PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Cancer Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2732120
NIHMSID: NIHMS123673

This article has been retractedRetraction in: Cancer Res. 2016 April 21; 76(8): 2490    See also: PMC Retraction Policy

Immunity to Murine Prostatic Tumors: Continuous Provision of T Cell Help Prevents CD8 T Cell Tolerance and Activates Tumor-Infiltrating Dendritic Cells

Abstract

We previously reported that tumor-specific CD8+ T cells (TcR-I) become tolerant in the TRansgenic Adenocarcinoma of the Mouse Prostate (TRAMP) model. In this study, we demonstrate that CD4+ TcR transgenic (TcR-II) T cells transferred into TRAMP mice became activated in lymph nodes (LNs), trafficked to the prostate, and initially functioned as TH1 cells. While a single co-transfer of TcR-II cells delayed TcR-I cell tolerization, repeated transfer of TcR-II cells were required to prevent TcR-I cell tolerization and significantly slowed progression of TRAMP prostate tumors. After transfer of TcR-II cells, dendritic cells (DC) within the tumor expressed higher levels of co-stimulatory molecules and displayed an enhanced ability to stimulate proliferation of naive T cells. Blockade of CD40-CD40L interactions during TcR-II transfer resulted in a profound reduction in DC stimulatory capacity and a partial loss of TcR-I effector functions and tumor immunity. These data demonstrate that sustained provision of activated tumor-specific CD4+ T cells alters the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, ultimately leading to the control of tumor growth. These findings will assist in the design of more effective immunotherapeutic approaches for cancer.

Keywords: T cell, Tumor, Immunotherapy, Tolerance, Prostate cancer

Introduction

Traditionally, cancer-specific immunity has been aimed at activating CD8+ CTLs based on the observation that most tumors express MHC class I. However, immunotherapy using vaccines composed of MHC I peptides or adoptive transfer of CD8+ T cells alone has resulted in limited clinical success (1-3). Tolerization of tumor-specific T cells diminishes the repertoire of immune responses and in turn, impairs the ability to elicit effective anti-tumor immunity. Although adoptive immunotherapy strategies may initially bypass this problem, transferred effector T cells can undergo tolerization (4-6). The limited responses observed in adoptive T cell therapy trials may be due, in part, to a lack of help from CD4+ T cells (7, 8). Some reports suggest that CD4+ T cells enhance the infiltration CD8+ T cells into tumors and are important in enhancing the immunostimulatory capacity of the tumor environment (9, 10).

It is well established that CD4+ T cells are critical to establish effective CD8+ T cells (11-13) and long-term maintenance of antigen-activated CD8+ T cells (14-16). CD4+ helper T cells can produce cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-2 and interferon (IFN)-γ that are important for CTL differentiation, expansion, and survival as well as for the activation and regulation of macrophage and dendritic cell (DC) responsiveness. Furthermore, CD4+ T lymphocytes play a pivotal role by activating antigen-presenting cells (APCs) through CD40/CD154 interactions, inducing IL-12 production and the upregulation of co-stimulatory molecules (17-20).

To study T cell responses to tumor antigens, our laboratory utilizes the TRansgenic Adenocarcinoma of the Mouse Prostate (TRAMP) model (21). Male TRAMP mice selectively express the SV40 T antigens (TAg) in the prostate. We previously reported that naïve TAg-specific CD8+ T cells (TcR-I) are tolerized following encounter with their cognate antigen in TRAMP mice. Although a peptide-pulsed DC vaccine enhanced TcR-I priming, these stimulatory effects were not durable in the tumor microenvironment as TcR-I cells that persisted in the TRAMP prostate lost their CTL effector functions (22). This model is a rigorous test of T cell priming against tumor antigens as the continued transformation of prostatic epithelium presents a major obstacle for eliciting sustained T cell responses against tumor antigens, in this case TAg.

The current study was aimed at testing whether adoptive transfer of tumor-specific CD4+ T cells (TcR-II) could prevent tolerization of TcR-I cells and help generate a more potent anti-tumor response. We demonstrate that co-transfer of TcR-II cells with TcR-I cells delayed TcR-I T cells tolerance induction, but ultimately this protection did not withstand the highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. However, repeated administration of TcR-II cells prolonged CTL activity of TcR-I cells in the tumor microenvironment that resulted in reduction of prostate tumor burden in TRAMP mice. Transfer of TcR-II cells activated tumor-resident DCs and enhanced their ability to stimulate proliferation of naïve T cells in vitro. Blockade of CD40-CD40L interactions resulted in a loss of DC stimulatory capacity. These findings demonstrate that tumor-specific CD4+ T cell-mediated help can enhance immunity to tumors by both activating tumor-resident APCs in situ as well as preventing the tolerization of CD8+ T cells.

Materials and Methods

Mice

TRansgenic Adenocarcinoma of the Mouse Prostate (TRAMP) mice backcrossed once to the C3H/HeN background (21) and C57BL/6×C3H/HeN (WT) mice (purchased from the Charles River Labs, Frederick, MD) were used at 10−12 weeks of age. The CD4+ TCR-transgenic mouse strain (TcR-II) bears a TCR gene that recognizes the I-Ak restricted TAg362−384 epitope (23). TcR-II mice were backcrossed and maintained on a C3H×RAG−/− background (23). The CD8+ TcR-transgenic mouse strain (TcR-I), which bears a TCR gene that recognizes the H-2Kk-restricted epitope TAg560−568, was backcrossed and maintained on a C3HxRAG−/− background (24). TcR-I and TcR-II mice were bred one generation to Thy1.1+xRAG−/− mice (B6.PL-Thy1a/Cy; The Jackson Laboratory). NCI-Frederick is accredited by AAALAC International and follows the Public Health Service Policy for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Peptides

TAg362−384 (TNRFNDLLDRMDIMFGSTGSADI) and TAg560−568 (SEFLLEKRI) peptides were purchase from New England Peptide (Gardner, MA). The peptides were dissolved at 2 mg/ml, filter-sterilized, and stored at −20° C.

Adoptive transfer of transgenic lymphocytes

TcR-II and TcR-I mice were euthanized by CO2 inhalation and the lymph nodes (LNs) were aseptically removed and minced into a single-cell suspension. LN cells of TcR-I donor mice were > 95% CD8+ positive (100% of Thy1.1+CD8+ cells were tetramer+). LN cells of TcR-II donor mice were > 90% CD4+. Cells were labeled with 5 μM CFSE before adoptive transfer. Cell numbers were adjusted to 2 × 106 TcR-II cells or 3 × 106 Ag-specific TcR-I T cells and transferred intravenously (i.v.). For co-transfer studies, TcR-II (Thy1.1) T cells were transferred approximately 12 hours before transfer of Thy1.1+ TcR-I T cells. To a portion of the co-transferred TRAMP mice (TcR-I + TcR-II), additional TcR-II T cells were transferred every 5 days for up to 15 days (TcR-I + Multi TcR-II). In some experiments, the drug FTY720 (2-amino-2-[2-(4-octylphenyl)ethylpropane-1,3-diol; Caymen Chemicals) was supplied in the drinking water at 3.3 μg/ml for an estimated daily dose of 0.5 mg/mouse. FTY720-containing drinking water was administered beginning 1 day before cell transfer and changed every 3 days.

Cell isolation

Single cell suspensions were obtained from prostate draining LNs (pDLN = iliac LNs), non-draining LNs (nDLN = inguinal LNs), and prostates. Thy1.1+,TcR T cells were isolated, using Thy1.1-specific antibodies and magnetic beads as previously described (22). DCs were isolated from single cell suspensions of the prostate using the Miltenyi Macs cell separation system and the Pan-DC magnetic beads which consist of anti-CD11c and anti-mPDCA-1 Ab. Cell separations were completed according to the manufacturer's instruction and consistently yielded purity of >90% CD11c+ cells.

Flow cytometry

Cell suspensions were blocked using supernatant from the 2.4G2 hybridoma, washed, and incubated with antibodies for 30 min on ice. For lymphocyte staining, the following panel of antibodies was used: Thy1.1-PE, CD8-Alexa Fluor 405, CD4-PerCy5, CD69-PE-Cy7, CD44-APC, CD25-APC-Cy7, CD62L-FITC, and CCR7-APC. For APC staining, the following panel of Abs was used:, CD11c-APC, B220-PerCP, CD40-PE, CD80-FITC, CD86-PE, and CD19-PeCy-7 (BD-Pharmingen). Cells were analyzed on a BD LSR II flow cytometer and data were interpolated using FCS Express analysis software (De Novo Software). Expression of activation markers was determined for cells within the Thy1.1+ populations. Total cell counts for LNs and spleens were not affected by transfer.

in vitro proliferation assays

Positively-selected TcR T cells were used as responder cells in a proliferation assay. 2 × 104 T cells were stimulated with antigen and 1.5 × 105 irradiated splenocytes isolated from WT mice. To measure stimulation by prostate-derived DCs, 2 × 104 naïve TCR-I T cells and 2 × 104 purified DCs were cultured in the presence of TAg560−568. After 72 h of culture, wells were pulsed with 1 μCi of [3H]thymidine (Amersham) for 16 h. The cells were then harvested using a Cell Harvester (Tomtech) and radioactivity was measured in a Liquid Scintillation Counter (Trilux MicroBeta, Wallac).

ELISPOT assays

ELISPOT assays for measuring secretion of IL-2, IFN-γ, and granzyme (Gr) B were performed as previously described (22). Briefly, multiscreen plates (Millipore) IP plates were coated with 100 μl of capture Ab (R&D Systems) overnight at 4°C. Plates were washed and then blocked with complete medium for 2 h at 37°C. Thy1.1+ T cells were purified as described above and 2 × 104 purified TcR-II or 1 × 104 TcR-I T cells, 7.5 × 105 WT splenocytes, and increasing concentrations of peptide were added to a final volume of 100 μl/well and were incubated for 36 h at 37°C. For the GrB ELISPOT assays, 2 × 103 isolated TcR-I T cells and 5 × 104 BW cells (an AKR-derived murine thymoma cell line that expresses H-2Kk) were added per well. BW cells were pre-pulsed with increasing concentrations of TAg560−568. Plates were incubated with responder T cells for 4 hours at 37°C. After incubation, plates were washed and incubated overnight at 4°C with 100 μl of biotinylated detecting Ab. Plates were washed, and 100 μl of streptavidin-conjugated alkaline phosphatase (Mabtech) was added to each well. Plates were incubated at room temperature for 2 hours and washed, and spots were developed with 100 μl of Vector Blue substrate (Vector Laboratories) for 5−10 minutes in the dark. Spots were counted with an ImmunoSpot analyzer (Cellular Technology).

Statistical analysis

Data in this study were analyzed using descriptive and graphical techniques, univariate analysis of variance (Anova), and standard posteriori (post hoc) tests for multiple comparisons (e.g., Tukey's and Dunnett's tests). CD4, IL-2, IFN-γ, and GrB data were transformed to their common logarithms to satisfy homogeneity of variance and normality requirements in the Anovas. Treatment-conditions by concentration-levels were routinely tested for significant interaction effects, and appropriate post hoc comparisons applied as necessary. Graphical data are expressed as means ± s.e.m unless otherwise indicated. All tests were two-sided; probability values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

TcR-II cells transferred into TRAMP mice proliferate in the lymph nodes and traffic to the prostate, where they become tolerized

We first sought to characterize the fate of CD4+ TcR-II T cells transferred into TRAMP mice. Naïve, TcR-II T cells were transferred into 12 week-old male TRAMP or non-transgenic, wild-type (WT) mice. On day 3, 10 and 18 after transfer, CD4+, Thy1.1+ cells in the non-draining lymph nodes (nDLN, inguinal LNs), prostate-draining LNs (pDLN, iliac LNs), and prostate tissue were analyzed. TcR-II cells transferred into WT mice did not undergo proliferation as observed by the absence of CFSE dilution (data not shown). In contrast, TcR-II T cells transferred into TRAMP mice underwent multiple rounds of cell division within LNs with maximal expansion occurring between 2−7 days after transfer, and cells appreciably accumulating in the prostate 7−10 days after transfer (supplementary Figure 1). Interestingly, these observed kinetics were slower than those observed for TcR-I T cells, which fully diluted CFSE beyond detectable levels and were absent from secondary lymphoid tissues by 3−5 days after transfer, and accumulated in the prostate as early as 3 days after transfer (22). Taken together, these data demonstrate that tumor antigen is presented to TcR-II T cells in the LNs of TRAMP mice, which results in TcR-II T cell proliferation and eventually trafficking to the prostate.

TcR-II T cells transiently exhibit effector functions after transfer into TRAMP mice

To determine whether TcR-II cells transferred into TRAMP mice gained effector functions, TcR-II T cells were isolated from the LNs and prostate of TRAMP mice and tested for their ability to secrete IL-2 and IFN-γ in response to antigen. On day 3 after transfer, TcR-II cells isolated from the nDLN, pDLN and spleen of TRAMP mice secreted IL-2 and IFN-γ in response to restimulation with antigen (Fig. 1A). Similarly, they also proliferated in response to antigen (data not shown). TcR-II cells infiltrating the TRAMP prostate five days after transfer also secreted IL-2 and IFN-γ in response to antigen (Fig. 1B-C). However, by day 10 after transfer, prostate-infiltrating TcR-II T cells lost the ability to secrete IL-2 (Fig. 1B), while maintaining the ability to secrete IFN-γ (Fig. 1C); by 20 days after transfer, TcR-II cells completely lost all effector functions (Fig. 1B,C). Taken together, these data demonstrate that TcR-II cells initially acquire effector functions in LNs of TRAMP mice, but similar to TcR-I, they become unresponsive as a result of persistence in the tumor microenvironment.

Figure 1
Progressive loss of TcR-II cell proliferation and cytokine secretion

TcR-II T cell enhancement of TcR-I T cell priming and effector function is not durable in the tumor microenvironment

Previously, we reported that administration of a peptide-pulsed DC vaccine was capable of efficiently priming CD8+ TcR-I cells in TRAMP mice (22). To determine whether TcR-II cells could enhance priming and prevent the tolerization of TcR-I cells, we co-transferred TRAMP mice with naïve TcR-I (Thy1.1+) and TcR-II T (Thy1.1) cells. The frequency of TcR-I cells present in the nDLN, pDLN and the prostate 3 days after co-transfer was increased compared to TcR-I transfer alone (Fig. 2A) and they persisted at elevated numbers in the prostate for up to 10 days when co-transferred with TcR-II cells (Fig. 2B). However, by three weeks after transfer, the frequency of TcR-I cells in the prostate of co-transferred mice was indistinguishable from those of TRAMP mice given TcR-I cells alone.

Figure 2
TcR-II cells enhance TcR-I cell priming and trafficking to the tumor

While it is evident from the data presented in Figure 2 that TcR-II cells enhance expansion of TcR-I cells, to achieve a successful anti-tumor immune response, tumor-specific T cells that traffic to the tumor must retain responsiveness to tumor antigens. Therefore, TcR-I cells co-transferred with TcR-II cells were tested for their ability to secrete IFN-γ and GrB. As previously reported (22), TcR-I cells transferred alone were unresponsive to stimulation with antigen by 5 days after transfer. However, TcR-I cells from mice that also received TcR-II cells retained the capacity to secrete IFN-γ and GrB for up to 2 weeks after co-transfer, but by 3 weeks after transfer, these effector functions were lost (Fig. 3A-B). This loss of TcR-I T cell effector functions corresponds to the time frame shortly after which TcR-II cells become tolerized in the tumor microenvironment.

Figure 3
TcR-II cell enhancement of anti-tumor effector functions is not sustained in the tumor microenvironment

Sustained provision of TcR-II T cells prevents tolerance induction of TcR-I cells

Our observation that co-transfer of TcR-I and TcR-II cells only delays TcR-I cell tolerization suggests that long-term prevention of TcR-I cell tolerance induction may require more than enhanced priming. To test whether sustained provision of TcR-II-mediated help could maintain TcR-I cell effector functions, co-transfer studies were performed where TRAMP mice received an infusion of TcR-II T cells every five days for 15 days. Based on our previous data, transferring TcR-II cells every five days should result in a consistent influx of functional, tumor-specific T helper cells into the prostate. In contrast to mice receiving a single transfer of TcR-II cells, TcR-I cells isolated from mice receiving multiple transfers of TcR-II T cells had a higher frequency of antigen responsiveness up to 30 days after transfer, as measured by IFN-γ (Fig. 4A) and GrB secretion (Fig. 4B) and they maintained their capacity to secrete both effector molecules for at least 2 weeks after the last transfer of TcR-II T cells.

Figure 4
Continuous provision of TcR-II cell prevents the induction of tolerance of TcR-I cells

We next assessed whether the sustained CTL function of TcR-I cells conferred anti-tumor immunity in TRAMP mice, using prostatic weight as an estimation of tumor progression (22, 25). Five days after transfer, no significant reduction in prostate weight was observed following the single TcR-II cell transfer (Fig. 4C). Eighteen days after transfer, both the single and multiple transfer of TcR-II cells with TcR-I cells resulted in a reduction in tumor burden. However, by 30 days after TcR-I cell transfer, only TRAMP mice that received multiple transfers of TcR-II cells with TcR-I cells had significant reduction in prostate tumor burden (Fig. 4C). In contrast, at all time points, transfer of only TcR-I cells or only TcR-II cells had no significant effect on prostate weight. These findings are consistent with the sustained enhancement of TcR-I effector function in the presence of more durable antigen-specific CD4+ T cell help.

APCs within the tumor microenvironment are a target of TcR II T cells

To determine the effect of TcR-II cells on the tumor microenvironment, we assessed the immunostimulatory capabilities of APCs isolated from the prostate of TRAMP mice before and after transfer of tumor specific T cells. We first examined the phenotype of APCs purified from the prostate of each treatment group (routinely > 90% CD11c+). These prostate-resident CD11c+ DCs from both WT and TRAMP mice were B220+/CD11b/CD19, which did not change as a function of T cell transfer (data not shown). However, transfer of TcR-II cells enhanced expression of co-stimulatory molecules (Fig. 5A). Prostatic DCs from TRAMP mice receiving TcR-I cells alone had minimal surface expression of CD40 whereas a single or multiple transfer of TcR-II cells into TRAMP mice dramatically increased expression of both CD40 and CD80.

Figure 5
APCs from prostate tumors have an increased stimulatory ability after TcR-II cell transfer

To assess the function of prostate-derived DCs, we examined their ability to stimulate T cell proliferation in vitro. DCs isolated from the prostates of untransferred TRAMP mice, or TRAMP mice that only received TcR-I T cells alone, were unable to stimulate naïve T cell proliferation (Fig. 5B). However, DCs isolated from prostates of mice that had received a single transfer of naïve TcR-II cells induced a strong proliferative response (Fig. 5B). The increased stimulatory capacity of DCs from the single TcR-II T cell transfer group was significantly decreased by 20 days after transfer (Fig. 5B), consistent with our observation that by this time, TcR-II cells in the prostate were tolerized. In contrast, an increased stimulatory capacity of prostate-resident DCs was sustained for up to 30 days following multiple transfer of TcR-II cells (Fig. 5C), demonstrating that continued provision of T cell help is needed to maintain DC stimulatory function.

To determine whether trafficking of TcR-II cells to the prostate is required for enhancing APC functions, we treated mice with FTY720, an immunomodulatory agent that inhibits the egress of activated lymphocytes from secondary lymphoid tissues. Following FTY720 treatment, the numbers of TcR-II T cells isolated from the prostate was profoundly reduced, with a concomitant increase in the number of TcR-II cells found in the lymph node (Supplementary Figure 2). FTY720 treatment significantly reduced the stimulatory capacity of prostate-derived APCs isolated from TRAMP mice receiving TcR-II cells (Fig. 5D). FTY720 treatment had no effect on the stimulatory capability of APCs isolated from WT animals or untransferred TRAMP animals. Similarly, FTY-720 treatment had no effect on the in vivo stimlulation of DC by anti-CD40 (Supplementary Figure 3). Taken together, these data indicate that activation of tumor-specific helper T cells can enhance APC function, which is dependent on prostatic infiltration by the helper T cells.

We next sought to address the mechanism by which TcR-II cells activate prostate-resident DCs. Mice were treated with an anti-CD154 antibody, which inhibits ligation of CD40 on APCs (19). TcR-II cell responsiveness was not significantly affected by CD154 blockade (Supplementary Figure 4). In contrast, administration of anti-CD154 prevented the enhancement of DC stimulatory capacity and IL-12 production following TcR-II cell transfer (Fig. 6A,B). Surprisingly, while there was some reduction in TcR-I reactivity after CD154 blockade during co-transfer with TcR-II cells, prostate-infiltrating TcR-I cells still exhibited significant IFN-γ and granzyme B secretion (Fig. 6C). In parallel, blocking CD154 reduced the ability of TcR-II cells to help reduce tumor growth, although there were still mice that had reduced tumor burden (Fig. 6D). Taken together, these findings demonstrate that while the “licensing” of tumor-infiltrating APCs may be an important contributing factor to the enhancement of T cell effector functions and tumor immunity, other mechanisms by which CD4+ T cells provide help to sustain anti-tumor immunity remain to be elucidated.

Figure 6
Blockade of CD40:CD154 reduced APC activation but only partially reduced TcR-I effector functions

Discussion

Previously, we reported that in TRAMP mice, DC present tumor antigen to and prime CD8+ T cells in the pDLN (22) prior to their tolerization in the prostate. In the current study, we demonstrate that naïve tumor-specific CD4+ TcR-II T cells also encounter tumor antigen in pDLNs and they become effector T-helper cells prior to infiltrating the prostate and subsequent tolerization. We further show that CD8+ tumor-specific T cells primed in the presence of activated CD4+ helper T cells had prolonged CTL effector functions in the tumor microenvironment. The extent of the response induced in the CD8+ T cells by CD4+ T cells is comparable to that induced by an ex vivo-matured, peptide-pulsed DC vaccine (22). However, over time, TcR-I cells co-transferred with TcR-II cells into TRAMP mice became tolerant in the tumor and the kinetics of TcR-I tolerization corresponded to tolerization of TcR-II cells in the TRAMP prostate. Thus, the transient helper activity of the co-transferred TcR-II cells was unable to overcome the profound immunosuppressive microenvironment of the TRAMP prostate and the TcR-I CTLs lost their anti-tumor potency. On-going studies are characterizing multiple mechanisms by which TRAMP tumors tolerize both TcR-I and TcR-II effector T cells.

In contrast to single co-transfer, the sustained provision of TcR-II-mediated help maintained TcR-I effector CTL functions that persisted for up to 30 days and resulted in a significant reduction in prostate tumor burden. These novel data demonstrate that activated helper T cells can prevent the tumor microenvironment from tolerizing TcR-I CTLs as long as the TcR-II cells retain their helper functions. Even more impressive is our data demonstrating that given the trafficking patterns of the transferred cells, the TcR-II cells provide help and prevent tolerance within the tumor itself. The TRAMP prostate is a strongly immunosuppressive environment where transgenic expression of the oncogenic TAg protein leads to persistent tumor formation. Thus, overcoming tolerance via adoptive transfer of both CTL and helper T cells is an attractive approach. Our findings will have critical importance for cancer immunotherapy, as we demonstrate a clear-cut way to maintain effective tumor-specific CTLs in a highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.

While our data demonstrate that activated CD4+ tumor-specific T cells can provide help to CD8+ tumor-specific T cells and prevent their tolerization, the mechanism by which this occurs is only partially understood. Tumor microenvironments do not favor tumor-specific T cell responsiveness (26) and many tumors produce factors that inhibit DC maturation (27-29) and thus inhibit their ability to sustain anti-tumor immunity. Results from our study demonstrate tumor-specific CD4+ T cells alter the tumor microenvironment and activate, or “license”, prostate-resident DC, which was dependent on TcR-II cells trafficking into the prostate and CD40:CD154 interactions. Mackey et al reported that activation of endogenous APC through CD40 ligation could prevent T cell tolerization in a murine model of SV40 TAg-induced osteosarcomas (30). However, our data demonstrate that even in the absence of activated tumor-infiltrating DC, TcR-I T cells maintained significant effector functions. Our on-going studies are also testing the possibility that soluble factors secreted by TcR-II cells within the immunosuppressive tumor (e.g., IL-2 and IFN-γ) also contribute to sustaining CTL effector functions by TcR-I cells. Thus, to maintain tumor immunity, activated helper T cells may have a dual role of stimulating both effector CTLs as well as endogenous APCs.

Taken together, our findings demonstrate that sustained tumor-specific CD4+ T cell help can elicit and maintain effective CTL effector functions. Thus, altering the tolerizing tumor microenvironment can maintain T cell responses leading to sustained tumor immunity. By studying the ability of CD4+ T cells to enhance anti-tumor CTL activity as well as ways to reverse CD4 tolerance, we hope to elucidate novel approaches to stimulate a more potent anti-tumor immune response and eliminate development of T cell tolerance to tumor antigens.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. Joost Oppenheim and Protul Shrikant for their critical review of this manuscript. 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 U.S. Government.

Financial support: This project has been funded in-part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NCI Z01 BC 010954 (AAH, SKW, MJA, LJD), with federal funds from the NCI, NIH, under contract N01-CO-12400 (KASW, AM), with support from the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program (AAH) and by NCI-CA84296 (NMG).

References

1. Rosenberg S, Yang J, Schwartzentruber D. Immunologic and therapeutic evaluation of a synthetic peptide vaccine for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. Nat Med. 1998;4:321–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Antony P, Piccirillo C, Akpinarli A, et al. CD8+ T cell immunity against a tumor/self-antigen is augmented by CD4+ T helper cells and hindered by naturally occurring T regulatory cells. J Immunol. 2005;174:2591–601. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Chang AE, Yoshizawa H, Sakai K, Cameron MJ, Sondak VK, Shu S. Clinical observations on adoptive immunotherapy with vaccine-primed T-lymphocytes secondarily sensitized to tumor in vitro. Cancer Res. 1993;53:1043–50. [PubMed]
4. Gattinoni L, Powell DJ, Jr., Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Adoptive immunotherapy for cancer: building on success. Nat Rev Immunol. 2006;6:383–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Ross S, Liu V, Abulafia R, Hogan C, Osband M. Adoptive immunotherapy of hormone-refractory, stage D2 prostate cancer using ex vivo activated autologous T cells (autolymphocyte therapy): results from a pilot study. Biotechnol Ther. 1993;4:197–211. [PubMed]
6. Yee C, Thompson JA, Roche P, et al. Melanocyte destruction after antigen-specific immunotherapy of melanoma: direct evidence of t cell-mediated vitiligo. J Exp Med. 2000;192:1637–44. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Goedegebuure PS, Eberlein TJ. The role of CD4+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in human solid tumors. Immunol Res. 1995;14:119–31. [PubMed]
8. Pockaj BA, Sherry RM, Wei JP, et al. Localization of 111indium-labeled tumor infiltrating lymphocytes to tumor in patients receiving adoptive immunotherapy. Augmentation with cyclophosphamide and correlation with response. Cancer. 1994;73:1731–7. [PubMed]
9. Marzo A, Kinnear B, Lake R, et al. Tumor-specific CD4+ T cells have a major “post-licensing” role in CTL mediated anti-tumor immunity. J Immunol. 2000;165:6047–55. [PubMed]
10. Huang H, Hao S, Li F, Ye Z, Yang J, Xiang J. CD4+ Th1 cells promote CD8+ Tc1 cell survival, memory response, tumor localization and therapy by targeted delivery of interleukin 2 via acquired pMHC I complexes. Immunology. 2007;120:148–59. [PubMed]
11. Janssen E, Lemmens E, Wolfe T, Christen U, Herrath Mv, Schoenberger S. CD4+ T cells are required for secondary expansion and memory in CD8+ T lymphocytes. Nature. 2003;421:852–6. [PubMed]
12. Shedlock D, Shen H. Requirement for CD4 T cell help in generating functional CD8 T cell memory. Science. 2003;300:337–9. [PubMed]
13. Sun J, Bevan M. Defective CD8 T cell memory following acute infection without CD4 T cell help. Science. 2003;300:263–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Sun J, Williams M, Bevan M. CD4+ T cells are required for the maintenance, not programming, of memory CD8+ T cells after acute infection. Nat Immunol. 2004;5:927–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Gattinoni L, Klebanoff C, Palmer D, et al. Acquisition of full effector function in vitro paradoxically impairs the in vivo antitumor efficacy of adoptively transferred CD8+ T cells. J Clin Invest. 2005;115:1616–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Klebanoff C, Gattinoni L, Torabi-Parizi P, et al. Central memory self/tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells confer superior antitumor immunity compared with effector memory T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:9571–6. [PubMed]
17. Bennett S, Carbone F, Karamalis F, Flavell R, Miller J, Heath W. Help for cytotoxic-T-cell responses is mediated by CD40 signalling. Nature. 1998;393:478–80. [PubMed]
18. Cella M, Scheidegger D, Palmer-Lehmann K, Lane P, Lanzavecchia A, Alber G. Ligation of CD40 on dendritic cells triggers production of high levels of interleukin-12 and enhances T cell stimulatory capacity:T-T help via APC activation. J Exp Med. 1996;184:747–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Schoenberger S, Toes R, Voort Evd, Offringa R, Melief C. T-cell help for cytotoxic T lymphocytes is mediated by CD40-CD40L interactions. Nature. 1998;393:480–3. [PubMed]
20. Shinde S, Wu Y, Guo Y, et al. CD40L is important for induction of, but not response to, costimulatory activity. ICAM-1 as the second costimulatory molecule rapidly up-regulated by CD40L. J Immunol. 1996;157:2764–8. [PubMed]
21. Greenberg N, DeMayo F, Finegold M, et al. Prostate cancer in a transgenic mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92:3439–43. [PubMed]
22. Anderson M, Shafer-Weaver K, Greenberg N, Hurwitz A. Tolerization of Tumor-Specific T Cells Despite Efficient Initial Priming in a Primary Murine Model of Prostate Cancer. J Immunol. 2007;178:1268–76. [PubMed]
23. Forster I, Hirose R, Arbeit J, Clausen B, Hanahan D. Limited capacity for tolerization of CD4+ T cells specific for a pancreatic beta cell neo-antigen. Immunity. 1995;2:573–85. [PubMed]
24. Geiger T, Gooding L, Flavell R. T-cell responsiveness to an oncogenic peripheral protein and spontaneous autoimmunity in transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992;89:2985–9. [PubMed]
25. Wechter W, Leipold D, ED Murray J, et al. E-7869 (R-flurbiprofen) inhibits progression of prostate cancer in the TRAMP mouse. Cancer Res. 2000;60:2203–8. [PubMed]
26. Whiteside TL. Signaling defects in T lymphocytes of patients with malignancy. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 1999;48:346–52. [PubMed]
27. Chen Q, Daniel V, Maher DW, Hersey P. Production of IL-10 by melanoma cells: examination of its role in immunosuppression mediated by melanoma. Int J Cancer. 1994;56:755–60. [PubMed]
28. Gabrilovich DI, Chen HL, Girgis KR, et al. Production of vascular endothelial growth factor by human tumors inhibits the functional maturation of dendritic cells. Nat Med. 1996;2:1096–103. [PubMed]
29. de Caestecker MP, Piek E, Roberts AB. Role of transforming growth factor-beta signaling in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1388–402. [PubMed]
30. Staveley-O'Carroll K, Sotomayor E, Montgomery J, et al. Induction of antigen-specific T cell anergy: An early event in the course of tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:1178–83. [PubMed]