Cancer Research Meeting Calendar Jordan
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Cancer Research 67, 3919, April 15, 2007. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2112
© 2007 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cloosen, S.
Right arrow Articles by Germeraad, W. T.V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cloosen, S.
Right arrow Articles by Germeraad, W. T.V.

Immunology

Expression of Tumor-Associated Differentiation Antigens, MUC1 Glycoforms and CEA, in Human Thymic Epithelial Cells: Implications for Self-Tolerance and Tumor Therapy

Silvie Cloosen1, Janna Arnold2, Marco Thio1, Gerard M.J. Bos1, Bruno Kyewski2 and Wilfred T.V. Germeraad1

1 Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Growth and Development Research Institute, University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands and 2 Division of Developmental Immunology, Tumor Immunology Program, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Requests for reprints: W.T.V. Germeraad, Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Maastricht, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, the Netherlands. Phone: 31-433884300; E-mail: w.germeraad{at}immuno.unimaas.nl.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Expression of tissue-restricted self-antigens in the thymus, termed promiscuous gene expression, imposes T cell tolerance and protects from autoimmune diseases. This antigen pool also includes various types of tumor-associated antigens (TAA) previously thought to be secluded from the immune system. The scope of promiscuous gene expression has been defined by mRNA analysis at the global level of isolated medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs). Information at the protein level on the frequency of mTECs expressing a given antigen, on coexpression patterns, and post-translational modifications is largely missing. We report here promiscuous expression at the protein level of two TAA, MUC1 and CEA, in situ and in purified human mTECs. Both antigens are expressed in 1% to 3% of mTECs, either individually or coexpressed in the same cell. Using a panel of anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies recognizing different post-translational modifications, i.e., glycoforms of MUC1, we show that only fully glycosylated forms of MUC1 and the differentiation-dependent glycoforms were detected on mTECs, but not the cancer-associated glycoforms. Our findings imply that MUC1 and CEA are amenable to central tolerance induction, which might, however, be incomplete in case of tumor cell–restricted MUC1 glycoforms. Knowledge of these subtleties in promiscuous gene expression may, in the future, assist the selection of T cell tumor vaccines for clinical trials. [Cancer Res 2007;67(8):3919–26]


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Immunotherapy based on active immunization is an increasingly applied adjuvant therapy for the treatment of hemopoietic and epithelial tumors. Clinical immunization protocols vary widely with vaccine delivery ranging from naked DNA, antigen-pulsed dendritic cells, whole cell lysates to single T cell epitopes (1–3). Currently, there is no consensus as to which approach will yield the best clinical results. Irrespective of these considerations, success in eliciting an immune response against tumors will also depend on the nature of the targeted antigens. Genetic alterations unique to the particular tumor, e.g., point mutations, deletion, duplications, or chromosomal rearrangements, potentially generate new "foreign" T and/or B cell epitopes (4), which will induce immune responses directed against such tumor-specific antigens. The induction of immune responses directed against such tumor-specific antigens should, in principle, follow rules governing pathogen-driven responses. In contrast, antigens, which are induced or highly up-regulated in tumor cells, are classified as self-antigens. These self-antigens can potentially still be seen as foreign when post-translational mechanisms like glycosylation have been altered due to oncogenic transformation. It has been a controversial issue as to what extent these tumor-associated antigens (TAA) are subject to self-tolerance, a process which would quench an endogenous or a deliberately induced antitumor response. With the assumption that antigens with a spatially and/or temporally restricted expression pattern (i.e., oncofetal or cancer germ cell antigens) may be exempt from tolerance induction, such antigens have been preferentially selected for clinical trials (5). This assumption has been questioned recently with the demonstration that members of these types of TAA are also expressed in medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs), along with a host of other tissue-restricted self-antigens, a phenomenon termed "promiscuous gene expression" (6, 7). The demonstration of promiscuous expression of tissue-restricted antigens is largely based on mRNA expression analysis (7). Although in most cases thus far analyzed, expression of a given self-antigen at the mRNA level in mTECs correlates with tolerance (8), exceptions have been noted (9). The demonstration of promiscuous antigen expression at the protein level, therefore, supplies important complementary information, in particular in case of humans, where central tolerance cannot be assayed functionally. In addition, detection of protein expression by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) may add information on post-translational modifications and coexpression patterns at the single cell level. Differences in post-translational modifications between thymic and peripheral (tissue or tumor-restricted) antigen expression could conceivably result in incomplete self-tolerance (10, 11).

Here, we report on the expression pattern of tumor-associated differentiation antigens [i.e., mucin-1 (MUC1) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)] in situ and by purified human mTECs at the protein level. We also show that mTECs mimic the glycosylation pattern of normal epithelia, whereas cancer-associated glycosylation is absent in these cells. These results have implications for self-tolerance and the design of immunotherapeutic studies targeting these antigens.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Tissue. Human thymi were obtained from children (age range, 2 days to 5 years) undergoing corrective heart surgery (University Hospital of Cologne and Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical School, University of Heidelberg, Germany). Pieces of thymic tissue were either embedded in TissueTek (Sakura Fintek, Zoeterwoude, the Netherlands), snap frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at –80°C or further processed for the isolation of mTECs.

Antibodies. The MUC1 antibody was purified from the 214D4 cell line (ref. 12; kindly provided by Dr. J. Hilkens, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and biotinylated. MAbs DF3 (purified; Centocor, Malvern, PA; ref. 13) and VU4H5 (supernatant; ref. 14) were kindly provided by Dr. S. von Mensdorff-Pouilly (Vrije Universiteit Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and the mAb SM3 (supernatant; ref. 15) was kindly provided by Prof. Dr. J. Taylor-Papadimitriou (Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom). MAbs 5E5 (purified) and 2D9 (purified) were kindly provided by Prof. Dr. H. Clausen (Department of Glycobiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; ref. 16). A detailed description of the specificities of the MUC1 mAbs has been provided by van Leeuwen et al. (17) and is summarized in Table 1 . Briefly, in this study, we categorized the anti-MUC1 mAbs into three groups depending on their reactivity with the different glycoforms of MUC1. MAbs that recognize MUC1 irrespective of its glycosylation pattern, including the fully glycosylated forms as well as the differentiation-dependent glycoforms, were defined as group 1 (214D4, DF3), whereas mAbs that only recognize the differentiation-dependent glycoforms were defined as group 2 (VU4H5, SM3). Group 3 mAbs exclusively recognize cancer-associated glycoforms of MUC1 and do not react with healthy tissue (5E5, 2D9). Therefore, we categorized mAb SM3 into group 2 because although this mAb displays cancer-associated reactivity (15), it also stains healthy tissue as described in this study and has been shown before in the healthy human kidney (18).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. MUC1-specific antibodies

 
Anti-CEA antibody Parlam-4 (19) was kindly supplied by Dr. H. Kawamoto and Dr. K. Kakugawa (RIKEN, Yokohama, Japan). Anti-EpCAM antibody HEA-125 (20) was generously supplied by Dr. G. Moldenhauer (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany). This mAb as well as the isotype control mouse immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1; purchased from BD Biosciences, Erembodegem, Belgium) were used unconjugated as well as biotinylated.

For the analyses of the sorted human mTECs, the following antibodies were used: biotinylated anti-EpCAM/streptavidin-PE (BD Biosciences), anti-CDR2–Alexa488 (DKFZ, Germany), anti-CD45–PerCp (BD Biosciences), anti-MUC1 (214D4) directly conjugated to Alexa488 or Alexa647, or anti-CEA (Parlam-4) directly conjugated to Alexa488 or Alexa647, respectively.

Immunohistochemistry. Cryosections (5 µm) from thymic tissue were fixed in acetone for 2 min, air dried, and soaked in PBS (Life Technologies, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 0.05% Tween 20 (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Specific staining of MUC1 was determined by incubation with primary anti-MUC1 mAbs (purified mAbs used at 5 µg/mL final concentration; supernatant of mAbs used undiluted) or matched isotype controls for 60 min at room temperature (RT). Afterward, sections were rinsed with PBS/Tween 20 and incubated with Envision-HRP (DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark) for 30 min at RT. The color was developed by incubation for 5 min at RT using a substrate buffer containing 3,3'-diaminobenzidine (5 µg/mL; DAKO) and 0.15% H2O2 (Sigma, Zwijndrecht, the Netherlands) in PBS/Tween 20. Cytospins of the breast carcinoma cell line ZR75-1 (Department of Pathology, University Hospital of Maastricht, the Netherlands) were stained with all anti-MUC1 mAbs and served as intraexperimental positive controls for all antibodies.

For fluorescent double staining, sections were incubated for 60 min with primary antibodies or matched isotype controls followed by incubation with goat–anti-mouse Alexa568 (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) for 30 min. After incubation, sections were rinsed and incubated with 2% normal mouse serum (DAKO) for 20 min. Alternatively, biotinylated primary antibodies or matched isotype controls were detected by streptavidin-Alexa488 (Molecular Probes). Sections were sealed with VectaShield (VectorLabs, Burlingame, CA). Confocal imaging was done using a Bio-Rad (München, Germany) laser scanning microscopy (LSM) in combination with computer-assisted analysis (Confocal Assistant 4.2).

Isolation of human medullary thymic epithelial cells. Isolation and purification of human mTECs were done as described previously (6).

Fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis. Sorted mTECs cells were incubated with primary antibodies for 90 min at 4°C. This was followed by incubation with the appropriate fluorescent secondary antibody for 30 min at 4°C. In case of a combination with phenotypic markers, binding sites of rabbit anti-mouse Ig were blocked for 10 min by incubation with mouse serum (DAKO). Finally, cells were fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde (Merck) and analyzed on a FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences). Dead cells were excluded based on their forward/side-scatter properties, and mTECs were gated as CD45–, CDR2–, EpCAMhi cells as described before (6).

Cytospin staining. Sorted mTECs (Supplementary Fig. S1) on cytospins were stained with anti-MUC1 (groups 1, 2, and 3) or anti-CEA (Parlam-4) mAbs directly conjugated with Alexa488 (Alexa Fluor 488 Protein Labelling kit; Molecular Probes). After blocking with 5% mouse serum for 20 min, cytospins were incubated with the primary antibody or matched isotype controls (Supplementary Fig. S2) for 1 h and washed with PBS, and subsequently, cell nuclei were counterstained with Hoechst 33342. Additionally, mTECs were costained for both TAA either combining anti-CEA–Alexa488 and anti-MUC1–Alexa647 (Alexa Fluor 647 Protein Labelling kit; Molecular Probes) or anti-CEA–Alexa647 and anti-MUC1–Alexa488 antibodies. Both combinations yielded similar staining patterns. The slides were analyzed and documented using either an Axiosphot 2 epifluorescence microscope (Zeiss, Jena, Germany) and Axiovision 3.1 software or a confocal microscope (LSM 510, Zeiss). The differences in the total number of cells counted were due to variable yields of mTECs in different isolates. Assuming a basal expression frequency for MUC1 and CEA of 2% in mTECs, the likelihood of coexpression of both antigens in one cell on a "random" base is 0.02 x 0.02 = 0.0004 or 0.04%.

RNA isolation. Human thymic epithelial cells were stained with either anti-MUC1 antibody (214D4) or CEA antibody (Parlam-4) and sorted on a FACS cellsorter. Sorted cells were lysed with buffer from the mRNA Capture kit (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). Isolation of mRNA, cDNA synthesis, and real-time PCR were further done as previously described (6). In short, mRNA was isolated and eluted in 50 µL H2O. Because of low cell numbers (<60,000), this total RNA was precipitated with ice-cold ethanol in the presence of NaCl and lipopolysaccharide as carrier. The RNA was dissolved in 8 µL and treated with DNase I (Invitrogen, Breda, the Netherlands) and reverse transcribed into cDNA with Oligo(dT)20 Primer and Superscript II Reverse Transcriptase (Invitrogen) for 50 min at 42°C and terminated by incubation at 70°C for 10 min. As a last step, the cDNA was treated with RNase H digestion (Promega, Leiden, the Netherlands).

Quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. Real-time PCR reactions were done in a final volume of 25 µL with predetermined optimal primer concentrations using the qPCR Core Kit for SybrGreen I (Eurogentec, Cologne, Germany) containing Hot GoldStar polymerase and uracil–DNA glycosylase. Probes were used with a concentration of 200 nmol/L in combination with the qPCR Core Kit (Eurogentec). Reactions were run on a 7300 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany) in triplicates, and expression values were normalized to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) expression using the comparative CT method. Primers were purchased from MWG-Biotech AG (Ebersberg, Germany) and, when possible, were designed to span at least one intron. Probes were purchased from Eurogentec. The following oligonucleotides were used: CEACAM5 (NM_004363) forward 5'-TCCAGAACTCAGTGAGTGCAAAC-3'; reverse 5'-CTCCCGAAAGGTAAGACGAGTC-3'; GAPDH (NM_002046) forward 5'-TCGACAGTCAGCCGCATCT-3'; reverse 5'-CCGTTGACTCCGACCTTCA-3'; probe 5'-(FAM)-CGTCGCCAGCCGAGCCACAT-(TAMRA)-3'; MUC1 (NM_002456) forward 5'-CTTTCTTCCTGCTGCTGCTCC-3'; reverse 5'-AGCCGAAGTCTCCTTTTCTCCA-3', probe 5'-(FAM)-AGCTTGCATGACCAGAACCTGTAACAACTGT-(TAMRA)-3'.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
MUC1 and CEA are expressed by mTECs. MUC1 protein expression in the thymus has been previously reported, yet the identity of the antigen-expressing cell type(s) remained unclear (21). Moreover, global gene expression analysis by gene arrays had shown that members of the mucin gene family were overexpressed in mTECs (6). Here, we show by double staining of thymic sections with anti-EpCAM and anti-MUC1 mAbs that MUC1 expression in the thymic medulla was confined to rare mTECs, whereas there was no detectable expression in the cortex (Fig. 1A ). The same expression pattern with regard to location and frequency of positive cells was found for a second TAA, CEA (Fig. 1B). Both MUC1- and CEA-positive cells tended to cluster in the vicinity and the outer rim of Hassal's corpuscles (HC), a site where terminally differentiated mTECs cluster (22). This staining pattern has been observed in four different thymi.


Figure 1
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1. Detection of tumor-associated differentiation antigens MUC1 and CEA in human thymus. Thymic sections were double-stained for the epithelial marker (A) EpCAM (red) and MUC1 (green) or (B) EpCAM (green) and CEA (red). Rare cells staining for either TAA were invariably EpCAM positive (yellow) and exclusively located in the medulla. This expression pattern has been observed in four different thymi. Magnification, 400x.

 
To confirm the identity of antigen-expressing cells and enumerate their frequency, mTECs were purified independently from two human thymi. MUC1 and CEA expressions were then analyzed on cytospins and by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis. By visual counting of stained cytospins, 2.8% (30/1,080) of the sorted mTECs expressed MUC1, and 2.0% (23/1,119) expressed CEA (Fig. 2A and B ). This frequency range was confirmed by FACS analysis on gated mTECs showing the expression of MUC1 on 2.8% and of CEA on 1.6% of these cells (Fig. 2C and D) and corroborated by further independent FACS measurements [MUC1: 2.6 + 1.6% (n = 9) and CEA: 1.8 + 0.8% (n = 6)]. These results are well in accordance with frequencies obtained for other promiscuously expressed tissue-restricted antigens in mouse or man (7, 23).3 The antibody specificity was confirmed by sorting mTECs in antigen-expressing and nonexpressing subsets and comparing mRNA transcription by qRT-PCR in both subsets. Specific mRNA was highly enriched in protein-expressing cells by a factor of 15- to 150-fold (Supplementary Fig. S3), thus documenting a clear correlation between mRNA and protein expression for these two TAA in mTECs.


Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2. Expression of MUC1 and CEA on isolated human mTECs. Cytospins of purified human mTECs were stained for (A) MUC1 or (B) CEA expression. Infrequent cells showed cytoplasmic and surface expression (top, nuclei were counterstained with Hoechst 3342); bars, 20 µm. Purified human mTECs were stained for (A) MUC1 or (B) CEA surface expression to more precisely enumerate the number of TAA-positive cells (bottom). The percentage of gated positive cells is shown. Red histogram, control staining; blue histogram, TAA staining.

 
mTECs coexpress MUC1 and CEA. The molecular mechanisms underlying promiscuous gene expression are largely unknown, and this applies also to the pattern of gene (co)expression at the single cell level. The unequivocal detection of both antigens at the single cell level allowed us to assess whether expression of these functionally and genetically unrelated antigens were expressed in a mutually exclusive manner in individual mTECs, or whether there was partial or strict coexpression. Given the low frequency of MUC1 and CEA expressing mTECs, coexpression on a random base would be expected to occur in <0.1% of the cells (explanation in Materials and Methods). Double staining of thymic sections with both mAbs clearly identified coexpression of these two TAA, along with cells staining only with one mAb (Fig. 3A ). To quantify the proportion of single versus double expressors, cytospins of purified mTECs were double stained and visually analyzed (Fig. 3B). In addition, double-stained cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (data not shown). A surprisingly high fraction of about 15% (or 0.7% of total mTECs) of MUC1- or CEA-positive mTECs coexpressed both antigens. Thus, the frequency of coexpressing cells was far above the value predicted if expression from both genes were independently regulated.


Figure 3
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3. Coexpression of MUC1 and CEA in human thymic medulla and isolated mTECs. A, human thymus sections were costained for MUC1 (green) and CEA (red). Note that individual cells in the medulla staining either for MUC1 alone (yellow arrows) or both antigens (red arrow). Magnification, 400x. B, cytospins of purified human mTECs were costained for MUC1 (red) and CEA expression (green). Note the individual cells stain either for MUC1 alone or both antigens (yellow). Inset, cytoplasmic coexpression of both antigens. Bars, 20 µm.

 
Expression of differentially glycosylated MUC1 isoforms by mTECs. The glycosylation pattern of MUC1 varies according to epithelial cell types; in addition, epithelial cell tumors generally display dysregulated and aberrant glycosylation profiles compared with their normal counterparts (24, 25). Because this differential glycosylation may include T cell epitopes and, thus, affect T cell recognition, i.e., tolerance, we characterized the glycosylation pattern of MUC1 expressed on human mTECs using a series of mAbs that recognize MUC1 with gradually lower degrees of glycosylation.

Few mTECs per section (Fig. 4A ) or about 1% of purified mTECs expressed epitopes detected by mAbs from group 1 (15/1,012 were 214D4+ and 12/1,007 were DF3+; Fig. 5A and B ). Epitopes recognized by mAbs from group 2 (VU4H5, SM3) were less frequently expressed, but still clearly detectable in thymic sections (Fig. 4B) and on <1% of mTECs on cytospins (4/997 were VU4H5+, 3/815 were SM3+; Fig. 5C and D). mTECs expressing epitopes recognized by mAbs from group 3 (5E5, 2D9; Fig. 4C) were neither detected in situ nor on cytospins (0/946 are 5E5+, and 0/933 are 2D9+; Fig. 5 and Table 1).


Figure 4
View larger version (115K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 4. Expression of different MUC1 glycoforms on human thymus sections. Thymic sections were stained with mAbs specific for different MUC1 glycoforms. Glycosylated MUC1 isoforms (as detected by mAbs from group 1: 214D4, DF3) were strongly expressed on rare epithelial cells in the medulla (A, arrows). Cells expressing shorter glycoforms of MUC1 (as detected by mAbs from group 2: VU4H5, SM3) were less frequent, but clearly detectable (B, arrows). No cells staining for cancer-specific glycoforms of MUC1 (as detected by mAbs from group 3: 5E5, 2D9) were observed (C). Staining with an isotype control reveals endogenous peroxidase-containing cells in the thymus (brown; D). Insets, positive control staining for the respective antibody done on cytospins from the ZR75-1 breast carcinoma cell line. These results have been observed in three different thymi. Magnification: 400x.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 5. Expression of different MUC1 glycoforms by isolated mTECs. Cytospins of purified human mTECs were stained for the various MUC1 glycoforms (see Fig. 4). Rare mTECs expressed MUC1 glycoforms as detected by the mAbs indicated. Fluorescence and corresponding phase pictures are shown. Bars, 20 µm.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Our results clearly ascribe promiscuous expression of MUC1 and CEA at the protein level to mTECs. This finding concurs with gene arrays analysis data, which revealed expression of MUC family members in human mTECs (6) and the detection of CEA in human mTECs by reverse transcription-PCR (8). Moreover, this study shows that both proteins are stably inserted into the cell surface membrane of mTECs, allowing the enumeration of antigen-positive mTECs by flow cytometry. The frequencies of MUC1- and CEA-positive mTECs range between 1% and 3%, as being typical of promiscuously expressed genes (7). Both antigens seem to be preferentially expressed in mature mTECs subsets as revealed by their aggregation in the vicinity of HC (Fig. 3A) and by flow cytometry analysis of mTECs subsets, which were HLA-DR+ (data not shown), a feature shared by many tissue-restricted antigens (26). This expression of normal MUC1 and CEA in the thymic medulla includes them into the pool of self-antigens that are displayed to developing T cells. Further analysis of the MUC1 glycosylation pattern in thymus revealed that the cryptic epitopes that distinguish the TAA MUC1 from common epithelial MUC1 are not expressed in the thymus, indicating that thymocytes are not exposed to MUC1 cryptic glycopeptides.

Irrespective of this potentially tolerogenic expression pattern, bone marrow and blood of cancer patients do contain MUC1- and CEA-specific T cells that display a Th1 profile (27, 28) and are cytotoxic against autologous tumor cells in vitro (27). Moreover, Wierecky et al. (29) recently reported that several cancer patients showed tumor regression following treatment with MUC1-pulsed dendritic cells, which correlated with the presence of MUC1 peptide-specific T cells in their peripheral blood.

A likely explanation for this finding is that negative selection in the thymus is incomplete, and that T cells with intermediate to low avidity for self escape into the periphery (30). These potentially self-reactive T cells presumably are kept under the control of regulatory T cells. Repetitive immunization, however, has been shown to induce activation/proliferation of self-reactive T cells in most (27) and tumor regression in a portion of cancer patients without overt signs of autoimmunity (29), apparently overriding reversible suppression by regulatory T cells. It remains, thus far, conjectural whether the limited success of current clinical trials based on active vaccination against MUC1 (29), CEA (31), and other TAA relates to their ectopic expression in mTECs. Following this line of reasoning, holes in tolerance induction may be selectively exploited by immunizing against cryptic epitopes of MUC1, thus recruiting T cells with high(er) avidity. Clearly, T cells, which are able to recognize Tn- or T-glycosylated peptides processed and presented by MHC class II molecules on antigen-presenting cells (32, 33), have been shown, and glycopeptide-specific T cells can be induced in man (34–37) as well as in experimental animal models (38, 39). Differential self-tolerance to a glycosylated versus nonglycosylated T cell epitope has been well documented in the case of collagen II. Only T cells specific for a glycosylated epitope of collagen II accumulate in inflamed joints and are pathogenic upon experimental immunization, whereas T cells specific for the nonglycosylated epitope do not cause pathology (40).

On the basis of our findings and those of others (41–43), a thorough analysis of glycosylation patterns, splice variants, and interindividual variability in expression levels of nonmutated TAA in mTECs is warranted (44). Such an analysis may provide criteria to select suitable antigens/epitopes among the growing list of potential candidates for clinical trials.

Mice expressing human neo–self-antigens as transgenes, including TAA, serve as experimental models to study tumorigenesis and tolerance mechanisms. In the context of immunotherapy studies, it is important to know whether the transgene directed by its own promotor faithfully reflects the physiologic expression pattern found in humans, including ectopic expression in mTECs. Hence, we analyzed mice transgenic for MUC1 directed by its own promotor (44) for thymic MUC1 expression using an anti-MUC1 mAb from each group that was used for the human thymi. MUC1 expression in these transgenic mice was comparable to that in human tissue (Supplementary Fig. S4), whereas wild-type control mice did not show any human MUC1 expression (Supplementary Fig. S4). Although previous studies agree that ectopic expression of MUC1 and CEA in these transgenic mice confers a state of tolerance, they differ with respect to the ease with which this tolerance can be broken (8, 45–47). In this respect, they might serve as a valid model for testing new experimental strategies of immunotherapy.

An unexpected finding of this study is the frequency of mTECs coexpressing both antigens (±15% or 0.7% of total mTECs), which is far above the value predicted, if both antigens were independently regulated (<0.1%). Given our current limited insight into the genetic and epigenetic regulation of promiscuous gene expression (26, 48), we can only speculate on this finding. Double expressing mTECs may represent a special subset mimicking the expression pattern of certain peripheral epithelial cells. Note, however, that MUC1 and CEA are rarely coexpressed in normal peripheral epithelial cells (49, 50), but frequently in cancerous cells, when antibodies to the highly glycosylated domain of MUC1 were used (51). Alternatively, molecular mechanisms specific to mTECs and unrelated to epithelial cell biology may favor the coactivation of the two gene loci on chromosome 1 and 19, which encode MUC1 and CEA, respectively. A more detailed analysis of the gene neighborhoods will be one route to further explore these issues.

In summary, our findings document that the two TAA, MUC1 and CEA, are expressed in human mTECs and are thus amenable to self-tolerance induction. However, the cryptic glycoepitopes of MUC1 are not present in the thymus and, thus, presumably exempt from central tolerance. Such intricacies in the pattern of promiscuous gene expression may, in the future, help to guide the selection of T cell epitopes for tumor vaccines.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: Financially supported by grants from the Dutch Cancer Foundation (2000-235) and the European Union (Cancer Immunotherapy QLK3-CT-2002_01980) (S. Cloosen, M. Thio, G. Bos, and W. Germeraad). Supported by the DKFZ (J. Arnold and B. Kyewski).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

We are indebted to Prof. S. Hagl and members of the Department of Cardiac Surgery (Medical School, University of Heidelberg, Germany) and Dr. G. Bennink (University Klinik of Cologne, Germany) for making human thymic tissue available, K. Hexel and M. Scheuermann for cell sorting, and G. Moldenhauer for providing antibodies, and Prof. Dr. W. van Ewijk (Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands) and Dr. B. Meek (University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands) for critical reading of the manuscript.


   Footnotes
 
Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Research Online (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

S. Cloosen and J. Arnold contributed equally to this study.

B. Kyewski and W. Germeraad share senior authorship.

3 J. Arnold, B. Kyewski, unpublished data. Back

Received 6/ 9/06. Revised 2/ 2/07. Accepted 2/ 8/07.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Banchereau J, Palucka AK. Dendritic cells as therapeutic vaccines against cancer. Nat Rev Immunol 2005;5:296–306.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Thumann P, Moc I, Humrich J, et al. Antigen loading of dendritic cells with whole tumor cell preparations. J Immunol Methods 2003;277:1–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Brossart P, Wirths S, Stuhler G, Reichardt VL, Kanz L, Brugger W. Induction of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses in vivo after vaccinations with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells. Blood 2000;96:3102–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. van Denderen J, ten Hacken P, Berendes P, et al. Recognition of the ALL-specific BCR-ABL junction in P190bcr-abl by monoclonal antibody ER-FP1. Leukemia 1994;8:1503–9.[Medline]
  5. Kruit WH, van Ojik HH, Brichard VG, et al. Phase 1/2 study of subcutaneous and intradermal immunization with a recombinant MAGE-3 protein in patients with detectable metastatic melanoma. Int J Cancer 2005;117:596–604.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Gotter J, Brors B, Hergenhahn M, Kyewski B. Medullary epithelial cells of the human thymus express a highly diverse selection of tissue-specific genes colocalized in chromosomal clusters. J Exp Med 2004;199:155–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Derbinski J, Schulte A, Kyewski B, Klein L. Promiscuous gene expression in medullary thymic epithelial cells mirrors the peripheral self. Nat Immunol 2001;2:1032–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Bos R, van Duikeren S, van Hall T, et al. Expression of a natural tumor antigen by thymic epithelial cells impairs the tumor-protective CD4+ T-cell repertoire. Cancer Res 2005;65:6443–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Allen S, Read S, DiPaolo R, et al. Promiscuous thymic expression of an autoantigen gene does not result in negative selection of pathogenic T cells. J Immunol 2005;175:5759–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Doyle HA, Mamula MJ. Posttranslational modifications of self-antigens. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2005;1050:1–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Anderton SM. Post-translational modifications of self antigens: implications for autoimmunity. Curr Opin Immunol 2004;16:753–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Wesseling J, van der Valk SW, Vos HL, Sonnenberg A, Hilkens J. Episialin (MUC1) overexpression inhibits integrin-mediated cell adhesion to extracellular matrix components. J Cell Biol 1995;129:255–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Kufe D, Inghirami G, Abe M, Hayes D, Justi-Wheeler H, Schlom J. Differential reactivity of a novel monoclonal antibody (DF3) with human malignant versus benign breast tumors. Hybridoma 1984;3:223–32.[Medline]
  14. Schol DJ, Meulenbroek MF, Snijdewint FG, et al. ‘Epitope fingerprinting’ using overlapping 20-mer peptides of the MUC1 tandem repeat sequence. Tumour Biol 1998;19 Suppl 1:35–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Burchell J, Gendler S, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, et al. Development and characterization of breast cancer reactive monoclonal antibodies directed to the core protein of the human milk mucin. Cancer Res 1987;47:5476–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Link T, Backstrom M, Graham R, et al. Bioprocess development for the production of a recombinant MUC1 fusion protein expressed by CHO-K1 cells in protein-free medium. J Biotechnol 2004;110:51–62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. van Leeuwen EBM, Cloosen S, Senden-Gijsbers BLMG, et al. Expression of aberrantly glycosylated tumor Mucin-1 on human dendritic cells after transduction with a fiber-modified adenoviral vector. Cytotherapy 2005;8:24–35.[CrossRef]
  18. Girling A, Bartkova J, Burchell J, Gendler S, Gillett C, Taylor-Papadimitriou J. A core protein epitope of the polymorphic epithelial mucin detected by the monoclonal antibody SM-3 is selectively exposed in a range of primary carcinomas. Int J Cancer 1989;43:1072–6.[Medline]
  19. Verstijnen CP, Arends JW, Moerkerk PT, Warnaar S, Hilgers J, Bosman FT. CEA-specificity of CEA-reactive monoclonal antibodies. Immunochemical and immunocytochemical studies. Anticancer Res 1986;6:97–104.[Medline]
  20. Moldenhauer G, Momburg F, Moller P, Schwartz R, Hammerling GJ. Epithelium-specific surface glycoprotein of Mr 34,000 is a widely distributed human carcinoma marker. Br J Cancer 1987;56:714–21.[Medline]
  21. Cloosen S, Thio M, Vanclee A, et al. Mucin-1 is expressed on dendritic cells, both in vitro and in vivo. Int Immunol 2004;16:1561–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Hale LP, Markert ML. Corticosteroids regulate epithelial cell differentiation and Hassall body formation in the human thymus. J Immunol 2004;172:617–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Kyewski B, Derbinski J. Self-representation in the thymus: an extended view. Nat Rev Immunol 2004;4:688–98.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Ho SB, Niehans GA, Lyftogt C, et al. Heterogeneity of mucin gene expression in normal and neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res 1993;53:641–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Reis CA, David L, Seixas M, Burchell J, Sobrinho-Simoes M. Expression of fully and under-glycosylated forms of MUC1 mucin in gastric carcinoma. Int J Cancer 1998;79:402–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Derbinski J, Gabler J, Brors B, et al. Promiscuous gene expression in thymic epithelial cells is regulated at multiple levels. J Exp Med 2005;202:33–45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Schmitz-Winnenthal FH, Volk C, Z'graggen K, et al. High frequencies of functional tumor-reactive T cells in bone marrow and blood of pancreatic cancer patients. Cancer Res 2005;65:10079–87.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Sommerfeldt N, Schutz F, Sohn C, Forster J, Schirrmacher V, Beckhove P. The shaping of a polyvalent and highly individual T-cell repertoire in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2006;66:8258–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Wierecky J, Muller MR, Wirths S, et al. Immunologic and clinical responses after vaccinations with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells in metastatic renal cancer patients. Cancer Res 2006;66:5910–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Zehn D, Bevan MJ. T cells with low avidity for a tissue-restricted antigen routinely evade central and peripheral tolerance and cause autoimmunity. Immunity 2006;25:261–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Liu KJ. Generation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-specific T-cell responses in HLA-A*0201 and HLA-A*2402 late-stage colorectal cancer patients after vaccination with dendritic cells loaded with CEA peptides. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:2645–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Galli-Stampino L, Meinjohanns E, Frische K, et al. T-cell recognition of tumor-associated carbohydrates: the nature of the glycan moiety plays a decisive role in determining glycopeptide immunogenicity. Cancer Res 1997;57:3214–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Hanisch FG, Schwientek T, Bergwelt-Baildon MS, Schultze JL, Finn O. O-linked glycans control glycoprotein processing by antigen-presenting cells: a biochemical approach to the molecular aspects of MUC1 processing by dendritic cells. Eur J Immunol 2003;33:3242–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Jensen T, Hansen P, Galli-Stampino L, et al. Carbohydrate and peptide specificity of MHC class II–restricted T cell hybridomas raised against an O-glycosylated self peptide. J Immunol 1997;158:3769–78.[Abstract]
  35. Hiltbold EM, Alter MD, Ciborowski P, Finn OJ. Presentation of MUC1 tumor antigen by class I MHC and CTL function correlate with the glycosylation state of the protein taken up by dendritic cells. Cell Immunol 1999;194:143–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Vlad AM, Finn OJ. Glycoprotein tumor antigens for immunotherapy of breast cancer. Breast Dis 2004;20:73–9.[Medline]
  37. Noto H, Takahashi T, Makiguchi Y, Hayashi T, Hinoda Y, Imai K. Cytotoxic T lymphocytes derived from bone marrow mononuclear cells of multiple myeloma patients recognize an underglycosylated form of MUC1 mucin. Int Immunol 1997;9:791–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Xu Y, Gendler SJ, Franco A. Designer glycopeptides for cytotoxic T cell-based elimination of carcinomas. J Exp Med 2004;199:707–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Stepensky D, Tzehoval E, Vadai E, Eisenbach L. O-glycosylated versus non-glycosylated MUC1-derived peptides as potential targets for cytotoxic immunotherapy of carcinoma. Clin Exp Immunol 2006;143:139–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Backlund J, Carlsen S, Hoger T, et al. Predominant selection of T cells specific for the glycosylated collagen type II epitope (263–270) in humanized transgenic mice and in rheumatoid arthritis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:9960–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Nissim A, Winyard PG, Corrigall V, et al. Generation of neoantigenic epitopes after posttranslational modification of type II collagen by factors present within the inflamed joint. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3829–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Van den Steen PE, Proost P, Brand DD, Kang AH, van Damme J, Opdenakker G. Generation of glycosylated remnant epitopes from human collagen type II by gelatinase B. Biochemistry 2004;43:10809–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Ng B, Yang F, Huston DP, et al. Increased noncanonical splicing of autoantigen transcripts provides the structural basis for expression of untolerized epitopes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:1463–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Rowse GJ, Tempero RM, VanLith ML, Hollingsworth MA, Gendler SJ. Tolerance and immunity to MUC1 in a human MUC1 transgenic murine model. Cancer Res 1998;58:315–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Tanaka Y, Koido S, Chen D, Gendler SJ, Kufe D, Gong J. Vaccination with allogeneic dendritic cells fused to carcinoma cells induces antitumor immunity in MUC1 transgenic mice. Clin Immunol 2001;101:192–200.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Soares MM, Mehta V, Finn OJ. Three different vaccines based on the 140-amino acid MUC1 peptide with seven tandemly repeated tumor-specific epitopes elicit distinct immune effector mechanisms in wild-type versus MUC1-transgenic mice with different potential for tumor rejection. J Immunol 2001;166:6555–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Saha A, Chatterjee SK, Foon KA, et al. Dendritic cells pulsed with an anti-idiotype antibody mimicking carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) can reverse immunological tolerance to CEA and induce antitumor immunity in CEA transgenic mice. Cancer Res 2004;64:4995–5003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Kyewski B, Klein L. A central role for central tolerance. Annu Rev Immunol 2006;24:571–606.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Zotter S, Hageman PC, Lossnitzer A, Mooi WJ, Hilgers J. Tissue and tumor distribution of human polymorphic epithelial mucin. Cancer Rev 1988;11–12:55–101.
  50. Scholzel S, Zimmermann W, Schwarzkopf G, Grunert F, Rogaczewski B, Thompson J. Carcinoembryonic antigen family members CEACAM6 and CEACAM7 are differentially expressed in normal tissues and oppositely deregulated in hyperplastic colorectal polyps and early adenomas. Am J Pathol 2000;156:595–605.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Mitas M, Mikhitarian K, Walters C, et al. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR detection of breast cancer micrometastasis using a multigene marker panel. Int J Cancer 2001;93:162–71.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. R. Parkhurst, J. Joo, J. P. Riley, Z. Yu, Y. Li, P. F. Robbins, and S. A. Rosenberg
Characterization of Genetically Modified T-Cell Receptors that Recognize the CEA:691-699 Peptide in the Context of HLA-A2.1 on Human Colorectal Cancer Cells
Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2009; 15(1): 169 - 180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
E. Tassi, F. Gavazzi, L. Albarello, V. Senyukov, R. Longhi, P. Dellabona, C. Doglioni, M. Braga, V. Di Carlo, and M. P. Protti
Carcinoembryonic Antigen-Specific but Not Antiviral CD4+ T Cell Immunity Is Impaired in Pancreatic Carcinoma Patients
J. Immunol., November 1, 2008; 181(9): 6595 - 6603.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
E. Kondo, B. Maecker, M. R. Weihrauch, C. Wickenhauser, W. Zeng, L. M. Nadler, J. L. Schultze, and M. S. von Bergwelt-Baildon
Cyclin D1-Specific Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes Are Present in the Repertoire of Cancer Patients: Implications for Cancer Immunotherapy
Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2008; 14(20): 6574 - 6579.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. Derbinski, S. Pinto, S. Rosch, K. Hexel, and B. Kyewski
Promiscuous gene expression patterns in single medullary thymic epithelial cells argue for a stochastic mechanism
PNAS, January 15, 2008; 105(2): 657 - 662.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cloosen, S.
Right arrow Articles by Germeraad, W. T.V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cloosen, S.
Right arrow Articles by Germeraad, W. T.V.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online