Pancreatic Cancer Alters Cd4+ T Lymphocyte Function: a Piece of the Immunevasion Puzzle
Paola Fogar*1, Daniela Basso2, Elisa Fadi2, Eliana Greco2, Giorgia Pantano2, Andrea Padoan2, Dania Bozzato2, Monica Facco3, Maria Colomba Sanzari2, Sara Teolato3, Gianpietro Semenzato3, Mario Plebani2, Sergio Pedrazzoli1
1Medical and Surgical Sciences, IV Surgical Clinic, PADOVA, Italy; 2Medical Diagnostic Sciences and Special Therapies, Laboratory Medicine, Padova, Italy; 3Clinical and Experimental Medicine., Hematology and Clinical Immunology Branch, Padova, Italy
CD4+ T cells play a central role in immune protection. Tumors might impair CD4+ T cell immune function, and this might contribute to tumor escape, a relevant finding in pancreatic cancer (PC). Aims were to: 1. compare the effects of PC and other gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) cells on human CD4+ T cells proliferation, migration and Th1 differentiation; 2. analyse whether cancer cells modify the expansion of CD4+ cell memory (CD45RO), naïve (CD45RA), activated (CD69) and regulatory (CD25) subsets. Methods: CD4+ T lymphocytes were purified from blood donors’ buffy coats (n=29) (RosetteSep kit, StemCell Technologies). CD4+ T cells were cultured for 4 days in control medium or in pancreatic (BxPC3, Capan1, MiaPaCa 2), colorectal (HT29), gastric (AGS) or hepatocellular (HepG2) cancer cell conditioned media (CM). Migration was assessed using a transwell system in the presence or absence of the chemoattractant hSDFα; the number of migrating cells was estimated by a luminescent cell viability assay (CellTiter-Glo®, Invitrogen). Cell proliferation, in the presence or absence of allogenic PBMC, was evaluated after 72 hrs (3H-Thymidine incorporation). IFNγ (ELISA) was measured in the supernatants of control and cancer conditioned CD4+ T cells after 4 culture days. CD45RA, CD45RO, CD69 and CD25 membrane expression was FACS analysed in control and conditioned CD4+ T cells before and after 4 culture days. Results: Both in the presence (χ2 =110, p<0.001) and absence (χ2 =26.4, p<0.001) of PBMC, only PC cell CM significantly lowered CD4+ T cells proliferation with respect to control or other GIC. In the absence of hSDFα, a higher number of PC and other GIC conditioned CD4+ T cells transmigrate with respect to control (p<0.001); in the presence of hSDFα only PC cell CM significantly reduced CD4+ T cell migration with respect to control (χ2 =40.3, p<0.001). All PC CM significantly induced CD4+ T cell production of IFNγ (p<0.01 for BxPc3, p<0.05 for Capan1 and MiaPaCa2). Control or other GIC CM did not affect IFNγ production (p:ns). Control or tumor CM did not modify CD45RA, CD45RO or CD25 subsets. CD69 positive cells were significantly expanded by PC cell CM (χ2 =15, p<0.001 for BxPc3, χ2=16, p<0.001 for Capan1, χ2 =10, p<0.01 for MiaPaCa2) but not by other GIC cell CM (χ2 =0.4, p:ns). Conclusions: PC cells, differently from other GIC cells, inhibit CD4+ T cell proliferation, migration under hSDFα chemotaxis and induce both CD4+ T cells activation and differentiation into the Th1 phenotype. Overall these “in vitro” findings support the hypothesis that PC might evade immunesurveillance by altering CD4+ T lymphocytes.
Back to Program | 2009 Program and Abstracts | 2009 Posters