Page 62 - Read Online
P. 62

Gurska et al. Cancer Drug Resist 2023;6:674-87  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cdr.2023.39                                           Page 678





























                Figure 2. Mechanisms of T cell evasion in AML. T cells engage with and kill cancer cells through the presentation of MHC molecules
                and subsequent T cell co-stimulation (left). Mechanisms to evade T cell detection employed by AML cells include (1) increased
                expression of co-inhibitory immune checkpoints; (2) decreased MHC expression; and (3) suppression of cytotoxic CD8+ T cell function
                through increased regulatory T cells (right). Figure created with Biorender.com. AML: Acute myeloid leukemia; CTLA4: cytotoxic T
                lymphocyte  antigen  4;  IFNγ: interferon gamma; MHC:  major  histocompatibility  complex;  PD1:  programmed  cell  death  protein  1;
                PFN:  perforin;  TCR:  T  cell receptor; TIM3:  T  cell  immunoglobulin  and  mucin  domain-containing  protein  3;  TNFα:  tumor  necrosis
                factor alpha.

               sequencing of TCR-α and TCR-β chains), had impaired effector T cell function . As the prognosis for
                                                                                     [27]
               patients who relapse after transplantation is poor, early detection of T cell exhaustion markers could be a
               useful predictive tool [26,27] .

               Modulation of checkpoint expression on AML cells themselves is another key driver of immune evasion.
               For example, increased PD-L1, PD-L2, and CTLA4 expression on AML cells has been shown to correlate
               with poor overall survival [28,29] . PD-L1 expression was found to be elevated in AML patient blasts, both at
               diagnosis and at relapse . Furthermore, CTLA4 was previously discovered to not be restricted to the
                                    [30]
               lymphoid lineage, as AML cells from both diagnostic and relapsed patients, but not healthy CD34+ cells,
               were found to express CTLA4 [31,32] . Therefore, the upregulation of inhibitory immune checkpoints on AML
               cells is another potential mechanism for immune evasion in AML.


               Downregulation of MHC expression
               Dampening of MHC expression on AML cells is also an important mechanism of immune evasion.
               Specifically, RNA sequencing analysis of paired AML samples collected at diagnosis and at relapse post-
               transplantation identified altered expression of immune-related genes, including decreased expression of
               CIITA, the master regulator of MHC-II expression, and of MHC-II molecules at relapse . Ex vivo
                                                                                                [33]
                                                                                                       [33]
               treatment of AML blasts isolated from relapse patients with IFNγ was able to restore MHC-II expression .
               The clinical significance of this is revealed by the differences in CD4+ effector T cell activation, as measured
               by IFNγ production, following co-culture of either diagnostic or post-transplantation relapsed AML samples
               with CD4+ T cells, as CD4+ T cell activity was diminished in post-transplantation relapse co-culture
               assays .
                    [33]
   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67