Citations

Abstract The immune checkpoint inhibition therapy induces various immune related adverse events (irAEs). The immunological basis of irAEs remains unclear. We recruited a cohort of patients with inflammatory arthritis irAE (IA-irAE), the most common form of rheumatic irAEs, together with matched patients with conventional rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cancer patients without irAEs. Comprehensive clinical and immunological investigations reveal an imbalance of T cell exhaustion and senescence in IA-irAE patients, and immunological similarities between IA-irAE patients and seronegative RA patients. These data suggest that IA-irAE and seronegative RA may have shared immunological mechanisms. Thus, our study identifies potential immunological underpinnings of IA-irAE and the relationship between IA-irAE and conventional RA. The results may have implications for managing irAE and seronegative RA patients. Supported byR01AR0077518 Arthritis National Research Foundation

AbstractThe development of many systemic autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, is associated with overactivation of the type I interferon (IFN) pathway, lymphopenia and increased follicular helper T (Tfh)‐cell differentiation. However, the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying these immunological perturbations remain incompletely understood. Here, we show that the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 2 (mTORC2) promotes Tfh differentiation and disrupts Treg homeostasis. Inactivation of mTORC2 in total T cells, but not in Tregs, greatly ameliorated the immunopathology in a systemic autoimmunity mouse model. This was associated with reduced Tfh differentiation, B‐cell activation, and reduced T‐cell glucose metabolism. Finally, we show that type I IFN can synergize with TCR ligation to activate mTORC2 in T cells, which partially contributes to T‐cell lymphopenia. These data indicate that mTORC2 may act as downstream of type I IFN, TCR and costimulatory receptor ICOS, to promote glucose metabolism, Tfh differentiation, and T‐cell lymphopenia, but not to suppress Treg function in systemic autoimmunity. Our results suggest that mTORC2 might be a rational target for systemic autoimmunity treatment.

Abstract Seven different anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies are now widely used in the US to treat a variety of cancer types, but there have been no clinical trials comparing them directly. Furthermore, because many of these antibodies do not cross react between mouse and human proteins, no preclinical models exist in which to consider these types of questions. Thus, we produced humanized PD-1 and PD-L1 mice in which the extracellular domains of both mouse PD-1 and PD-L1 were replaced with the corresponding human sequences. Using this new model, we sought to compare the strength of the immune response generated by FDA-approved antibodies. To do this, we performed an in vivo T cell priming assay in which anti-PD-1/L1 therapies were given at the time of T cell priming against surrogate tumor antigen (OVA), followed by subsequent B16-OVA tumor challenge. We found that anti-PD-1/L1-treated mice exhibited significantly better tumor rejection than controls, although both the control and antibody-treated mice generated comparable numbers of OVA-specific T cells at the time of priming. To determine what could mediate this strong antitumor immune response, we identified the increased production of CX3CR1+PD-1+CD8+ cytotoxic T cells in the anti-PD-1/L1-treated mice, the same subset of effector T cells known to increase in clinical responders to PD-1/L1 therapy. Thus, our model permits the direct comparison of FDA-approved anti-PD-1/L1 monoclonal antibodies and further correlates successful tumor rejection with the level of CX3CR1+PD-1+CD8 + T cells, making this model a critical tool for future studies to optimize and better utilize anti-PD-1/L1 therapeutics.

Fatty acids (FAs) not only are a key component of cellular membrane structure, but also have diverse functions in biological processes. Recent years have seen great advances in understanding of how FA metabolism contributes to adaptive immune response. Here, we review three key processes, FA biosynthesis, FA oxidation and FA uptake, and how they direct T and B cell functions during immune challenges. Then, we will focus on the relationship between microbiota derived FAs, short‐chain FAs, and adaptive immunity. Along the way, we will also discuss the outstanding controversies and challenges in the field.