13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CD8 T Cell–Independent Antitumor Response and Its Potential for Treatment of Malignant Gliomas

      review-article
      1 , * , 1 , 2 , 3
      Cancers
      MDPI
      brain tumors, immunotherapy, T cells

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Malignant brain tumors continue to represent a devastating diagnosis with no real chance for cure. Despite an increasing list of potential salvage therapies, standard-of-care for these patients has not changed in over a decade. Immunotherapy has been seen as an exciting option, with the potential to offer specific and long lasting tumor clearance. The “gold standard” in immunotherapy has been the development of a tumor-specific CD8 T cell response to potentiate tumor clearance and immunological memory. While many advances have been made in the field of immunotherapy, few therapies have seen true success. Many of the same principles used to develop immunotherapy in tumors of the peripheral organs have been applied to brain tumor immunotherapy. The immune-specialized nature of the brain should call into question whether this approach is appropriate. Recent results from our own experiments require a rethinking of current dogma. Perhaps a CD8 T cell response is not sufficient for an organ as immunologically unique as the brain. Examination of previously elucidated principles of the brain’s immune-specialized status and known immunological preferences should generate discussion and experimentation to address the failure of current therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy.

          Among the most promising approaches to activating therapeutic antitumour immunity is the blockade of immune checkpoints. Immune checkpoints refer to a plethora of inhibitory pathways hardwired into the immune system that are crucial for maintaining self-tolerance and modulating the duration and amplitude of physiological immune responses in peripheral tissues in order to minimize collateral tissue damage. It is now clear that tumours co-opt certain immune-checkpoint pathways as a major mechanism of immune resistance, particularly against T cells that are specific for tumour antigens. Because many of the immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies or modulated by recombinant forms of ligands or receptors. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) antibodies were the first of this class of immunotherapeutics to achieve US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Preliminary clinical findings with blockers of additional immune-checkpoint proteins, such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1), indicate broad and diverse opportunities to enhance antitumour immunity with the potential to produce durable clinical responses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Nitric oxide and macrophage function.

            At the interface between the innate and adaptive immune systems lies the high-output isoform of nitric oxide synthase (NOS2 or iNOS). This remarkable molecular machine requires at least 17 binding reactions to assemble a functional dimer. Sustained catalysis results from the ability of NOS2 to attach calmodulin without dependence on elevated Ca2+. Expression of NOS2 in macrophages is controlled by cytokines and microbial products, primarily by transcriptional induction. NOS2 has been documented in macrophages from human, horse, cow, goat, sheep, rat, mouse, and chicken. Human NOS2 is most readily observed in monocytes or macrophages from patients with infectious or inflammatory diseases. Sustained production of NO endows macrophages with cytostatic or cytotoxic activity against viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, helminths, and tumor cells. The antimicrobial and cytotoxic actions of NO are enhanced by other macrophage products such as acid, glutathione, cysteine, hydrogen peroxide, or superoxide. Although the high-output NO pathway probably evolved to protect the host from infection, suppressive effects on lymphocyte proliferation and damage to other normal host cells confer upon NOS2 the same protective/destructive duality inherent in every other major component of the immune response.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Macrophage regulation of tumor responses to anticancer therapies.

              Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) promote key processes in tumor progression, like angiogenesis, immunosuppression, invasion, and metastasis. Increasing studies have also shown that TAMs can either enhance or antagonize the antitumor efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy, cancer-cell targeting antibodies, and immunotherapeutic agents--depending on the type of treatment and tumor model. TAMs also drive reparative mechanisms in tumors after radiotherapy or treatment with vascular-targeting agents. Here, we discuss the biological significance and clinical implications of these findings, with an emphasis on novel approaches that effectively target TAMs to increase the efficacy of such therapies. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                cancers
                Cancers
                MDPI
                2072-6694
                27 July 2016
                August 2016
                : 8
                : 8
                : 71
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; tgriffit@ 123456umn.edu
                [2 ]Center for Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
                [3 ]Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: murph557@ 123456umn.edu ; Tel.: +1-612-624-8238; Fax: +1-612-626-0428
                Article
                cancers-08-00071
                10.3390/cancers8080071
                4999780
                27472363
                c0f72343-a333-4612-b58d-02dd823b4252
                © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 25 April 2016
                : 19 July 2016
                Categories
                Review

                brain tumors,immunotherapy,t cells
                brain tumors, immunotherapy, t cells

                Comments

                Comment on this article