Title |
Smac mimetics and oncolytic viruses synergize in driving anticancer T-cell responses through complementary mechanisms
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nature Communications, August 2017
|
DOI | 10.1038/s41467-017-00324-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Dae-Sun Kim, Himika Dastidar, Chunfen Zhang, Franz J. Zemp, Keith Lau, Matthias Ernst, Andrea Rakic, Saif Sikdar, Jahanara Rajwani, Victor Naumenko, Dale R. Balce, Ben W. Ewanchuk, Pankaj Tailor, Robin M. Yates, Craig Jenne, Chris Gafuik, Douglas J. Mahoney |
Abstract |
Second mitochondrial activator of caspase (Smac)-mimetic compounds and oncolytic viruses were developed to kill cancer cells directly. However, Smac-mimetic compound and oncolytic virus therapies also modulate host immune responses in ways we hypothesized would complement one another in promoting anticancer T-cell immunity. We show that Smac-mimetic compound and oncolytic virus therapies synergize in driving CD8(+) T-cell responses toward tumors through distinct activities. Smac-mimetic compound treatment with LCL161 reinvigorates exhausted CD8(+) T cells within immunosuppressed tumors by targeting tumor-associated macrophages for M1-like polarization. Oncolytic virus treatment with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV(ΔM51)) promotes CD8(+) T-cell accumulation within tumors and CD8(+) T-cell activation within the tumor-draining lymph node. When combined, LCL161 and VSV(ΔM51) therapy engenders CD8(+) T-cell-mediated tumor control in several aggressive mouse models of cancer. Smac-mimetic compound and oncolytic virus therapies are both in clinical development and their combination therapy represents a promising approach for promoting anticancer T-cell immunity.Oncolytic viruses (OV) and second mitochondrial activator of caspase (Smac)-mimetic compounds (SMC) synergistically kill cancer cells directly. Here, the authors show that SMC and OV therapies combination also synergize in vivo by promoting anticancer immunity through an increase in CD8(+) T-cell response. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 36% |
Canada | 2 | 18% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 21 | 19% |
Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
Other | 14 | 13% |
Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 18% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 19 | 17% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 15% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 15% |
Linguistics | 2 | 2% |
Other | 11 | 10% |
Unknown | 26 | 24% |