Gene expression profiling in acute allograft rejection: challenging the immunologic constant of rejection hypothesis

In humans, the role and relationship between molecular pathways that lead to tissue destruction during acute allograft rejection are not fully understood. Based on studies conducted in humans, we recently hypothesized that different immune-mediated tissue destruction processes (i.e. cancer, infection, autoimmunity) share common convergent final mechanisms. We called this phenomenon the "Immunologic Constant of Rejection (ICR)." The elements of the ICR include molecular pathways that are consistently described through different immune-mediated tissue destruction processes and demonstrate the activation of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs), the recruitment of cytotoxic immune cells (primarily through CXCR3/CCR5 ligand pathways), and the activation of immune effector function genes (IEF genes; granzymes A/B, perforin, etc.)

An immunologic portrait of cancer

The advent of high-throughput technology challenges the traditional histopathological classification of cancer, and proposes new taxonomies derived from global transcriptional patterns. Although most of these molecular re-classifications did not endure the test of time, they provided bulk of new information that can reframe our understanding of human cancer biology. Here, we focus on an immunologic interpretation of cancer that segregates oncogenic processes independent from their tissue derivation into at least two categories of which one bears the footprints of immune activation. Several observations describe a cancer phenotype where the expression of interferon stimulated genes and immune effector mechanisms reflect patterns commonly observed during the inflammatory response against pathogens, which leads to elimination of infected cells. As these signatures are observed in growing cancers, they are not sufficient to entirely clear the organism of neoplastic cells but they sustain, as in chronic infections, a self-perpetuating inflammatory process. Yet, several studies determined an association between this inflammatory status and a favorable natural history of the disease or a better responsiveness to cancer immune therapy. Moreover, these signatures overlap with those observed during immune-mediated cancer rejection and, more broadly, immune-mediated tissue-specific destruction in other immune pathologies. Thus, a discussion concerning this cancer phenotype is warranted as it remains unknown why it occurs in immune competent hosts. It also remains uncertain whether a genetically determined response of the host to its own cancer, the genetic makeup of the neoplastic process or a combination of both drives the inflammatory process. Here we reflect on commonalities and discrepancies among studies and on the genetic or somatic conditions that may cause this schism in cancer behavior

The stable traits of melanoma genetics: an alternate approach to target discovery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The weight that gene copy number plays in transcription remains controversial; although in specific cases gene expression correlates with copy number, the relationship cannot be inferred at the global level. We hypothesized that genes steadily expressed by 15 melanoma cell lines (CMs) and their parental tissues (TMs) should be critical for oncogenesis and their expression most frequently influenced by their respective copy number.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Functional interpretation of 3,030 transcripts concordantly expressed (Pearson's correlation coefficient p-value < 0.05) by CMs and TMs confirmed an enrichment of functions crucial to oncogenesis. Among them, 968 were expressed according to the transcriptional efficiency predicted by copy number analysis (Pearson's correlation coefficient p-value < 0.05). We named these genes, "genomic delegates" as they represent at the transcriptional level the genetic footprint of individual cancers. We then tested whether the genes could categorize 112 melanoma metastases. Two divergent phenotypes were observed: one with prevalent expression of cancer testis antigens, enhanced cyclin activity, WNT signaling, and a Th17 immune phenotype (Class A). This phenotype expressed, therefore, transcripts previously associated to more aggressive cancer. The second class (B) prevalently expressed genes associated with melanoma signaling including <it>MITF</it>, melanoma differentiation antigens, and displayed a Th1 immune phenotype associated with better prognosis and likelihood to respond to immunotherapy. An intermediate third class (C) was further identified. The three phenotypes were confirmed by unsupervised principal component analysis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study suggests that clinically relevant phenotypes of melanoma can be retraced to stable oncogenic properties of cancer cells linked to their genetic back bone, and offers a roadmap for uncovering novel targets for tailored anti-cancer therapy.</p

Melanoma NOS1 expression promotes dysfunctional IFN signaling.

In multiple forms of cancer, constitutive activation of type I IFN signaling is a critical consequence of immune surveillance against cancer; however, PBMCs isolated from cancer patients exhibit depressed STAT1 phosphorylation in response to IFN-α, suggesting IFN signaling dysfunction. Here, we demonstrated in a coculture system that melanoma cells differentially impairs the IFN-α response in PBMCs and that the inhibitory potential of a particular melanoma cell correlates with NOS1 expression. Comparison of gene transcription and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) between melanoma cells from different patients indicated that suppression of IFN-α signaling correlates with an amplification of the NOS1 locus within segment 12q22-24. Evaluation of NOS1 levels in melanomas and IFN responsiveness of purified PBMCs from patients indicated a negative correlation between NOS1 expression in melanomas and the responsiveness of PBMCs to IFN-α. Furthermore, in an explorative study, NOS1 expression in melanoma metastases was negatively associated with patient response to adoptive T cell therapy. This study provides a link between cancer cell phenotype and IFN signal dysfunction in circulating immune cells

Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: A synopsis from the SITC workshop

Tumor immunology has changed the landscape of cancer treatment. Yet, not all patients benefit as cancer immune responsiveness (CIR) remains a limitation in a considerable proportion of cases. The multifactorial determinants of CIR include the genetic makeup of the patient, the genomic instability central to cancer development, the evolutionary emergence of cancer phenotypes under the influence of immune editing, and external modifiers such as demographics, environment, treatment potency, co-morbidities and cancer-independent alterations including immune homeostasis and polymorphisms in the major and minor histocompatibility molecules, cytokines, and chemokines. Based on the premise that cancer is fundamentally a disorder of the genes arising within a cell biologic process, whose deviations from normality determine the rules of engagement with the host's response, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a task force of experts from various disciplines including, immunology, oncology, biophysics, structural biology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics to address the complexity of CIR from a holistic view. The task force was launched by a workshop held in San Francisco on May 14-15, 2018 aimed at two preeminent goals: 1) to identify the fundamental questions related to CIR and 2) to create an interactive community of experts that could guide scientific and research priorities by forming a logical progression supported by multiple perspectives to uncover mechanisms of CIR. This workshop was a first step toward a second meeting where the focus would be to address the actionability of some of the questions identified by working groups. In this event, five working groups aimed at defining a path to test hypotheses according to their relevance to human cancer and identifying experimental models closest to human biology, which include: 1) Germline-Genetic, 2) Somatic-Genetic and 3) Genomic-Transcriptional contributions to CIR, 4) Determinant(s) of Immunogenic Cell Death that modulate CIR, and 5) Experimental Models that best represent CIR and its conversion to an immune responsive state. This manuscript summarizes the contributions from each group and should be considered as a first milestone in the path toward a more contemporary understanding of CIR. We appreciate that this effort is far from comprehensive and that other relevant aspects related to CIR such as the microbiome, the individual's recombined T cell and B cell receptors, and the metabolic status of cancer and immune cells were not fully included. These and other important factors will be included in future activities of the taskforce. The taskforce will focus on prioritization and specific actionable approach to answer the identified questions and implementing the collaborations in the follow-up workshop, which will be held in Houston on September 4-5, 2019

Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: a synopsis from the SITC workshop.

Tumor immunology has changed the landscape of cancer treatment. Yet, not all patients benefit as cancer immune responsiveness (CIR) remains a limitation in a considerable proportion of cases. The multifactorial determinants of CIR include the genetic makeup of the patient, the genomic instability central to cancer development, the evolutionary emergence of cancer phenotypes under the influence of immune editing, and external modifiers such as demographics, environment, treatment potency, co-morbidities and cancer-independent alterations including immune homeostasis and polymorphisms in the major and minor histocompatibility molecules, cytokines, and chemokines. Based on the premise that cancer is fundamentally a disorder of the genes arising within a cell biologic process, whose deviations from normality determine the rules of engagement with the host\u27s response, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a task force of experts from various disciplines including, immunology, oncology, biophysics, structural biology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics to address the complexity of CIR from a holistic view. The task force was launched by a workshop held in San Francisco on May 14-15, 2018 aimed at two preeminent goals: 1) to identify the fundamental questions related to CIR and 2) to create an interactive community of experts that could guide scientific and research priorities by forming a logical progression supported by multiple perspectives to uncover mechanisms of CIR. This workshop was a first step toward a second meeting where the focus would be to address the actionability of some of the questions identified by working groups. In this event, five working groups aimed at defining a path to test hypotheses according to their relevance to human cancer and identifying experimental models closest to human biology, which include: 1) Germline-Genetic, 2) Somatic-Genetic and 3) Genomic-Transcriptional contributions to CIR, 4) Determinant(s) of Immunogenic Cell Death that modulate CIR, and 5) Experimental Models that best represent CIR and its conversion to an immune responsive state. This manuscript summarizes the contributions from each group and should be considered as a first milestone in the path toward a more contemporary understanding of CIR. We appreciate that this effort is far from comprehensive and that other relevant aspects related to CIR such as the microbiome, the individual\u27s recombined T cell and B cell receptors, and the metabolic status of cancer and immune cells were not fully included. These and other important factors will be included in future activities of the taskforce. The taskforce will focus on prioritization and specific actionable approach to answer the identified questions and implementing the collaborations in the follow-up workshop, which will be held in Houston on September 4-5, 2019

Correction to: Toward a comprehensive view of cancer immune responsiveness: a synopsis from the SITC workshop.

Following publication of the original article [1], the author reported that an author name, Roberta Zappasodi, was missed in the authorship list