Selective Cell State in the Clonally Expanded T-Cell Compartment of Vκ*MYC Mice Responding to Treatment with Checkpoint Inhibitors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Immune checkpoint receptor (ICR) blockade has emerged as an effective anti-tumour modality, but only in a subset of cancer patients. Moreover, in Multiple myeloma (MM), single-agent activity has not been observed, highlighting the need to better understand the mechanism of action of this class of drugs. We recently showed that combinatorial ICR blockade using αLAG3 and αPD-1 delays disease progression and improves survival in the transplantable Vκ*MYC model of MM (Croucher et al. ASH 2018). However, despite this being a controlled study with genetically-homogeneous tumours, anti-tumour immune responses were heterogeneous, with only a subset of mice demonstrating a delay in tumour progression (17/29 mice, response rate = 58.6%). Thus, using this model, we set out to define mechanisms underlying variability in response to ICR blockade. Methods: We established a cohort of mice by engrafting 5-week-old C57BL/6 mice with Vκ12598 cells via tail vein injection. Treatment with αLAG3/αPD-1 or Ig-control was initiated 1-week post-engraftment and bone marrow (BM) samples were collected 3 weeks after the start of treatment. Following FACS-enrichment of T cells and plasma cells (PCs), single cell suspensions were subjected to matched single-cell gene expression (5' scRNA-seq) and T cell receptor (TCR)/B cell receptor (BCR) profiling (10x Genomics). Results: Samples were selected for profiling based on response to treatment, with responders (n=4) defined by significantly lower disease burden compared to non-responders (n=3) and control-treated mice (n=5), as measured by serum M-protein and %PCs in BM/spleen at sacrifice. Unsupervised clustering of scRNA-seq data from PCs (n=3,318 cells) identified no gene expression or BCR repertoire differences between control and treated, or between responder and non-responder samples, supporting that variability in response was not related to malignant Vκ12598 cells themselves. Across all samples, a statistically significant difference was not detected between the total number of unique TCR sequences (clonotypes) comparing control-treated (351-2369), non-responders (1185-2327) and responders (1378-1698), with no overlapping TCR sequences between top clonotypes. Evaluation of TCR repertoire diversity revealed that αLAG3/αPD-1 treatment induces clonal T cell expansion in control versus treated mice, but this was not significantly different between responders and non-responders. Analysis of paired scRNA-seq data (n=21,520 cells) revealed that expanded T cells from αLAG3/αPD-1-treated mice occupy a different cell state in responder vs. non-responder mice. We speculate that underlying differences in the TCR repertoire may dictate the downstream phenotype of expanded, anti-tumour T cells in mice treated with combinatorial αLAG3/αPD-1. Tumour control following treatment was associated with clonal expansion of T cells expressing genes related to cytoxicity and activation (Ccl5, Ifng, Fasl, Gzmb), whereas tumour progression was associated with clonal expansion of proliferative T cells (Cdkn3, Birc5, Ccna2, Aurka, Mki67). Although T cell proliferation is typically a phenotype ascribed to effector T cells, recent studies have similarly observed this proliferative cell state in dysfunctional T cells within melanoma tumours. Moreover, emerging evidence supports suppression of T cell proliferation by CDK4/6 inhibitors as a means to augment anti-tumour activity of ICR-based therapy. Thus, studies exploring whether reversal of the observed proliferative T cell state can restore response to αLAG3/αPD-1 treatment in non-responding Vκ12598 mice are ongoing and will be reported. Conclusions: ICR inhibitors demonstrate significant activity in some cancers, however many patients fail to respond and a similarly promising level of efficacy has not been achieved in MM. Studies aimed at unraveling the mechanisms of response and resistance to ICR inhibitors are therefore needed to improve the utility of this class of drugs for all patients. Our approach of using paired single-cell gene expression and TCR repertoire profiling has enabled identification of molecular cell states specifically in expanded T cells of responder vs. non-responder mice. In turn, our work nominates novel mechanisms that may be used as potential biomarkers for anti-tumour immune responses as well as potential targets to augment responses to ICR blockade therapy. Disclosures Chesi: Abcuro: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Novartis: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN transgenic mouse; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pi Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Palleon Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma. Bergsagel: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sebag: Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trudel: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».