleukin 28 (IL28), 134–135 Interleukin 2 (IL-2) therapy, cancer prognosis, 207 Intestinal microbiota rejection, 18–19 IRF-1. See Interferon regulatory factor-1 ISGs. See Interferon stimulated genes (ISGs) K Kidney transplantation, allograft rejection, 320–325 L Live attenuated vaccines, 143 Liver transplantation, allograft rejection acquired immunological tolerance, 306 chemokines role, 308 complement system, 324–325 CXCR3/CXCL9 pathway, 320–321 immune effector function (IEF) genes, 321 innate immunity role, 322–324 interleukin 10 (IL-10) role, 329 molecular analogies, 330 tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), 321–322 Lung transplantation, allograft rejection, 325–326 M MAGE-3-based vaccine, tumor rejection, 283 Mast cells, angiogenic switch, 64–65 Master switch of inflammation. See Interferon regulatory factor-1 Measle vaccine, 155–156 Melanoma immunotherapy, 207 transcriptional profiling adaptive immunity induction, 232–233 chemokines and T cell trafficking, 232 Il-2 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs, 234–235

352 Melanoma (cont.) immune suppressive mechanisms, 233–234 subtypes of, 231 T cell response analysis, 230 tumor microenvironment, 230–231 Meta Core algorithms, allograft rejection, 333 Microarrays allograft rejection gene expression profile, 307–314 ingenuity pathways analysis, 318 key genes, 315–317 Meta Core algorithms, 333 chimpanzee model analysis, HCV infections, 130, 133 solid organ transplant, 241–243 Myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCS), 62 N Nanostring technology, 111 Natural killer (NK) cells chemokines, 80, 81 cytotoxic effector molecules, 84–86 localization, 67 subsets, 66 Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prognosis, 204 tumor rejection, cancer bearing state, 175 O Ovarian carcinoma. See Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) Over-representation analysis (ORA), graft rejection, 245–246 P Pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), 68 Pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs). See Vaccines, systems biology Perforin, 85 Peripheral lymphocytes blood transcript profiling, 105–107 cutting-edge RNA profiling technologies, 111 human subjects profiling autoimmune diseases, 107–108 infectious diseases, 108–109 multiple diseases, 109–110

Index microarray data analysis analysis primer steps and considerations, 112–113 interpretation, 115–117 modular analysis framework, 114–116 significance patterns analysis, 113–114 Persistent infection, 128, 136 Pertussis vaccine, 157–158 Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC), 263, 264 Post transplant Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)associated lymphoproliferative disease, 94–95 Proteomics, 151 R Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 203–204 RNA-seq technology, 111 Rubella vaccine, 156–157 S Solid organ transplantation, microarrays, 241–243 Specific immunity, angiogenesis, 67 Staging and grading systems, cancer, 199 STAT3 transcription factor, immunological switch in cancer, 41–42 cancer-associated inflammation, 42 CpG treatment, 46–47 DC maturation, 45–46 in health and disease, 40–41 hematopoietic cell ablation, 45–46 inhibition of, 44–45 Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Foxp3lowCD4+CD25+ memory T cells, 193 T TAM. See Tumor associated macrophages T helper (Th) cells, immunological switch CD4 cell lineages, 27–29 differentiation and activation, 29–30 function and plasticity, in vivo, 30–31 Thymic epithelial cells (TEC), 272–273 TIL. See Tumor infiltrating leukocytes Tissue-specific destruction (TSD), 296–297 ICR, 4 IRF-1, 5 recurrent themes, 5–6 Toll-like receptors (TLRs). See Vaccines, systems biology

Index Transcriptional profiling, melanoma adaptive immunity induction, 232–233 chemokines and T cell trafficking, 232 IL-2 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs, 234–235 immune suppressive mechanisms, 233–234 subtypes of, 231 T cell response analysis, 230 tumor microenvironment clinical trial, 230–231 IL-2 and anti-CTLA-4 mAb effects, 234–235 Transcriptomics, 149–150 Transplantation allograft rejection heart and lung, 325–326 kidney and liver transplantation, 321–325 microarrays applications, 241–243 Tumor-associated antigens (TAAs), 176 Tumor associated macrophages (TAMs) innate immunity, 60–61 plasticity and metastasis promotion, 12–13 protective inflammation and activation, 13 recruitment, 12 Tumor infiltrating leukocytes (TIL), 96–97, 100 Tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a) kidney and liver transplantation, 321–322 Tumor rejection cancer bearing state autoimmune responses, TAAs, 176 breast cancer gene expression, 174–175 immune adaptation, T cells, 176 vs. immune dysfunction, 170, 175 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) gene expression, 175 host immune system chemotherapy, 291–294 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, 296

353 immunological signatures, 287–291 MAGE-3-based vaccine, 283 mechanism, 284–287 melanoma metastases, 282–283 tissue-specific destruction (TSD), 296–297 viral oncolytic therapy, 294–296 V Vaccines, systems biology development, PRRs adaptive and innate immune systems, 142 humoral or cellular immune response, 147–148 inactivated vaccines, 143 innate immune system engagement, 146 innate immunity, 143–144 innate signaling and translation, 144–145 live attenuated vaccines, 143 long-term protective immunity, 147 main signaling pathways, 145 system levels analyses genetic polymorphisms, 152 immunogenicity prediction, 152–158 proteomics, 151 RNAi and miRNA, 151–152 systems biology, 149 transcriptomics, 149–150 Viral oncolytic therapy, tumor rejection, 294–296 Y Yellow fever (YF-17D) vaccine, 152–153, 155