ENH tighten up the mouse discussion
This commit is contained in:
parent
efebf0a98d
commit
c1ff03d5f7
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
Before Width: | Height: | Size: 56 KiB After Width: | Height: | Size: 111 KiB |
|
@ -2544,6 +2544,45 @@ CONCLUSIONS: We developed a simplified, semi-closed system for the initial selec
|
|||
revised = {2008-07-28},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Article{Lozza2008,
|
||||
author = {Laura Lozza and Laura Rivino and Greta Guarda and David Jarrossay and Andrea Rinaldi and Francesco Bertoni and Federica Sallusto and Antonio Lanzavecchia and Jens Geginat},
|
||||
journal = {European Journal of Immunology},
|
||||
title = {The strength of T cell stimulation determines {IL}-7 responsiveness, secondary expansion, and lineage commitment of primed human {CD}4+{IL}-7Rhi T cells},
|
||||
year = {2008},
|
||||
month = {jan},
|
||||
number = {1},
|
||||
pages = {30--39},
|
||||
volume = {38},
|
||||
doi = {10.1002/eji.200737852},
|
||||
publisher = {Wiley},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Article{Lanzavecchia2005,
|
||||
author = {Antonio Lanzavecchia and Federica Sallusto},
|
||||
journal = {Current Opinion in Immunology},
|
||||
title = {Understanding the generation and function of memory T cell subsets},
|
||||
year = {2005},
|
||||
month = {jun},
|
||||
number = {3},
|
||||
pages = {326--332},
|
||||
volume = {17},
|
||||
doi = {10.1016/j.coi.2005.04.010},
|
||||
publisher = {Elsevier {BV}},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Article{Corse2011,
|
||||
author = {Emily Corse and Rachel A. Gottschalk and James P. Allison},
|
||||
journal = {The Journal of Immunology},
|
||||
title = {Strength of {TCR}{\textendash}Peptide/{MHC} Interactions and In Vivo T Cell Responses},
|
||||
year = {2011},
|
||||
month = {apr},
|
||||
number = {9},
|
||||
pages = {5039--5045},
|
||||
volume = {186},
|
||||
doi = {10.4049/jimmunol.1003650},
|
||||
publisher = {The American Association of Immunologists},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@Comment{jabref-meta: databaseType:bibtex;}
|
||||
|
||||
@Comment{jabref-meta: grouping:
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -2465,6 +2465,9 @@ however, to our knowledge this is the first system that specifically drives
|
|||
naïve/memory and CD4+ T cell formation in a scalable, potentially
|
||||
bioreactor-compatible manufacturing process.
|
||||
|
||||
% DISCUSSION assuage krish by showing that in the isotype control fig that IL2
|
||||
% doesn't activation T cells: https://www.jimmunol.org/content/jimmunol/191/12/5822.full.pdf
|
||||
|
||||
Memory and naïve T cells have been shown to be important clinically. Compared to
|
||||
effectors, they have a higher proliferative capacity and are able to engraft for
|
||||
months; thus they are able to provide long-term immunity with smaller
|
||||
|
@ -4148,8 +4151,6 @@ other groups in regard to the final tumor burden.
|
|||
|
||||
\section{discussion}
|
||||
|
||||
% FIGURE add CD45RA to this to rule out one of the alternative possibilities
|
||||
% explaining this data
|
||||
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
|
||||
\begingroup
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -4163,7 +4164,8 @@ other groups in regard to the final tumor burden.
|
|||
\subcap{fig:mouse_summary_1}{the first mouse experiment} and
|
||||
\subcap{fig:mouse_summary_2}{the second mouse experiment}. The y axis
|
||||
maximum is set to the maximum number of cells injected between both
|
||||
experiments (\num{1.25e6}).
|
||||
experiments (\num{1.25e6}). Note that the \gls{car} was quantified using a
|
||||
separate panel than the rest of the markers.
|
||||
}
|
||||
\label{fig:mouse_summary}
|
||||
\end{figure*}
|
||||
|
@ -4180,32 +4182,32 @@ tumor burden was higher than DMS groups across all the total T cell doses tested
|
|||
here. More interestingly, when only CAR-expressing T cell doses between bead and
|
||||
DMS groups were compared, DMS group had significantly higher survival effects
|
||||
over similar or higher CAR expression T cell doses from bead group. All these
|
||||
results suggest that the higher proportion of memory T cells in DMS groups
|
||||
(compared to bead group) resulted in highly effective CAR-T cells that can
|
||||
efficiently kill tumor cells as recently reported in
|
||||
literature\cite{Fraietta2018, Sommermeyer2015}.
|
||||
results suggest that the T cells in DMS groups (compared to bead group) resulted
|
||||
in highly effective CAR-T cells that can efficiently kill tumor cells.
|
||||
|
||||
% DISCUSSION cite a bunch of data saying memory and CD4 T cells are better in
|
||||
% mice
|
||||
When comparing the total number of T cells of different phenotypes, we observed
|
||||
that when comparing low-dose \gls{dms} group to the mid- bead groups (which had
|
||||
similar numbers of \gls{car} T cells), the number of \ptmem{} T cells injected
|
||||
was much lower in the \gls{dms} group (\cref{fig:mouse_summary_1}). This could
|
||||
mean several things. First, the \ptmem{} phenotype may have nothing to do with
|
||||
the results seen here, at least in this model. Second, the distribution of
|
||||
\gls{car} T cells across different subtypes of T cells was different between the
|
||||
\gls{dms} and bead groups (with possibly higher correlation of \gls{car}
|
||||
expression and the \ptmem{} phenotype). Third, the \ptmem{} phenotype may not be
|
||||
precise enough, and the functional `memory' phenotype is a subset of \ptmem{}
|
||||
which may be higher in the \gls{dms} group and explains the discrepancy between
|
||||
the two methods.
|
||||
similar numbers of \gls{car} T cells), the number of \ptmem{} (both with and
|
||||
without CD45RA) T cells injected was much lower in the \gls{dms} group
|
||||
(\cref{fig:mouse_summary_1}). This could mean several things. First, the
|
||||
\ptmem{} phenotype may have nothing to do with the results seen here, at least
|
||||
in this model. While this may have been the case in our hands, this would
|
||||
contradict previous evidence suggesting that \gls{tn} and \gls{tcm} cells work
|
||||
better in almost the same model (the only difference being Raji cells in place
|
||||
of Nalm-6 cells, both of which express CD19)\cite{Sommermeyer2015}. Second, the
|
||||
distribution of \gls{car} T cells across different subtypes of T cells was
|
||||
different between the \gls{dms} and bead groups (with possibly higher
|
||||
correlation of \gls{car} expression and the \ptmem{} phenotype). It is hard to
|
||||
assess this without strong assumptions as the \gls{car} was quantified using a
|
||||
separate flow panel relative to the other markers.
|
||||
|
||||
% DISCUSSION cite why CD4 or CD8 matters in this model
|
||||
We can also make a similar observation for the number of \pth{} T cells injected
|
||||
(\cref{fig:mouse_summary_1}). In this case, either the \pth{} phenotype doesn't
|
||||
matter in this model (or the \ptk{} population matters much more), or the
|
||||
distribution of \gls{car} is different between CD4 and CD8 T cells in a manner
|
||||
that favors the \gls{dms} group.
|
||||
that favors the \gls{dms} group. While in a glioblastoma model and not a B-cell
|
||||
\gls{all} model, previous groups have shown that \pthp{} T cells are important
|
||||
for response\cite{Wang2018}.
|
||||
|
||||
When testing \gls{car} T cells at earlier timepoints relative to day 14 as used
|
||||
in the first \invivo{} experiment, we noted that none of the \gls{car}
|
||||
|
@ -4221,10 +4223,11 @@ to perform better at day 6 as it held off the tumor longer, and also slowed the
|
|||
tumor progression relative to the bead group at day 14
|
||||
(\cref{fig:mouse_timecourse_ivis_plots}).
|
||||
|
||||
Taken together, these data suggest that on average, the \gls{dms} platform
|
||||
produces T cells that have an advantage \invivo{} over beads. While we may not
|
||||
know the exact mechanism, our data suggests that the responses are
|
||||
unsurprisingly influenced by the \ptcarp{} of the final product.
|
||||
Taken together, these data suggest that the \gls{dms} platform produces T cells
|
||||
that have an advantage \invivo{} over beads. While we may not know the exact
|
||||
mechanism, our data suggests that the responses are unsurprisingly influenced by
|
||||
the \ptcarp{} of the final product. Followup experiments would need to be
|
||||
performed to determine the precise phenotype responsible for these responses.
|
||||
|
||||
\chapter{conclusions and future work}\label{conclusions}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -4287,13 +4290,13 @@ to control and optimize the \gls{dms} system. We determined that altering the
|
|||
\gls{dms} concentration temporally has profound effects on the phenotype and
|
||||
expansion rate. This agrees with other data we obtained in \cref{aim2a} and with
|
||||
what others have generally reported about signal strength and T cell
|
||||
differentiation\cite{Gattinoni2012}. We did not find any mechanistic
|
||||
relationship between either integrin signaling or \gls{il15} signaling. In the
|
||||
case of the former, it may be more likely that the \glspl{dms} surfaces are
|
||||
saturated to the point of sterically hindering any integrin interactions with
|
||||
the collagen surface. In the case of \gls{il15} more experiments likely need to
|
||||
be done in order to plausibly rule out this mechanism and/or determine if it is
|
||||
involved at all.
|
||||
differentiation\cite{Gattinoni2012, Lozza2008, Lanzavecchia2005, Corse2011}. We
|
||||
did not find any mechanistic relationship between either integrin signaling or
|
||||
\gls{il15} signaling. In the case of the former, it may be more likely that the
|
||||
\glspl{dms} surfaces are saturated to the point of sterically hindering any
|
||||
integrin interactions with the collagen surface. In the case of \gls{il15} more
|
||||
experiments likely need to be done in order to plausibly rule out this mechanism
|
||||
and/or determine if it is involved at all.
|
||||
|
||||
% TODO make this tighter and cite paper showing that this makes at least some
|
||||
% sense
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue