Suppression of Allograft Rejection by Tim-1-Fc through Cross-Linking with a Novel Tim-1 Binding Partner on T Cells

Engagement of T-cell immunoglobulin mucin (Tim)-1 on T cells with its ligand, Tim-4, on antigen presenting cells delivers positive costimulatory signals to T cells. However, the molecular mechanisms for Tim-1-mediated regulation of T-cell activation and differentiation are relatively poorly understood. Here we investigated the role of Tim-1 in T-cell responses and allograft rejection using recombinant human Tim-1 extracellular domain and IgG1-Fc fusion proteins (Tim-1-Fc). In vitro assays confirmed that Tim-1-Fc selectively binds to CD4+ effector T cells, but not dendritic cells or natural regulatory T cells (nTregs). Tim-1-Fc was able to inhibit the responses of purified CD4+ T cells that do not express Tim-4 to stimulation by anti-CD3/CD28 mAbs, and this inhibition was associated with reduced AKT and ERK1/2 phosphorylation, but it had no influence on nTregs. Moreover, Tim-1-Fc inhibited the proliferation of CD4+ T cells stimulated by allogeneic dendritic cells. Treatment of recipient mice with Tim-1-Fc significantly prolonged cardiac allograft survival in a fully MHC-mismatched strain combination, which was associated with impaired Th1 response and preserved Th2 and nTregs function. Importantly, the frequency of Foxp3+ cells in splenic CD4+ T cells was increased, thus shifting the balance toward regulators, even though Tim-1-Fc did not induce Foxp3 expression in CD4+CD25− T cells directly. These results indicate that Tim-1-Fc can inhibit T-cell responses through an unknown Tim-1 binding partner on T cells, and it is a promising immunosuppressive agent for preventing allograft rejection

Multiple molecular interactions redundantly contribute to RB-mediated cell cycle control

BACKGROUND: The G1-S phase transition is critical to maintaining proliferative control and preventing carcinogenesis. The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor is a key regulator of this step in the cell cycle. RESULTS: Here we use a structure–function approach to evaluate the contributions of multiple protein interaction surfaces on pRB towards cell cycle regulation. SAOS2 cell cycle arrest assays showed that disruption of three separate binding surfaces were necessary to inhibit pRB-mediated cell cycle control. Surprisingly, mutation of some interaction surfaces had no effect on their own. Rather, they only contributed to cell cycle arrest in the absence of other pRB dependent arrest functions. Specifically, our data shows that pRB–E2F interactions are competitive with pRB–CDH1 interactions, implying that interchangeable growth arrest functions underlie pRB’s ability to block proliferation. Additionally, disruption of similar cell cycle control mechanisms in genetically modified mutant mice results in ectopic DNA synthesis in the liver. CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates that pRB utilizes a network of mechanisms to prevent cell cycle entry. This has important implications for the use of new CDK4/6 inhibitors that aim to activate this proliferative control network

Cell cycle kinases as therapeutic targets for cancer.

Several families of protein kinases orchestrate the complex events that drive the cell cycle, and their activity is frequently deregulated in hyperproliferative cancer cells. Although several molecules that inhibit cell cycle kinases have been developed and clinically screened as potential anticancer agents, none of these has been approved for commercial use and an effective strategy to specifically control malignant cell proliferation has yet to be established. However, recent genetic and biochemical studies have provided information about the requirement for certain cell cycle kinases by specific tumours and specialized tissue types. Here, we discuss the potential and limitations of established cell cycle kinases as targets in anticancer drug discovery as well as novel strategies for the design of new agents