Can Exhausted T cells be Revived? The PD-1 Palaver |
||
|
Anyone who follows HIV research is familiar with how a new molecule can suddenly appear in the scientific literature, generating much excitement and hype, only to subsequently shuffle quietly from the scene having failed to deliver on its supposed promise. At first blush, the ominously named "program death-1" (PD-1) seems like it might fit the profile of such molecules-de-jour. The role of PD-1 in shutting down virus-specific T cell responses was first described in a Nature paper in January of 2006, by researchers using a mouse model of chronic viral infection. Over the summer, three separate papers (with a commentary accompanying each) trumpeted data describing the high levels of expression of PD-1 on HIV-specific T cells, suggesting that targeting this molecule might be a way of boosting antiretroviral immunity in people with HIV. It's legitimate to wonder if the PD-1 palaver is justified, or if it's another case of molecular idolatry run amok. A Murine Discovery To try and better understand the divergent T cell responses to acute and chronic LCMV the researchers used a new technology called a microarray analysis to compare the gene expression profiles of exhausted versus functional CD8 T cells (taken from mice infected with LCMV clone 13 and LCMV Armstrong strain, respectively). The most notable difference that they uncovered was that exhausted CD8 T cells strongly expressed the gene encoding the PD-1 receptor. PD-1 can interact with one of two ligands: PD-L1 (formerly called B7-H1), which can be expressed on many cells, and PD-L2 (B7-DC), which is predominantly seen on macrophages and dendritic cells. Interactions between PD-1 and PD-L1 are considered to be inhibitory, meaning that they play a role in switching off or dampening down the T cell response. The researchers found that PD-L1 was expressed at very high levels in spleen cells from mice chronically infected with LCMV clone 13, particularly on virally infected cells. Having uncovered this evidence that the PD-1 receptor is involved CD8 T cell exhaustion, the researchers next studied the effects of blocking PD-1/PD-L1 interactions using an antibody that specifically targets PD-L1. The excitement around PD-1 primarily stems from the results of this experiment: in chronically infected mice, the function of exhausted LCMV-specific CD8 T cells improved and LCMV viral load declined. In the often arcane world of immunology, few interventions have been described that alter T cell function in a way that leads to a potent, sustained and reproducible antiviral effect. Because CD8 T cell exhaustion has been reported in settings where CD4 T cell responses are absent or impaired, the researchers also assessed the effect of blocking PD-L1 on LCMV-specific CD8 T cells that were generated in the absence of CD4 T cell help. Again, the functionality of these CD8 T cells (as measured by proliferation, cytokine production, and the ability to kill LCMV-infected cells and reduce LCMV viral load) was restored when PD-L1 was blocked. In their paper, Barber and colleagues infer that this finding may have particular relevance to HIV where the impairment of virus-specific CD4 T cell responses has been well documented. PD-1 Expression in HIV Infection Both studies reported similar results: In untreated HIV infection, levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8 T cells compared to uninfected individuals. More remarkably, PD-1 expression also correlated with other surrogate markers of disease progression: there was an inverse correlation with CD4 T cell counts and a positive correlation with HIV viral load levels. The strength of these correlations was very similar to those reported for the immune activation marker CD28 (the r values were >0.70, where an r value of 1 is a perfect correlation). PD-1 expression was analyzed just on HIV-specific CD8 T cells, and the same correlations emerged. Cheryl Day and colleagues also looked at expression of PD-1 on HIV-specific CD4 T cells and found a similar picture to that seen for CD8 T cells, including the significant correlations with CD4 T cell counts and viral load. PD-1 expression was also significantly higher on HIV-specific CD8 T cells compared to those specific for CMV in the same individuals. Both research groups also looked at the effects on HIV-specific T cells of blocking PD-1/PD-L1 interactions with a PD-L1-specific antibody in vitro. They found that the antibody enhanced production of cytokines and also increased the ability of HIV-specific T cells (both CD4 and CD8) to proliferate (copy themselves) in response to stimulation with HIV antigens. Although a variety of in vitro interventions can affect HIV-specific T cell function to some degree (the cytokine IL-12, for example), blocking PD-1 appeared to exert much more dramatic restorative effects. Following quickly on the heels of these two papers was a study from researchers at the NIH's Vaccine Research Center. Although broadly in line with the prior results, the researchers reported that, in their hands, the impact of elevated PD-1 expression was most notable for its negative effect on CD8 T cell proliferation and survival. They found that blocking PD-1/PD-L1 interactions in vitro increased HIV-specific CD8 T cell proliferation and thereby increased the number of HIV-specific CD8 T cells capable of making a broad array of cytokines, but it did not necessarily restore cytokine production capacity to exhausted CD8 T cells. Taken together, these studies offer strong support for the idea that PD-1 plays a key role in T cell exhaustion, and suggest that this may be particularly important in HIV infection. The association between PD-1 expression and disease progression in HIV also suggests that accumulating T cell dysfunction contributes to the pathogenesis of the disease, a suggestion consistent with data obtained as long ago as the late 1980s using older functional assays that evaluated T cell proliferation to well-characterized antigens and mitogens over the course of HIV infection. The Therapeutic Horizon To gain insights into the potential risks and benefits of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition, several groups are now planning studies in non-human primates. Rafi Ahmed's group is collaborating with Chris Walker to explore the approach in HCV-infected chimpanzees, while the laboratories of Genoveffa Franchini at the NCI and Rama Rao Amara at Emory University are planning to study anti-PD-1 approaches in SIV-infected macaques. Pharmaceutical companies have also become interested in this area of research; a US-based biotech company called Medarex has collaborated with the Japanese pharmaceutical company Ono to produce an anti-PD-L1 antibody (dubbed MDX-1106) for human use. A phase I trial of MDX-1106 in people with refractory cancers is now being conducted by Nicholas Restivo at the National Cancer Institute, based on the possibility that cancer-fighting T cells might be revived by the approach. Suffice it to say that the safety of MDX-1106 will need to be carefully evaluated, particularly given the recent shocking outcome of a trial that was also looking at an antibody targeting an immunological receptor (TGN1412, which targeted CD28 and led to severe inflammation and life-threatening illness in several phase I study participants). Compared with some of the forgotten molecules of yesteryear, it does appear that PD-1 is underpinned by solid science. But whether this research heralds a new era in T cell-based immunotherapies? That remains to be seen.
News updates from TAG's Michael Palm Basic Science, Prevention, and Vaccines Project are published on an ongoing basis on the Project weblog. See list of recently posted articles. |
||