Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Immunology
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
The Journal of Immunology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on Twitter
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on RSS

Molecular Profile of Tumor-Specific CD8+ T Cell Hypofunction in a Transplantable Murine Cancer Model

Katherine A. Waugh, Sonia M. Leach, Brandon L. Moore, Tullia C. Bruno, Jonathan D. Buhrman and Jill E. Slansky
J Immunol August 15, 2016, 197 (4) 1477-1488; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1600589
Katherine A. Waugh
*University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sonia M. Leach
†Center for Genes, Environment and Health, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO 80206
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brandon L. Moore
*University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tullia C. Bruno
*University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan D. Buhrman
*University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jill E. Slansky
*University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Mechanisms of self-tolerance often result in CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) with a hypofunctional phenotype incapable of tumor clearance. Using a transplantable colon carcinoma model, we found that CD8+ T cells became tolerized in <24 h in an established tumor environment. To define the collective impact of pathways suppressing TIL function, we compared genome-wide mRNA expression of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells from the tumor and periphery. Notably, gene expression induced during TIL hypofunction more closely resembled self-tolerance than viral exhaustion. Differential gene expression was refined to identify a core set of genes that defined hypofunctional TIL; these data comprise the first molecular profile of tumor-specific TIL that are naturally responding and represent a polyclonal repertoire. The molecular profile of TIL was further dissected to determine the extent of overlap and distinction between pathways that collectively restrict T cell functions. As suggested by the molecular profile of TIL, protein expression of inhibitory receptor LAG-3 was differentially regulated throughout prolonged late-G1/early-S phase of the cell cycle. Our data may accelerate efficient identification of combination therapies to boost anti-tumor function of TIL specifically against tumor cells.

Introduction

For some cancers, immunological data from tumor samples are better predictors of patient survival than those currently used to stage disease (1, 2). Compelling evidence associates functional CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) with survival of patients with cancer. For example, patient survival positively correlates with TIL that produce proinflammatory cytokines such as IFN-γ, kill target cells, and progress through the cell cycle. These data suggest that the immunological status of TIL is paramount for patient response.

To acquire cytotoxic functions, the Ag receptor on naive T cells must be engaged in a proinflammatory environment (3). Cell-intrinsic pathways are then initiated to drive T cell proliferation and differentiation to cytotoxic T cells that kill cells expressing the associated Ag. CD8+ T cell activation and differentiation are substantially altered by slight changes in the environment and Ag encounter. In the context of cancer, tumor environments evolve to suppress and evade CD8+ T cells (4); therefore, TIL typically have a hypofunctional phenotype incapable of mounting an effective attack against an established solid tumor (5).

Exhaustion, tolerance, anergy, senescence, and ignorance are states of CD8+ T cell hypofunction that have been tied to TIL (3). Of these programs, hypofunctional TIL are most commonly referred to as exhausted or tolerant. T cell exhaustion occurs during prolonged inflammation and/or TCR exposure to an Ag, such as during a chronic viral infection. Peripheral T cell tolerance occurs more quickly when Ag is presented in the absence of immunostimulatory signals to avoid self-reactivity and autoimmunity. Unlike naive or memory CD8+ T cells that, upon TCR and costimulation, enter the cell cycle to undergo clonal expansion into functional effector T cells, a functional response by exhausted and self-tolerant CD8+ T cells is constrained.

The promise of promoting functional TIL to treat patients with cancer has been developing for decades to produce a recent explosion of clinical successes (6). Such therapies include blockade of receptors, such as programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) (7), that inhibit TIL function. However, a therapy that targets just one inhibitory pathway is often ineffective against established solid tumors. Cotherapies targeting multiple pathways inhibiting TIL function have recently translated from mouse models to the clinic (8). For instance, dual blockade of T cell inhibitory receptors PD-1 and TIM-3 was first shown to augment clearance of the CT26 solid tumor model in mice (9) and is now in clinical trials (trial registration ID: NCT02608268).

The transplantable colon carcinoma CT26 (10) reflects both the infiltrating immune cells and pathways of immune suppression found in many solid human tumors that are immunogenic (11, 12). As with many Ags being pursued in patients with cancer (13, 14), the immunodominant CD8+ T cell response against CT26 is directed against a tumor/self-antigen, GP70423–431, also known as AH1 (15, 16). CT26 TIL exhibit an exhausted phenotype similar to CD8+ T cells from patients with melanoma that bear TCRs specific for a tumor/self-antigen (9, 17). The majority of CT26 TIL express multiple inhibitory receptors and are hypofunctional (9). Nevertheless, mobilizing a functional CD8+ T cell response is necessary for successful anti-CT26 immunotherapy (18).

In this study, we show within just 24 h of transfer into a CT26 tumor-bearing host, AH1-specific CD8+ T cells that were protective in a prophylactic setting (19) were markedly hypofunctional in the tumor compared with those in the periphery. To molecularly define the collective impact of pathways that suppress AH1-specific TIL function, we compared genome-wide mRNA expression of AH1-specific CD8+ T cells from the CT26 tumor and periphery. Gene expression of TIL hypofunction more closely resembled self-tolerance than viral exhaustion. Differential gene expression identified a core set of genes, or molecular profile, that defined TIL hypofunction. Further scrutiny of the molecular profile of TIL delineated overlapping and distinct pathways that restrict function of polyclonal TIL to highlight key mechanisms that are known, hypothesized, and potentially novel drivers of immune suppression and evasion. The T cells from the tumor were hypofunctional and expressed more inhibitory receptor protein when compared with those in the periphery. Known restrictors of TIL function were predicted to converge at cell cycle inhibition. Inhibitory receptor LAG-3 and cell cycle progression validated a simplified approach for pathway analysis of small gene clusters within the molecular profile of TIL. TIL progressed more slowly through late-G1 and early S-phase, associated with expression of inhibitory receptor LAG-3. Our molecular dissection of overlapping and distinct pathways that restrict TIL function may accelerate identification of efficient cotherapy combinations to boost naturally responding TIL specifically against tumors.

Materials and Methods

Mice

Female BALB/c (BALB/cAnNCr) mice were purchased from the National Cancer Institute and Charles River Laboratories. Mice congenic for thymus cell Ag-1 (Thy1), a kind gift of Dr. Charles D. Surh of The Scripps Research Institute, were bred onto the BALB/cAnCr background for six generations. For all experiments, mice were 6–12 wk old unless otherwise indicated; all animal protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at National Jewish Health or the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CU-SOM).

Peptides, vaccine, and tumor challenge

Peptides used were βgal (TPHPARIGL) (20), AH1 (SPSYVYHQF) (15), and a TCR agonist of AH1 (amino acid substitution in boldface), A5 (SPSYAYHQF) (21). Soluble synthetic peptides were ≥95% pure (Chi Scientific), and stocks were diluted to 10 mg/ml in double distilled H2O. CD8+ T cells bearing TCRs specific for the immunodominant CT26 T cell epitope AH1 (15) were expanded in vivo through vaccination with peptide A5, as described (18). Mice were challenged s.c. with 5 × 104 CT26 tumor cells on the hind flank (21). Tumors were measured with calipers, and mice were sacrificed when indicated or the tumor size reached 1 cm in the longest diameter. Spleens from five vaccinated mice were combined, enriched for CD8+ T cells with a Mouse CD8 Negative Selection Kit (Invitrogen), and then divided equally among 10 recipient mice (∼1 × 107 cells/mouse) for i.v. injection into Thy1 congenic naive or tumor-bearing hosts. Spleens and tumors were harvested at the indicated time points and assayed for inhibitory receptor expression and IFN-γ production as specified below.

Isolation of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells

Tumors were collected from BALB/c mice, minced using a razor blade, and treated for 45 min at 37°C with 0.1 mg/ml Liberase (Research Grade, Dispase Low) in serum-free RPMI 1640 medium according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Roche Life Science). Large clumps of tumor were broken up through an 18-gauge needle, filtered through a 100-μm cell strainer, and washed in complete medium [RPMI with l-glutamine, 10% FBS, 100 U/ml each penicillin and streptomycin, 1 mmol sodium pyruvate, 10 mmol HEPES, 1× MEM nonessential amino acids, 2 mmol additional l-glutamine, and 0.1 mmol 2-ME (Sigma-Aldrich), as described (21)]. When indicated, Ficoll-Paque PLUS (GE Healthcare) was used according to the manufacturer’s instructions to enrich for live lymphocytes. Splenocytes were harvested from mice, mechanically dissociated, treated for ∼2 min with ammonium chloride-potassium lysis buffer (ACK) (22), filtered through a 100-μm cell strainer, and washed in complete medium. Before FACS, spleens were processed into single-cell suspensions through Liberase digestion, as performed for tumors. Before FACS and adoptive transfer experiments, CD8+ T cells were enriched from splenocytes using the Mouse CD8 Negative Selection Kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cells were used directly for staining, in vitro stimulation assays, or adoptive cell transfer.

Abs, staining reagents, and flow cytometry

For flow cytometry analyses, 2 × 106 live cells were incubated in 30-μl stains containing an Ab to block FcRs (2.4G2) and fluorochrome-conjugated Abs for at least 45 min at room temperature while protected from light. All staining was done in flow cytometry wash buffer [FACS buffer, 1× PBS, 2% FBS, 10 mmol HEPES (pH 7.5), and 0.1% (w/v) sodium azide, as described (21)] for at least 45 min at room temperature. Stain time was increased to 1.5 h when peptide-loaded H-2Ld-tetramer (23) was included.

Fluorochrome-conjugated Abs purchased from BioLegend, unless otherwise noted, included the following: mouse CD8α (53-6.7), CD11a (M17/4), CD4 (RM4-5), B220 (RA3-6B2), MHC class II (I-A/I-E; M5/114.15.2), CD279/PD-1 (RMP1-30), CD366/TIM-3 (B8.2C12), CD223/LAG-3 (C9B7W), CD244.1/2B4 (C9.1; BD Biosciences), and Thy1.1 (53-2.1; eBioscience). Other staining reagents included viability-discriminating agents 7-aminoactinomycin D (7-AAD; 1 mg/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) and Fixable Viability Dye eFluor 450 (eBioscience) that were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. CD4/B220/I-A/I-E Abs and viability-discriminating agents are collectively referred to as the dump.

Cells were stained for sorts at 35 × 107 cells/ml, then diluted to ∼5 × 107 cells/ml sorting buffer (1× PBS, 1 mmol EDTA, 25 mmol HEPES [pH 7], and 1% FBS), and sorted by FACS into complete medium. Intracellular cytokines were stained as described (24) following peptide stimulations at 10 pg/ml, 10 ng/ml, and 10 μg/ml, but stains contained an Ab directed against Thy1.1 rather than CD11a. Samples were analyzed on a variety of flow cytometers, and data were analyzed using Kaluza (Beckman Coulter) or FlowJo software (Tree Star).

Microarray

Single-cell suspensions were stained with Fixable Viability Dye, then with AH1–H-2Ld-tetramer (23), and fluorochrome-conjugated Abs against CD8α, CD11a, CD4, B220, and I-A/I-E. Tumor-specific live CD8+ T cells were sorted by FACS to a purity of 90–100% from tumors on the MoFlo XDP100 (Beckman Coulter) and from spleens on the MoFlo XDP70 (Beckman Coulter) at the CU-SOM Cancer Center Flow Cytometry Shared Resource.

RNA was immediately extracted using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen) and treated once with ∼30 Kunitz units of DNase I (Qiagen) for 15 min. RNA quality was determined by BioAnalyzer (Agilent Technologies) and quantified by Qubit (Life Technologies). Samples were narrowed to those that had an RNA integrity number of 9.6-10 and a minimum of 5 ng total RNA (25) before submission to the CU-SOM Genomics and Microarray Core to be amplified by the Ovation RNA Amplification System V2 (NuGEN) (25) and hybridized to Mouse Gene1.0 ST Arrays (Affymetrix) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Cell cycle analysis

Tumors or spleens were processed into single-cell suspensions, and live lymphocytes were enriched from tumors using Ficoll-Paque PLUS (GE Healthcare) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cells were plated at 2 × 106 cells/ml complete medium in 24-well tissue culture plates and stimulated by plate-bound CD3 and CD28, each at 2 μg/ml, and spun for 2 min at ∼340 × g to synchronize cell cycle progression. After 48 h, cells were pulsed for 1 or 2 h with 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine (EdU; 10 μmol; Sigma-Aldrich), washed in complete medium, and stained for live CD8+ T cells and EdU using the Click-iT Plus EdU Flow Cytometry Assay Kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, cells were fixed, permeabilized, and EdU was detected with one-fifth the recommended Click-iT reaction to decrease background. To stain total DNA, 7-AAD was diluted 1:400 in permeabilization buffer (Life Technologies) and used in combination with RNaseA (0.2 mg/ml; Qiagen). Cell cycle phase was determined for live CD8+ T cells by flow cytometry.

Statistical analyses

High-throughput microarray data were processed by Affymetrix Expression Console software (Affymetrix; affymetrix.com), performing robust multichip analysis background correction, quantile normalization, and median polish summarization. The gene-expression data described in this paper have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE79858 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE79858). Data sets were compared by one-way ANOVA to delineate significant differential gene expression when p ≤ 0.01, false discovery rate (FDR) ≤0.01 [Benjamini-Hochberg method (26)], and |log2 (ratio)| ≥ (+2-fold). The molecular profile of the tumor Ag-specific polyclonal repertoire (TASPR) TIL consists of differentially expressed genes that have been narrowed by multiple statistical analysis as described above for ANOVA and significance analysis of microarray (SAM) (27, 28), where q ≤0.05 [Benjamini-Hochberg method, FDR ≤0.01 (26)] and |log2 (ratio)| ≥ (+2-fold). SAM was done in MeV version 4.8 (29). Principal component analysis (PCA), ANOVA, and corresponding Volcano plots were done using Partek software (Partek, St. Louis, MO). The PCA was done on scaled data.

All gene set enrichment analyses (GSEAs) were run simultaneously using the GSEA software from the Broad Institute (30) and used the following parameters recommended for expression data sets that contain a sample with fewer than seven replicates: all data were converted into gene symbols, redundant probe sets were collapsed using probe medians, a Signal2Noise metric was used for ranking genes, the weighted enrichment statistic was employed, and 1000 gene set permutations were used. All comparison populations and statistics used to generate gene sets have been published (17, 31–34). For gene sets corresponding to human data, gene symbols were converted to mouse gene symbols by the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) version 6.7 (35, 36), and gene symbols were manually verified to contain the gene symbol identifier(s) corresponding to our microarray Probe Set identification. A compiled list of all gene sets used for GSEA has been included (Supplemental Table I). Leading edge comparisons were done in a Pangloss Venn diagram generator.

Figure of merit (FOM) (37) was used to estimate the appropriate number of clusters to divide these data for the K-means clustering (KMC) algorithm (38, 39). The smallest cluster number was used for which FOM values did not continue to decrease. To verify the appropriate number of clusters to divide differentially expressed genes for pathway analysis, we analyzed these data divided into 5, 7, and 13 clusters by ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA). Thirteen clusters were ultimately used, as it was the smallest number of clusters for which the FOM value leveled out (at 6) and had the lowest trend in overall p values associated with biofunctions that were predicted to be enriched among clusters by pathway analysis. All pathway analyses were done through Qiagen’s IPA (Qiagen, Redwood City, CA). MeV was used for FOM, KMC, and to generate the histogram (29). Expression profiles for clusters 1, 3, and 5 were made using custom R scripts. Gene type was determined in PANTHER through Gene Ontology protein class (40); unidentified genes in PANTHER were manually assigned a gene type through a Gene Ontology molecular function backed with stringent evidence in mice by inference from a mutant phenotype or a direct assay in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database. All gene products that did not meet the criteria to merit a specified gene type were listed as miscellaneous. TRANSFAC provided by the GATHER Web tool was used to analyze promoter regions of differentially expressed genes for enrichment of transcription factor motifs (41).

Unless otherwise indicated, all other statistical significance was analyzed using an unpaired two-tailed Student t test (Prism version 4.0; GraphPad). A p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant, and error bars represent SEM. Statistical significance is denoted by an asterisk, in which *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, and ****p ≤ 0.0001.

Results

TIL rapidly lose function in the CT26 tumor environment

We previously showed that vaccine strategies that are protective against CT26 tumor growth do not work as well in a therapeutic setting (19). These results led us to determine how quickly tumor-specific CD8+ T cells become hypofunctional in an established tumor environment. We investigated the loss of the production of the anti-tumor cytokine, IFN-γ (4). Although hypofunction of early exhausted CD8+ T cells often cannot be detected without analysis of multiple functions, reduced capacity to produce IFN-γ generally occurs more slowly than loss of target cell lysis, proliferative potential, as well as IL-2 and TNF-α production (42). Deficient IFN-γ production is also a hallmark of CD8+ T cell tolerance (43). We expected functional analysis of IFN-γ production to distinguish between exhausted and tolerant TIL, as loss of IFN-γ production should occur overtime during exhaustion and immediately in tolerance (3).

Functional tumor-specific CD8+ T cells were expanded in vivo by a vaccine strategy that is protective against CT26 tumor challenge (18). We transferred these cells into congenic hosts bearing an established CT26 tumor. Within 24 h of transfer, tumor-specific TIL became markedly hypofunctional relative to peripheral counterparts (Fig. 1A, 1B), a phenotype that became more pronounced over 1 wk (Fig. 1C, 1D). Transferred T cells were similarly functional in the spleens of tumor-bearing and non–tumor-bearing mice (K.A. Waugh, unpublished observations). IFN-γ protein expression in response to PMA/ionomycin stimulation (a means to bypass TCR signaling) was also decreased, suggesting that functional defects of TIL were cell intrinsic. In addition, the immediate loss of function and accumulation of multiple inhibitory receptors suggested that self-tolerance of TIL is established quickly in a solid tumor environment.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Effector CD8+ T cells become hypofunctional within 24 h in a CT26 tumor environment. Transferred live CD8+ T cells, known to protect against tumor challenge, were adoptively transferred into a tumor-bearing host and monitored at the indicated time points from the tumor (Tum) and spleen (Sp). (A) One day after adoptive transfer into a tumor-bearing host, transferred (Thy1.1+) CD8+ T cells from the Tum and Sp were assayed for IFN-γ protein in response to A5 peptide (10 μg/ml) stimulation ex vivo. Geometric mean fluorescence intensities (gMFIs) in representative dot plots from IFN-γ+ endogenous (upper left quadrant, black) and transferred (upper right quadrant, red) live CD8+ T cells are shown. (B) Expression level of IFN-γ in transferred CD8+ T cells from the Tum and Sp was measured in response to A5 peptide (10 μg/ml) and PMA/ionomycin stimulation ex vivo 1 d after adoptive transfer into a tumor-bearing host. β−galactosidase (βgal; 10 μg/ml) is an H-2Ld–binding irrelevant peptide. (C) Coexpression of inhibitory receptors was monitored over time on transferred CD8+ T cells from the Tum and Sp. 0d represents immediately before transfer, and a frequency of “0” designates no dual PD-1+/TIM-3+ cells of interest. (D) Transferred CD8+ T cells from the Tum and Sp were monitored over time for IFN-γ protein production following ex vivo PMA/ionomycin stimulation. A gMFI of “0” designates no IFN-γ+ among cells of interest. Data represent at least two independent experiments, n = 2 to 3 biological replicates per group, and error bars indicate SD of the mean. **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, ****p ≤ 0.0001.

Alternatively, differences among transferred T cells in the spleen and tumor may have been due to altered trafficking of differentially activated polyclonal T cells after vaccination rather than a suppressive tumor environment. However, when the vaccination is given prophylactically, functional CD8+ T cells traffic to eliminate CT26 tumors (18). Therefore, immediate differential expression of proteins, such as IFN-γ, in T cells from the spleen and tumor strongly suggested that the tumor and spleen environments differentially affect the functionality of T cells.

Genome-wide mRNA expression of TIL and functional validation

To ultimately define the collective impact of multiple pathways suppressing CT26 TIL function (44), a comparison of genome-wide mRNA expression of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells from the tumor was required (Fig. 2A). Tumor-bearing mice were vaccinated to expand tumor-specific CD8+ T cells for detection in the periphery. Although this vaccination strategy is protective when given prophylatically (18), under the therapeutic conditions used, vaccination only slightly delayed tumor growth. Therefore, we hypothesized that the TIL from vaccinated tumor-bearing mice (TILV) have a hypofunctional phenotype similar to naturally responding TIL in comparison with a peripheral counterpart in vaccinated tumor-bearing mice (AH1-specific CD8+ T cells from spleens in CT26 tumor-bearing mice [SpTV]). Because tumors have systemic effects on the immune system, we also included a cohort of AH1-specific CD8+ T cells from vaccinated spleens in non–tumor-bearing mice (SpV) as a positive control for effective antitumor function. Rather than transferred T cells, we defined the hypofunction of naturally responding TIL after chronic exposure to a tumor environment. Tumor-specific CD8+ T cells were tetramer sorted from tumors (TIL and TILV) and spleens (SpTV and SpV) (Supplemental Fig. 1) for genome-wide mRNA expression analysis.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Genome-wide mRNA expression of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells segregates into two functionally distinct clusters. (A) Schematic of the origin of tumor Ag-specific T cells is shown. AH1-specific CD8+ T cells were tetramer-sorted from CT26 tumors of mice that had (TILV) or had not (TIL) been vaccinated and spleens of vaccinated mice that either harbored (SpTV) or did not harbor tumors (SpV). (B) mRNA from the groups described in (A) was interrogated by microarray. PCA divided genome-wide mRNA expression of the indicated cell populations into two distinct clusters: tumor-specific CD8+ T cells from the spleen or the tumor. Five to 10 mice were pooled per group, and each group was repeated three times. (C) AH1-specific CD8+ T cells described in (A) were stimulated ex vivo with increasing concentrations of the indicated peptide and assayed for IFN-γ production. (D) AH1-specific CD8+ T cells described in (A) were analyzed for inhibitory receptor expression. The gray histogram represents naive CD8+ T cells from a spleen as a negative control for inhibitory receptor expression. (C) and (D) are representative data of at least two independent experiments, n = 1–4 biological replicates, and error bars indicate SD. **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

To identify genome-wide similarities and differences in the mRNA of samples and determine the most appropriate grouping of samples, we performed PCA (45). PCA is a statistical technique to reduce a large set of variables to a small set of principal components that contain most of the original variation. The two largest principal components, PC 1 and PC 2, accounted for 48.5% of the variance between samples and divided tumor-specific CD8+ T cells into two distinct clusters, those from the spleen and the tumor (Fig. 2B). Therefore, genome-wide mRNA expression of TIL and TILV was most similar to each other and diverged from peripheral counterparts SpTV and SpV.

We next determined if tumor-specific CD8+ T cells from the spleen and tumor also represented functionally distinct cohorts and expressed the expected inhibitory receptors. As determined by IFN-γ production, TIL from vaccinated mice were comparably hypofunctional to TIL from nonvaccinated mice, whereas function of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells from the spleens of vaccinated tumor-bearing mice was similar to that of cells from vaccinated non–tumor-bearing mice (Fig. 2C). TIL and TILV had higher protein expression of multiple inhibitory receptors than SpTV and SpV (Fig. 2D); the expression data were comparable to those obtained in Fig. 1 and previously published studies of naturally responding CD8+ TIL of CT26 tumors that did not consider Ag specificity (9). These results suggested that our genome-wide mRNA expression data reflect differential gene expression responsible for hypofunction of TIL in the tumor environment. For the remaining analyses, the tumor Ag-specific polyclonal repertoire of CD8+ T cells from tumors (TIL and TILV) and spleens (SpTV and SpV) will collectively be referred to as TASPR T cells from the CT26 tumor.

Gene expression of heterogeneous TASPR TIL resembles self-tolerance

GSEA is a statistical method commonly used to compare gene expression results between data sets that are derived from independent experiments (17, 30, 46). We used GSEA to determine if TASPR TIL had similar gene expression to other published gene expression profiles of hypofunctional T cells that have been associated with TIL. These included exhaustion, tolerance, anergy, and other TIL profiles (Fig. 3A, Supplemental Table I) (17, 31–34). TASPR TIL were also compared by GSEA to other functional T cell subsets that can infiltrate tumors, such as memory and effector T cells (31). Statistical significance, as reflected by the normalized enrichment scores (NES), p values, and familywise error rates, was analyzed for enrichment of genes associated with T cell subsets among TASPR T cells.

FIGURE 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3.

Genome-wide mRNA expression of tumor-specific TIL from the CT26 tumor is similar to transcription profiles of other hypofunctional CD8+ T cells; similarities are driven by distinct gene expression. Genome-wide mRNA expression of TASPR T cells, acquired as described in Fig. 2A, was simultaneously compared with other published CD8+ T cell transcriptional profiles for similarities by GSEA (30). (A) Plots show enrichment of genes associated with the indicated T cell profile or gene set. Vertical black lines show where gene sets match genes expressed by TASPR T cells from the tumor (red, TILTOT = TIL and TILV) and spleen (blue, SpTOT = SpTV and SpV). The NES reflect the degree to which a gene set is overrepresented at the extremes of the entire ranked list of gene expression differences between TASPR T cells from the tumor and spleen; an NES value farther from 0 indicates greater enrichment of the indicated profile genes among TASPR T cells from the tumor (positive NES) or spleen (negative NES). The green line is a visual representation of gene set enrichment along the ranked list. The leading edge, roughly shown by a dashed circle, includes the core genes from a gene set that contribute most to the deviation of an NES from 0. Profile gene sets were determined to significantly cluster among genes highly expressed by TASPR T cells from the tumor or spleen when p ≤0.001 (30) and familywise error rate (FWER) ≤0.05 (which suggests the probability of type 1 errors) and are delineated by green rather than gray labels. (B) The majority of leading edge genes differ between the hypofunctional CD8+ T cell profiles. These core genes drive the NES away from 0 in the leading edge (circled in A) and are compared in the Venn diagram and Supplemental Table II.

TASPR TIL were most similar to a self-tolerant profile (33) followed by the virally exhausted profile (31). Exhaustion occurs over time with chronic TCR Ag or inflammatory cytokine exposure (47, 48), whereas self-tolerance generally occurs quickly in response to initial TCR exposure to self-antigen in the absence of immunostimulatory signals (3). As expected, similarities were also identified between TASPR TIL, deletional tolerance (32), and effector T cells (9, 31). We compared TASPR TIL with tumor-specific CD8+ T cells isolated from lymph node metastases (TILN) of previously vaccinated patients with melanoma (17) and total naturally responding CD8+ TIL from a mouse model of melanoma for which Ag specificity was not restricted (34). Curiously, although genes highly expressed by vaccinated TILN (17) were enriched among TASPR TIL, genes highly expressed by the total naturally responding CD8+ TIL (34) were not. A likely explanation for such a large differential impact is the lack of TCR specificity for a tumor Ag in the total CD8+ TIL (34). For example, in the CT26 tumor model, protein expression of inhibitory receptors by total CD8+ TIL is much lower and more variable than by CD8+ TIL that have been narrowed by tumor-specificity (K.A. Waugh, unpublished observations). Genes highly expressed by memory CD8+ T cells were in direct opposition of TASPR TIL and similar to functional TASPR T cells in the spleen. Unique enrichment of individual CD8+ T cell programs among TASPR TIL (Fig. 3B, Supplemental Table II) and rapid loss of T cell function in a tumor that became more pronounced over time (Fig. 1) strongly suggested that pathways do not just overlap between exhausted and self-tolerant CD8+ T cells, but that TASPR TIL are a heterogeneous population that is largely self-tolerant and exhausted.

The gene set highly expressed by anergic T cells was ∼15 genes (32) and was too small (30) to obtain an accurate estimate of enrichment among TASPR T cells (see statistics in Anergy enrichment plot, Fig. 3A). The gene TOB1 consistently downregulated by anergic T cells was also downregulated by TASPR TIL but could not be systematically compared with TASPR T cells by GSEA (30, 32) (Supplemental Table I). Although not available for systematic comparisons by GSEA, we also manually compared the TASPR T cells to signature genes expressed by ignorant and senescent T cells. Genes such as KLRG1 and CD57, which are associated with senescent CD8+ T cells in a nonreversible state of cell cycle arrest (49), were not upregulated by TASPR TIL. Finally, TASPR TIL were Ag experienced and did not downregulate the TCR-CD3 complex and therefore did not correspond to T cells “ignorant” of the growing tumor (3, 50).

Molecular profile of tumor-specific TIL

To delineate significant differential gene expression between TASPR T cells, genome-wide mRNA expression was compared by one-way ANOVA and narrowed by a 2-fold-change (Fig. 4A–C). There were no significant differences among TASPR TIL, regardless of vaccination, or between TASPR T cells from the periphery, regardless of tumor growth (Fig. 4A, 4B). However, when TASPR T cells from the tumor were compared with those from the periphery, we identified a total of 1973 genes that were differentially expressed (Fig. 4C). We further narrowed the list to 1164 differentially expressed genes by SAM (Fig. 4D, Supplemental Table III) (27, 28). Unlike ANOVA, which assumes an underlying normal distribution, SAM is a nonparametric technique for determining differential expression (27, 28). Both statistical analyses are commonly used to assess genome-wide mRNA expression data: we reasoned dual criteria would increase confidence that genes are not falsely included (51) in the molecular profile of TASPR TIL hypofunction.

FIGURE 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 4.

Molecular profile of tumor-specific TIL that are naturally responding and polyclonal. Genome-wide mRNA expression of TASPR T cells acquired in Fig. 2A (TILTOT = TIL and TILV and SpTOT = SpTV and SpV) were compared for differential gene expression. (A–C) Volcano plots comparing the indicated groups illustrate significant 2-fold differential gene-expression by one-way ANOVA in red. (D) Differentially expressed genes were narrowed by ANOVA, as in (C), and SAM. Genes common to all three groups were designated the molecular profile of TASPR TIL.

Molecular profile of TIL highlights cell cycle inhibition

To dissect the downstream impact of collective pathways suppressing CT26 TIL function, the 1164 genes comprising the molecular profile of TASPR TIL were sequestered into smaller gene clusters enriched for biological pathways using KMC (Fig. 5A, Supplemental Table III) (38, 39). IPA of individual clusters indicated that genes upregulated by TASPR T cells in the periphery were associated with lymphocyte proliferation (Fig. 5B, cluster 1), whereas those upregulated in the tumor were broadly associated with regulation of cell cycle progression (Fig. 5A, cluster 2, p = 2.79 × 10−28). KMC further divided cluster 2 into 13 smaller clusters by similar patterns of gene expression that were enriched for more specialized biological pathways (Fig. 5A, clusters 3–14). These clusters within the molecular profile of TASPR TIL allow systematic focus of individual pathways associated with TIL immunosuppression. For instance, cluster 5 was enriched for many gene products associated with arrest in cell cycle (Fig. 5B), and the top biofunction related to the cell cycle in cluster 5 was G1/S-phase transition (p = 2.12 × 10−6). Additionally, genes upregulated in the periphery were associated with TCR signaling and CD28 costimulation (cluster 1, p = 3.16 × 10−7 and 1.37 × 10−7, respectively), whereas genes induced in TASPR TIL included inhibitory receptors, such as PD-1 (PDCD1, cluster 12, Supplemental Table III), and reflected an environment of strong TGF-β signaling (cluster 2, p = 4.9 × 10−36). Suboptimal TCR and costimulation, PD-1, and TGF-β are all known to restrict TIL function and to inhibit cell cycle progression (5, 52–54).

FIGURE 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 5.

Molecular profile of tumor-specific TIL from the CT26 tumor highlights transcriptional regulation of cell cycle inhibition. The molecular profile of TASPR T cells acquired in Fig. 2A was analyzed in clusters for enrichment of biological pathways. (A) KMC divided differentially expressed genes into 13 clusters for focused pathway analyses. Heat map shows log2-transformed expression intensities mean centered at the probe level. (B) Pathway analysis of gene products from clusters 1, 3, and 5 revealed corresponding biofunctions enriched in TASPR T cells from the spleen and tumor. Gray dashed lines represent p = 0.05.

Interestingly, the majority of inhibitory receptors were distributed between different clusters. Cluster 9 contained two surface receptors, TIM-3 (HAVCR2) and 2B4 (CD244), that can broadly inhibit function of CD8+ T cells (55, 56), whereas another such inhibitory receptor, T cell Ig and ITIM domain (TIGIT) (57), was contained separately in cluster 13. PD-1 (PDCD1) (7) segregated into cluster 12 that included other surface receptors not usually expressed on CD8+ T cells, such as CD80, a molecule that is expressed on CD8+ T cells from HIV-infected patients (58). Inhibitory receptor CTLA-4 and the controversial surface receptor IL-2RA (CD25), which are associated with negative and positive effects on antitumor T cell function (59–61), respectively, were grouped together in cluster 4 that was broadly associated with cell-to-cell signaling and interactions (p = 2.1 × 10−7).

Clusters that contained inhibitory receptors were also enriched for other gene products that have been independently tied to some of the same biological pathways (Fig. 5A, 5B). For instance, inhibitory receptor LAG-3 (62) was among the gene products grouped into cluster 3 that was associated with arrest in cell cycle, including CDKN2C, CDKN3, CHN2, LYN, and PLK1. Besides LAG-3, many gene products associated with cell cycle arrest in KMCs 3 and 5 have recently attracted attention for functions that may ultimately regulate DNA replication and licensing cell cycle progression beyond the G1 and S phases (63–66). Because much of the downstream signaling that mediates the effect of these inhibitory receptors on TIL hypofunction is unknown, these clusters may provide a valuable and fluid tool to dissect the extent of distinction and overlap between such pathways.

LAG-3 expression associated with cell cycle progression

Hypofunctional TIL incapable of tumor clearance have decreased capacity to progress through the cell cycle (9, 48, 67). This foundation was largely laid by studies that distinguish cycling cells by staining for Ki-67 (9, 67), which groups noncycling cells in the G0/G1 phase from cycling cells in the late-G1, S, and G2/M phases (68), and total DNA staining to set apart the G2/M phase (9, 69). Because many of the same gene products are associated with cell cycle inhibition and progression depending on posttranslational modifications (66, 70), we determined cell cycle progression of CD8+ T cells from the CT26 tumor relative to those from the periphery (Fig. 6A). As expected (3, 71), TIL did not progress through the cell cycle as readily as peripheral counterparts in response to TCR and costimulation. Most stimulated and unstimulated TIL were in the late-G1/early-S phase.

FIGURE 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 6.

Slowed cell cycle progression of CD8+ T cells in the CT26 tumor corresponds to a novel pattern of inhibitory receptor expression predicted by the molecular profile of TIL. Total CD8+ T cells from CT26 tumors (TILTOT) and spleens (SpTOT) from timelines shown in Fig. 2A were untreated or treated with Abs to CD3 and CD28 for 48 h before a 1 h (or indicated time) pulse with the thymidine analog EdU. Flow cytometric analyses identified cell cycle phase and inhibitory receptor expression of live CD8+ T cells. (A) Cell cycle phase was resolved by staining for EdU and by the DNA dye 7-AAD. Frequencies are shown in sub-G0/G1 (gray), G0/G1 (black), S (red), and G2/M (blue) phase. (B) Inhibitory receptor expression (PD-1 and LAG-3) was determined in the presence and absence of stimulation. (C) Inhibitory receptor expression on TILTOT during G0/G1 and S phase was determined. (D) Representative histograms (left panel) of naive CD8+ T cells from spleen (gray, negative control) and stimulated TILTOT cells (G0/G1 [black], S [red], and G2/M [blue] phase) are shown. Numbers indicate the geometric mean fluorescence intensity (gMFI). At this time point (48 h), frequency of synchronized T cells in G2/M phase (blue) was too small to confidently determine inhibitory receptor expression. All data (right panel) represent three independent experiments, n = 3–10 biological replicates per group, and error bars indicate SEM. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, ****p ≤ 0.0001.

Dual PD-1 and LAG-3–positive CD8+ T cells were the most abundant among CT26 TIL (Fig. 6B). Although previous studies have tied PD-1 more strongly to the cell cycle, specifically arrest in the G0/G1 phase (53), we were interested in analyzing both PD-1 and LAG-3 expression in TIL because TIL were blocked in late-G1/early S-phase, and LAG-3 surprisingly clustered with many cell cycle–regulated genes. Stimulated TIL in G0/G1 phase were enriched among those that express PD-1, whereas stimulated TIL in S phase were enriched among those that express LAG-3 and those that express both PD-1 and LAG-3 (Fig. 6C). Stimulated TIL also expressed higher levels of PD-1 and LAG-3 in the G0/G1 and S phase, respectively (Fig. 6D). Although expected to peak in the S phase (72), LAG-3 protein expression has not previously been investigated on wild-type CD8+ T cells throughout the cell cycle. As suggested by cluster analysis of the molecular profile of TASPR TIL, these data functionally tie control of LAG-3 expression with the cell cycle and corroborate that progression of CT26 TIL through the G1/S-phase boundary is inhibited upon TCR- and costimulation.

Discussion

The molecular profile of TASPR TIL from CT26 tumors identifies many known, hypothesized, and potentially novel pathways that underlie TIL hypofunction. As expected, CT26 TIL express high levels of multiple inhibitory receptors and are hypofunctional; however, immediate accumulation of inhibitory receptors and lack of function in the tumor environment revealed a robust similarity between the molecular profiles of TASPR TIL and self-tolerance. Differential gene expression between additional hypofunctional and functional CD8+ T cell subsets, as well as between pathways that restrict T cell function, provide a map to navigate the intricacies of TIL hypofunction.

The molecular profile of TASPR TIL may provide a novel resource for studies to characterize and boost the response of naturally responding TIL against a tumor. The TASPR profile differs from other relevant strategies as follows. Tumor-specific CD8+ T cells isolated from lymph node metastases of previously vaccinated patients with melanoma, or TILN, likely express T cell genes reflective of an anatomical location of the metastases in a lymph node rather than a primary tumor tissue (73). Another molecular profile corresponding to total CD8+ TIL is not restricted to tumor reactivity (34); both profiles were not as similar to TASPR TIL as exhausted and self-tolerant T cells. Genome-wide mRNA expression of TASPR TIL reflect a molecular profile of T cells that bear TCRs of relatively low to intermediate affinity for tumor Ag (24). Conversely, a molecular profile of tumor-specific TIL that have been genetically modified to all express the same tumor-specific TCR may not model inhibitory pathways, such as suboptimal TCR stimulation, that are known to restrict function of a naturally responding polyclonal repertoire of TIL.

Although the profile of patient TILN expressed TCRs specific for a tumor/self-antigen, GSEA showed that TILN hypofunction most resembles murine viral exhaustion (17, 30, 46). The more recent genome-wide mRNA expression profile of total CD8+ TIL from a mouse model of melanoma also found TIL hypofunction similar to viral exhaustion (34). Neither molecular profile was systematically compared with self-tolerance (17). In addition, others have previously observed that total CD8+ TIL that naturally respond to CT26 tumors, regardless of TCR specificity, are comprised largely of exhausted T cells and a smaller fraction of effector T cells (9). Therefore, we expected the profile of TASPR TIL from CT26 tumors to reflect a hypofunctional T cell program most similar to exhausted CD8+ T cells during chronic viral infection (31).

TASPR TIL have gene expression and functional capacities most similar to a recently published molecular profile of self-tolerance (33) followed by exhaustion (31). Functional tumor-specific CD8+ T cells do not become gradually hypofunctional over weeks, but become tolerized within 1 d of trafficking into this solid tumor model. Although both self-tolerance and viral exhaustion can be at least temporarily overridden for a functional T cell response (3), peripheral self-tolerance is a T cell program acquired quickly in response to initial TCR exposure to self-antigen in the absence of immunostimulatory signals (3), whereas viral-exhaustion is a T cell program acquired gradually during chronic non–self-TCR or immunostimulatory signals (47, 48). Distinctions between T cell programs of self-tolerance and exhaustion are therefore not restricted semantics, but have widespread implications for development of cancer immunotherapies that mobilize patient TIL against a mutated or nonmutated self-tumor Ag (13–16).

We have since reanalyzed the patient TILN data and found significant overlap between gene expression of TILN (5) and self-tolerant murine T cells (33) that was also associated with control of cell cycle progression (74). The line between self-tolerance and exhaustion gene sets among TILN and TASPR TIL is blurred, and pathways may overlap. However, there is little overlap between the exhausted and self-tolerant gene sets that define hypofunction of TILN (4 out of 114 genes) and TASPR TIL from CT26 tumors (12 out of 195 genes) as similar to viral exhaustion and self-tolerance. These data suggest that TILN (5) and CT26 TIL are heterogeneously exhausted and self-tolerant or that TILN (5) and CT26 TIL hypofunction are T cell programs that are distinct yet overlapping with other T cell subsets. Both scenarios are in line with current literature; CD8+ T cell hypofunction varies by patient, assaulting malignancy, and over time (5, 48). A shift in focus toward overlapping mechanisms known to underlie multiple hypofunctional T cell subsets may enhance the functional response in the majority of heterogeneous TILN and TIL (44).

The tumor environment varies in response to different Ags, in different tumor models, and across species (75, 76). Nevertheless, CT26 TIL have a hypofunctional phenotype (9) and molecular profile similar to exhausted patient TILN (9, 17) and exhausted TIL from an inducible model of melanoma (34). CT26 is therefore an immunogenic tumor model with widespread implications as to whether TIL tolerance can be overridden against tumor/self-antigens or if efforts should be focused on restoring function of exhausted TIL against mutated/foreign tumor Ags (11, 76, 77). We predict as molecular profiles of TIL specific for mutated tumor Ags become available, comparison with the CT26 TIL that are self-specific will identify a highly conserved gene expression signature among TIL.

Transcriptional regulators interpret multiple extracellular signals to determine T cell function and differentiation; such intracellular targets represent promising avenues to simultaneously disrupt multiple inhibitory pathways that restrict antitumor function of TIL (44). FOXP1, a transcription factor that has recently been reported as highly expressed in TIL and a key regulator of T cell hypofunction in many cancers (78), is downregulated in TASPR TIL from CT26 tumors. FOXP1 expression in TASPR TIL is similar to the genome-wide mRNA expression profiles of virally exhausted T cells (79), hypofunctional TILN (17), and naturally responding total CD8+ TIL from a mouse melanoma model (34). In the model melanoma system, MAF was the alternatively pursued transcriptional regulator of TIL hypofunction (34), but MAF is not differentially expressed between TASPR T cells from the tumor and periphery. Among gene products corresponding to transcriptional regulators that are upregulated between TASPR T cells from the tumor versus the periphery are HIF1A, E2F7, IRF8, IKZF2, and STAT3; conversely, among those downregulated in TASPR TIL are TCF7, TOB1, FOS, and RNX1 (Supplemental Table III). Differential expression of genes involved in regulating transcription in TASPR TIL suggests an altered pattern of differentiation among T cells from the tumor and spleen.

E2F1, a transcription factor closely associated with late-G1/early-S phase, was predicted to be a key mediator between extracellular stimuli and the decreased proliferative capacity of TIL, although increased expression did not meet the strict 2-fold change criterion used for true difference among TASPR T cells (q-value = 0.00; 1.98 fold-change). Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for transcriptional regulators to be controlled posttranslationally and for subtle changes in expression of transcriptional regulators to have global effects (44, 70). The top five transcription factor motifs enriched in promoter regions (41) of genes upregulated by TASPR TIL were all variants for E2F1 (p < 1 × 10−10, FDR < 1 × 10−9, Fisher exact test). Additionally, E2F1 was among the top transcriptional regulators predicted by IPA to be a key upstream regulator of differential gene expression in TASPR TIL (p = 2.6 × 10−21, cluster 2). E2F activity is extremely complex and regulates some of the most basic cell functions, such as cell division and apoptosis (80, 81). During late-G1/early-S phase, E2F1 activity determines if cells progress through the cell cycle or arrest and apoptose (66). E2F1 is also a potent regulator of central and peripheral tolerance (80, 82–85). Implications of these data are that E2F1 regulates self-tolerance (44) and is likely to compromise function of CT26 TIL in late-G1/early-S phase.

Additionally, TIL hypofunction is downstream of many known inhibitory pathways targeted individually in patients to restore antitumor function of T cells (86), which we analyzed by KMC, an unsupervised sequestering of differentially expressed genes into smaller clusters by similar patterns of gene expression (38). These clusters allow focus on gene products associated with specific biological pathways that have not yet been investigated together or in TIL. The TASPR profile predicts that heterogeneous CT26 TIL receive many inhibitory signals through overlapping mechanisms to restrict cell cycle progression. Cell cycle progression and LAG-3 protein expression confirm pathway analysis of the TASPR TIL profile. We identified novel control of inhibitory receptor LAG-3 expression on cycling CD8+ T cells, which peaks in S phase. Although LAG-3 is highly expressed on NKT cells in S phase (72), variations in LAG-3 expression on cycling wild-type CD8+ T cells has not been investigated prior to this study.

Although PD-1 and CTLA-4 specifically restrict cell cycle progression of CD8+ T cells beyond G0/G1 phase (87–89), LAG-3 has been more broadly demonstrated to restrict T cell expansion in many inflammatory contexts in vivo (90). Although rare, CT26 TIL singularly positive for PD-1 were slightly enriched in G0/G1 phase; cycling TIL did not express significantly higher levels of PD-1 in any phase. Although these data do not confirm in vitro experiments regarding PD-1 regulation of cycling CD8+ T cells (53), IPA of the cluster in which PD-1 was grouped predicts less association of PD-1 and similarly expressed gene products with the cell cycle (p = 5.10 × 10−7) than other biofunctions in TASPR TIL, such as cell death and survival (p = 6.62 × 10−8) and immune cell trafficking (p = 6.45 × 10−8) (49). As with cotherapies that target both PD-1 and CTLA-4 (8), deletion of both PD-1 and LAG-3 in tumor-specific CD8+ T cells increases control of tumor burden more than singularly targeting one of these inhibitory receptors (62, 91) and represents attractive therapeutic targets to restore TIL function (92). Notably, deletion of both PD-1 and LAG-3 accounts for less autoimmunity relative to deletion of CTLA-4 (91, 93).

LAG-3 gene expression was among the few to overlap between TASPR TIL hypofunction, self-tolerance, and viral exhaustion (Supplemental Table II). Although the entire gene set upregulated by self-tolerant CD8+ T cells (33) was associated with the cell cycle (p = 2.59 × 10−18, Supplemental Table I), overlapping gene expression of TASPR TIL and self-tolerant CD8+ T cells (33) was further enriched for cell cycle gene products (p = 8.60 × 10−20, Supplemental Table II). Genes associated with the cell cycle were similarly noted among vaccinated TILN and virally exhausted T cells when compared with their functional counterparts (17, 31). These data are striking in that alterations in cell cycle progression/proliferation modify TIL susceptibility to apoptosis and memory T cell development (69, 94, 95). Genes highly expressed by memory CD8+ T cells (31) were collectively downregulated by TASPR TIL. Our analyses dissect the extent of overlap and distinction between the pathways that cooperatively restrict T cell functions and may accelerate identification of effective cotherapy combinations and intracellular targets to efficiently boost antitumor function of TIL.

As evident by the lack of published studies, isolating a sufficient number of tumor-specific TIL has been historically limiting for high-throughput analyses. Only differences between the most abundant transcripts are reliably detectable after the necessary amplification methods to detect genome-wide mRNA expression (96). Subtleties that underlie genome-wide mRNA expression profiles of small numbers of patient TIL, such as differential expression of transcription factors, are difficult to biologically replicate due to heterogeneity (17, 96). We avoided these problems by tetramer sorting many tumor-specific CD8+ T cells (≥40,000 cells, 5 ng RNA) from pooled samples of genetically identical mice. Future mRNA expression profiles from relatively small numbers of patient TIL may be validated by comparison with the TASPR profile, as technologies are rapidly advancing (96). We predict that genes with high expression differences between patient TIL and their functional counterparts will have similar expression to the TASPR profile, but that subtle yet significant differences among TASPR T cells will elucidate of the intricacies of collective pathways that restrict antitumor function of patient TIL.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank the exceptional personnel of the CU-SOM Cancer Center Flow Cytometry Shared Resource, especially Lester Acosta and Karen Helm. We also thank Todd Woessner, Curtis J. Henry, Cydney Rios, Brian P. O’Connor, James DeGregori, Kathryn Tuttle, Max A. Seibold, John W. Kappler, Keith P. Smith, Daniel Munson, Michelle Hoffmann, and Linda F. van Dyk for scientific advice, help with experimental design, and manuscript corrections.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by American Cancer Society Grant RSG-08-184-01-L1B, National Institutes of Health Grants 5T32AI007405 and 5R25GM083333, and a generous donation from Richard and Donna Hammel.

  • The sequences presented in this article have been submitted to the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE79858.

  • The online version of this article contains supplemental material.

  • Abbreviations used in this article:

    7-AAD
    7-aminoactinomycin D
    CU-SOM
    University of Colorado School of Medicine
    EdU
    5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine
    FDR
    false discovery rate
    FOM
    figure of merit
    GSEA
    gene set enrichment analysis
    IPA
    ingenuity pathway analysis
    KMC
    K-means clustering
    NES
    normalized enrichment score
    PCA
    principal component analysis
    PD-1
    programmed cell death-1
    SAM
    significance analysis of microarray
    SpTV
    AH1-specific CD8+ T cell from spleens in CT26 tumor-bearing mice
    SpV
    AH1-specific CD8+ T cell from spleens in non–tumor-bearing mice
    TASPR
    tumor Ag-specific polyclonal repertoire
    TIL
    CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte
    TILN
    tumor-specific CD8+ T cell isolated from lymph node metastases
    TILV
    tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte from vaccinated tumor-bearing mice.

  • Received April 5, 2016.
  • Accepted June 9, 2016.
  • Copyright © 2016 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Galon J.,
    2. A. Costes,
    3. F. Sanchez-Cabo,
    4. A. Kirilovsky,
    5. B. Mlecnik,
    6. C. Lagorce-Pagès,
    7. M. Tosolini,
    8. M. Camus,
    9. A. Berger,
    10. P. Wind,
    11. et al
    . 2006. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 313: 1960–1964.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Fridman W. H.,
    2. F. Pagès,
    3. C. Sautès-Fridman,
    4. J. Galon
    . 2012. The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12: 298–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Schietinger A.,
    2. P. D. Greenberg
    . 2014. Tolerance and exhaustion: defining mechanisms of T cell dysfunction. Trends Immunol. 35: 51–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Dunn G. P.,
    2. L. J. Old,
    3. R. D. Schreiber
    . 2004. The three Es of cancer immunoediting. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 22: 329–360.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Baitsch L.,
    2. S. A. Fuertes-Marraco,
    3. A. Legat,
    4. C. Meyer,
    5. D. E. Speiser
    . 2012. The three main stumbling blocks for anticancer T cells. Trends Immunol. 33: 364–372.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Yang Y.
    2015. Cancer immunotherapy: harnessing the immune system to battle cancer. J. Clin. Invest. 125: 3335–3337.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Hirano F.,
    2. K. Kaneko,
    3. H. Tamura,
    4. H. Dong,
    5. S. Wang,
    6. M. Ichikawa,
    7. C. Rietz,
    8. D. B. Flies,
    9. J. S. Lau,
    10. G. Zhu,
    11. et al
    . 2005. Blockade of B7-H1 and PD-1 by monoclonal antibodies potentiates cancer therapeutic immunity. Cancer Res. 65: 1089–1096.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Wolchok J. D.,
    2. H. Kluger,
    3. M. K. Callahan,
    4. M. A. Postow,
    5. N. A. Rizvi,
    6. A. M. Lesokhin,
    7. N. H. Segal,
    8. C. E. Ariyan,
    9. R. A. Gordon,
    10. K. Reed,
    11. et al
    . 2013. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 369: 122–133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Sakuishi K.,
    2. L. Apetoh,
    3. J. M. Sullivan,
    4. B. R. Blazar,
    5. V. K. Kuchroo,
    6. A. C. Anderson
    . 2010. Targeting Tim-3 and PD-1 pathways to reverse T cell exhaustion and restore anti-tumor immunity. [Published erratum appears in 2011 J. Exp. Med. 208: 1331.] J. Exp. Med. 207: 2187–2194.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Corbett T. H.,
    2. D. P. Griswold Jr..,
    3. B. J. Roberts,
    4. J. C. Peckham,
    5. F. M. Schabel Jr..
    1977. Evaluation of single agents and combinations of chemotherapeutic agents in mouse colon carcinomas. Cancer 40(Suppl): 2660–2680.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lechner M. G.,
    2. S. S. Karimi,
    3. K. Barry-Holson,
    4. T. E. Angell,
    5. K. A. Murphy,
    6. C. H. Church,
    7. J. R. Ohlfest,
    8. P. Hu,
    9. A. L. Epstein
    . 2013. Immunogenicity of murine solid tumor models as a defining feature of in vivo behavior and response to immunotherapy. J. Immunother. 36: 477–489.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Castle J. C.,
    2. M. Loewer,
    3. S. Boegel,
    4. J. de Graaf,
    5. C. Bender,
    6. A. D. Tadmor,
    7. V. Boisguerin,
    8. T. Bukur,
    9. P. Sorn,
    10. C. Paret,
    11. et al
    . 2014. Immunomic, genomic and transcriptomic characterization of CT26 colorectal carcinoma. BMC Genomics 15: 190.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Cheever M. A.,
    2. J. P. Allison,
    3. A. S. Ferris,
    4. O. J. Finn,
    5. B. M. Hastings,
    6. T. T. Hecht,
    7. I. Mellman,
    8. S. A. Prindiville,
    9. J. L. Viner,
    10. L. M. Weiner,
    11. L. M. Matrisian
    . 2009. The prioritization of cancer antigens: a national cancer institute pilot project for the acceleration of translational research. Clin. Cancer Res. 15: 5323–5337.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Melero I.,
    2. G. Gaudernack,
    3. W. Gerritsen,
    4. C. Huber,
    5. G. Parmiani,
    6. S. Scholl,
    7. N. Thatcher,
    8. J. Wagstaff,
    9. C. Zielinski,
    10. I. Faulkner,
    11. H. Mellstedt
    . 2014. Therapeutic vaccines for cancer: an overview of clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 11: 509–524.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Huang A. Y.,
    2. P. H. Gulden,
    3. A. S. Woods,
    4. M. C. Thomas,
    5. C. D. Tong,
    6. W. Wang,
    7. V. H. Engelhard,
    8. G. Pasternack,
    9. R. Cotter,
    10. D. Hunt,
    11. et al
    . 1996. The immunodominant major histocompatibility complex class I-restricted antigen of a murine colon tumor derives from an endogenous retroviral gene product. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 9730–9735.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. McWilliams J. A.,
    2. R. T. Sullivan,
    3. K. R. Jordan,
    4. R. H. McMahan,
    5. C. B. Kemmler,
    6. M. McDuffie,
    7. J. E. Slansky
    . 2008. Age-dependent tolerance to an endogenous tumor-associated antigen. Vaccine 26: 1863–1873.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Baitsch L.,
    2. P. Baumgaertner,
    3. E. Devêvre,
    4. S. K. Raghav,
    5. A. Legat,
    6. L. Barba,
    7. S. Wieckowski,
    8. H. Bouzourene,
    9. B. Deplancke,
    10. P. Romero,
    11. et al
    . 2011. Exhaustion of tumor-specific CD8⁺ T cells in metastases from melanoma patients. J. Clin. Invest. 121: 2350–2360.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Jordan K. R.,
    2. R. H. McMahan,
    3. C. B. Kemmler,
    4. J. W. Kappler,
    5. J. E. Slansky
    . 2010. Peptide vaccines prevent tumor growth by activating T cells that respond to native tumor antigens. [Published erratum appears in 2010 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107: 4788–4789.] Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107: 4652–4657.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Jordan K. R.,
    2. R. H. McMahan,
    3. J. Z. Oh,
    4. M. R. Pipeling,
    5. D. M. Pardoll,
    6. R. M. Kedl,
    7. J. W. Kappler,
    8. J. E. Slansky
    . 2008. Baculovirus-infected insect cells expressing peptide-MHC complexes elicit protective antitumor immunity. J. Immunol. 180: 188–197.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Overwijk W. W.,
    2. D. R. Surman,
    3. K. Tsung,
    4. N. P. Restifo
    . 1997. Identification of a Kb-restricted CTL epitope of beta-galactosidase: potential use in development of immunization protocols for “self” antigens. Methods 12: 117–123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Slansky J. E.,
    2. F. M. Rattis,
    3. L. F. Boyd,
    4. T. Fahmy,
    5. E. M. Jaffee,
    6. J. P. Schneck,
    7. D. H. Margulies,
    8. D. M. Pardoll
    . 2000. Enhanced antigen-specific antitumor immunity with altered peptide ligands that stabilize the MHC-peptide-TCR complex. Immunity 13: 529–538.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Kruisbeek A. M.
    1993. Isolation and fractionation of mononuclear cell populations. In Current Protocols in Immunology. Kruisbeek A. M., J. E. Coligan, D. H Margulies, E.M. Shevach, W. Strober, ed. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 3.1.1–3.1.5.
  23. ↵
    1. McMahan R. H.,
    2. J. A. McWilliams,
    3. K. R. Jordan,
    4. S. W. Dow,
    5. D. B. Wilson,
    6. J. E. Slansky
    . 2006. Relating TCR-peptide-MHC affinity to immunogenicity for the design of tumor vaccines. J. Clin. Invest. 116: 2543–2551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Buhrman J. D.,
    2. K. R. Jordan,
    3. D. J. Munson,
    4. B. L. Moore,
    5. J. W. Kappler,
    6. J. E. Slansky
    . 2013. Improving antigenic peptide vaccines for cancer immunotherapy using a dominant tumor-specific T cell receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 288: 33213–33225.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Clément-Ziza M.,
    2. D. Gentien,
    3. S. Lyonnet,
    4. J. P. Thiery,
    5. C. Besmond,
    6. C. Decraene
    . 2009. Evaluation of methods for amplification of picogram amounts of total RNA for whole genome expression profiling. BMC Genomics 10: 246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Benjamini Y.,
    2. Y. Hochberg
    . 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Royal Stat. Soc. B 57: 289–300.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Tusher V. G.,
    2. R. Tibshirani,
    3. G. Chu
    . 2001. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 5116–5121.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Wu B.
    2005. Differential gene expression detection using penalized linear regression models: the improved SAM statistics. Bioinformatics 21: 1565–1571.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Saeed A. I.,
    2. V. Sharov,
    3. J. White,
    4. J. Li,
    5. W. Liang,
    6. N. Bhagabati,
    7. J. Braisted,
    8. M. Klapa,
    9. T. Currier,
    10. M. Thiagarajan,
    11. et al
    . 2003. TM4: a free, open-source system for microarray data management and analysis. Biotechniques 34: 374–378.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Subramanian A.,
    2. P. Tamayo,
    3. V. K. Mootha,
    4. S. Mukherjee,
    5. B. L. Ebert,
    6. M. A. Gillette,
    7. A. Paulovich,
    8. S. L. Pomeroy,
    9. T. R. Golub,
    10. E. S. Lander,
    11. J. P. Mesirov
    . 2005. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 15545–15550.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Wherry E. J.,
    2. S. J. Ha,
    3. S. M. Kaech,
    4. W. N. Haining,
    5. S. Sarkar,
    6. V. Kalia,
    7. S. Subramaniam,
    8. J. N. Blattman,
    9. D. L. Barber,
    10. R. Ahmed
    . 2007. Molecular signature of CD8+ T cell exhaustion during chronic viral infection. Immunity 27: 670–684.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Parish I. A.,
    2. S. Rao,
    3. G. K. Smyth,
    4. T. Juelich,
    5. G. S. Denyer,
    6. G. M. Davey,
    7. A. Strasser,
    8. W. R. Heath
    . 2009. The molecular signature of CD8+ T cells undergoing deletional tolerance. Blood 113: 4575–4585.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Schietinger A.,
    2. J. J. Delrow,
    3. R. S. Basom,
    4. J. N. Blattman,
    5. P. D. Greenberg
    . 2012. Rescued tolerant CD8 T cells are preprogrammed to reestablish the tolerant state. Science 335: 723–727.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Giordano M.,
    2. C. Henin,
    3. J. Maurizio,
    4. C. Imbratta,
    5. P. Bourdely,
    6. M. Buferne,
    7. L. Baitsch,
    8. L. Vanhille,
    9. M. H. Sieweke,
    10. D. E. Speiser,
    11. et al
    . 2015. Molecular profiling of CD8 T cells in autochthonous melanoma identifies Maf as driver of exhaustion. EMBO J. 34: 2042–2058.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Huang W.,
    2. B. T. Sherman,
    3. R. A. Lempicki
    . 2009. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat. Protoc. 4: 44–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Huang W.,
    2. B. T. Sherman,
    3. R. A. Lempicki
    . 2009. Bioinformatics enrichment tools: paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res. 37: 1–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Yeung K. Y.,
    2. D. R. Haynor,
    3. W. L. Ruzzo
    . 2001. Validating clustering for gene expression data. Bioinformatics 17: 309–318.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Hartigan J. A.,
    2. M. A. Wong
    . 1979. Algorithm AS 136: A K-Means Clustering Algorithm. J. Royal Stat. Soc. C. 28: 100–108.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Selvaraj S.,
    2. J. Natarajan
    . 2011. Microarray data analysis and mining tools. Bioinformation 6: 95–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Thomas P. D.,
    2. M. J. Campbell,
    3. A. Kejariwal,
    4. H. Mi,
    5. B. Karlak,
    6. R. Daverman,
    7. K. Diemer,
    8. A. Muruganujan,
    9. A. Narechania
    . 2003. PANTHER: a library of protein families and subfamilies indexed by function. Genome Res. 13: 2129–2141.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Chang J. T.,
    2. J. R. Nevins
    . 2006. GATHER: a systems approach to interpreting genomic signatures. Bioinformatics 22: 2926–2933.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Wherry E. J.
    2011. T cell exhaustion. Nat. Immunol. 12: 492–499.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Hernandez J.,
    2. S. Aung,
    3. W. L. Redmond,
    4. L. A. Sherman
    . 2001. Phenotypic and functional analysis of CD8(+) T cells undergoing peripheral deletion in response to cross-presentation of self-antigen. J. Exp. Med. 194: 707–717.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Waugh K. A.,
    2. S. M. Leach,
    3. J. E. Slansky
    . 2015. Targeting Transcriptional Regulators of CD8+ T Cell Dysfunction to Boost Anti-Tumor Immunity. Vaccines (Basel) 3: 771–802.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Ringnér M.
    2008. What is principal component analysis? Nat. Biotechnol. 26: 303–304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Mootha V. K.,
    2. C. M. Lindgren,
    3. K. F. Eriksson,
    4. A. Subramanian,
    5. S. Sihag,
    6. J. Lehar,
    7. P. Puigserver,
    8. E. Carlsson,
    9. M. Ridderstråle,
    10. E. Laurila,
    11. et al
    . 2003. PGC-1alpha-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes. Nat. Genet. 34: 267–273.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Zajac A. J.,
    2. J. N. Blattman,
    3. K. Murali-Krishna,
    4. D. J. Sourdive,
    5. M. Suresh,
    6. J. D. Altman,
    7. R. Ahmed
    . 1998. Viral immune evasion due to persistence of activated T cells without effector function. J. Exp. Med. 188: 2205–2213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Pauken K. E.,
    2. E. J. Wherry
    . 2015. Overcoming T cell exhaustion in infection and cancer. Trends Immunol. 36: 265–276.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Wherry E. J.,
    2. M. Kurachi
    . 2015. Molecular and cellular insights into T cell exhaustion. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 15: 486–499.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Reichert T. E.,
    2. R. Day,
    3. E. M. Wagner,
    4. T. L. Whiteside
    . 1998. Absent or low expression of the zeta chain in T cells at the tumor site correlates with poor survival in patients with oral carcinoma. Cancer Res. 58: 5344–5347.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Wolpert D. H.,
    2. W. G. Macready
    . 1997. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1: 67–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Shi M.,
    2. T. H. Lin,
    3. K. C. Appell,
    4. L. J. Berg
    . 2009. Cell cycle progression following naive T cell activation is independent of Jak3/common gamma-chain cytokine signals. J. Immunol. 183: 4493–4501.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Patsoukis N.,
    2. D. Sari,
    3. V. A. Boussiotis
    . 2012. PD-1 inhibits T cell proliferation by upregulating p27 and p15 and suppressing Cdc25A. Cell Cycle 11: 4305–4309.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. McKarns S. C.,
    2. R. H. Schwartz
    . 2005. Distinct effects of TGF-beta 1 on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell survival, division, and IL-2 production: a role for T cell intrinsic Smad3. J. Immunol. 174: 2071–2083.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Anderson A. C.
    2014. Tim-3: an emerging target in the cancer immunotherapy landscape. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2: 393–398.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Waggoner S. N.,
    2. V. Kumar
    . 2012. Evolving role of 2B4/CD244 in T and NK cell responses during virus infection. Front. Immunol. 3: 377.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Johnston R. J.,
    2. L. Comps-Agrar,
    3. J. Hackney,
    4. X. Yu,
    5. M. Huseni,
    6. Y. Yang,
    7. S. Park,
    8. V. Javinal,
    9. H. Chiu,
    10. B. Irving,
    11. et al
    . 2014. The immunoreceptor TIGIT regulates antitumor and antiviral CD8(+) T cell effector function. Cancer Cell 26: 923–937.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Wolthers K. C.,
    2. S. A. Otto,
    3. S. M. Lens,
    4. D. N. Kolbach,
    5. R. A. van Lier,
    6. F. Miedema,
    7. L. Meyaard
    . 1996. Increased expression of CD80, CD86 and CD70 on T cells from HIV-infected individuals upon activation in vitro: regulation by CD4+ T cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 26: 1700–1706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Leach D. R.,
    2. M. F. Krummel,
    3. J. P. Allison
    . 1996. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science 271: 1734–1736.
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Ladányi A.,
    2. B. Somlai,
    3. K. Gilde,
    4. Z. Fejös,
    5. I. Gaudi,
    6. J. Tímár
    . 2004. T-cell activation marker expression on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as prognostic factor in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 10: 521–530.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Churlaud G.,
    2. F. Pitoiset,
    3. F. Jebbawi,
    4. R. Lorenzon,
    5. B. Bellier,
    6. M. Rosenzwajg,
    7. D. Klatzmann
    . 2015. Human and Mouse CD8(+)CD25(+)FOXP3(+) Regulatory T Cells at Steady State and during Interleukin-2 Therapy. Front. Immunol. 6: 171.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Grosso J. F.,
    2. C. C. Kelleher,
    3. T. J. Harris,
    4. C. H. Maris,
    5. E. L. Hipkiss,
    6. A. De Marzo,
    7. R. Anders,
    8. G. Netto,
    9. D. Getnet,
    10. T. C. Bruno,
    11. et al
    . 2007. LAG-3 regulates CD8+ T cell accumulation and effector function in murine self- and tumor-tolerance systems. J. Clin. Invest. 117: 3383–3392.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Mandal R.,
    2. K. Strebhardt
    . 2013. Plk1: unexpected roles in DNA replication. Cell Res. 23: 1251–1253.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Koulintchenko M.,
    2. S. Vengrova,
    3. T. Eydmann,
    4. P. Arumugam,
    5. J. Z. Dalgaard
    . 2012. DNA polymerase α (swi7) and the flap endonuclease Fen1 (rad2) act together in the S-phase alkylation damage response in S. pombe. PLoS One 7: e47091.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Schreiber M.,
    2. W. J. Muller,
    3. G. Singh,
    4. F. L. Graham
    . 1999. Comparison of the effectiveness of adenovirus vectors expressing cyclin kinase inhibitors p16INK4A, p18INK4C, p19INK4D, p21(WAF1/CIP1) and p27KIP1 in inducing cell cycle arrest, apoptosis and inhibition of tumorigenicity. Oncogene 18: 1663–1676.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Neganova I.,
    2. M. Lako
    . 2008. G1 to S phase cell cycle transition in somatic and embryonic stem cells. J. Anat. 213: 30–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Naito Y.,
    2. K. Saito,
    3. K. Shiiba,
    4. A. Ohuchi,
    5. K. Saigenji,
    6. H. Nagura,
    7. H. Ohtani
    . 1998. CD8+ T cells infiltrated within cancer cell nests as a prognostic factor in human colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 58: 3491–3494.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Scholzen T.,
    2. J. Gerdes
    . 2000. The Ki-67 protein: from the known and the unknown. J. Cell. Physiol. 182: 311–322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Radoja S.,
    2. M. Saio,
    3. A. B. Frey
    . 2001. CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are primed for Fas-mediated activation-induced cell death but are not apoptotic in situ. J. Immunol. 166: 6074–6083.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Zheng S.,
    2. J. Moehlenbrink,
    3. Y. C. Lu,
    4. L. P. Zalmas,
    5. C. A. Sagum,
    6. S. Carr,
    7. J. F. McGouran,
    8. L. Alexander,
    9. O. Fedorov,
    10. S. Munro,
    11. et al
    . 2013. Arginine methylation-dependent reader-writer interplay governs growth control by E2F-1. Mol. Cell 52: 37–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Barber D. L.,
    2. E. J. Wherry,
    3. D. Masopust,
    4. B. Zhu,
    5. J. P. Allison,
    6. A. H. Sharpe,
    7. G. J. Freeman,
    8. R. Ahmed
    . 2006. Restoring function in exhausted CD8 T cells during chronic viral infection. Nature 439: 682–687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Byun H. J.,
    2. W. W. Jung,
    3. D. S. Lee,
    4. S. Kim,
    5. S. J. Kim,
    6. C. G. Park,
    7. H. Y. Chung,
    8. T. Chun
    . 2007. Proliferation of activated CD1d-restricted NKT cells is down-modulated by lymphocyte activation gene-3 signaling via cell cycle arrest in S phase. Cell Biol. Int. 31: 257–262.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Nolz J. C.,
    2. G. R. Starbeck-Miller,
    3. J. T. Harty
    . 2011. Naive, effector and memory CD8 T-cell trafficking: parallels and distinctions. Immunotherapy 3: 1223–1233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Waugh K. A.,
    2. S. M. Leach,
    3. J. E. Slansky
    . 2016. Tolerance of Tumor-Specific T cells in Melanoma Metastases. J. Clin. Cell. Immunol. 7: 7.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Dranoff G.
    2011. Experimental mouse tumour models: what can be learnt about human cancer immunology? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 12: 61–66.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Rizvi N. A.,
    2. M. D. Hellmann,
    3. A. Snyder,
    4. P. Kvistborg,
    5. V. Makarov,
    6. J. J. Havel,
    7. W. Lee,
    8. J. Yuan,
    9. P. Wong,
    10. T. S. Ho,
    11. et al
    . 2015. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 348: 124–128.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Schumacher T. N.,
    2. R. D. Schreiber
    . 2015. Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 348: 69–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Stephen T. L.,
    2. M. R. Rutkowski,
    3. M. J. Allegrezza,
    4. A. Perales-Puchalt,
    5. A. J. Tesone,
    6. N. Svoronos,
    7. J. M. Nguyen,
    8. F. Sarmin,
    9. M. E. Borowsky,
    10. J. Tchou,
    11. J. R. Conejo-Garcia
    . 2014. Transforming growth factor β-mediated suppression of antitumor T cells requires FoxP1 transcription factor expression. Immunity 41: 427–439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Doering T. A.,
    2. A. Crawford,
    3. J. M. Angelosanto,
    4. M. A. Paley,
    5. C. G. Ziegler,
    6. E. J. Wherry
    . 2012. Network analysis reveals centrally connected genes and pathways involved in CD8+ T cell exhaustion versus memory. Immunity 37: 1130–1144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. DeGregori J.,
    2. D. G. Johnson
    . 2006. Distinct and Overlapping Roles for E2F Family Members in Transcription, Proliferation and Apoptosis. Curr. Mol. Med. 6: 739–748.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Field S. J.,
    2. F. Y. Tsai,
    3. F. Kuo,
    4. A. M. Zubiaga,
    5. W. G. Kaelin Jr..,
    6. D. M. Livingston,
    7. S. H. Orkin,
    8. M. E. Greenberg
    . 1996. E2F-1 functions in mice to promote apoptosis and suppress proliferation. Cell 85: 549–561.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Murga M.,
    2. O. Fernández-Capetillo,
    3. S. J. Field,
    4. B. Moreno,
    5. L. R. Borlado,
    6. Y. Fujiwara,
    7. D. Balomenos,
    8. A. Vicario,
    9. A. C. Carrera,
    10. S. H. Orkin,
    11. et al
    . 2001. Mutation of E2F2 in mice causes enhanced T lymphocyte proliferation, leading to the development of autoimmunity. Immunity 15: 959–970.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Li F. X.,
    2. J. W. Zhu,
    3. J. S. Tessem,
    4. J. Beilke,
    5. M. Varella-Garcia,
    6. J. Jensen,
    7. C. J. Hogan,
    8. J. DeGregori
    . 2003. The development of diabetes in E2f1/E2f2 mutant mice reveals important roles for bone marrow-derived cells in preventing islet cell loss. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100: 12935–12940.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Zhu J. W.,
    2. D. DeRyckere,
    3. F. X. Li,
    4. Y. Y. Wan,
    5. J. DeGregori
    . 1999. A role for E2F1 in the induction of ARF, p53, and apoptosis during thymic negative selection. Cell Growth Differ. 10: 829–838.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    1. Lissy N. A.,
    2. P. K. Davis,
    3. M. Irwin,
    4. W. G. Kaelin,
    5. S. F. Dowdy
    . 2000. A common E2F-1 and p73 pathway mediates cell death induced by TCR activation. Nature 407: 642–645.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Galluzzi L.,
    2. E. Vacchelli,
    3. J. M. Bravo-San Pedro,
    4. A. Buqué,
    5. L. Senovilla,
    6. E. E. Baracco,
    7. N. Bloy,
    8. F. Castoldi,
    9. J. P. Abastado,
    10. P. Agostinis,
    11. et al
    . 2014. Classification of current anticancer immunotherapies. Oncotarget 5: 12472–12508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Patsoukis N.,
    2. J. Brown,
    3. V. Petkova,
    4. F. Liu,
    5. L. Li,
    6. V. A. Boussiotis
    . 2012. Selective effects of PD-1 on Akt and Ras pathways regulate molecular components of the cell cycle and inhibit T cell proliferation. Sci. Signal. 5: ra46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Brunner M. C.,
    2. C. A. Chambers,
    3. F. K. Chan,
    4. J. Hanke,
    5. A. Winoto,
    6. J. P. Allison
    . 1999. CTLA-4-Mediated inhibition of early events of T cell proliferation. J. Immunol. 162: 5813–5820.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    1. Greenwald R. J.,
    2. M. A. Oosterwegel,
    3. D. van der Woude,
    4. A. Kubal,
    5. D. A. Mandelbrot,
    6. V. A. Boussiotis,
    7. A. H. Sharpe
    . 2002. CTLA-4 regulates cell cycle progression during a primary immune response. Eur. J. Immunol. 32: 366–373.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Workman C. J.,
    2. L. S. Cauley,
    3. I. J. Kim,
    4. M. A. Blackman,
    5. D. L. Woodland,
    6. D. A. Vignali
    . 2004. Lymphocyte activation gene-3 (CD223) regulates the size of the expanding T cell population following antigen activation in vivo. J. Immunol. 172: 5450–5455.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Woo S. R.,
    2. M. E. Turnis,
    3. M. V. Goldberg,
    4. J. Bankoti,
    5. M. Selby,
    6. C. J. Nirschl,
    7. M. L. Bettini,
    8. D. M. Gravano,
    9. P. Vogel,
    10. C. L. Liu,
    11. et al
    . 2012. Immune inhibitory molecules LAG-3 and PD-1 synergistically regulate T-cell function to promote tumoral immune escape. Cancer Res. 72: 917–927.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. ↵
    1. Nguyen L. T.,
    2. P. S. Ohashi
    . 2015. Clinical blockade of PD1 and LAG3--potential mechanisms of action. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 15: 45–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Waterhouse P.,
    2. J. M. Penninger,
    3. E. Timms,
    4. A. Wakeham,
    5. A. Shahinian,
    6. K. P. Lee,
    7. C. B. Thompson,
    8. H. Griesser,
    9. T. W. Mak
    . 1995. Lymphoproliferative disorders with early lethality in mice deficient in Ctla-4. Science 270: 985–988.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Kaech S. M.,
    2. R. Ahmed
    . 2001. Memory CD8+ T cell differentiation: initial antigen encounter triggers a developmental program in naïve cells. Nat. Immunol. 2: 415–422.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Kinjyo I.,
    2. J. Qin,
    3. S. Y. Tan,
    4. C. J. Wellard,
    5. P. Mrass,
    6. W. Ritchie,
    7. A. Doi,
    8. L. L. Cavanagh,
    9. M. Tomura,
    10. A. Sakaue-Sawano,
    11. et al
    . 2015. Real-time tracking of cell cycle progression during CD8+ effector and memory T-cell differentiation. Nat. Commun. 6: 6301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Marinov G. K.,
    2. B. A. Williams,
    3. K. McCue,
    4. G. P. Schroth,
    5. J. Gertz,
    6. R. M. Myers,
    7. B. J. Wold
    . 2014. From single-cell to cell-pool transcriptomes: stochasticity in gene expression and RNA splicing. Genome Res. 24: 496–510.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 197 (4)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 197, Issue 4
15 Aug 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Immunology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Molecular Profile of Tumor-Specific CD8+ T Cell Hypofunction in a Transplantable Murine Cancer Model
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Immunology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Immunology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Molecular Profile of Tumor-Specific CD8+ T Cell Hypofunction in a Transplantable Murine Cancer Model
Katherine A. Waugh, Sonia M. Leach, Brandon L. Moore, Tullia C. Bruno, Jonathan D. Buhrman, Jill E. Slansky
The Journal of Immunology August 15, 2016, 197 (4) 1477-1488; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1600589

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Molecular Profile of Tumor-Specific CD8+ T Cell Hypofunction in a Transplantable Murine Cancer Model
Katherine A. Waugh, Sonia M. Leach, Brandon L. Moore, Tullia C. Bruno, Jonathan D. Buhrman, Jill E. Slansky
The Journal of Immunology August 15, 2016, 197 (4) 1477-1488; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1600589
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • PPP2R2D Suppresses Effector T Cell Exhaustion and Regulatory T Cell Expansion and Inhibits Tumor Growth in Melanoma
  • Combination of NKG2A and PD-1 Blockade Improves Radiotherapy Response in Radioresistant Tumors
  • An In Vivo Model of Human Macrophages in Metastatic Melanoma
Show more Tumor Immunology

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Next in The JI
  • Archive
  • Brief Reviews
  • Pillars of Immunology
  • Translating Immunology

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Journal Policies
  • Editors

General Information

  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Rights and Permissions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • FAR 889
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • ImmunoCasts
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2022 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606