Tumor-induced MDSC act via remote control to inhibit L-selectin-dependent adaptive immunity in lymph nodes

  1. Amy W Ku
  2. Jason B Muhitch
  3. Colin A Powers
  4. Michael G Diehl
  5. Minhyung Kim
  6. Daniel T Fisher
  7. Anand P Sharda
  8. Virginia K Clements
  9. Kieran O'Loughlin
  10. Hans Minderman
  11. Michelle N Messmer
  12. Jing Ma
  13. Joseph J Skitzki
  14. Douglas A Steeber
  15. Bruce Walcheck
  16. Suzanne Ostrand-Rosenberg
  17. Scott I Abrams
  18. Sharon S Evans  Is a corresponding author
  1. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, United States
  2. University of Maryland, Baltimore County, United States
  3. University of Minnesota, United States
  4. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States

Abstract

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) contribute to an immunosuppressive network that drives cancer escape by disabling T cell adaptive immunity. The prevailing view is that MDSC-mediated immunosuppression is restricted to tissues where MDSC co-mingle with T cells. Here we show that splenic or, unexpectedly, blood-borne MDSC execute far-reaching immune suppression by reducing expression of the L-selectin lymph node (LN) homing receptor on naïve T and B cells. MDSC-induced L-selectin loss occurs through a contact-dependent, post-transcriptional mechanism that is independent of the major L-selectin sheddase, ADAM17, but results in significant elevation of circulating L-selectin in tumor-bearing mice. Even moderate deficits in L-selectin expression disrupt T cell trafficking to distant LN. Furthermore, T cells preconditioned by MDSC have diminished responses to subsequent antigen exposure, which in conjunction with reduced trafficking, severely diminishes antigen-driven expansion in widely-dispersed LN. These results establish novel mechanisms for MDSC-mediated immunosuppression that have unanticipated implications for systemic cancer immunity.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amy W Ku

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jason B Muhitch

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Colin A Powers

    Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michael G Diehl

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Minhyung Kim

    Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Daniel T Fisher

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Anand P Sharda

    Department of Urology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Virginia K Clements

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kieran O'Loughlin

    Department of Flow and Image Cytometry, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hans Minderman

    Department of Flow and Image Cytometry, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Michelle N Messmer

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jing Ma

    Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Joseph J Skitzki

    Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Douglas A Steeber

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Bruce Walcheck

    Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Suzanne Ostrand-Rosenberg

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Scott I Abrams

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Sharon S Evans

    Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    For correspondence
    sharon.evans@roswellpark.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2958-6642

Funding

National Institutes of Health (CA79765)

  • Sharon S Evans

UB Mark Diamond Research Fund

  • Amy W Ku

Jennifer Linscott Tietgen Family Foundation

  • Joseph J Skitzki
  • Sharon S Evans

Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester

  • Scott I Abrams
  • Sharon S Evans

NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (5P30 CA016056)

  • Kieran O'Loughlin
  • Hans Minderman

National Institutes of Health (1R50CA211108)

  • Hans Minderman

National Institutes of Health (AI082039)

  • Sharon S Evans

National Institutes of Health (T32 CA085183)

  • Amy W Ku

National Institutes of Health (5T32 CA108456)

  • Colin A Powers

National Institutes of Health (CA203348)

  • Bruce Walcheck

National Institutes of Health (GM021248)

  • Suzanne Ostrand-Rosenberg

National Institutes of Health (CA115880)

  • Suzanne Ostrand-Rosenberg

National Institutes of Health (CA140622)

  • Scott I Abrams

National Institutes of Health (CA172105)

  • Scott I Abrams

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in accordance with the recommendations in the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. All of the animals were handled according to approved IACUC protocols at participating institutions (i.e., 859M and 1117M at Roswell Park Cancer Institute; SO01691417 at University of Maryland, Baltimore County; 15-16 #11 at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; and 1401-31272A at University of Minnesota). All surgery was performed under appropriate anesthesia and analgesia to minimize suffering and pain. The use of human PBMCs from anonymous, de-identified donors was classified as non-human subject research in accordance with federal regulations and thus not subjected to formal IRB review, but can be accessed through Roswell Park Clinical Research Services under the reference number BDR 069116.

Copyright

© 2016, Ku et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,236
    views
  • 850
    downloads
  • 81
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Amy W Ku
  2. Jason B Muhitch
  3. Colin A Powers
  4. Michael G Diehl
  5. Minhyung Kim
  6. Daniel T Fisher
  7. Anand P Sharda
  8. Virginia K Clements
  9. Kieran O'Loughlin
  10. Hans Minderman
  11. Michelle N Messmer
  12. Jing Ma
  13. Joseph J Skitzki
  14. Douglas A Steeber
  15. Bruce Walcheck
  16. Suzanne Ostrand-Rosenberg
  17. Scott I Abrams
  18. Sharon S Evans
(2016)
Tumor-induced MDSC act via remote control to inhibit L-selectin-dependent adaptive immunity in lymph nodes
eLife 5:e17375.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17375

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17375

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Arman Angaji, Michel Owusu ... Johannes Berg
    Research Article

    In growing cell populations such as tumours, mutations can serve as markers that allow tracking the past evolution from current samples. The genomic analyses of bulk samples and samples from multiple regions have shed light on the evolutionary forces acting on tumours. However, little is known empirically on the spatio-temporal dynamics of tumour evolution. Here, we leverage published data from resected hepatocellular carcinomas, each with several hundred samples taken in two and three dimensions. Using spatial metrics of evolution, we find that tumour cells grow predominantly uniformly within the tumour volume instead of at the surface. We determine how mutations and cells are dispersed throughout the tumour and how cell death contributes to the overall tumour growth. Our methods shed light on the early evolution of tumours in vivo and can be applied to high-resolution data in the emerging field of spatial biology.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Susanne Tilk, Judith Frydman ... Dmitri A Petrov
    Research Article

    In asexual populations that don’t undergo recombination, such as cancer, deleterious mutations are expected to accrue readily due to genome-wide linkage between mutations. Despite this mutational load of often thousands of deleterious mutations, many tumors thrive. How tumors survive the damaging consequences of this mutational load is not well understood. Here, we investigate the functional consequences of mutational load in 10,295 human tumors by quantifying their phenotypic response through changes in gene expression. Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), we find that high mutational load tumors up-regulate proteostasis machinery related to the mitigation and prevention of protein misfolding. We replicate these expression responses in cancer cell lines and show that the viability in high mutational load cancer cells is strongly dependent on complexes that degrade and refold proteins. This indicates that the upregulation of proteostasis machinery is causally important for high mutational burden tumors and uncovers new therapeutic vulnerabilities.