Cytotoxic T Cells swarm by homotypic chemokine signalling

  1. Jorge Luis Galeano Niño
  2. Sophie V Pageon
  3. Szun S Tay
  4. Feyza Colakoglu
  5. Daryan Kempe
  6. Jack Hywood
  7. Jessica K Mazalo
  8. James Cremasco
  9. Matt A Govendir
  10. Laura F Dagley
  11. Kenneth Hsu
  12. Simone Rizzetto
  13. Jerzy Zieba
  14. Gregory Rice
  15. Victoria Prior
  16. Geraldine M O'Neill
  17. Richard J Williams
  18. David R Nisbet
  19. Belinda Kramer
  20. Andrew I Webb
  21. Fabio Luciani
  22. Mark N Read
  23. Maté Biro  Is a corresponding author
  1. EMBL Australia, Australia
  2. University of New South Wales, Australia
  3. The University of Sydney, Australia
  4. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Australia
  5. The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Australia
  6. University of Waterloo, Canada
  7. Kids Research, Australia
  8. Deakin University, Australia
  9. Australian National University, Australia
  10. University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract

Cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) are thought to arrive at target sites either via random search or following signals by other leukocytes. Here, we reveal independent emergent behaviour in CTL populations attacking tumour masses. Primary murine CTLs coordinate their migration in a process reminiscent of the swarming observed in neutrophils. CTLs engaging cognate targets accelerate the recruitment of distant T cells through long-range homotypic signalling, in part mediated via the diffusion of chemokines CCL3 and CCL4. Newly arriving CTLs augment the chemotactic signal, further accelerating mass recruitment in a positive feedback loop. Activated effector human T cells and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells similarly employ intra-population signalling to drive rapid convergence. Thus, CTLs recognising a cognate target can induce a localised mass response by amplifying the direct recruitment of additional T cells independently of other leukocytes.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files with extensive statistical information have been provided for all figures containing bar, box or violin plots. Complete transcriptomics and secretomics data are available in Supplementary Files 1 and 2 respectively. Custom code and notes are available at http://www.matebiro.com/software/motilisim

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jorge Luis Galeano Niño

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sophie V Pageon

    Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1701-5551
  3. Szun S Tay

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0186-8154
  4. Feyza Colakoglu

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Daryan Kempe

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jack Hywood

    Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jessica K Mazalo

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James Cremasco

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Matt A Govendir

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Laura F Dagley

    Advanced Technology and Biology Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4171-3712
  11. Kenneth Hsu

    Children's Cancer Research Unit, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Simone Rizzetto

    Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3881-8759
  13. Jerzy Zieba

    School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Gregory Rice

    Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Victoria Prior

    Children's Cancer Research Unit, Kids Research, Westmead, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2285-5398
  16. Geraldine M O'Neill

    Children's Cancer Research Unit, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Richard J Williams

    School of Medicine, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. David R Nisbet

    Advanced Biomaterials Lab, Research School of Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Belinda Kramer

    Children's Cancer Research Unit, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Andrew I Webb

    Advanced Technology and Biology Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Fabio Luciani

    School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Mark N Read

    Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Maté Biro

    Single Molecule Science node, School of Medical Sciences, EMBL Australia, Sydney, Australia
    For correspondence
    m.biro@unsw.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5852-3726

Funding

National Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada (RGPIN 50503-10477 and 50503-10476)

  • Gregory Rice

National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1135687)

  • David R Nisbet

University of Sydney CoE in Advanced Food Enginomics

  • Mark N Read

EMBL Australia

  • Maté Biro

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Satyajit Rath, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), India

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal breeding and experimentation were conducted in accordance with New South Wales state and Australian federal laws and animal ethics protocols overseen and approved by the University of New South Wales Animal Care and Ethics Committee (ACEC) under protocols 16/83B and 19/133B.

Human subjects: Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were obtained from healthy donors after informed consent and were used in experiments under a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approved protocol (Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, LNR/13/SCHN/241).

Version history

  1. Received: March 2, 2020
  2. Accepted: September 27, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 13, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: October 16, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: November 16, 2020 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2020, Galeano Niño 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

  • 7,719
    Page views
  • 883
    Downloads
  • 38
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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. Jorge Luis Galeano Niño
  2. Sophie V Pageon
  3. Szun S Tay
  4. Feyza Colakoglu
  5. Daryan Kempe
  6. Jack Hywood
  7. Jessica K Mazalo
  8. James Cremasco
  9. Matt A Govendir
  10. Laura F Dagley
  11. Kenneth Hsu
  12. Simone Rizzetto
  13. Jerzy Zieba
  14. Gregory Rice
  15. Victoria Prior
  16. Geraldine M O'Neill
  17. Richard J Williams
  18. David R Nisbet
  19. Belinda Kramer
  20. Andrew I Webb
  21. Fabio Luciani
  22. Mark N Read
  23. Maté Biro
(2020)
Cytotoxic T Cells swarm by homotypic chemokine signalling
eLife 9:e56554.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56554

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56554

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Bingrui Li, Fernanda G Kugeratski, Raghu Kalluri
    Research Article

    Non-invasive early cancer diagnosis remains challenging due to the low sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic approaches. Exosomes are membrane-bound nanovesicles secreted by all cells that contain DNA, RNA, and proteins that are representative of the parent cells. This property, along with the abundance of exosomes in biological fluids makes them compelling candidates as biomarkers. However, a rapid and flexible exosome-based diagnostic method to distinguish human cancers across cancer types in diverse biological fluids is yet to be defined. Here, we describe a novel machine learning-based computational method to distinguish cancers using a panel of proteins associated with exosomes. Employing datasets of exosome proteins from human cell lines, tissue, plasma, serum, and urine samples from a variety of cancers, we identify Clathrin Heavy Chain (CLTC), Ezrin, (EZR), Talin-1 (TLN1), Adenylyl cyclase-associated protein 1 (CAP1), and Moesin (MSN) as highly abundant universal biomarkers for exosomes and define three panels of pan-cancer exosome proteins that distinguish cancer exosomes from other exosomes and aid in classifying cancer subtypes employing random forest models. All the models using proteins from plasma, serum, or urine-derived exosomes yield AUROC scores higher than 0.91 and demonstrate superior performance compared to Support Vector Machine, K Nearest Neighbor Classifier and Gaussian Naive Bayes. This study provides a reliable protein biomarker signature associated with cancer exosomes with scalable machine learning capability for a sensitive and specific non-invasive method of cancer diagnosis.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Alain Pulfer, Diego Ulisse Pizzagalli ... Santiago Fernandez Gonzalez
    Tools and Resources

    Intravital microscopy has revolutionized live-cell imaging by allowing the study of spatial–temporal cell dynamics in living animals. However, the complexity of the data generated by this technology has limited the development of effective computational tools to identify and quantify cell processes. Amongst them, apoptosis is a crucial form of regulated cell death involved in tissue homeostasis and host defense. Live-cell imaging enabled the study of apoptosis at the cellular level, enhancing our understanding of its spatial–temporal regulation. However, at present, no computational method can deliver robust detection of apoptosis in microscopy timelapses. To overcome this limitation, we developed ADeS, a deep learning-based apoptosis detection system that employs the principle of activity recognition. We trained ADeS on extensive datasets containing more than 10,000 apoptotic instances collected both in vitro and in vivo, achieving a classification accuracy above 98% and outperforming state-of-the-art solutions. ADeS is the first method capable of detecting the location and duration of multiple apoptotic events in full microscopy timelapses, surpassing human performance in the same task. We demonstrated the effectiveness and robustness of ADeS across various imaging modalities, cell types, and staining techniques. Finally, we employed ADeS to quantify cell survival in vitro and tissue damage in mice, demonstrating its potential application in toxicity assays, treatment evaluation, and inflammatory dynamics. Our findings suggest that ADeS is a valuable tool for the accurate detection and quantification of apoptosis in live-cell imaging and, in particular, intravital microscopy data, providing insights into the complex spatial–temporal regulation of this process.