Cancer Research SABCS  Telomeres
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
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

Published online first on May 12, 2009
[Cancer Research, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3160]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Online First [PDF])
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0008-5472.CAN-08-3160v1
69/10/4327    most recent
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stark, F. C.
Right arrow Articles by Krishnan, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stark, F. C.
Right arrow Articles by Krishnan, L.

Immunology

Intracellular Bacterial Vectors That Induce CD8+ T Cells with Similar Cytolytic Abilities but Disparate Memory Phenotypes Provide Contrasting Tumor Protection

Felicity C. Stark 1, Subash Sad 1, 2, and Lakshmi Krishnan 1, 2*

1Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, University of Ottawa and 2National Research Council-Institute for Biological Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Lakshmi.Krishnan{at}nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.


   Abstract

Induction of a functional CD8+ T-cell response is the important criterion for cancer vaccines, and it is unclear whether acute or chronic live vectors are better suited for cancer antigen delivery. We have evaluated the tumor protective ability of two recombinant vectors, Listeria monocytogenes (LM) and Salmonella typhimurium (ST), both expressing ovalbumin (OVA). Although both vectors induced a similar OVA-specific CD8+ T-cell response in the long term, LM-OVA induced mainly central-phenotype (TCM, CD44highCD62Lhigh), whereas ST-OVA induced mainly effector-phenotype (TEM, CD44highCD62Llow) cells. Both vectors induced functional OVA-specific CD8+ T cells that expressed IFN-{gamma} and killed targets specifically in vivo. However, only LM-OVA–vaccinated mice were protected against B16-OVA tumors. This correlated to the ability of CD8+ T cells generated against LM-OVA, but not against ST-OVA, to produce interleukin 2 and exhibit profound homeostatic and antigen-induced proliferation in vivo. Furthermore, adoptive transfer of memory CD8+ T cells generated against LM-OVA (but not against ST-OVA) into recipient mice resulted in their trafficking to tumor-draining lymph nodes conferring protection. Although cytotoxicity and IFN-{gamma} production are considered to be the principal functions of memory CD8+ T cells, the vaccine delivery strategy may also influence memory CD8+ T-cell quality, and ability to proliferate and traffic to tumors. Thus, for efficacy, cancer vaccines should be selected for their ability to induce self-renewing memory CD8+ T cells (CD44highIL-7R{alpha}highCD62Lhigh) besides their effector functions. [Cancer Res 2009;69(10):4327–34]

Key Words: T cells, cytotoxic, cancer, melanoma, memory, vaccination







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
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
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association for Cancer Research.