The immune system can both promote and suppress cancer. Chronic inflammation and proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 are considered to be tumour promoting. In contrast, the exact nature of protective antitumour immunity remains obscure. Here, we quantify locally secreted cytokines during primary immune responses against myeloma and B-cell lymphoma in mice. Strikingly, successful cancer immunosurveillance mediated by tumour-specific CD4+ T cells is consistently associated with elevated local levels of both proinflammatory (IL-1α, IL-1β and IL-6) and T helper 1 (Th1)-associated cytokines (interferon-γ (IFN-γ), IL-2 and IL-12). Cancer eradication is achieved by a collaboration between tumour-specific Th1 cells and tumour-infiltrating, antigen-presenting macrophages. Th1 cells induce secretion of IL-1β and IL-6 by macrophages. Th1-derived IFN-γ is shown to render macrophages directly cytotoxic to cancer cells, and to induce macrophages to secrete the angiostatic chemokines CXCL9/MIG and CXCL10/IP-10. Thus, inflammation, when driven by tumour-specific Th1 cells, may prevent rather than promote cancer.

CD4+ T cells contribute to tumor eradication, even in the absence of CD8+ T cells. Cytotoxic CD4+ T cells can directly kill MHC class II positive tumor cells. More surprisingly, CD4+ T cells can indirectly eliminate tumor cells that lack MHC class II expression. Here, we review the mechanisms of direct and indirect CD4+ T cell-mediated elimination of tumor cells. An emphasis is put on T cell receptor (TCR) transgenic models, where anti-tumor responses of naïve CD4+ T cells of defined specificity can be tracked. Some generalizations can tentatively be made. For both MHCIIPOS and MHCIINEG tumors, presentation of tumor-specific antigen by host antigen-presenting cells (APCs) appears to be required for CD4+ T cell priming. This has been extensively studied in a myeloma model (MOPC315), where host APCs in tumor-draining lymph nodes are primed with secreted tumor antigen. Upon antigen recognition, naïve CD4+ T cells differentiate into Th1 cells and migrate to the tumor. At the tumor site, the mechanisms for elimination of MHCIIPOS and MHCIINEG tumor cells differ. In a TCR-transgenic B16 melanoma model, MHCIIPOS melanoma cells are directly killed by cytotoxic CD4+ T cells in a perforin/granzyme B-dependent manner. By contrast, MHCIINEG myeloma cells are killed by IFN-γ stimulated M1-like macrophages. In summary, while the priming phase of CD4+ T cells appears similar for MHCIIPOS and MHCIINEG tumors, the killing mechanisms are different. Unresolved issues and directions for future research are addressed.

Tumor-specific CD4 + T cells orchestrate the adaptive immune responses against cancer. We have previously shown that CD4 + T cells recognize MHC class II-negative myeloma cells indirectly by collaborating with tumor-infiltrating macrophages. We, here, hypothesize that this critical step may be dependent on secretion of tumor-specific antigens by cancer cells. This was investigated using T-cell receptor-transgenic mice, in which CD4 + T cells mediate rejection of syngeneic MOPC315 myeloma cells. We analyzed the immune response against myeloma cell variants, which either secrete or retain intracellularly a tumor-specific idiotypic (Id) antigen. Our results reveal that CD4 + T cells helped by macrophages are capable of detecting nonsecreted tumor antigens from MHC class II-negative cancer cells. However, Id secretion was required for successful myeloma immunosurveillance. Antigen secretion resulted in stronger priming of naive myelomaspecific CD4 + T cells in tumor-draining lymph nodes. Secretion of antigen by at least some cancer cells within a tumor was shown to facilitate immunosurveillance. Treatment by local injection of purified tumor-specific antigen successfully enhanced immunity against nonsecreting myeloma cells. Collectively, the data indicate that antigen concentration within the tumor extracellular matrix must reach a certain threshold to allow successful cancer immunosurveillance by

The role of inflammation in cancer is controversial as both tumor-promoting and tumor-suppressive aspects of inflammation have been reported. In particular, it has been shown that pro-inflammatory cytokines, like interleukin-1α (IL-1α), IL-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), may either promote or suppress cancer. However, the cellular and molecular basis underlying these opposing outcomes remains enigmatic. Using mouse models for myeloma and lymphoma, we have recently reported that inflammation driven by tumor-specific T helper 1 (Th1) cells conferred protection against B-cell cancer and that interferon-γ (IFN-γ) was essential for this process. Here, we have investigated the contribution of several inflammatory mediators. Myeloma eradication by Th1 cells was not affected by inhibition of TNF-α, TNF-related weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK), or TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL). In contrast, cancer elimination by tumor-specific Th1 cells was severely impaired by the in vivo neutralization of both IL-1α and IL-1β (collectively named IL-1) with IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra). The antitumor functions of tumor-specific Th1 cells and tumor-infiltrating macrophages were both affected by IL-1 neutralization. Secretion of the Th1-derived cytokines IL-2 and IFN-γ at the incipient tumor site was severely reduced by IL-1 blockade. Moreover, IL-1 was shown to synergize with IFN-γ for induction of tumoricidal activity in tumor-infiltrating macrophages. This synergy between IL-1 and IFN-γ may explain how inflammation, when driven by tumor-specific Th1 cells, represses rather than promotes cancer. Collectively, the data reveal a central role of inflammation, and more specifically of the canonical pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1, in enhancing Th1-mediated immunity against cancer.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) trials to date have focused on transfer of autologous tumor-specific cytotoxic CD8 þ T cells;

Fingolimod (FTY720, 2-amino-2-propane-1,3-diol hydrochloride) is a remarkably efficient immunosuppressive drug that was recently approved as the first oral treatment for multiple sclerosis. Fingolimod prevents lymphocyte egress from lymph nodes by targeting 4 of 5 sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors. 1 Two phase 3 trials showed that fingolimod significantly reduced multiple sclerosis disease progression compared with placebo or standard treatment. 2,3 However, both trials concluded that longer studies were required to assess possible long-term risks. 2,3 Reports from studies in mice and humans strongly support a crucial role of lymphocytes and adaptive immunity in both preventing cancer and fighting established tumors in a process called cancer immunosurveillance. 4,5 In transplant recipients, lifelong immunosuppressive treatment is associated with an increased risk of cancer. 6 We investigated the effect of fingolimod on cancer immunosurveillance mediated by tumor-specific CD4 ϩ T cells in mouse models for myeloma and B-cell lymphoma. We used severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice made transgenic for a T cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes a tumor-specific idiotypic (Id) antigen that is secreted by MOPC315 myeloma and F9 B-cell lymphoma. 7,8 The For personal use only. on April 27, 2019. by guest www.bloodjournal.org From Id-specific TCR-transgenic SCID mice are resistant against subcutaneous challenge with MOPC315 and F9 cells. The protection is Id-specific, CD4 ϩ T cell-mediated and does not require the presence of B cells and CD8 ϩ T cells. 7,8 On cancer cell inoculation, Id-specific CD4 ϩ T cells first become activated in the draining lymph nodes where they acquire a T helper type 1 (Th1) phenotype. Id-specific Th1 cells then migrate to the incipient tumor site and secrete IFN-␥, resulting in local activation of macrophages which become tumoricidal and eradicate the cancer cells. 9,10 Id-specific TCR-transgenic SCID and control nontransgenic SCID mice were inoculated with cancer cells and treated daily with fingolimod or vehicle only. Fingolimod efficiently blocked rejection of both MOPC315 myeloma and F9 B-cell lymphoma by TCR-transgenic mice ( Figure 1A-B). Fingolimod had no effect on the survival of control nontransgenic SCID mice inoculated with MOPC315 ( Figure 1C). Fingolimod did not block activation of tumor-specific CD4 ϩ T cells in the draining lymph nodes, as defined by up-regulation of CD69 ( Figure 1D). In contrast, fingolimod strongly inhibited migration of tumor-specific CD4 ϩ T cells to the incipient tumor site ( Figure 1E). Furthermore, fingolimod prevented Th1-mediated activation of tumor-infiltrating macrophages, as measured by up-regulation of surface major histocompatibility (MHC) class II molecules. In fact, in TCRtransgenic mice treated with fingolimod, tumor-infiltrating macrophages had surface MHC class II levels that were as low as those of macrophages from T cell-deficient SCID mice ( Figure 1F). Thus, the data strongly suggest that fingolimod blocks immunosurveillance of B-cell ...

Patients with HIV with inadequate CD4 responses had higher levels of IP-10, more activated and differentiated T-cell phenotypes, as well as aTreg, compared with patients with satisfactory CD4 gain. High IP-10 levels were also associated with lower CD4 counts after 2 years.

Background Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected immunological nonresponders (INRs) fail to reconstitute their CD4+ T-cell pool after initiation of antiretroviral therapy, and their prognosis is inferior to that of immunological responders (IRs). A prevailing hypothesis is that the INR phenotype is caused by a persistently disrupted mucosal barrier, but assessments of gut mucosal immunology in different anatomical compartments are scarce. Methods We investigated circulating markers of mucosal dysfunction, immune activation, mucosal Th17 and Th22 cells, and mucosa-adherent microbiota signatures in gut mucosal specimens from sigmoid colon and terminal ileum of 19 INRs and 20 IRs in addition to 20 HIV-negative individuals. Results INRs had higher blood levels of the enterocyte damage marker intestinal fatty acid–binding protein than IRs. In gut mucosal biopsies, INRs had lower fractions of CD4+ T cells, higher fractions of interleukin 22, and a tendency to higher fractions of interleukin 17–producing CD4+ T cells. These findings were all restricted to the colon and correlated to circulating markers of enterocyte damage. There were no observed differences in gut microbial composition between INRs and IRs. Conclusions Restricted to the colon, enterocyte damage and mucosal immune dysfunction play a role for insufficient immune reconstitution in HIV infection independent of the gut microbiota.