Jelinek, Diane F.

Abstract The view of eosinophils (Eos) as solely effector cells involved in host parasite defense and in the pathophysiology of allergic diseases has been challenged in recent years. In fact, there is a growing realization that these cells interact with other components of innate and adaptive immunity. For example, mouse Eos were recently demonstrated to promote plasma cell retention in the bone marrow. However, it remains unknown whether Eos influence the biology of normal B lymphocytes. In this study, we specifically assessed the effect of Eos on B cell survival, proliferation, and Ig secretion. Our data first revealed that the genetic deletion of Eos from NJ1638 IL-5 transgenic hypereosinophilic mice (previously shown to display profound B cell expansion) resulted in the near abolishment of the B cell lymphocytosis. In vitro studies using human tissues demonstrated Eos’ proximity to B cell follicles and their ability to promote B cell survival, proliferation, and Ig secretion via a contact-independent mechanism. Additionally, this ability of Eos to enhance B cell responsiveness was observed in both T-independent and T-dependent B cell activation and appears to be independent of the activation state of Eos. Finally, a retrospective clinical study of hypereosinophilic patients revealed a direct correlation between peripheral blood eosinophil levels and B cell numbers. Taken together, our study identifies a novel role for Eos in the regulation of humoral immunity via their impact on B cell homeostasis and proliferation upon activation.

Easy M Our immune systems can produce a vastly diverse repertoire of antibody molecules that each recognize and bind to a specific foreign antigen via a hypervariable region. However, there are a few bacterial antigens—such as Protein A, Protein G, and Protein L—that instead bind to the antibody's conserved regions and can bind to a large number of different antibodies. These high-affinity broad-spectrum antibody-binding properties have been widely exploited both in the laboratory and in industry for purifying, immobilizing, and detecting antibodies. Grover et al. (p. 656 ) have now identified Protein M found on the surface of human mycoplasma, which displays even broader antibody-binding specificity. The crystal structure of Protein M revealed how Protein-M binding blocks the antibody's antigen binding site. This mechanism may be exploited by mycoplasma to escape the humoral immune response.

AbstractThe introduction of novel immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) has dramatically improved the survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While it has been shown that patients with specific cytogenetic subtypes, namely t(4;14), have the best outcomes when treated with bortezomib‐based regimens, the relationship between cytogenetic subtypes and response to IMiDs remains unclear. Using DNA synthesis assays, we investigated the relationship between cytogenetic subtype and lenalidomide response in a representative panel of human myeloma cell lines (HMCLs). We examined HMCL protein expression levels of the lenalidomide target cereblon (CRBN) and its downstream target interferon regulatory factor‐4 (IRF4), which have previously been shown to be predictive of lenalidomide response in HMCLs. Our results reveal that lenalidomide response did not correlate with specific cytogenetic translocations. There were distinct groups of lenalidomide‐responsive and non‐responsive HMCLs, as defined by inhibition of cellular proliferation; notably, all of the hyperdiploid HMCLs fell into the latter category. Repeated dosing of lenalidomide significantly lowered the IC50 of the responsive HMCL ALMC‐1 (IC50 = 2.6 μm vs. 0.005 μm, P < 0.0001), but did not have an effect on the IC50 of the non‐responsive DP‐6 HMCL (P > 0.05). Moreover, no association was found between lenalidomide responsiveness and CRBN and IRF4 expression. Our data indicate that lenalidomide sensitivity is independent of cytogenetic subtype in HMCLs. While CRBN and IRF4 have been shown to be associated with response to lenalidomide in patients, these findings do not translate back to HMCLs, which could be attributable to factors present in the bone marrow microenvironment.

BACKGROUNDAlthough rituximab‐based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has substantially improved clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), only 40% to 50% of patients achieve a complete remission (CR). There remains interest in identifying new approaches to improve the effectiveness of CIT. Ofatumumab is a fully human anti‐CD20 monoclonal antibody with greater apparent single‐agent activity than rituximab in CLL patients.METHODSPreviously untreated CLL patients in need of therapy received 6 cycles of CIT induction with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and ofatumumab (PCO) followed by response assessment.RESULTSOf the 48 patients enrolled, 77% completed PCO induction. Adverse events during induction included grade 3+ hematologic toxicity (27%) and grade 3+ nonhematologic toxicity (23%). Median CD4 count after induction and 6 months later were 186 × 106/L and 272 × 106/L. The overall response rate was 96% (46 of 48 patients), and the CR rate was 46% (22 of 48 patients). Among the 38 patients who underwent minimal residual disease evaluation, 7 (18%) were negative for minimal residual disease. After median follow‐up of 24 months, 10 (21%) patients have progressed and 8 (17%) have required retreatment. The efficacy and toxicity of ofatumumab‐based CIT compare favorably to our historical trials of rituximab‐based CIT using an identical chemotherapy backbone (n = 64). Time to retreatment also appeared longer for ofatumumab‐based CIT (free of retreatment at 24 months: 86% [95% confidence interval = 75‐99] versus 68% [95% confidence interval = 56‐81] for rituximab‐based CIT).CONCLUSIONSOfatumumab‐based CIT is well tolerated in patients with previously untreated CLL. The efficacy of ofatumumab‐based CIT compares favorably to historical trials of rituximab‐based CIT, suggesting randomized trials comparing ofatumumab‐based CIT and rituximab‐based CIT should be considered. Cancer 2013;119:3788–3796. © 2013 American Cancer Society.