5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      LILRB3 supports acute myeloid leukemia development and regulates T-cell antitumor immune responses through the TRAF2–cFLIP–NF-κB signaling axis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor B (LILRB), a family of immune checkpoint receptors, contribute to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) development, but the specific mechanisms triggered by activation or inhibition of these immune checkpoints in cancer is largely unknown. Here we demonstrated that the intracellular domain of LILRB3 is constitutively associated with the adaptor protein TRAF2. Activated LILRB3 in AML cells leads to recruitment of cFLIP and subsequent NF-κB upregulation, resulting in enhanced leukemic cell survival and inhibition of T cell-mediated anti-tumor activity. Hyperactivation of NF-κB induces a negative regulatory feedback loop mediated by A20, which disrupts the interaction of LILRB3 and TRAF2; consequently the SHP-1/2-mediated inhibitory activity of LILRB3 becomes dominant. Finally, we show that blockade of LILRB3 signaling with antagonizing antibodies hampers AML progression. LILRB3 thus exerts context-dependent activating and inhibitory functions, and targeting LILRB3 may become a potential therapeutic strategy for AML treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles

          Although genomewide RNA expression analysis has become a routine tool in biomedical research, extracting biological insight from such information remains a major challenge. Here, we describe a powerful analytical method called Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) for interpreting gene expression data. The method derives its power by focusing on gene sets, that is, groups of genes that share common biological function, chromosomal location, or regulation. We demonstrate how GSEA yields insights into several cancer-related data sets, including leukemia and lung cancer. Notably, where single-gene analysis finds little similarity between two independent studies of patient survival in lung cancer, GSEA reveals many biological pathways in common. The GSEA method is embodied in a freely available software package, together with an initial database of 1,325 biologically defined gene sets.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

            The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nivolumab in Previously Untreated Melanoma withoutBRAFMutation

              Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101761119
                49159
                Nat Cancer
                Nat Cancer
                Nature cancer
                2662-1347
                26 August 2021
                November 2021
                11 November 2021
                11 May 2022
                : 2
                : 11
                : 1170-1184
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75390, USA
                [2 ]Division of Pediatric Hematology- Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75390, USA
                [3 ]Texas Therapeutics Institute, Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [4 ]Department of Immunochemistry, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases and Laboratory of Immunochemistry, World Premier International Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
                Author notes

                Author contributions

                G.W. developed experimental protocol; designed, performed, and analysed experiments; and wrote the manuscript. C.C.Z. directed the project, interpreted results, and wrote the manuscript. Y.X. prepared the antibodies, evaluated the properties of antibodies in vitro, prepared RNAseq samples, provided extensive discussion and wrote the manuscript. R. S. produced the antibodies. H.C., J.X. and X.L. conducted part of animal experiments. M.D. and H.A. provided technical support. X.G. purified the antibodies. S.J. prepared clinical samples. Z.L. analysed TCGA clinical data. N.Z. and Z.A. directed to antibody production and evaluation of antibody properties and contributed extensive discussion.

                [* ]Corresponding author: Cheng Cheng Zhang, Department of Physiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390; Alec.Zhang@ 123456UTSouthwestern.edu . Phone: 214-645-6320 Fax: 214-648-1960
                Article
                NIHMS1735692
                10.1038/s43018-021-00262-0
                8809885
                35122056
                0a6847f9-b1a0-4be4-9bec-7d133a06b937

                Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/policies/accepted-manuscript-term

                History
                Categories
                Article

                aml,lilrb3,traf2,cflip,itim,nf-κb signaling
                aml, lilrb3, traf2, cflip, itim, nf-κb signaling

                Comments

                Comment on this article