NCI First International Workshop on The Biology, Prevention, and Treatment of Relapse After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Report from the Committee on the Biology Underlying Recurrence of Malignant Disease following Allogeneic HSCT: Graft-versus-Tumor/Leukemia Reaction

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Adaptive T Cell-Immune Responses
  • T Cell Phenotype: Naïve/Effector/Memory
  • Antigen Presentation and Antigen-Presenting Cells
  • T Cell Allo-Activation (Signal 1)
  • T Cell Allo-Activation (Signals 2 and 3)
  • T Cell Trafficking
  • T Cell Cytolysis
• The Role of Minor Histocompatibility Antigens in the GVL Effect
  • Minor Histocompatibility Antigens
  • Expression of mHAs in Normal and Malignant Tissues
  • Contributions of mHA-Specific T Cell Responses to GVL
  • Human Genomic Diversity and the Number of mHAs
  • T Cell Responses to Nonpolymorphic Antigens
  • Role of HLA-DP Mismatch in Unrelated Donor (URD) Transplantation
• Immune Contraction and Suppression
  • Survival of the Organism from a Potentially Overzealous Immune Response
  • Naïve T Cell Expansion, Differentiation, Contraction and Memory T Cell Generation
  • The Tumor Microenvironment
  • Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Immune Contraction and Suppression
• Adaptive B Cell-Immune Responses in GVL
  • The Role of B Cells and Antibodies in GVL
  • Target Antigens and Potential Mechanisms of Action of Antibodies
  • Methods to Identify Target Antigens
  • Mechanisms That Promote Antibody Responses and Implications for Therapy
• Innate NK Cell Immune Responses
  • NK Cell Biology
  • Development of NK Cell Self-Tolerance
  • The Role of NK Cells in the GVL Response
  • KIR Genotyping: Implications for Donor Selection
  • NK Cell Adoptive Transfer
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgments
• References
• Copyright

The success of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) depends on the infusion of benign stem cells as well as lymphocytes capable of participating in a graft-versus-tumor/leukemia (GVL) reaction. Clinical proof of concept is derived from studies showing increased relapse after the infusion of lymphocyte depleted hematopoietic grafts as well as the therapeutic efficacy of donor lymphocyte infusions without chemotherapy to treat relapse in some diseases. Despite this knowledge, relapse after allogeneic HSCT is common with rates approaching 40% in those with high-risk disease. In this review, we cover the basic biology and potential application to exploit adaptive T cell responses, minor histocompatibility antigens, contraction and suppression mechanisms that hinder immune responses, adaptive B cell responses and innate NK cell responses, all orchestrated in a GVL reaction. Optimal strategies to precisely balance immune responses to favor GVL without harmful graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are needed to protect against relapse, treat persistent disease and improve disease-free survival after HSCT.

Key Words: HCT, relapse, Graft-versus-host disease, Immune modulation, Graft-versus-leukemia reaction

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has been successfully used in patients receiving myeloablative (MA) chemotherapy and irradiation for the treatment of a variety of hematologic malignancies. Initially, dose intensification to induce a maximal antitumor effect was considered essential. Because allogeneic HSCT can be accompanied by harmful immunologic complications including graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), early speculation favored the use of autologous hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) or stem cells derived from a homozygous twin as the best source of cells for transplantation. However, subsequent clinical studies illustrated that the positive counterbalance of GVHD was a decreased likelihood of relapse after transplantation, compensating for the immune complications of allogeneic HSCT, leading to better disease-free survival (DFS). Apparently, donor-derived immune effector cells, primarily T cells, were not only responsible for the development of GVHD, but also for the reduced risk of relapse. As such, depletion of T cells from the graft to prevent GVHD resulted in an increased incidence of relapse after transplantation indicating that donor T cells were capable of mediating a graft-versus-leukemia/lymphoma (GVL) effect. Because transplantation with a T cell-replete graft from a homozygous twin did not result in GVL reactivity, it was concluded that the mere presence of T cells in the graft expressing a broad repertoire of specificities was not sufficient to mediate GVL reactivity, but that alloreactive T cells per se were responsible for the antitumor effect. Further proof of the capacity of donor-derived T cells to mediate a curative GVL effect came from the administration of donor lymphocytes to patients with recurrence of their malignancy after allogeneic HSCT. Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) as a treatment for recurrence of the malignant disease has resulted in 20% to 90% complete remissions depending on the malignancy. Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) was found to be most susceptible to DLI, but also patients treated for relapsed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), multiple myeloma (MM), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and a few patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), showed clinically evident responses.

Although T cells mediate an antitumor effect following allogeneic HSCT, in HLA mismatched transplantations, complete removal of T cells of donor origin did not result in full abrogation of the GVL effect. Alloreactive natural killer (NK) cells of donor origin present in the graft or developing from donor stem cells following transplantation were also found to be capable of mediating an antitumor effect. Thus, T cells and NK cells make use of the genetic disparity between donor and recipient, resulting in better DFS in patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies. In addition, the role of donor antihost antibodies developing after allogeneic HSCT may also play a role in antitumor effects and GVHD.

From these observations, it can be concluded that the main advantage of allogeneic HSCT over autologous HSCT is the exploitation of the immune response to further eradicate the malignancy. This insight into the immunobiology of allogeneic HSCT has led to the development of strategies to reduce the intensity of the conditioning regimens to limit the toxicity of the transplant procedure. Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) using profound immunodepletion of the recipient instead of full myeloablation has greatly increased the applicability of allogeneic HSCT, allowing treatment of elderly patients with limited transplant-related morbidity and mortality. RIC has also changed the balance between donor and recipient cells following transplantation. This may change the balance between GVHD and GVL in favor of the antitumor response, which can improve the outcome of allogeneic HSCT with a better quality of life.

To allow appropriate execution of the immune-mediated antitumor effects, several immunologic phenomena have to take place. First, immune cells have to be activated in vivo or in vitro leading to the appropriate production and expansion of T cells, NK cells, or antibody-producing cells. Cells and allo-antibodies have to localize to the tumor sites and mediate effector mechanisms, resulting in tumor destruction. Preferentially, following a contraction phase of the immune response, a memory response should develop capable of sustained antitumor control. In this report, we will discuss several aspects known to play a role in the development and execution of the immune response, and also try to identify missing links in understanding the biology of the immune reaction. Insight in these reactivities will lead to more specifically directed immune responses following transplantation, leading to increased antitumor reactivity with decreased immunologic complications following allogeneic HSCT.

Back to Article Outline

Adaptive T Cell-Immune Responses 

T Cell Phenotype: Naïve/Effector/Memory 

Naïve T cells develop in vivo following an education and selection process in the thymus, and circulate and migrate to lymphatic tissues to be activated upon encountering their specific target antigen. Following activation, they expand and execute their function, and following a contraction phase, a subset of T cells becomes memory cells, ready to be activated upon renewed antigen exposure. During life, an expanding repertoire of antigen-experienced T cells develops, depending on the exposure to foreign antigens. Thus, the donor T cell repertoire infused into the patient will be heterogeneous and will depend on the immunologic history of the donor. The donor T cells can be divided into naïve (T_N; never antigen-activated), effector (T_E; recently activated), and memory T cells (T_M), which can be classified further into effector memory (T_EM) and central memory cells (T_CM) 1, 2. Because of the fact that the T_M subset only contains T cells that have been activated in the past, the T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire of T_M is more narrow than T_N. However, because T_M have a lower threshold for activation than T_N , if the donor T cell repertoire contains T_M that can recognize recipient tissues, these cells may be readily activated after infusion, leading to an in vivo immune response. Donor T cells have diverse activation histories, which can impact their ability to mediate GVL and GVHD. The T cell subsets differ in various ways, including how they traffic, become activated, expand, and function after infusion. These repertoire-dependent and -independent features of T cell subsets have an impact on GVL mediated by polyclonal unmanipulated donor T cell infusions. T_N, T_EM, and T_CM cells can all potentially mediate GVL 3, 4, 5, although it is likely that T_EM are the least potent in curing tumors because of their reduced ability to expand after transfer [4]. It is not likely that simple separation of the T cell subsets before infusion will lead to induction of GVL without GVHD.

Separation of GVHD from GVL and improvement of effectiveness and specificity of GVL may be obtained by in vitro selection or expansion of antigen specific T cells, or with genetically modified T cells with redirected specificities. For adoptive transfer of in vitro selected and expanded T cells with defined specificities, T_CM cells may be ideal 6, 7. Yet, some studies indicate that T_N rather than T_CM cells are superior after gene modification and adoptive transfer [8]. Despite this progress in understanding T cell biology, the relative contributions of T_N or T_M alloreactive T cells to controlling relapse after transplantation is unknown, and may depend on the repertoire of the donor, and the genetic disparity between donor and recipient.

Antigen Presentation and Antigen-Presenting Cells 

In allogeneic HSCT, CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells that mediate GVL must interact with major histocompatibility complex (MHC)/peptide complexes present on leukemia target cells 9, 10, 11. In the context of HLA matched transplantation most leukemia-reactive, minor histocompatibility antigen (mHA) specific T cells are T_N. These T cells must likely be primed by professional antigen presenting cells (APCs) to be appropriately activated in vivo, although the precise roles of APC subsets (dendritic cells [DC], macrophages, B cells) are not well defined. Therefore, an effective GVL response may require that professional APCs presenting the antigens expressed by leukemia cells or that the leukemic cells themselves acting as professional APCs, as may be the case in CML, are present to provoke a T cell response of a sufficient magnitude. Early after transplant, when there are residual conditioning regimen-resistant host APCs, direct presentation of antigens derived from genes endogenously coexpressed by APCs and the malignant cells likely provides a sufficient source of antigen to drive effective GVL; and data in mouse models support this hypothesis 9, 12. The kinetics of an appropriate mHA-reactive T cell response show early activation, expansion, and then a decline, typically mimicking T cell responses in pathogen systems 13, 14. Because a maximal GVL effect may require a sustained response, this may be achieved by repeated stimulation of initially activated cells, new recruitment of T cells directed against these specificities, or subsequent activation of T cells directed against other antigens.

If host hematopoiesis after transplantation is completely replaced by cells of donor origin, including donor-derived APCs, and the immune response cannot be directly triggered by leukemic APCs, the recipient (malignancy) associated antigens cannot be endogenously presented by professional APC. Under those circumstances, donor T cell activation has to be triggered by host antigens that are crosspresented by donor APCs [15]. Mouse models have demonstrated that indirect presentation occurs, although how effective this process is after transplant is less well studied 10, 15, 16, 17. Late-onset GVHD in clinical allogeneic HSCT, when full donor chimerism has developed, may indicate that this also occurs in humans. If at this time indirectly presented host antigens are derived from nonhematopoietic cells, it is possible that the host mHAs targeted may not be expressed on leukemia cells, leading to GVHD, but not GVL. If allo-immunity is directed against ubiquitously expressed host antigens, both GVHD and GVL can be expected. This type of immune response may be sustained because of continuous antigen access for donor-derived APCs; although the continuous host antigen/peptide exposure to donor T cells can also lead to trapping or consumption of alloreactive and potentially GVL-inducing T cells in tissues [18] and T cell exhaustion 19, 20. To induce crosspresentation, activation signals are likely necessary. In mouse models, CD4 “help” by CD40L-expressing T cells, type I interferons (IFN), and Toll-like receptor (TLR) ligation all promote crosspresentation 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. How to exploit these mechanisms in patients who relapse after transplantation is less clear. In a patient who has relapsed, the standard approach is to first withdraw immunosuppressive drugs, and, if this is ineffective, to administer DLI. These are both T cell-directed interventions, and little attention is paid to the APC component of the response. Possible strategies that would target the APC component could include adding vaccination against hematopoietically expressed host mHAs or stimuli that promote crosspresentation of host antigens by donor APCs.

T Cell Allo-Activation (Signal 1) 

If allogeneic HSCT is performed over HLA barriers, a profound immune response is likely to occur. Allogeneic T cell responses against HLA antigens are comprised of multiple responses directed against a variety of peptides presented in the context of nonself HLA molecules. These T cell responses are caused by normal T cells educated to recognize foreign peptides in the context of self MHC, but are crossreactive with unrelated antigens when presented in the context of nonself MHC molecules. As a consequence, these T cell responses are present in both the T_N and the T_M compartments of the donors. Therefore, following HLA-mismatched HSCT, T_M cells, capable of recognizing a variety of antigens presented in various tissues of the recipient, will be infused. Because T_M cells can be activated in the absence of professional APCs, severe GVHD is more likely to occur if patients are transplanted with HLA-mismatched donor grafts. On the other hand, if patients are transplanted with a donor graft from a very young individual or umbilical cord blood, the likelihood of large numbers of donor T_M cells capable of recognizing allo-HLA antigens is more limited, and therefore, grafts from umbilical cord blood or very young donors are less likely to cause this severe type of GVHD because the allo-HLA-directed T_N cells must be activated by professional APCs. If allo-HLA responses develop, they will be directed against both normal and malignant target cells, leading to both GVL and GVHD. After HLA-matched transplantation, the mHA presented and recognized in the context of self MHC are less likely to be previously encountered by donor T cells, and therefore, professional APCs with additional costimulatory molecules play a more crucial role in the initiation of the allo-immune response. If primary immune responses against hematopoiesis-associated host mHA (discussed in detail below) expressed by the APCs develop, these T cell responses may lead to separation of GVL and GVHD, whereas transplantation over HLA barriers are likely to cause immune responses leading to both GVHD and GVL reactivity.

T Cell Allo-Activation (Signals 2 and 3) 

Costimulatory molecules that deliver a second signal to donor T cells can play pivotal roles in the donor T_N cell activation required for GVHD induction. The most well-studied pathway, CD28/CTLA-4:B7, involves homologs that can deliver positive (CD28/B7) or negative (CTLA-4/B7) interactions. Specific blockade of the positive pathway reduces GVHD, whereas blockade of the inhibitory pathway increases GVHD lethality [27]. Other CD28 family members include inducible costimulator (ICOS) and the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathways. ICOS is present on activated and T_M cells, binds ICOS-ligand (a.k.a. B7h), and promotes T_E cell responses 28, 29. Precluding ICOS signals on donor T cells diminishes donor T cell-mediated alloresponses, especially of the gastrointestinal tract and liver 30, 31, which proved to be CD4⁺ T cell-dependent disease in some [32], but not in other studies [33]. Loss of ICOS signaling worsens CD8⁺ T cell-mediated GVHD, as a consequence of increased expansion of donor CD8⁺ T cells [33]. PD-1, an inhibitor of activated T cells, also is expressed in the cytoplasm of CD4⁺CD25⁺ T regulatory (Treg) cells [32]. Blockade or absence of PD-1 on donor cells accelerates both CD4⁺- and CD8⁺-mediated GVHD [34].

Members of the TNF receptor (TNFR) family function as costimulatory molecules and modulate GVHD and GVL. OX40 is present on both activated CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells as well as on activated APCs. Despite the presence of the receptor on both T cell populations, activation of OX40 has been reported to promote CD4⁺ but not CD8⁺ T cell-mediated GVHD [35]. CD40 ligand (CD40L) is expressed on activated CD4⁺ T cells, and CD40:CD40L interaction increases acute GVHD[36] by promoting CD4⁺ T cell-mediated tissue destruction and CD8⁺ T cell expansion [37]. All 4 of the aforementioned costimulatory pathway members (CD28, ICOS, OX40, and CD40L) act independently, as inhibition of any single pathway does not eliminate GVHD, and coblockade results in greater protection 38, 39. Two other TNFR members include 4-1BB and glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor (GITR). 4-1BB is expressed on activated CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells and on NK cells 40, 41. Inhibition of 4-1BB binding to 4-1BB ligand reduces CD8⁺ T cell-mediated GVHD lethality and CD4⁺ Th1 generation in GVHD 42, 43. GITR is expressed constitutively on CD4⁺CD25⁺ Treg cells and activated CD4⁺CD25⁻ and CD8⁺CD25⁻ T cells [44]. Stimulating GITR on Treg cells or removal of GITR⁺ cells reverses suppression, leading to the development of autoimmune disease [44]. GITR stimulation on CD4⁺CD25⁻ T cells reduced GVHD in MHC II-disparate recipients, whereas stimulation of GITR of CD8⁺CD25⁻ T cells increased proliferation and GVHD in a MHC I-disparate murine model [45].

In addition to signals 1 and 2, activation of naïve CD8⁺ T cells to undergo clonal expansion and develop effector function requires a third signal that can be delivered by IL-12, type I interferon (IFN), or adjuvant. The third signal, most important when antigen levels are low [46], results in the upregulation of bcl3 [47] and granzyme B expression [48]. Even at high antigen levels, the third signal, although not needed for proliferation, is necessary for the full development of cytolytic effector function [46]. The third signal is critical in determining whether stimulation by antigen results in tolerance versus development of effector function and establishment of a responsive memory population. Prolonged exposure to antigen and costimulation, along with a third signal are required for CD8⁺ T cell clonal expansion. Importantly, signal 3 availability at the tumor site can influence CD8⁺ T cell responses to a solid tumor [49].

T Cell Trafficking 

Manipulation of T cell trafficking may be an attractive strategy to separate GVL and GVHD. Trafficking and migration involve a complex series of events mediated by integrins, chemokine receptors, and selectins on the surface of lymphocytes, and the interaction of these molecules with cognate extracellular ligands. Selectins (addressins) affecting lymphocyte migration may also be expressed on endothelial cells of lymphoid and target tissues [50]. The biologic roles of homing molecules can be pleiotropic, for example, contributing to the binding of T cells and APCs at the immunologic synapse [51].

The CC-chemokine receptor-7 (CCR7) is thought to play an important role in the entry of naïve lymphocytes into secondary lymphoid organs prior to their activation by APCs, after which it is downregulated as activated T cells migrate to target tissues to execute effector functions 52, 53. Individual selectins, integrins, and chemokines/chemokine receptors have all been implicated in the pathogenesis of GVHD [50].

Chemokine receptor CCR2 knockout donor T cells and β7 integrin knockout donor T cells have both demonstrated decreased homing to the liver and GI tract and decreased GVHD, but intact GVL responses 54, 55, 56. A humanized antibody to the α4 subunit of certain integrin heterodimers, natalizumab, has been tested for use in inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis 57, 58, 59, 60, 61. Heterodimers with the α4 subunit are important for homing to Peyer's patches and gut mucosa, and may thus be useful for blocking migration of activated T cells to GVHD target sites, although still permitting activation of GVL effectors in lymphoid tissue [62]. This hypothesis remains to be tested, but it is supported by the knowledge that the α4 subunit forms heterodimers with the β7 subunit described earlier. Broad questions remain regarding the function of homing molecules and T cell trafficking during GVL, but an assessment of the homing molecules implicated in GVHD presents at least an initial road map [50]. Such studies are necessary to distinguish molecules critical for GVL from those that may be blocked to prevent GVHD without impairing GVL.

T Cell Cytolysis 

Cytotoxic T cell lymphocytes (CTLss) execute their function via use of the perforin/granzyme system and death receptor ligands (FasL, tumor necrosis factor [TNF], TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand [TRAIL], tumor necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis [TWEAK]), which utilize the target cell's own machinery to initiate apoptosis [63]. As with mechanisms of lymphocyte homing, the role of cytotoxicity has been studied in greater detail in GVHD than in GVL. Most studies have emphasized preservation of GVL cytotoxicity and suppression of GVHD. Studies with patient samples have demonstrated varying levels of leukemic sensitivity to FasL and perforin, the 2 classic cytotoxic effector molecules [64].

Murine models have suggested the perforin pathway is important for GVL, whereas FasL appears to have a greater role in GVHD [63]. However, both molecules have been implicated in both GVHD and GVL 63, 65, 66. TNF-α, which plays a central role in GVHD pathogenesis, has also been implicated in GVL, although it is possible that the GVL effect of TNF-α may be related to an effect on donor T cells rather than on host neoplastic cells 10, 63, 67. The role of TWEAK in GVL is unknown, however TRAIL may have a role limited to GVL without potential for induction of GVHD⁶³.

Back to Article Outline

The Role of Minor Histocompatibility Antigens in the GVL Effect 

Minor Histocompatibility Antigens 

GVHD and GVL activity occur in the majority of allogeneic HSCT recipients who receive T cell-replete grafts and/or DLI from genotypically MHC-matched donors. Thus, GVHD and GVL in this setting are triggered by donor-recipient genetic disparity at polymorphic loci outside the MHC, which are consequently referred to as minor histocompatibility loci. Studies in both mice and humans have demonstrated that most minor histocompatibility loci encode short peptides, termed mHAs, which are encoded by polymorphic genes. These are presented on the cell surface by MHC class I and II molecules, where they can be recognized by donor CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells, respectively. CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cell clones specific for recipient mHAs can be isolated from most HSCT recipients of T-replete grafts or after DLI.

Molecular characterization of mHAs recognized by T cells after MHC-matched HSCT has demonstrated that the genetic loci encoding mHAs can be divided into 2 broad categories based on their chromosomal location (Figure 1). The first category comprises a small class of Y chromosome genes that encode male-specific mHAs (H-Y antigens), which are targets for female T cells in sex-mismatched transplants. The genes encoding all of the known H-Y antigens have X chromosome homologs that encode proteins that are 81% to 99% identical in sequence with the Y chromosome-encoded isoforms, and are expressed both in and outside the testis. The extensive sequence disparity between the Y and X chromosome-encoded isoforms creates a large number of male-specific peptides that could potentially serve as targets for female T cells in MHC-matched transplants. The immunologic significance of H-Y antigens is enhanced by the fact that the Y chromosome is inherited as a single functional genetic element, and, therefore, all H-Y antigens are in complete linkage disequilibrium. At least 12 H-Y antigens encoded by 6 different Y chromosome genes have been identified to date, and many more remain to be identified.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Figure 1 

  Chromosomal distribution of the 30 genes known to encode mHAs. The chromosomal locations of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC), Natural Killer Complex (NKC), and Killer-cell Immunoglobulin-like Receptor (KIR) locus are also indicated.

A heterogeneous group of polymorphic autosomal loci widely distributed throughout the genome comprise the second major class of mHA-encoding genes (Figure 1). Although some of these loci encode well-characterized proteins with known functions, there are several whose protein products are as yet completely uncharacterized. The polymorphism in autosomal minor histocompatibility loci is generated by variation in human genome sequences, which creates most of the autosomal mHAs identified to date. Variation in genome structure, which creates at least 4 known mHAs, likely creates other mHAs that have yet to be characterized. Nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the coding sequence of normal self proteins that create amino acid polymorphisms in the sequence of these proteins create most of the known autosomal mHAs. Such polymorphisms can alter how peptides are generated from self-proteins inside the proteasome. Peptides are then transported into the endoplasmic reticulum by the transporter associated with antigen processing, bind to MHC molecules, or are recognized by T cells when presented on the cell surface in a complex with MHCs. Both mHAs encoded within normal, as well as alternative open reading frames are frequently found 68, 69. Alternative mRNA splicing because of SNPs in the introns of protein-coding genes [70] and single nucleotide deletions leading to frameshift polymorphisms [71] can also create mHAs. Larger scale variation in the human genome structure creates mHAs through deletion of entire protein-coding sequences. A common deletion polymorphism on chromosome 4q that spans 117 kb and includes the entire UGT2B17 locus creates at least 3 different mHAs 72, 73, 74.

Expression of mHAs in Normal and Malignant Tissues 

Evaluation of the expression of mHAs in normal and malignant tissues has provided insight into the potential contributions of mHA-specific T cell responses to GVL activity. Many mHAs are expressed in both hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic cells in vitro, suggesting that T cell responses to these antigens could contribute to both GVL and GVHD. However, a significant fraction of mHAs show expression that is limited to cells of hematopoietic origin, raising the prospect that T cell responses against these mHAs might contribute selectively to GVL activity. Because HLA class II molecules under most conditions are preferentially expressed on HSCs compared with non-HSCs HLA-class II restricted mHAs have a higher likelihood of being selectively expressed by malignant hematopoietic cells 75, 76, 77. CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell clones specific for mHAs that are selectively expressed in HSCs recognize lymphogenous and myelogenous leukemic cells in vitro and inhibit the growth of clonogenic leukemic cells in in vitro culture 78, 79. CD8⁺ mHA-specific CTL clones also inhibit the engraftment of human acute leukemia into nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficient (NOD/SCID) mice, demonstrating that leukemic stem cells 80, 81 express mHAs and can be targeted by mHA-specific CTLs 82, 83, which can be active against established hematopoietic tumors in vivo [84].

Contributions of mHA-Specific T Cell Responses to GVL 

Cellular and molecular dissection of immune responses occurring in recipients after HSCT or DLI has provided compelling evidence that both autosomal and H-Y mHAs expressed on recipient tumor cells are targets of GVL responses in MHC-matched HSCT. Flow cytometric analysis with mHA peptide/MHC tetramers has shown that mHA-specific T cells with in vitro reactivity against recipient leukemic cells increase in frequency in peripheral blood before and during clinical regression of malignancy 68, 69, 71, 85, 86. Analysis of the T cell repertoire in patients with persistent or recurrent disease who responded to DLI showed that the T cell response associated with GVL is polyclonal and likely directed at a significant number of distinct antigens [87]. Comprehensive application of single-cell cloning has directly confirmed this hypothesis, and demonstrated that GVL reactions involving T cells with diverse antigen specificity occur in patients with CML 88, 89 and CLL [90].

Retrospective analyses of transplant outcome have attempted to evaluate the contribution of mHA-specific T cells to GVL activity by correlating donor-recipient disparity at specific minor histocompatibility loci with posttransplant relapse or remission of disease. Studies that focused on disparity at autosomal mHAs have had inconsistent results, but the largest of such studies showed no significant correlation between donor-recipient disparity at specific loci with tumor control after HSCT. In contrast, several large retrospective analyses have identified a significantly lower rate of relapse in male recipients of female hematopoietic cell grafts (F → M HSCT) than in any other donor/recipient sex combination, suggesting that T cell responses to H-Y antigens have a clinically measurable antileukemic effect 91, 92. Thus, T cell responses against multiple H-Y antigens are thus likely to be elicited in any F → M HSCT recipient.

Human Genomic Diversity and the Number of mHAs 

At least 30 different autosomal and Y chromosome genes have been shown to encode mHAs (Figure 1), but it is likely that many more mHAs remain to be identified. The human genome is characterized by an enormous quantity of sequence and structural variation. To date, more than 150,000 SNPs that cause amino acid polymorphisms in the sequence of known or predicted proteins (www.hapmap.org), and common deletion polymorphisms that span several dozen known and predicted genes have been identified. Thus, there are a very large number of polymorphic protein and peptide sequences that, in the setting of MHC-matched allogeneic HSCT, could potentially encode mHAs. Recognition of the enormous diversity in the human genome demonstrates that there is abundant polymorphism that could potentially be exploited to enhance GVL activity after MHC-matched HSCT, but also suggests that whole-genome approaches to understanding GVL will likely provide the key to its successful exploitation.

T Cell Responses to Nonpolymorphic Antigens 

In addition to its direct antitumor action, the mHA-specific T cell response that occurs in recipients of allogeneic HSCT can enable and recruit antitumor T cell responses to nonpolymorphic antigens that are derived from normal self proteins and are over or aberrantly expressed in recipient tumor cells. CD8⁺ T cells specific for the HLA-A∗0201-restricted PR1 peptide that is contained within both proteinase-3 and elastase, the major constituents of the primary azurophil granules of normal promyelocytes as well as AML and CML blasts, can be detected in the blood of many HLA-A∗0201⁺ CML patients who achieve remission after MHC-matched HSCT 93, 94. PR1-specific CTLs recognize myelogenous leukemia cells in vitro [95] and inhibit the growth of CML colony-forming units [96]. The protein product of the WT1 gene is also a target of spontaneous posttransplant T cell responses that could contribute to GVL activity against myelogenous and lymphogenous leukemias. CD8⁺ HLA-A∗0201-restricted responses to WT1 have been observed in HLA-A∗0201⁺ ALL patients after HSCT and their appearance was correlated with clearance of molecular markers of residual disease [97].

Increasing evidence also suggests that donor T cell responses against recipient tumor-specific antigens frequently occur in allogeneic HSCT recipients and could make significant contributions to GVL activity. Regression of MM in several patients who received DLI with CD4⁺ cells was associated with the appearance and selective expansion of myeloma-specific CD8⁺ T cells [98]. Antigens encoded by cancer-testis (C-T) genes including NY-ESO-1 and the MAGE and SSX gene families are often expressed in advanced or poor-prognosis myeloma, and B and T cell responses to these C-T antigens are preferentially detected in patients who have undergone allogeneic HSCT [99]. CML cells express several tumor-specific antigens that can elicit T cell responses in cancer patients, including BCR-ABL junctional peptides, and BCR-ABL-specific T cells have been detected in CML patients both before and after HSCT [94]. In recent studies remission of CLL after nonmyeloablative MHC-matched HSCT was closely associated with appearance of tumor-specific CD8⁺ T cells 90, 100.

Role of HLA-DP Mismatch in Unrelated Donor (URD) Transplantation 

Recent genetic and clinical studies suggest that donor/recipient mismatch at loci within the classical MHC, most notably at HLA-DP, may play a uniquely important role in preventing or treating relapse after transplantation from unrelated donors [101]. High-density SNP genotyping of 1500 HSCT donor/recipient pairs at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle has shown that sibling donor/recipient pairs who are identical at the HLA-A, -B, and -DR loci are invariably also identical at HLA-C, HLA-DQ, and HLA-DP, and, in fact, are identical throughout the entire ∼4 Mb region encompassing the MHC. This is presumably because of inheritance of the same 2 copies of chromosome 6 from their parents (S. Li and E.H. Warren, in preparation). However, the same is not true for unrelated donor/recipient pairs, even those who are matched at the DNA sequence level at the HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DR loci. Significant genetic nonidentity within the classical MHC exists within unrelated donor/recipient pairs who are otherwise identical at the DNA sequence at the HLA-A, -B, and -DR, loci, and this nonidentity is particularly prominent at the HLA-DP locus (S. Li and E.H. Warren, in preparation). Donor/recipient mismatch for HLA-DP represents an MHC mismatch that would be expected to stimulate a polyclonal HLA-DP-restricted, donor anti-recipient T cell response in most, if not all, mismatched pairs, and an HLA-DP-restricted response could potentially have a significant antitumor effect 101, 102. Two retrospective analyses, which collectively included more than 10,000 unrelated donor transplants facilitated by the National Marrow Donor Program and the Japan Marrow Donor Program, have, in fact, confirmed that donor/recipient mismatch at HLA-DP is associated with a statistically significant decrease in the rate of posttransplant relapse 103, 104. A similar effect associated with donor/recipient mismatch at HLA-C was also identified, but the clinical significance of HLA-C mismatch is not as great as that associated with HLA-DP mismatch because it is observed in far fewer unrelated donor/recipient pairs (S. Li and E.H. Warren, in preparation).

In conclusion, genetic disparity between donor and recipient is the key to the therapeutic efficacy of HSCT, but is also the root of GVHD, its primary limitation. Cellular and molecular dissection of GVL responses have demonstrated that GVL after MHC-matched HSCT is initiated by donor CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells that recognize recipient mHAs encoded by polymorphic genes. This alloresponse likely recruits additional effector cells recognizing tumor-specific or tumor-associated antigens encoded by nonpolymorphic genes that are over or aberrantly expressed in recipient tumor cells. The GVL response in most HSCT recipients is therefore likely to comprise a broadly focused immune response directed at a large number of polymorphic and nonpolymorphic target antigens. Deeper understanding of the breadth and the antigenic specificity of the GVL response will be required to exploit it successfully. Selective expression of some GVL target antigens in recipient HSCs and recipient tumor cells, with limited expression in nonhematopoietic tissues, may allow the development of therapeutic strategies for enhancing GVL activity without inducing or aggravating GVHD. Characterization of the extensive sequence and structural variation in the human genome suggests that there are likely to be a large number of polymorphic protein and peptide sequences at which immunotherapy to augment GVL could potentially be directed.

Back to Article Outline

Immune Contraction and Suppression 

Survival of the Organism from a Potentially Overzealous Immune Response 

Analogous to our understanding of tumoriogenesis, in which the initial emphasis on oncogenes became supplanted with the characterization of tumor suppressors as critical checkpoints that need to be overridden, there has been an increasing realization that merely stimulating the immune system in cancer will not be sufficient. Immune responses to any stimuli eventually undergo a contraction phase and also induce potent suppressive pathways, as biologic responses are geared to end. Immunotherapy in cancer has shown great promise but has been lacking with sustained responses and overall survival being affected. In part, this can be attributed to contraction and suppression pathways inherent to the immune response itself and in part because of manipulation of the suppressive pathways by the tumor. It has become clear that either augmenting the immune response in cancer or providing adoptive immunotherapy will need to overcome these hurdles to maintain the response. This represents a key pathway that, despite the successful generation of antitumor effectors, will limit responses.

Naïve T Cell Expansion, Differentiation, Contraction and Memory T Cell Generation 

Whereas cytoreductive antitumor therapies can reduce disease burden, residual tumor cells must be eradicated or held in check by the immune system. The most compelling evidence for a T cell-mediated immune-mediated antitumor response can be derived from the adoptive transfer of allogeneic donor lymphocytes used to treat leukemia recurrence following transplantation [105]. Assays for minimal residual disease in CML have shown a gradual reduction in tumor burden, often requiring months to years to achieve the full biologic effect. These data are consistent with a critical threshold number of antitumor reactive T cells that is needed to achieve and sustain an antileukemia effect.

Both T_N and T_M cells can contribute to antitumor responses. With age and repetitive radiation or chemotherapy courses, fewer näive T cells are produced [106]. Under those conditions, T_M cells may be the dominant antitumor reactive T cell responding population. Naïve T cells encountering immunogeneic tumor peptides or antigens can be skewed toward an antileukemia response, especially during periods of lymphopenia induced by cytoreductive therapies. This results in cytokine accumulation (eg, IL-7, IL-15) and substantial T cell homeostatic expansion and differentiation of naïve T cells into T_E cells that reduce tumor burden [107]. Typically within the first week, a second and profound contraction phase occurs because of activation-induced cell death, cytokine consumption, and/or inhibitory mechanisms (eg, exposure to IFN-gamma or TGF-β immunosuppressive cytokines, upregulation of CTLA-4 or PD-1 inhibitory coreceptors or TRAIL or Fas pathway death receptors). Following the contraction phase, a small subset of antigen-reactive T_EM, T_CM, and putative memory stem cells survive, each of which may retain an antitumor response capacity. In the presence of CD4⁺ T cell help, posthomeostatic proliferation-induced memory-like cells are produced, which can have similar responses to conventional CD8⁺ T_M cells [108]. The precise mechanisms by which CD4⁺ T cells maintain CD8⁺ T cell memory are still poorly understood, and this may impact the efficacy of CD8⁺ T cell transfer.

If tumor antigen levels are sufficient to trigger their TCR, memory cells may receive survival signals that promote their persistence and function, thereby permitting further reductions in tumor burden and continued immune surveillance. If antigen levels are too high, T cells may become exhausted and are known to express inhibitory molecules such as PD-1, which upon engagement by PD-1 ligand (PD-L) render antigen-reactive T cells hyporesponsive in terms of proliferation, cytokine production, and killing capacity [20]. If antigen levels are too low, these memory populations would become quiescent until they are reengaged by antigens that trigger their TCR and sufficient adjuvant signals such as cytokines or costimulatory pathway receptors that can reawaken cells to proliferate and lyse tumor cells.

The Tumor Microenvironment 

A key factor that regulates the size and activation status of the memory cell pool is tissue location. Antitumor reactive T_M cells may reside in secondary lymphoid organs, parenchymal organs, bone marrow (BM), or the tumor microenvironment itself. Some but not all of these environments are conducive to an antitumor response by providing positive signals (eg, costimulation, stimulatory cytokines) and only a limited number of inhibitory signals or cell populations that restrain memory cell activation, expansion, or acquisition of lytic function. Another key factor in the naïve and memory T cell response is the capacity of antitumor reactive T cell to migrate to the tumor site. Therefore, T cell populations not residing at the tumor site, and lacking necessary addressins, selectins, or chemokine receptors for migration to the tumor site are unlikely to substantively contribute to the immune response.

The immune environment in which T_N or T_M cells reside may suppress the antitumor immune response by affecting T cell activation, proliferation, pro- or anti-inflammatory cytokine expression, cytolytic molecule expression, pro- or anti-apoptotic molecule expression, or the regulation of receptors involved in migration. The size and activation status of the T_M cell compartment is determined by the balance between positive and negative signals delivered to the memory T cell. The positive and negative immune pathways work in concert, but suppression tends to trump over stimulation. The lack of the stimulatory factors may also predispose the immune cells to the suppressive pathways. These suppressive pathways may predominate even more in the aged individual, which may significantly limit immune interventions in this population. Typically, the tumor highjacks its microenvironment to foster tumor growth and discourage a productive immune response. Tumor cells such as those seen in Hodgkin lymphoma cells can produce immunosuppressive cytokines, such as IL-10 or TGF, which suppress T cell proliferation or induce Tregs that constrain T_E-cell responses in the tumor microenvironment [109]. Tumor cells can actively attack the attackers by expressing fasL and PD-L [110].

Tumor cells may express high levels of the intracellular tryptophan catabolic pathway, indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO), as has been demonstrated for AML cells [111]. In addition, CD11c⁺CD19⁺ plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) present in draining lymph nodes or the tumor microenvironment of rodents and humans can express high levels of IDO, which may be upregulated by tumor cells (eg, melanoma, breast cancer), Toll-like receptor-9 (TLR-9) ligation from exposure to bacteria products, or the T cell response itself via the elaboration of IFN-γ or surface expression of CTLA-4 [112]. High IDO levels act in the local microenvironment to stimulate integrated stress response pathways in T cells activated by amino acid starvation resulting in cell cycle arrest or apoptosis. In rodents, IDO expression in pDC has been shown to augment mature Tregs, and, upon TLR-9 ligation, blocks the conversion of Tregs into Th17-like cells [113], while in humans, TLR-9-activated pDC can convert naïve T cells into Tregs [114].

Tumors can cause T cell dysfunction by altering TCR signaling mechanisms [115]. Depletion of the amino acid L-arginine by cytoplasmic arginase I profoundly inhibits CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell functions [116]. L-arginine depletion is associated with the downregulation of the TCR zeta chain in T cells that infiltrate in the tumor microenvironment. Arginase I is expressed at high levels in myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) that infiltrate the tumor microenvironment [116]. Murine MDSCs have been shown to have an increased uptake of L-arginine because of high levels of a cationic amino acid transporter, 2B [117]. In addition, prostaglandin-E₂ is synthesized by MDSCs, which most likely contributes to immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment [118]. In humans, MDSCs are CD34⁺CD33⁺CD13⁺, indicative of a myeloid lineage [119]. In mice, Gr-1^lowCD11b^highLy-6C^highSSC^low and Gr-1^highCD11b^low cell fractions possessed suppressive potential [119]. The latter cells coexpressed F4/80, high levels of Ly6C, and low levels of CSF-1 receptor (CD115). Suppression was observed, albeit at as lesser potency on a cell-by-cell basis for Gr-1^hiCD11b^hi cells. IFN-γ or lipopolysaccharide not only activates MDSCs, but suppresses the differentiation of DCs from BM myeloid progenitors. Therefore, an inflammatory response to tumor cells can result in the generation of MDSCs in the tumor microenvironment, offsetting the host antitumor immune response. Intriguingly, in patients with renal cell carcinoma, IL-2 therapy markedly increased MDSC percentages and arginase I levels [120]. Thus, IL-2 has a dual effect on the immune response by increasing T_E cells and NK cells as well as Tregs and MDSCs. MDSCs also can suppress T cell function via other mechanisms such as the elaboration of nitric oxide or regulation of CD80 and PD-L expression. Vascular endothelial cell growth factor (VEGF), known to be produced by almost all tumor cells, has been shown to inhibit the development of DC from the BM which was associated with an increase in immature, immune suppressive Gr1⁺ myeloid cells [121]. In some types of cancer patients, immature DCs, in fact, are increased in the peripheral blood of patients.

A functional state of tumor-mediated suppression may occur as a result of deviation of the immune response toward a nonfavorable T_E cell phenotype (eg, Tregs type I; anti-inflammatory cytokine producing Th2 cells; TGF-β-secreting Th3 cells). Alternatively, tumor cells may inhibit antigen recognition by a variety of mechanisms. For example, some tumors downregulate major histocompatibility complex antigens (eg, MHC class I in neuroblastoma cells) or potentially immunodominant antigens (eg, EBV nuclear antigens, 3A, B, C in Hodgkin disease). Tumor cells can also secrete “decoy” molecules such as soluble MICA, which can inhibit NKG2D-mediated killing by NK cells. Defective APC function has been reported in cancer patients as a consequence of low expression of costimulatory molecules (eg, B7 ligands), exposure to high levels of IL-10 that result in tolerogenic DC, or high expression of inhibitory coreceptors (eg, PD-L).

Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Immune Contraction and Suppression 

Bypassing activation-induced cell death (AICD) is critical for sustaining activated immune cell engraftment and function. However, many cytokines and pathways can exert opposing effects. IFN-γ is a major mediator that is critical for many antitumor effector functions as well as a major mediator limiting T cell responses, particularly CD4⁺ T cells via AICD [122]. During T cell activation, CD25 (IL-2Rα chain) is upregulated, followed by the downregulation of CD127 (IL-7Rα chain) at the time of T_E cell to effector/memory transition. As such, it is reasonable to consider the use of IL-2 or IL-7 to expand T_E cells. However, the biology of IL-7 and other cytokines such as IL-15 is complicated because of the effects of presentation of the cytokine by DC's potentially yielding opposing effects on the T cell [123]. Moreover, the consumption of cytokines that can occur during the expansion phase, particularly following lymphopenia and homeostatic expansion, may result in a relative deficiency of cytokines to support activated T_E cells. Exogenous IL-2 administration has been shown to increase T_E cells as well as NK cells and Tregs. Of note, high doses of IL-2 can cause AICD of activated T cells, and IL-2 withdrawal can cause cytokine-deprivation induced apoptosis. Therefore, the available levels of IL-2 for IL-2R engagement are critical in determining the ultimate T cell fate. Recent data suggest that the binding of IL-2 with an antibody can result in supraphysiologic effects in vivo and even bypass the need of NK cells for IL-15 124, 125. In rodents, IL-7, the second member of the IL-2R common gamma chain family of cytokines, has been shown to be a critical growth factor for CD8⁺ T_E and T_M cell survival. In humans, exogenous IL-7 supported a sustained increase in peripheral blood CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells with broadening of the TCR repertoire diversity, induced T cell cycling and antiapoptotic protein (bcl2) upregulation, and expanded T_N cells, with a proportional diminution in Treg frequency [126]. Because IL-7 was well tolerated in this first in-human study, IL-7 administration may prove especially useful in situations in which IL-7 levels are limiting such as following homeostatic expansion during the resolving lymphopenia phase.

IL-15, the third member of the IL-2R common gamma chain family of cytokines, has been shown to be essential for memory cell survival. In vivo studies in rodent and nonhuman primates have demonstrated the capacity of IL-15 administration to facilitate T cell survival, especially antigen-specific central memory T cells. Studies of human T cells indicate that IL-15 favors the in vitro generation of T_CM versus T_E cells and also appears to be critical for NK cell survival. IL-15 is being readied for first-in-human testing in the near future. However, the “trans” presentation that IL-15 appears to require for optimal effects suggests that simple administration of the cytokine may not be sufficient [127]. IL-21, the fourth member of this family that is closely related to IL-2, also promotes the function of CD8⁺ T_E cells [128]. In contrast to IL-2, IL-21 inhibits the maturation of CD8⁺ T_N cells into granzyme B- and CD44-expressing effector CD8⁺ CTL [129]. At the same time, IL-21 increased the antitumor regressive capacity of adoptively transferred CTL. These data are consistent with the paradigm that cytokines, such as IL-21, limit both the stage of T_E cell differentiation and preserve the expression of key cell surface homing receptors such as L-selectin. Thus, IL-7, IL-15, and IL-21 are new candidate cytokines that may favor the persistence of T_M cells with improved antitumor properties, compared to IL-2. New approaches for cytokine delivery, such as cytokine-anticytokine antibody complexes may provide a superior methodology to achieve more pronounced in vivo biologic effects by increasing their otherwise short serum half-life.

Thus far, the success of bypassing negative regulators (eg, CTLA-4 or PD-1 pathway blockade for T cells, killer inhibitory receptor blockade for NK cells) may result in augmented antitumor effects but may also result in possible autoreactive toxicities. For example, antibodies directed against CTLA-4 have shown promising results in clinical trials in augmenting endogenous antitumor reactive T cells, while at the same time inducing autoimmune-mediated destruction of nontumor cells in some patients [130]. Anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies are in clinical trials in cancer patients; anti-PD-L1 antibody may be particularly useful in preventing the T cell exhaustion state that chronic antigen activation may cause [20]. However, in vivo studies have suggested that targeting multiple members of the PD1/PD-L family may be needed for optimal effects. Agonistic antibodies against costimulatory pathway members (eg, CD40/CD40L, OX40/OX40L, 4-1BB/4-1BBL) alone or combined with blockade of inhibitory coreceptors may prove to be particularly efficacious in patients with both APC and T cell dysfunction.

A chemical inhibitor of the IDO pathway (1-methyl-tryptophan) is being studied in phase I trials in cancer patients. COX-2 inhibitors have been used successfully, especially in patients with solid tumors, to reverse PGE2-mediated suppression and the frequency of inducible Tregs that can occur as a result of the tumor microenvironment [131]. MDSC-mediated inhibition of antitumor T cell or NK cell immune responses may be overcome by sunitinib malate [132], a receptor kinase inhibitor, TGF-β neutralization [133], modulators of arginine metabolism (see above) or nitric-oxide synthase inhibitor (eg, N[G] nitro-L-arginine methyl ester [L-NAME]) [134]. Anti-VEGF antibody in rodent but not human studies decreases suppressive DC numbers 120, 121.

Cellular depletion approaches such as those targeting Tregs (eg, IL-2 diphtheria toxin, a.k.a. denileukin diftitox or Ontak®) have been variably efficacious in augmenting endogenous T cell responses by depleting Tregs. The transfer of ex vivo expanded and activated antitumor reactive T cells, including those that are forced to express an antitumor reactive TCR by gene transfer, have been reported to be efficacious in patients with melanoma, generally an immune responsive disease [135]. Rodent studies have indicated that combined in vivo Treg depletion with the adoptive transfer of syngeneic CTL [136] may be a useful strategy that circumvents the in vivo dysfunction of antitumor reactive T cells (eg, TCR zeta chain downmodulation) and inhibits the suppression conferred by Tregs.

The role of CD4⁺ T cells (and the ratio of their subsets may be critical) in maintaining CD8⁺ T cell responses (survival and function) also needs to be explored. More attempts at combination approaches need to be undertaken. Recent data also suggests that activated DCs may do more than simply initiate the adaptive response but may also play a role in maintaining antigen-specific CD8⁺ T cell function and survival [137]. These data indicate that cytoreductive conditioning in HSCT may do much more than simply promote T cell expansion via homeostasis, but instead activates DCs via TLRs. Understanding the mechanisms involved may have a profound impact on the use of HSCT and adoptive immunotherapy. Finally, it has been shown in numerous models that peripheral immune readouts may have no bearing on antitumor responses. Studies are needed that understand how normal contraction processes occur within any attempt to stimulate or provide immune responses. AICD coupled with immune suppression and deprivation of supportive cells and cytokines may prematurely diminish responses and make the host resistant to further to attempts at stimulation. Targeting immune responses to the tumor site and, importantly, assessing immune effects within the tumor itself, may offer the best indicators of success as well as limit systemic toxicities. Understanding normal immune contractions/suppression and how the tumor can further subvert it is critical if the immune system is to be applied in cancer therapies.

Back to Article Outline

Adaptive B Cell-Immune Responses in GVL 

The Role of B Cells and Antibodies in GVL 

Evidence that B cells contribute to tumor immunity after allogeneic HSCT comes primarily from studies that have attempted to characterize immunologic events in patients with documented effective GVL responses in vivo. For example, Wu et al. [138] studied patients with relapsed CML who responded to DLI. Antibodies reactive with CML cells were identified after DLI response, and specific protein targets were identified using serologic analysis of recombinant cDNA expression libraries (SEREX). Several target proteins were characterized in greater detail, and it was further shown that the generation of antibodies specific for these targets coincided with the disappearance of CML cells in vivo. Similar antibodies were not present before transplant, before DLI, or in patients who developed chronic GVHD (cGVHD) after transplant. Antibodies to these CML-associated antigens were also not present in healthy donors or in patients who did not respond to DLI. Further studies demonstrated that several of these target antigens were preferentially expressed in both normal and CML progenitor cells [139].

Antibody responses to tumor-associated antigens have also been identified in patients with myeloma after allogeneic HSCT. Compared with CML, graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) responses after allogeneic HSCT occur less frequently and often only result in partial responses. Patients with myeloma who received prophylactic DLI early after transplant were found to have increased numbers of normal polyclonal CD20⁺ B cells in peripheral blood [140]. Using a similar SEREX approach Bellucci et al. [141] identified a panel of myeloma-associated antigens that were targets of antibody responses in patients with myeloma who responded to DLI. Antibody responses were not detected before DLI or in patients who did not receive DLI after transplant. These target proteins were highly expressed in myeloma cells, and antibodies to some of these antigens were detected in different DLI responders. Taken together, these studies in different hematologic malignancies suggest that polyclonal antibody responses to a variety of tumor-associated antigens frequently occur in patients with effective graft-versus-tumor responses in vivo. Nevertheless, the mechanisms whereby these antibody responses contribute to elimination of tumor cells in vivo have not been established.

Target Antigens and Potential Mechanisms of Action of Antibodies 

Several studies have reported that posttransplant patient antibodies can recognize cell membrane proteins expressed on tumor cell targets. This was recently shown for a polymorphic protein, ILT5, which is expressed on the cell membrane of normal DC [142]. This antigen is also expressed on myelogenous leukemia cells, and antibodies in patient serum were able to induce both complement-mediated cytotoxicity of AML cells as well as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). In this instance, immunogenicity was because of a polymorphism in the ILT5 gene. As a result of this polymorphism, donor B cells were able to recognize a variant of this protein in the transplant recipient that was not present in the HLA identical transplant donor. Overall, ILT5 reactive antibodies were found in 5.4% of HSCT patients, but not in solid organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiparous women, or healthy individuals.

Antibodies to a B cell membrane antigen, BCMA, have also been found in patients with myeloma [143]. BCMA is a transmembrane receptor of the TNF superfamily that is selectively expressed by mature B cells. In this setting anti-BCMA antibodies were also able to induce both complement-mediated cytotoxicity of myeloma cells, as well as ADCC. BCMA antibodies were only detected in patients with myeloma who received DLI. However, in this case, no genetic polymorphism in the BCMA gene was detected to account for the immunogenicity of this specific protein. Although few antibodies to cell membrane proteins have been described, few studies have specifically attempted to identify these types of antibodies as current methods that have been used to determine the specificity of antibodies in patient sera such as SEREX are not well suited to detect membrane proteins. It is therefore possible that antibodies to cell membrane proteins are a more common phenomenon in patients with GVL.

Most antigens that have been identified as targets of posttransplant antibodies are intracellular proteins. As with cell membrane proteins described above, the immunogenicity of some of these proteins is because of genetic polymorphisms that distinguish recipient and donor. For example, Y chromosome encoded proteins are immunogenic in male patients who receive stem cell grafts from female donors. Males are tolerant to these “self” antigens, but H-Y proteins are highly immunogenic in females and elicit both B and T cell responses after HSCT. H-Y proteins are widely expressed in normal tissues as well as tumor cells. B cell responses to H-Y proteins have been associated with cGVHD, but patients with antibodies to HY proteins also have a significantly lower risk of relapse after transplant than patients without H-Y antibodies [144]. In addition to H-Y proteins, a number of other intracellular proteins have been identified as targets of antibody responses in patients with GVL 138, 141. In most of these cases, polymorphisms that distinguish recipient from donor have not been identified, and the immunogenicity of these proteins has not been explained. Nevertheless, the persistence of high titer IgG antibodies for long periods after transplant suggests that these proteins are highly immunogenic. It is also possible that specific T cell responses directed against peptide epitopes derived from the same proteins are also present in these patients. Coordinated B and T cell responses have been reported for H-Y proteins, and similarly coordinated responses may also exist for many of these other proteins [145]. In these cases, the presence of specific antibodies reactive with soluble proteins or protein fragments may facilitate antigen presentation and the development of specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell responses to distinct peptide epitopes contained within these larger fragments.

Although these have not been studied as extensively, antibodies directed against soluble or secreted proteins have also been detected after allogeneic HSCT. Antibodies specific for secreted proteins may significantly deplete these proteins in vivo, resulting in profound functional effects. For example, some solid tumor patients who respond to tumor vaccines and infusions of anti-CTLA4 antibody have been found to develop high titer antibodies specific for soluble MICA [146]. MICA is expressed on tumor cell membranes in response to DNA damage and is a known ligand for NKG2D expressed on NK cells and CD8⁺ T_E cells. However, soluble MICA secreted by tumor cells results in the downregulation of NKG2D on NK cells and T_E cells with subsequent loss of cytolytic function. Antibodies to MICA induce the clearance of this soluble protein, resulting in the reexpression of NKG2D and restoration of cytolytic effector cell function. In patients with AML after allogeneic HSCT, Ho et al. [147] recently reported a decrease in soluble NKG2D ligands following vaccination with autologous leukemia cells genetically engineered to secrete granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Elevated levels of soluble MICA have also been found after allogeneic HSCT [148]. In this study, elevated levels of anti-MICA were associated with decreased cGVHD and increased risk of relapse after allogeneic HSCT. In many patients, the effectiveness of the GVL response is limited by immune suppressive factors secreted by the tumor cells themselves. The generation of specific antibodies directed against immune suppressive molecules may therefore be an indirect mechanism whereby donor B cells can promote GVL responses mediated by other effector cells. Further studies are needed to explore this novel mechanism whereby antibodies can potentially contribute to the GVL response in vivo.

Although the development of B cell responses after allogeneic HSCT appears to be associated with effective GVL responses, it has also been noted that antibodies to tumor cell antigens are frequently found in patients with solid tumors. In contrast to the posttransplant setting, the presence of antibodies is not clearly associated with effective autologous tumor immunity in patients with solid tumors [149]. A very large database of antigens identified by SEREX is now available in the Cancer Immunome Database (http://ludwig-sun5.unil.ch/CancerImmunomeDB). In some cases such as NY-ESO-1, T cell responses to distinct epitopes within these proteins have also been identified, but the clinical relevance of these endogenous antibody responses has not been established [150] . In mouse models that have examined the role of B cells in tumor immunity, it has been found that the presence of B cells can actually inhibit effective tumor immunity [151].

Methods to Identify Target Antigens 

Thus far, most studies that have attempted to define the specificity of antibodies in the posttransplant setting have relied on the SEREX approach to identify and clone specific target proteins. This has been a very useful tool and has allowed the broad characterization of antibody specificity. However, the SEREX method also has limitations, and may not be able to identify all relevant target antigens. Because target genes are identified in a cDNA expression library, this method favors the identification of highly expressed genes and protein targets represented by low copy number mRNAs are difficult to detect. This method also does not favor the identification of cell membrane proteins. Protein microarrays that include very large numbers of targets are now available, and these can provide an alternative approach for identification of antibody specificity after allogeneic HSCT, especially in the setting of GVL. Protein microarrays have the advantage of providing an unbiased approach to target identification and also greatly simplify and standardize the procedure for characterizing the specificity of complex polyclonal antibody responses. Although current protein microarrays now contain several thousand proteins, this approach also has limitations. Many relevant proteins may not be included in these arrays, and this approach is not designed to detect responses specific for protein polymorphisms. The cost of these arrays may be prohibitive for large-scale studies, but it is likely that this will also be a useful approach for defining antibody specificities in the setting of GVL responses in vivo.

As methods for high throughput genotyping and whole genome sequencing continue to evolve rapidly, it is likely that these methods will also facilitate the ability to identify antibody targets. For example, the identification of genetic disparities that distinguish recipients and stem cell transplant donors has already been used to predict candidate immunogenic targets for GVHD responses. Using current bioinformatic tools, it is also possible to identify genetic disparities or mutations that predict for the creation of immunogenic epitopes. Once specific epitopes are identified in silico, the immunogenicity of these epitopes can be validated in patients who have undergone allogeneic HSCT. In the future, this approach can be used to validate both B and T cell epitopes and to examine whether they are associated with either GVL or GVHD (or both).

Mechanisms That Promote Antibody Responses and Implications for Therapy 

The administration of MA or intensely immune suppressive therapy prior to allogeneic HSCT leads to profound lymphopenia that often persists for prolonged periods. The physiologic response to lymphopenia facilitates the homeostatic proliferation of donor B and T cells and supports the recovery of these cells to normal levels. In this environment, recent studies have suggested that B cell recovery following HSCT is supported, at least in part, by high levels of B cell activating factor (BAFF) 152, 153. This homeostatic cytokine promotes B cell survival and differentiation, and thus supports the secretion of antibodies generated by donor B cells. As noted above, these antibodies may contribute to the GVL response, and the persistence of high levels of BAFF may therefore be an important mechanism to support this functional activity. Other cytokines and microenvironmental factors likely also play important roles in the reconstitution of B cell numbers and repertoire following transplant. These factors have not been well defined in the clinical setting, and further studies to identify factors that modulate B cell reconstitution are warranted. As we develop a better understanding of the role of B cells in the GVL response in vivo, the characterization of these factors may provide novel opportunities for modulating B cell reconstitution to promote GVL after allogeneic HSCT.

Although B cell responses noted above have been associated with GVL, it is important to acknowledge that B cells also likely contribute to the development of cGVHD after allogeneic HSCT 144, 152, 154. This is further supported by the finding that B cell-directed therapy with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab) can provide effective therapy for some patients with steroid-resistant cGVHD 155, 156, 157. Despite many attempts to distinguish GVL and GVHD, it is evident that there is substantial overlap between immune responses directed against either cancer cells or normal tissues in the transplant recipient. In this setting, new approaches to enhance B cell responses to promote GVL may also have the unwanted toxicity of increasing cGVHD. Similarly, new and more effective strategies to treat or prevent cGVHD by targeting donor B cells may also have the unwanted effect of reducing GVL and increasing the risk of relapse after allogeneic HSCT. These issues will need to be carefully considered in the design and evaluation of any new clinical strategies to modulate B cell reconstitution following transplant.

Back to Article Outline

Innate NK Cell Immune Responses 

NK Cell Biology 

The GVL effect goes beyond adaptive immune responses, and a role for NK cells has been shown in humans and the mouse. Yet there are striking species differences between the mouse and humans that need to be considered when attempting to translate results. Dominant among these differences is the expression of CD56 as a marker on human NK cells and the existence of CD56^bright and CD56^dim subsets. CD56^bright NK cells are present in the lymph node and blood in humans, are highly proliferative, and produce cytokines, but are weakly lytic, suggesting they exert immunoregulatory functions. Mice lack both CD56 as a marker on their NK cells and have few NK cells in the lymph nodes. The MHC binding receptors in the mouse and humans are also fundamentally different. In humans, killer-immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) are the dominant HLA-binding molecules that regulate NK cell activity, whereas mice express the lectin-binding Ly49 family. Additionally, mice are housed under specific pathogen-free (SPF) conditions and their baseline NK cell killing is relatively poor, which correlates with very low granzyme/perforin expression unless activated, whereas human NK cells readily express these lytic molecules and exhibit de novo function without activation. In addition, human NK cells survive better ex vivo, whereas murine NK cells inevitably die after 2 weeks in culture. Despite these differences, there are many similarities in biologic paradigms between human and mouse NK cells including the expression of regulatory molecules (NKG2D, CD94/NKG2A, and others), lytic pathways, and effects of cytokines (IL-15, IL-2, Flt3L) critical for their development. Attempts to use xenograft models to study human NK cell development and activity has been inconsistent, but progress has been made by the discovery that IL-15 trans-presentation by species specific IL-15Rα is required and warrants further study.

Although both human and murine inhibitory receptors (KIR and Ly49, respectively) recognize MHC molecules, the natural ligands for many KIRs are unknown, including all of the activating KIRs, even though some may bind MHC molecules at low affinity. In the homologous murine Ly49 system, the activating receptor Ly49H recognizes the murine cytomegalovirus (CMV) glycoprotein m157, providing “proof of principle” that activating receptors may recognize viral proteins. Until recently, it had been presumed that only cells of the adaptive immune system have memory. Recently, the Lanier lab has shown that Ly49H⁺ (the receptor for muCMV) NK cells dramatically expand and then contract after viral control, yet amazingly these cells can be found in the recipient 3 months after infection suggesting that “NK cell memory” exists [158]. A role for human activating receptors in infection is supported by studies of patients with HIV showing an association between AIDS progression and in transplantation by association with human CMV, but memory NK cells are not well studied in humans.

Development of NK Cell Self-Tolerance 

The mechanism by which NK cells acquire self-tolerance and alloreactivity has been referred to as NK cell education or licensing. This is one of the most widely debated topics in NK cell biology over the past several years. Self-tolerance is the process by which NK cell function is suppressed after ligation of “self” through class I recognizing inhibitory receptors. Although alloreactivity is determined by a lack of inhibition and a positive balance of activating signals, how an NK cell acquires effector function is more complicated. Several models have been proposed to explain why inhibitory receptor expression correlates with the acquisition of effector function. These concepts differ in their implied mechanisms and whether the process is one of activation or loss of function. What is agreed upon between these and other models is that human NK cells lacking inhibitory receptors are hyporesponsive 159, 160, 161. Although the exact mechanism remains unknown, self-tolerance may be the result of coordinated developmental pathways whereby mature NK cell function is synchronized with the acquisition of self-inhibitory receptors and their subsequent ligation. The complexity of these interactions is highlighted by the expression of multiple inhibitory receptors capable of recognizing self-MHC, the net summation of activating receptor signals and the variable expression of ligands resulting in a “rheostat” [162] or a continuum “tunable rheostat” model integrating a cadre of different signals on the NK cell itself and its potential targets [163]. In humans, the best evidence for NK cell education is the finding of enhanced function of self-KIR expressing NK cells (KIRs in an individual who also expresses its cognate HLA ligand) where NK cells expressing nonself-KIRs are hyporesponsive. Although KIR interactions dominate the clinical literature, receptors beyond KIR are operant in rheostat models and include class I-recognizing NKG2A (recognizes HLA-E), LIR-1 (recognizes HLA-A, B, and G), and class I MHC-independent interactions including but not limited to: CD16 (FcRIII), natural cytotoxicity receptors (NKp30, 44, 46), DNAM-1, LFA-1, NKG2D, and CD244 (2B4).

Above and beyond the control of NK cytotoxicity by MHC class I expression on tumor cells, we are beginning to appreciate tissue-specific differences in the ability of NK cells to kill targets. Most notably, transplant data suggest that myelogenous malignancies are more susceptible to NK cell control than lymphogenous malignancies 164, 165. Why myelogenous cells are more susceptible is not known. One possibility is that myelogenous leukemias share with normal myelogenous APCs the activation-induced C-type lectin (AICL) ligand for NKp80, another C-type lectin NK cell recetor, which could license the NK cell for cytotoxicity [166]. AICL is a myelogenous specific activating receptor that is upregulated by TLR stimulation, suggesting that inflammation may prime NK cells to kill targets. Other differences in receptor-ligand interaction strength have also been proposed and are presumed to be target specific. For example, in CML NKG2D interacting with MICA/B, abundantly expressed on leukemic cells, appears to be the mechanism of NK cell-target engagement [167]. A critical question in determining their clinical potential is whether NK cells exhibit cytotoxicity against leukemia stem cells. Some data suggest that, at least in CML, NK cells can engage early leukemic CD34⁺ progenitors, although the cytotoxicity is weak. NK cells exert cytotoxicity via perforin-granzyme pathways, but recently a role for TRAIL engagement with TRAIL receptor on the NK cell has been shown to be important. Strategies to exploit this mechanism may be of therapeutic importance. Notably, the proteosomal inhibitor, bortezomib, upregulates TRAIL and can increase cytotoxicity of NK cells to renal cell cancer and CML progenitors [168]. Studies aimed at sensitizing targets to NK cell killing warrant further study.

The Role of NK Cells in the GVL Response 

NK cells are attractive to exploit in the setting of hematopoietic transplantation because they are the first lymphocytes to reconstitute after transplantation at a time when the adaptive immune system is impaired. A number of groups have been interested in harnessing the activity of NK cells in the setting of autologous HSCT to prevent relapse, the biggest cause of treatment failure from this procedure. These studies employed low-dose IL-2 administration, which was capable of expanding NK cells in vivo with a modest increase in cytolytic activity. However, even higher doses of IL-2 and autologous hematopoietic cell infusions were not strong enough to result in significant clinical benefit when evaluating definitive clinical endpoints such as time to disease progression and relapse. The biology of NK cells has now explained this result to be partially a result of (1) a number of class I MHC “self”-recognizing inhibitory receptors displayed on the surface of NK cells, and (2) a consistent finding that low-dose IL-2 administration may lead to blunting of the immune response by increasing Tregs. These 2 issues underpin current strategies to exploit NK cells in the clinic. The first major advance was reported by Ruggeri et al. [164], who found a reduced risk of relapse of leukemia in AML patients who received transplants from donors who were mismatched at HLA-B or HLA-C ligands for KIRs. The advantages of KIR ligand mismatch appear to be specific to AML and dependent on potent graft T cell depletion, suggesting that the platform is critically important to see beneficial effects of early posttransplant therapy. The potential benefits include: (1) decreased GVHD as host DC are killed by donor NK cells, (2) better antitumor activity via direct cytotoxicity, (3) improved engraftment mediated by NK cell release of hematopoietic cytokines, and (4) ultimately better survival. Additional clinical trials have either supported or failed to find relapse protection and a survival benefit 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, which may be explained by important differences in transplant platforms between studies including preparative regimen, extent of T cell depletion, graft source, donor, stem cell dose, disease, and disease status. Taken together, these results suggest that NK cells play a role in allogeneic HSCT and myeloid leukemia therapy; however, the complexities of the KIR system and the presence of other functional receptors on NK cells may explain some of the confusion in interpreting published studies.

KIR Genotyping: Implications for Donor Selection 

The role of KIR immunogenetics is complicated by 16 genes and over 100 allelic polymorphisms, some of which define distinct functional differences. Despite these complexities, some simple associations have been made in determining clinical outcome after HSCT. Unrelated donors and recipients from 209 HLA-matched and 239 mismatched T-replete URD transplantations for AML were analyzed by KIR genotyping [177]. Based on gene content, donors were stratified as having a B/x haplotype if they contained 1 or more B-defining genes (KIR2DS1, 2, 3, 5 and KIR2DL5), whereas those lacking these genes were classified as having a KIR A/A haplotype. Three-year overall survival was significantly higher after transplantation from a KIR B/x donor {31% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26-36) versus 20% (95% CI: 13-27); P = .007}. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a 30% improvement in the relative risk of relapse-free survival with B/x donors. This demonstrates that unrelated donors with KIR B haplotypes confer significant survival benefit to patients undergoing T-replete HSCT for AML. Certain B haplotype KIR groups have also been found to favorably affect outcome after T cell-depleted HLA identical sibling transplants [165]. Thus, it seems likely that the genetic characteristics of a stem cell donor could affect transplant outcome; however, data on the relative impact of specific KIR genes or groups of genes needs further study to understand why effects are not applicable to diseases beyond AML.

NK Cell Adoptive Transfer 

Much of what is known about lymphocyte adoptive transfer comes from T cell infusion literature, which may extrapolate to NK cell therapy. Emerging concepts suggested that in vivo expansion of lymphocytes were dependent on a potent lymphodepleting regimen to (1) create space, (2) increase endogenous cytokines, and (3) to eliminate immune rejection of adoptively transferred cells. This has been well established in mouse models and the infusion of carboxyfluorescein diacetate, succinimidyl ester (CFSE, a fluorescence dye that gets diluted out in proliferating cells)-labeled lymphocytes that did not expand in the absence of a lymphodepleting regimen [178]. This lymphodepletion strategy was first translated into humans by Dudley et al. [179], who demonstrated in vivo expansion of melanoma specific T cells after a preparative regimen of high-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine. Because HSCT always uses a lymphodepleting regimen, whether fully MA or not, the same biologic concepts for lymphocyte adoptive transfer may be extrapolated.

In 2005, Miller et al. [180] were the first to show in vivo expansion of NK cells after adoptive transfer of haploidentical related donor NK cells. The success of this regimen was dependent on a lymphodepleting preparative regimen that included cyclophosphamide and fludarabine. NK cells were infused with IL-2 administration for the 2-week interval after adoptive transfer. Chimerism studies established unequivocal proof of concept that donor-derived haploidentical NK cells persisted and expanded in vivo in some patients. However, this strategy was limited by inadequate efficacy, which may correlate with failure to expand donor NK cells in vivo. This could be explained by inadequate potency of the preparative regimen, insufficient cytokines acting in vivo (endogenous IL-15 induced by lymphodepletion), or contraction of the immune response by increasing Treg cells stimulated by IL-2. In an attempt to overcome some of these barriers several groups have been exploring increased intensity of a lymphodepleting regimen with the addition of total body irradiation, approaching that used in a fully MA preparative regimen. Although these studies are ongoing, there are suggestions with both T cell and NK cell adoptive transfer that a more potent lymphodepleting regimen may be beneficial. Therefore, to maximize the effects of adoptive transfer, combination with HSCT may be warranted to avoid prolonged neutropenia.

One of the challenges in NK cell therapy is how to maximize the effector to target ratio in vivo, which likely correlates with efficacy. IL-15 has recently shown promise in primates [181] and will be made available through the National Cancer Institute for clinical testing. Although in vivo expansion of NK cells is attractive and allows little ex vivo manipulation, an alternative approach that could also avoid the potential toxicities of a potent lymphodepleting regimen is to expand NK cells ex vivo to increase numbers. One method proposed by Campana et al. [182] uses K562 stimulators transduced with 41BB-ligand and membrane-bound IL-15. Another approach is described by Berg et al. [183], who developed GMP-compatible methods using B cell feeders to promote NK cell expansion over 500-fold. As one contemplates comparative studies between in vivo and ex vivo expansion approaches, several questions need to be answered. Does in vivo expansion lead a more efficient NK cell education and resultant antitumor function than ex vivo expansion? How do in vivo and ex vivo expansion methods affect NK cell activation, receptor expression, survival, homing, and durability of response? All of these questions warrant further study.

In conclusion, our understanding of NK cell target interactions requires more detailed exploration of the potency of specific NK molecules and their ligands on specific target cells (including malignant stem cells), the stages of NK maturation, and the effect of the recipient milieu on NK cell maturation and NK clonal selection. Also, relatively little is known about the homing of NK cells to their targets and whether NK cells are restricted in the tissues they patrol. Importantly, we do not yet have a clear idea about the ultimate potency of NK cells in their most favorable context to permanently eliminate malignancy and to best apply them to the problem of post-transplant relapse.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

Immune responses following allogeneic HSCT and DLI have illustrated the robust potential of allogeneic T cell, NK cell, and/or antibody responses to treat patients with hematologic malignancies. Several issues, however, have limited the successful application of these immune responses. Key among these are GVHD, which has been difficult to separate from GVL, and either upfront resistance of tumors to GVL or late relapse. How to deliver GVL and promote immune reconstitution from donor T cells with acceptable GVHD remains a central mantra in the field. Overcoming these challenges would be facilitated by a detailed mechanistic understanding of GVL resistance and GVHD. Identification of relevant target structures, the type of effector cells necessary for optimal and specific responses, and mechanisms of action are among prerequisites for successful “next steps.” We also need to understand the induction, expansion, and trafficking of immune responses, which may allow specific recognition of hematopoietic tissues from the host and not target organs of GVHD. Knowledge of the factors that limit the effectiveness of alloimmune responses to execute a specific antitumor effect is essential to increase the likelihood of success with no or limited toxicity. These factors include escape mechanisms of tumor cells to prevent recognition and elimination by alloimmune responses, which may include downregulation of the target structures to be recognized, suppression of homing or interaction at the site of the tumor, or the development of suppressive factors preventing the development of the immune responses in vivo.

Future initiatives should be explored to identify and overcome roadblocks preventing successful application of allogeneic therapy for the treatment of hematologic malignancies to exploit T cells, NK cells, or antibody mediated mechanisms. Specific strategies in mouse and in man may include (1) studies to better understand mechanisms of trafficking, target recognition, and in vivo expansion of tumor specific responses; (2) studies of mechanisms that suppress immune responses systemically or locally at the site of the tumor; (3) studies on in vitro generation, expansion, and engineering of specific immune cells for adoptive transfer; (4) studies on the susceptibility of tumor stem cells to immune attack; (5) induction of effective antitumor immunity with vaccines or inhibition of negative regulatory pathways; and (6) high throughput screening for antigens involved in antitumor responses using genome wide analysis. Support for collaborative laboratory studies and clinical trials as well as prospective banking of human samples and collection of data will facilitate translation of basic research into successful clinical research strategies. Given the wealth of talent with in the transplantation community, promoting interactive program grants between institutions will provide synergy, broaden the use of existing institution core resources, and build on individual strengths to move the field forward and systematically address strategies needed to overcome post-transplant relapse.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgments 

Financial disclosure: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Sallusto F, Geginat J, Lanzavecchia A. Central memory and effector memory T cell subsets: function, generation, and maintenance. Annu Rev Immunol. 2004;22:745–763
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
2. Hand TW, Kaech SM. Intrinsic and extrinsic control of effector T cell survival and memory T cell development. Immunol Res. 2009;45:46–61
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
3. Chen BJ, Cui X, Sempowski GD, Liu C, Chao NJ. Transfer of allogeneic CD62L- memory T cells without graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2004;103:1534–1541
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
4. Zheng H, Matte-Martone C, Li H, et al. Effector memory CD4⁺ T cells mediate graft-versus-leukemia without inducing graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2008;111:2476–2484
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
5. Zheng H, Matte-Martone C, Jain D, McNiff J, Shlomchik WD. Central memory CD8+ T cells induce graft-versus-host disease and mediate graft-versus-leukemia. J Immunol. 2009;182:5938–5948
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
6. Klebanoff CA, Gattinoni L, Torabi-Parizi P, et al. Central memory self/tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells confer superior antitumor immunity compared with effector memory T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:9571–9576
   • View In Article
7. Berger C, Jensen MC, Lansdorp PM, Gough M, Elliott C, Riddell SR. Adoptive transfer of effector CD8+ T cells derived from central memory cells establishes persistent T cell memory in primates. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:294–305
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
8. Hinrichs CS, Borman ZA, Cassard L, et al. Adoptively transferred effector cells derived from naive rather than central memory CD8+ T cells mediate superior antitumor immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:17469–17474
   • View In Article
9. Shlomchik WD, Matte-Martone C, Gilliland DG, Chen LP. Mechanisms of GVL against a murine blast crisis CML. Blood. 2006;108:60A–61A
   • View In Article
10. Matte CC, Cormier J, Anderson BE, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia in a retrovirally induced murine CML model: mechanisms of T-cell killing. Blood. 2004;103:4353–4361
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
11. Matte-Martone C, Liu J, Jain D, McNiff J, Shlomchik WD. CD8+ but not CD4+ T cells require cognate interactions with target tissues to mediate GVHD across only minor H antigens, whereas both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells require direct leukemic contact to mediate GVL. Blood. 2008;111:3884–3892
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
12. Reddy P, Maeda Y, Liu C, Krijanovski OI, Korngold R, Ferrara JL. A crucial role for antigen-presenting cells and alloantigen expression in graft-versus-leukemia responses. Nat Med. 2005;11:1244–1249
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
13. Kaech SM, Wherry EJ. Heterogeneity and cell-fate decisions in effector and memory CD8+ T cell differentiation during viral infection. Immunity. 2007;27:393–405
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
14. Choi EY, Christianson GJ, Yoshimura Y, et al. Real-time T-cell profiling identifies H60 as a major minor histocompatibility antigen in murine graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2002;100:4259–4265
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. Shlomchik WD. Graft-versus-host disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7:340–352
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
16. Jones SC, Murphy GF, Friedman TM, Korngold R. Importance of minor histocompatibility antigen expression by nonhematopoietic tissues in a CD4+ T cell-mediated graft-versus-host disease model. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1880–1886
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
17. Anderson BE, McNiff JM, Jain D, Blazar BR, Shlomchik WD, Shlomchik MJ. Distinct roles for donor- and host-derived antigen-presenting cells and costimulatory molecules in murine chronic graft-versus-host disease: requirements depend on target organ. Blood. 2005;105:2227–2234
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
18. Meunier MC, Roy-Proulx G, Labrecque N, Perreault C. Tissue distribution of target antigen has a decisive influence on the outcome of adoptive cancer immunotherapy. Blood. 2003;101:766–770
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
19. Blackburn SD, Shin H, Haining WN, et al. Coregulation of CD8+ T cell exhaustion by multiple inhibitory receptors during chronic viral infection. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:29–37
    • View In Article
20. Barber DL, Wherry EJ, Masopust D, et al. Restoring function in exhausted CD8 T cells during chronic viral infection. Nature. 2006;439:682–687
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
21. Le Bon A, Etchart N, Rossmann C, et al. Cross-priming of CD8+ T cells stimulated by virus-induced type I interferon. Nat Immunol. 2003;4:1009–1015
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
22. Kurts C, Carbone FR, Barnden M, et al. CD4+ T cell help impairs CD8+ T cell deletion induced by cross-presentation of self-antigens and favors autoimmunity. J Exp Med. 1997;186:2057–2062
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
23. Kuchtey J, Chefalo PJ, Gray RC, Ramachandra L, Harding CV. Enhancement of dendritic cell antigen cross-presentation by CpG DNA involves type I IFN and stabilization of class I MHC mRNA. J Immunol. 2005;175:2244–2251
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
24. Ackerman AL, Cresswell P. Cellular mechanisms governing cross-presentation of exogenous antigens. Nat Immunol. 2004;5:678–684
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
25. Heath WR, Belz GT, Behrens GM, et al. Cross-presentation, dendritic cell subsets, and the generation of immunity to cellular antigens. Immunol Rev. 2004;199:9–26
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
26. Schulz O, Diebold SS, Chen M, et al. Toll-like receptor 3 promotes cross-priming to virus-infected cells. Nature. 2005;433:887–892
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
27. Yu XZ, Bidwell SJ, Martin PJ, Anasetti C. CD28-specific antibody prevents graft-versus-host disease in mice. J Immunol. 2000;164:4564–4568
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
28. Nurieva RI, Mai XM, Forbush K, Bevan MJ, Dong C. B7h is required for T cell activation, differentiation, and effector function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:14163–14168
    • View In Article
29. Dong C, Juedes AE, Temann UA, et al. ICOS co-stimulatory receptor is essential for T-cell activation and function. Nature. 2001;409:97–101
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
30. Hubbard VM, Eng JM, Ramirez-Montagut T, et al. Absence of inducible costimulator on alloreactive T cells reduces graft versus host disease and induces Th2 deviation. Blood. 2005;106:3285–3292
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
31. Taylor PA, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Freeman GJ, et al. Targeting of inducible costimulator (ICOS) expressed on alloreactive T cells down-regulates graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and facilitates engraftment of allogeneic bone marrow (BM). Blood. 2005;105:3372–3380
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
32. Raimondi G, Shufesky WJ, Tokita D, Morelli AE, Thomson AW. Regulated compartmentalization of programmed cell death-1 discriminates CD4+CD25+ resting regulatory T cells from activated T cells. J Immunol. 2006;176:2808–2816
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
33. Yu XZ, Liang Y, Nurieva RI, Guo F, Anasetti C, Dong C. Opposing effects of ICOS on graft-versus-host disease mediated by CD4 and CD8 T cells. J Immunol. 2006;176:7394–7401
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
34. Blazar BR, Carreno BM, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, et al. Blockade of programmed death-1 engagement accelerates graft-versus-host disease lethality by an IFN-gamma-dependent mechanism. J Immunol. 2003;171:1272–1277
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
35. Blazar BR, Sharpe AH, Chen AI, et al. Ligation of OX40 (CD134) regulates graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and graft rejection in allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients. Blood. 2003;101:3741–3748
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
36. Blazar BR, Taylor PA, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, et al. Blockade of CD40 ligand-CD40 interaction impairs CD4+ T cell-mediated alloreactivity by inhibiting mature donor T cell expansion and function after bone marrow transplantation. J Immunol. 1997;158:29–39
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
37. Buhlmann JE, Gonzalez M, Ginther B, et al. Cutting edge: sustained expansion of CD8+ T cells requires CD154 expression by Th cells in acute graft versus host disease. J Immunol. 1999;162:4373–4376
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
38. Saito K, Sakurai J, Ohata J, et al. Involvement of CD40 ligand-CD40 and CTLA4-B7 pathways in murine acute graft-versus-host disease induced by allogeneic T cells lacking CD28. J Immunol. 1998;160:4225–4231
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
39. Taylor PA, Lees C, Noelle R, et al. Superior GVHD prevention by combined costimulatory blockade: comparison of single and combined pathway blockade of CD28/CTLA4:B7, CD40L: CD40 and OX40:OX40L pathways. Blood. 2002;100:A818–A819
    • View In Article
40. Kwon BS, Weissman SM. cDNA sequences of two inducible T-cell genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1989;86:1963–1967
    • View In Article
41. Melero I, Johnston JV, Shufford WW, Mittler RS, Chen L. NK1.1 cells express 4-1BB (CDw137) costimulatory molecule and are required for tumor immunity elicited by anti-4-1BB monoclonal antibodies. Cell Immunol. 1998;190:167–172
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
42. Nozawa K, Ohata J, Sakurai J, et al. Preferential blockade of CD8(+) T cell responses by administration of anti-CD137 ligand monoclonal antibody results in differential effect on development of murine acute and chronic graft-versus-host diseases. J Immunol. 2001;167:4981–4986
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
43. Blazar BR, Kwon BS, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Kwak KB, Peschon JJ, Taylor PA. Ligation of 4-1BB (CDw137) regulates graft-versus-host disease, graft-versus-leukemia, and graft rejection in allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients. J Immunol. 2001;166:3174–3183
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
44. Shimizu J, Yamazaki S, Takahashi T, Ishida Y, Sakaguchi S. Stimulation of CD25(+)CD4(+) regulatory T cells through GITR breaks immunological self-tolerance. Nat Immunol. 2002;3:135–142
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
45. Muriglan SJ, Ramirez-Montagut T, Alpdogan O, et al. GITR activation induces an opposite effect on alloreactive CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells in graft-versus-host disease. J Exp Med. 2004;200:149–157
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
46. Curtsinger JM, Lins DC, Mescher MF. Signal 3 determines tolerance versus full activation of naive CD8 T cells: dissociating proliferation and development of effector function. J Exp Med. 2003;197:1141–1151
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
47. Valenzuela JO, Hammerbeck CD, Mescher MF. Cutting edge: Bcl-3 up-regulation by signal 3 cytokine (IL-12) prolongs survival of antigen-activated CD8 T cells. J Immunol. 2005;174:600–604
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
48. Curtsinger JM, Lins DC, Johnson CM, Mescher MF. Signal 3 tolerant CD8 T cells degranulate in response to antigen but lack granzyme B to mediate cytolysis. J Immunol. 2005;175:4392–4399
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
49. Curtsinger JM, Gerner MY, Lins DC, Mescher MF. Signal 3 availability limits the CD8 T cell response to a solid tumor. J Immunol. 2007;178:6752–6760
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
50. Wysocki CA, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Blazar BR, Serody JS. Leukocyte migration and graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2005;105:4191–4199
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
51. Sims TN, Dustin ML. The immunological synapse: integrins take the stage. Immunol Rev. 2002;186:100–117
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
52. Gunn MD, Tangemann K, Tam C, Cyster JG, Rosen SD, Williams LT. A chemokine expressed in lymphoid high endothelial venules promotes the adhesion and chemotaxis of naive T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:258–263
    • View In Article
53. Potsch C, Vohringer D, Pircher H. Distinct migration patterns of naive and effector CD8 T cells in the spleen: correlation with CCR7 receptor expression and chemokine reactivity. Eur J Immunol. 1999;29:3562–3570
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
54. Terwey TH, Kim TD, Kochman AA, et al. CCR2 is required for CD8-induced graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2005;106:3322–3330
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
55. Petrovic A, Alpdogan O, Willis LM, et al. LPAM (alpha 4 beta 7 integrin) is an important homing integrin on alloreactive T cells in the development of intestinal graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2004;103:1542–1547
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
56. Waldman E, Lu SX, Hubbard VM, et al. Absence of beta7 integrin results in less graft-versus-host disease because of decreased homing of alloreactive T cells to intestine. Blood. 2006;107:1703–1711
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
57. Feagan BG, Greenberg GR, Wild G, et al. Treatment of ulcerative colitis with a humanized antibody to the alpha4beta7 integrin. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2499–2507
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
58. Rudick RA, Stuart WH, Calabresi PA, et al. Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:911–923
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
59. Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:899–910
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
60. Hyams JS, Wilson DC, Thomas A, et al. Natalizumab therapy for moderate to severe Crohn disease in adolescents. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2007;44:185–191
    • View In Article
61. Sands BE, Kozarek R, Spainhour J, et al. Safety and tolerability of concurrent natalizumab treatment for patients with Crohn's disease not in remission while receiving infliximab. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13:2–11
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
62. Hamann A, Andrew DP, Jablonski-Westrich D, Holzmann B, Butcher EC. Role of alpha 4-integrins in lymphocyte homing to mucosal tissues in vivo. J Immunol. 1994;152:3282–3293
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
63. van den Brink MR, Burakoff SJ. Cytolytic pathways in haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2002;2:273–281
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
64. Otten HG, van Ginkel WG, Hagenbeek A, Petersen EJ. Prevalence and clinical significance of resistance to perforin- and FAS-mediated cell death in leukemia. Leukemia. 2004;18:1401–1405
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
65. Hsieh MH, Korngold R. Differential use of FasL- and perforin-mediated cytolytic mechanisms by T-cell subsets involved in graft-versus-myeloid leukemia responses. Blood. 2000;96:1047–1055
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
66. Baker MB, Altman NH, Podack ER, Levy RB. The role of cell-mediated cytotoxicity in acute GVHD after MHC-matched allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in mice. J Exp Med. 1996;183:2645–2656
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
67. Hill GR, Teshima T, Gerbitz A, et al. Differential roles of IL-1 and TNF-alpha on graft-versus-host disease and graft versus leukemia. J Clin Invest. 1999;104:459–467
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
68. Slager EH, Honders MW, van der Meijden ED, et al. Identification of the angiogenic endothelial-cell growth factor-1/thymidine phosphorylase as a potential target for immunotherapy of cancer. Blood. 2006;107:4954–4960
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
69. van Bergen CA, Kester MG, Jedema I, et al. Multiple myeloma-reactive T cells recognize an activation-induced minor histocompatibility antigen encoded by the ATP-dependent interferon-responsive (ADIR) gene. Blood. 2007;109:4089–4096
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
70. Kawase T, Akatsuka Y, Torikai H, et al. Alternative splicing due to an intronic SNP in HMSD generates a novel minor histocompatibility antigen. Blood. 2007;110:1055–1063
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
71. de Rijke B, van Horssen-Zoetbrood A, Beekman JM, et al. A frameshift polymorphism in P2X5 elicits an allogeneic cytotoxic T lymphocyte response associated with remission of chronic myeloid leukemia. J Clin Invest. 2005;115:3506–3516
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
72. Murata M, Warren EH, Riddell SR. A human minor histocompatibility antigen resulting from differential expression due to a gene deletion. J Exp Med. 2003;197:1279–1289
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
73. Terakura S, Murata M, Warren EH, et al. A single minor histocompatibility antigen encoded by UGT2B17 and presented by human leukocyte antigen-A∗2902 and -B∗4403. Transplantation. 2007;83:1242–1248
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
74. Kamei M, Nannya Y, Torikai H, et al. HapMap scanning of novel human minor histocompatibility antigens. Blood. 2009;113:5041–5048
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
75. Vogt MH, van den Muijsenberg JW, Goulmy E, et al. The DBY gene codes for an HLA-DQ5-restricted human male-specific minor histocompatibility antigen involved in graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2002;99:3027–3032
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
76. Griffioen M, van der Meijden ED, Slager EH, et al. Identification of phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase type II beta as HLA class II-restricted target in graft versus leukemia reactivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:3837–3842
    • View In Article
77. Stumpf AN, van der Meijden ED, van Bergen CA, Willemze R, Falkenburg JH, Griffioen M. Identification of 4 new HLA-DR-restricted minor histocompatibility antigens as hematopoietic targets in antitumor immunity. Blood. 2009;114:3684–3692
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
78. Falkenburg JH, Goselink HM, van der Harst D, et al. Growth inhibition of clonogenic leukemic precursor cells by minor histocompatibility antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes. J Exp Med. 1991;174:27–33
    • View In Article
79. Faber LM, van der Hoeven J, Goulmy E, et al. Recognition of clonogenic leukemic cells, remission bone marrow and HLA-identical donor bone marrow by CD8+ or CD4+ minor histocompatibility antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes. J Clin Invest. 1995;96:877–883
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
80. Lapidot T, Sirard C, Vormoor J, et al. A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice. Nature. 1994;367:645–648
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
81. Bonnet D, Dick JE. Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997;3:730–737
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
82. Bonnet D, Warren EH, Greenberg PD, Dick JE, Riddell SR. CD8(+) minor histocompatibility antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte clones eliminate human acute myeloid leukemia stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:8639–8644
    • View In Article
83. Rosinski KV, Fujii N, Mito JK, et al. DDX3Y encodes a class I MHC-restricted H-Y antigen that is expressed in leukemic stem cells. Blood. 2008;111:4817–4826
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
84. Hambach L, Nijmeijer BA, Aghai Z, et al. Human cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for a single minor histocompatibility antigen HA-1 are effective against human lymphoblastic leukaemia in NOD/scid mice. Leukemia. 2006;20:371–374
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
85. Marijt WA, Heemskerk MH, Kloosterboer FM, et al. Hematopoiesis-restricted minor histocompatibility antigens HA-1- or HA-2-specific T cells can induce complete remissions of relapsed leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:2742–2747
    • View In Article
86. Takami A, Sugimori C, Feng X, et al. Expansion and activation of minor histocompatibility antigen HY-specific T cells associated with graft-versus-leukemia response. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;34:703–709
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
87. Claret EJ, Alyea EP, Orsini E, et al. Characterization of T cell repertoire in patients with graft-versus-leukemia after donor lymphocyte infusion. J Clin Invest. 1997;100:855–866
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
88. Zorn E, Wang KS, Hochberg EP, et al. Infusion of CD4+ donor lymphocytes induces the expansion of CD8+ donor T cells with cytolytic activity directed against recipient hematopoietic cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:2052–2060
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
89. Kloosterboer FM, van Luxemburg-Heijs SA, van Soest RA, et al. Minor histocompatibility antigen-specific T cells with multiple distinct specificities can be isolated by direct cloning of IFNgamma-secreting T cells from patients with relapsed leukemia responding to donor lymphocyte infusion. Leukemia. 2005;19:83–90
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
90. Nishida T, Hudecek M, Kostic A, et al. Development of tumor-reactive T cells after nonmyeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:4759–4768
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
91. Randolph SS, Gooley TA, Warren EH, Appelbaum FR, Riddell SR. Female donors contribute to a selective graft-versus-leukemia effect in male recipients of HLA-matched, related hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Blood. 2004;103:347–352
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
92. Stern M, Brand R, de Witte T, et al. Female-versus-male alloreactivity as a model for minor histocompatibility antigens in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2008;8:2149–2157
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
93. Molldrem JJ, Lee PP, Wang C, et al. Evidence that specific T lymphocytes may participate in the elimination of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Nat Med. 2000;6:1018–1023
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
94. Rezvani K, Grube M, Brenchley JM, et al. Functional leukemia-associated antigen-specific memory CD8+ T cells exist in healthy individuals and in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia before and after stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2003;102:2892–2900
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
95. Molldrem J, Dermime S, Parker K, et al. Targeted T-cell therapy for human leukemia: cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for a peptide derived from proteinase 3 preferentially lyse human myeloid leukemia cells. Blood. 1996;88:2450–2457
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
96. Molldrem JJ, Clave E, Jiang YZ, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for a nonpolymorphic proteinase 3 peptide preferentially inhibit chronic myeloid leukemia colony-forming units. Blood. 1997;90:2529–2534
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
97. Rezvani K, Yong AS, Savani BN, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia effects associated with detectable Wilms tumor-1 specific T lymphocytes after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2007;110:1924–1932
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
98. Orsini E, Bellucci R, Alyea EP, et al. Expansion of tumor-specific CD8+ T cell clones in patients with relapsed myeloma after donor lymphocyte infusion. Cancer Res. 2003;63:2561–2568
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
99. Atanackovic D, Arfsten J, Cao Y, et al. Cancer-testis antigens are commonly expressed in multiple myeloma and induce systemic immunity following allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2007;109:1103–1112
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
100. Hoogendoorn M, Jedema I, Barge RM, et al. Characterization of graft-versus-leukemia responses in patients treated for advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia with donor lymphocyte infusions after in vitro T-cell depleted allogeneic stem cell transplantation following reduced-intensity conditioning. Leukemia. 2007;21:2569–2574
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
101. Rutten CE, van Luxemburg-Heijs SA, Griffioen M, et al. HLA-DP as specific target for cellular immunotherapy in HLA class II-expressing B-cell leukemia. Leukemia. 2008;22:1387–1394
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
102. Rutten CE, van Luxemburg-Heijs SA, van der Meijden ED, Griffioen M, Oudshoorn M, Willemze R, et al. Both permissive and nonpermissive HLA-DPB1 mismatches can induce polyclonal HLA-DPB1 specific immune responses in vivo and in vitro. Blood. 2010;115:151–153
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
103. Shaw BE, Gooley TA, Malkki M, et al. The importance of HLA-DPB1 in unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2007;110:4560–4566
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
104. Kawase T, Matsuo K, Kashiwase K, et al. HLA mismatch combinations associated with decreased risk of relapse: implications for the molecular mechanism. Blood. 2009;113:2851–2858
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
105. Kolb HJ. Graft-versus-leukemia effects of transplantation and donor lymphocytes. Blood. 2008;112:4371–4383
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
106. Mackall CL, Fleisher TA, Brown MR, et al. Age, thymopoiesis, and CD4+ T-lymphocyte regeneration after intensive chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:143–149
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
107. Asavaroengchai W, Kotera Y, Mule JJ. Tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cells can elicit an effective antitumor immune response during early lymphoid recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:931–936
     • View In Article
108. Sun JC, Bevan MJ. Defective CD8 T cell memory following acute infection without CD4 T cell help. Science. 2003;300:339–342
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
109. Dotti G. Blocking PD-1 in cancer immunotherapy. Blood. 2009;114:1457–1458
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
110. Bollard CM, Rossig C, Calonge MJ, et al. Adapting a transforming growth factor beta-related tumor protection strategy to enhance antitumor immunity. Blood. 2002;99:3179–3187
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
111. Curti A, Pandolfi S, Valzasina B, et al. Modulation of tryptophan catabolism by human leukemic cells results in the conversion of CD25- into CD25+ T regulatory cells. Blood. 2007;109:2871–2877
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
112. Mellor AL, Munn DH. Creating immune privilege: active local suppression that benefits friends, but protects foes. Nat Rev Immunol. 2008;8:74–80
     • View In Article
113. Baban B, Chandler PR, Sharma MD, et al. IDO activates regulatory T cells and blocks their conversion into Th17-like T cells. J Immunol. 2009;183:2475–2483
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
114. Chen W, Liang X, Peterson AJ, Munn DH, Blazar BR. The indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase pathway is essential for human plasmacytoid dendritic cell-induced adaptive T regulatory cell generation. J Immunol. 2008;181:5396–5404
     • View In Article
115. Mizoguchi H, O'Shea JJ, Longo DL, Loeffler CM, McVicar DW, Ochoa AC. Alterations in signal transduction molecules in T lymphocytes from tumor-bearing mice. Science. 1992;258:1795–1798
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
116. Rodriguez PC, Ochoa AC. Arginine regulation by myeloid derived suppressor cells and tolerance in cancer: mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives. Immunol Rev. 2008;222:180–191
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
117. Gabrilovich DI, Nagaraj S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009;9:162–174
     • View In Article
118. Sinha P, Clements VK, Fulton AM, Ostrand-Rosenberg S. Prostaglandin E2 promotes tumor progression by inducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67:4507–4513
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
119. Bronte V. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in inflammation: uncovering cell subsets with enhanced immunosuppressive functions. Eur J Immunol. 2009;39:2670–2672
     • View In Article
120. Rodriguez PC, Ernstoff MS, Hernandez C, et al. Arginase I-producing myeloid-derived suppressor cells in renal cell carcinoma are a subpopulation of activated granulocytes. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1553–1560
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
121. Gabrilovich D, Ishida T, Oyama T, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibits the development of dendritic cells and dramatically affects the differentiation of multiple hematopoietic lineages in vivo. Blood. 1998;92:4150–4166
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
122. Berner V, Liu H, Zhou Q, et al. IFN-gamma mediates CD4+ T-cell loss and impairs secondary antitumor responses after successful initial immunotherapy. Nat Med. 2007;13:354–360
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
123. Guimond M, Veenstra RG, Grindler DJ, et al. Interleukin 7 signaling in dendritic cells regulates the homeostatic proliferation and niche size of CD4+ T cells. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:149–157
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
124. Boyman O, Kovar M, Rubinstein MP, Surh CD, Sprent J. Selective stimulation of T cell subsets with antibody-cytokine immune complexes. Science. 2006;311:1924–1927
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
125. Prlic M, Kamimura D, Bevan MJ. Rapid generation of a functional NK-cell compartment. Blood. 2007;110:2024–2026
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
126. Sportes C, Hakim FT, Memon SA, et al. Administration of rhIL-7 in humans increases in vivo TCR repertoire diversity by preferential expansion of naive T cell subsets. J Exp Med. 2008;205:1701–1714
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
127. Huntington ND, Legrand N, Alves NL, et al. IL-15 trans-presentation promotes human NK cell development and differentiation in vivo. J Exp Med. 2009;206:25–34
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
128. Spolski R, Leonard WJ. Interleukin-21: basic biology and implications for cancer and autoimmunity. Annu Rev Immunol. 2008;26:57–79
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
129. Hinrichs CS, Spolski R, Paulos CM, et al. IL-2 and IL-21 confer opposing differentiation programs to CD8+ T cells for adoptive immunotherapy. Blood. 2008;111:5326–5333
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
130. Ribas A, Camacho LH, Lopez-Berestein G, et al. Antitumor activity in melanoma and anti-self responses in a phase I trial with the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody CP-675,206. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8968–8977
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
131. Sharma S, Yang SC, Zhu L, et al. Tumor cyclooxygenase-2/prostaglandin E2-dependent promotion of FOXP3 expression and CD4+ CD25+ T regulatory cell activities in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65:5211–5220
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
132. Ozao-Choy J, Ma G, Kao J, et al. The novel role of tyrosine kinase inhibitor in the reversal of immune suppression and modulation of tumor microenvironment for immune-based cancer therapies. Cancer Res. 2009;69:2514–2522
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
133. Li H, Han Y, Guo Q, Zhang M, Cao X. Cancer-expanded myeloid-derived suppressor cells induce anergy of NK cells through membrane-bound TGF-beta 1. J Immunol. 2009;182:240–249
     • View In Article
134. Marigo I, Dolcetti L, Serafini P, Zanovello P, Bronte V. Tumor-induced tolerance and immune suppression by myeloid derived suppressor cells. Immunol Rev. 2008;222:162–179
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
135. Morgan RA, Dudley ME, Wunderlich JR, et al. Cancer regression in patients after transfer of genetically engineered lymphocytes. Science. 2006;314:126–129
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
136. Zhou Q, Bucher C, Munger ME, et al. Depletion of endogenous tumor-associated regulatory T cells improves the efficacy of adoptive cytotoxic T-cell immunotherapy in murine acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2009;114:3793–3802
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
137. Wrzesinski C, Paulos CM, Gattinoni L, et al. Hematopoietic stem cells promote the expansion and function of adoptively transferred antitumor CD8 T cells. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:492–501
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
138. Wu CJ, Yang XF, McLaughlin S, et al. Detection of a potent humoral response associated with immune-induced remission of chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Clin Invest. 2000;106:705–714
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
139. Yang XF, Wu CJ, Chen L, et al. CML28 is a broadly immunogenic antigen, which is overexpressed in tumor cells. Cancer Res. 2002;62:5517–5522
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
140. Bellucci R, Alyea EP, Weller E, et al. Immunologic effects of prophylactic donor lymphocyte infusion after allogeneic marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2002;99:4610–4617
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
141. Bellucci R, Wu CJ, Chiaretti S, et al. Complete response to donor lymphocyte infusion in multiple myeloma is associated with antibody responses to highly expressed antigens. Blood. 2004;103:656–663
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
142. Pfistershammer K, Lawitschka A, Klauser C, et al. Allogeneic disparities in immunoglobulin-like transcript 5 induce potent antibody responses in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Blood. 2009;114:2323–2332
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
143. Bellucci R, Alyea EP, Chiaretti S, et al. Graft-versus-tumor response in patients with multiple myeloma is associated with antibody response to BCMA, a plasma-cell membrane receptor. Blood. 2005;105:3945–3950
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
144. Miklos DB, Kim HT, Miller KH, et al. Antibody responses to H-Y minor histocompatibility antigens correlate with chronic graft-versus-host disease and disease remission. Blood. 2005;105:2973–2978
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
145. Zorn E, Miklos DB, Floyd BH, et al. Minor histocompatibility antigen DBY elicits a coordinated B and T cell response after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. J Exp Med. 2004;199:1133–1142
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
146. Jinushi M, Vanneman M, Munshi NC, et al. MHC class I chain-related protein A antibodies and shedding are associated with the progression of multiple myeloma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:1285–1290
     • View In Article
147. Ho VT, Vanneman M, Kim H, et al. Biologic activity of irradiated, autologous, GM-CSF-secreting leukemia cell vaccines early after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:15825–15830
     • View In Article
148. Boukouaci W, Busson M, Peffault de Latour R, et al. MICA-129 genotype, soluble MICA and anti-MICA antibodies as biomarkers of chronic graft versus host disease. Blood. 2009;114:5216–5224
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
149. Reuschenbach M, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Wentzensen N. A systematic review of humoral immune responses against tumor antigens. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58:1535–1544
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
150. Gnjatic S, Nishikawa H, Jungbluth AA, et al. NY-ESO-1: review of an immunogenic tumor antigen. Adv Cancer Res. 2006;95:1–30
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
151. Qin Z, Richter G, Schuler T, et al. B cells inhibit induction of T cell-dependent tumor immunity. Nat Med. 1998;4:627–630
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
152. Sarantopoulos S, Stevenson KE, Kim HT, et al. High levels of B-cell activating factor in patients with active chronic graft-versus-host disease. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6107–6114
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
153. Sarantopoulos S, Stevenson KE, Kim HT, et al. Altered B-cell homeostasis and excess BAFF in human chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2009;113:3865–3874
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
154. Shimabukuro-Vornhagen A, Hallek MJ, Storb RF, von Bergwelt-Baildon MS. The role of B cells in the pathogenesis of graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2009;114:4919–4927
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
155. Cutler C, Miklos D, Kim HT, et al. Rituximab for steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2006;108:756–762
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
156. Zaja F, Bacigalupo A, Patriarca F, et al. Treatment of refractory chronic GVHD with rituximab: a GITMO study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;40:273–277
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
157. Kharfan-Dabaja MA, Mhaskar AR, Djulbegovic B, Cutler C, Mohty M, Kumar A. Efficacy of rituximab in the setting of steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:1005–1013
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (222 KB)
     • CrossRef
158. Sun JC, Beilke JN, Lanier LL. Adaptive immune features of natural killer cells. Nature. 2009;457:557–561
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
159. Kim S, Poursine-Laurent J, Truscott SM, et al. Licensing of natural killer cells by host major histocompatibility complex class I molecules. Nature. 2005;436:709–713
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
160. Gasser S, Raulet DH. Activation and self-tolerance of natural killer cells. Immunol Rev. 2006;214:130–142
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
161. Anfossi N, Andre P, Guia S, et al. Human NK cell education by inhibitory receptors for MHC class I. Immunity. 2006;25:331–342
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
162. Joncker NT, Fernandez NC, Treiner E, Vivier E, Raulet DH. NK cell responsiveness is tuned commensurate with the number of inhibitory receptors for self-MHC class I: the rheostat model. J Immunol. 2009;182:4572–4580
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
163. Brodin P, Karre K, Hoglund P. NK cell education: not an on-off switch but a tunable rheostat. Trends Immunol. 2009;30:143–149
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
164. Ruggeri L, Capanni M, Casucci M, et al. Role of natural killer cell alloreactivity in HLA-mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 1999;94:333–339
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
165. Savani BN, Mielke S, Adams S, et al. Rapid natural killer cell recovery determines outcome after T-cell-depleted HLA-identical stem cell transplantation in patients with myeloid leukemias but not with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia. 2007;21:2145–2152
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
166. Welte S, Kuttruff S, Waldhauer I, Steinle A. Mutual activation of natural killer cells and monocytes mediated by NKp80-AICL interaction. Nat Immunol. 2006;7:1334–1342
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
167. Sconocchia G, Lau M, Provenzano M, et al. The antileukemia effect of HLA-matched NK and NK-T cells in chronic myelogenous leukemia involves NKG2D-target-cell interactions. Blood. 2005;106:3666–3672
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
168. Yong AS, Keyvanfar K, Hensel N, et al. Primitive quiescent CD34+ cells in chronic myeloid leukemia are targeted by in vitro expanded natural killer cells, which are functionally enhanced by bortezomib. Blood. 2009;113:875–882
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
169. Giebel S, Locatelli F, Lamparelli T, et al. Survival advantage with KIR ligand incompatibility in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from unrelated donors. Blood. 2003;102:814–819
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
170. Beelen DW, Ottinger HD, Ferencik S, et al. Genotypic inhibitory killer immunoglobulin-like receptor ligand incompatibility enhances the long-term antileukemic effect of unmodified allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with myeloid leukemias. Blood. 2005;105:2594–2600
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
171. Ruggeri L, Mancusi A, Capanni M, et al. Donor natural killer cell allorecognition of missing self in haploidentical hematopoietic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: challenging its predictive value. Blood. 2007;110:433–440
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
172. Davies SM, Ruggieri L, DeFor T, et al. Evaluation of KIR ligand incompatibility in mismatched unrelated donor hematopoietic transplants. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptor. Blood. 2002;100:3825–3827
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
173. Bishara A, De Santis D, Witt CC, et al. The beneficial role of inhibitory KIR genes of HLA class I NK epitopes in haploidentically mismatched stem cell allografts may be masked by residual donor-alloreactive T cells causing GVHD. Tissue Antigens. 2004;63:204–211
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
174. Bornhauser M, Schwerdtfeger R, Martin H, Frank KH, Theuser C, Ehninger G. Role of KIR ligand incompatibility in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using unrelated donors. Blood. 2004;103:2860–2861author reply 2862
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
175. Farag SS, Bacigalupo A, Eapen M, et al. The effect of KIR ligand incompatibility on the outcome of unrelated donor transplantation: a report from the center for international blood and marrow transplant research, the European Blood and Marrow Rransplant Registry, and the Dutch Registry. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2006;12:876–884
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (244 KB)
     • CrossRef
176. Kroger N, Binder T, Zabelina T, et al. Low number of donor activating killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) genes but not KIR-ligand mismatch prevents relapse and improves disease-free survival in leukemia patients after in vivo T-cell depleted unrelated stem cell transplantation. Transplantation. 2006;82:1024–1030
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
177. Cooley S, Trachtenberg E, Bergemann TL, et al. Donors with group B KIR haplotypes improve relapse-free survival after unrelated hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2009;113:726–732
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
178. Dummer W, Niethammer AG, Baccala R, et al. T cell homeostatic proliferation elicits effective antitumor autoimmunity. J Clin Invest. 2002;110:185–192
     • View In Article
179. Dudley ME, Wunderlich JR, Robbins PF, et al. Cancer regression and autoimmunity in patients after clonal repopulation with antitumor lymphocytes. Science. 2002;298:850–854
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
180. Miller JS, Soignier Y, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, et al. Successful adoptive transfer and in vivo expansion of human haploidentical NK cells in patients with cancer. Blood. 2005;105:3051–3057
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
181. Berger C, Berger M, Hackman RC, et al. Safety and immunologic effects of IL-15 administration in nonhuman primates. Blood. 2009;114:2417–2426
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
182. Fujisaki H, Kakuda H, Shimasaki N, et al. Expansion of highly cytotoxic human natural killer cells for cancer cell therapy. Cancer Res. 2009;69:4010–4017
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
183. Berg M, Lundqvist A, McCoy P, et al. Clinical-grade ex vivo-expanded human natural killer cells up-regulate activating receptors and death receptor ligands and have enhanced cytolytic activity against tumor cells. Cytotherapy. 2009;11:341–355
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef