Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group

NIH Considers Guidelines for CAR-T therapy: Report from Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED 5/10/2022

In the mid to late 1970’s a public debate (and related hysteria) had emerged surrounding two emerging advances in recombinant DNA technology;

1. the development of vectors useful for cloning pieces of DNA (the first vector named pBR322) and
2. the discovery of bacterial strains useful in propagating such vectors

As discussed by D. S, Fredrickson of NIH’s Dept. of Education and Welfare in his historical review” A HISTORY OF THE RECOMBINANT DNA GUIDELINES IN THE UNITED STATES” this international concern of the biological safety issues of this new molecular biology tool led the National Institute of Health to coordinate a committee (the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee) to develop guidelines for the ethical use, safe development, and safe handling of such vectors and host bacterium. The first conversations started in 1974 and, by 1978, initial guidelines had been developed. In fact, as Dr. Fredrickson notes, public relief was voiced even by religious organizations (who had the greatest ethical concerns)

On December 16, 1978, a telegram purporting to be from the Vatican was hand delivered to the office of Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education,

and Welfare. “Habemus regimen recombinatum,” it proclaimed, in celebration of the

end of a long struggle to revise the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving

Recombinant DNA Molecules

The overall Committee resulted in guidelines (2013 version) which assured the worldwide community that

• organisms used in such procedures would have limited pathogenicity in humans
• vectors would be developed in a manner which would eliminate their ability to replicate in humans and have defined antibiotic sensitivity

So great was the success and acceptance of this committee and guidelines, the NIH felt the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee should meet regularly to discuss and develop ethical guidelines and clinical regulations concerning DNA-based therapeutics and technologies.

A PowerPoint Slideshow: Introduction to NIH OBA and the History of Recombinant DNA Oversight can be viewed at the following link:

http://www.powershow.com/view1/e1703-ZDc1Z/Introduction_to_NIH_OBA_and_the_History_of_Recombinant_DNA_Oversight_powerpoint_ppt_presentation

Please see the following link for a video discussion between Dr. Paul Berg, who pioneered DNA recombinant technology, and Dr. James Watson (Commemorating 50 Years of DNA Science):

http://media.hhmi.org/interviews/berg_watson.html

The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee has met numerous times to discuss new DNA-based technologies and their biosafety and clinical implication including:

• January 24, 2013 Biosafety Considerations for Research with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus H5N1 that is Transmissible between Mammals by Respiratory Droplets

• 2012 Discussion of Gene Transfer Protocols

• 2008 Guidelines for HIV Vaccination Protocols Appendix M-VI-A of the NIH Guidelines (the “Vaccine Exemption”)

• 2006 Guidance on Biosafety Considerations for Research with Lentiviral Vectors

A recent Symposium was held in the summer of 2010 to discuss ethical and safety concerns and discuss potential clinical guidelines for use of an emerging immunotherapy technology, the Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells (CART), which at that time had just been started to be used in clinical trials.

Considerations for the Clinical Application of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells: Observations from a Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Symposium Held June 15, 2010[1]

Contributors to the Symposium discussing opinions regarding CAR-T protocol design included some of the prominent members in the field including:

Drs. Hildegund C.J. Ertl, John Zaia, Steven A. Rosenberg, Carl H. June, Gianpietro Dotti, Jeffrey Kahn, Laurence J. N. Cooper, Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, And Scott E. Strome.

The discussions from the Symposium, reported in Cancer Research[1]. were presented in three parts:

1. Summary of the Evolution of the CAR therapy
2. Points for Future Consideration including adverse event reporting
3. Considerations for Design and Implementation of Trials including mitigating toxicities and risks

1. Evolution of Chimeric Antigen Receptors

Early evidence had suggested that adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, after depletion of circulating lymphocytes, could result in a clinical response in some tumor patients however developments showed autologous T-cells (obtained from same patient) could be engineered to express tumor-associated antigens (TAA) and replace the TILS in the clinical setting.

However there were some problems noticed.

• Problem: HLA restriction of T-cells. Solution: genetically engineer T-cells to redirect T-cell specificity to surface TAAs
• Problem: 1^st generation vectors designed to engineer T-cells to recognize surface epitopes but engineered cells had limited survival in patients.   Solution: development of 2^nd generation vectors with co-stimulatory molecules such as CD28, CD19 to improve survival and proliferation in patients

A summary table of limitations of the two types of genetically-modified T-cell therapies were given and given (in modified form) below

                                                                                                Type of Gene-modified T-Cell

A brief history of construction of 2^nd and 3^rd generation CAR-T cells given by cancer.gov:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/research-updates/2013/CAR-T-Cells

Differences between  second- and third-generation chimeric antigen receptor T cells. (Adapted by permission from the American Association for Cancer Research: Lee, DW et al. The Future Is Now: Chimeric Antigen Receptors as New Targeted Therapies for Childhood Cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 2012;18(10); 2780–90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1920)

Constructing a CAR T Cell (from cancer.gov)

The first efforts to engineer T cells to be used as a cancer treatment began in the early 1990s. Since then, researchers have learned how to produce T cells that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that recognize specific targets on cancer cells.

The T cells are genetically modified to produce these receptors. To do this, researchers use viral vectors that are stripped of their ability to cause illness but that retain the capacity to integrate into cells’ DNA to deliver the genetic material needed to produce the T-cell receptors.

The second- and third-generation CARs typically consist of a piece of monoclonal antibody, called a single-chain variable fragment (scFv), that resides on the outside of the T-cell membrane and is linked to stimulatory molecules (Co-stim 1 and Co-stim 2) inside the T cell. The scFv portion guides the cell to its target antigen. Once the T cell binds to its target antigen, the stimulatory molecules provide the necessary signals for the T cell to become fully active. In this fully active state, the T cells can more effectively proliferate and attack cancer cells.

2. Adverse Event Reporting and Protocol Considerations

The symposium had been organized mainly in response to two reported deaths of patients enrolled in a CART trial, so that clinical investigators could discuss and formulate best practices for the proper conduct and analysis of such trials. One issue raised was lack of pharmacovigilence procedures (adverse event reporting). Although no pharmacovigilence procedures (either intra or inter-institutional) were devised from meeting proceedings, it was stressed that each institution should address this issue as well as better clinical outcome reporting.

Case Report of a Serious Adverse Event Following the Administration of T Cells Transduced With a Chimeric Antigen Receptor Recognizing ERBB2[2] had reported the death of a patient on trial.

In A phase I clinical trial of adoptive transfer of folate receptor-alpha redirected autologous T cells for recurrent ovarian cancer[3] authors: Lana E Kandalaft^*, Daniel J Powell and George Coukos from University of Pennsylvania recorded adverse events in pilot studies using a CART modified to recognize the folate receptor, so it appears any adverse event reporting system is at the discretion of the primary investigator.

Other protocol considerations suggested by the symposium attendants included:

• Plan for translational clinical lab for routine blood analysis
• Subject screening for pulmonary and cardiac events
• Determine possibility of insertional mutagenesis
• Informed consent
• Analysis of non T and T-cell subsets, e.g. natural killer cells and CD*8 cells

3. Consideration for Design of Trials and Mitigating Toxicities

• Early Toxic effects– Cytokine Release Syndrome– The effectiveness of CART therapy has been manifested by release of high levels of cytokines resulting in fever and inflammatory sequelae. One such cytokine, interleukin 6, has been attributed to this side effect and investigators have successfully used an IL6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab (Acterma™), to alleviate symptoms of cytokine release syndrome (see review Adoptive T-cell therapy: adverse events and safety switches by Siok-Keen Tey).

Below is a video form Dr. Renier Brentjens, M.D., Ph.D. for Memorial Sloan Kettering concerning the finding he made that the adverse event from cytokine release syndrome may be a function of the tumor cell load, and if they treat the patient with CAR-T right after salvage chemotherapy the adverse events are alleviated..

Please see video below:

http link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gg6elUMIVE

• Early Toxic effects – Over-activation of CAR T-cells; mitigation by dose escalation strategy (as authors in reference [3] proposed). Most trials give billions of genetically modified cells to a patient.
• Late Toxic Effects – long-term depletion of B-cells . For example CART directing against CD19 or CD20 on B cells may deplete the normal population of CD19 or CD20 B-cells over time; possibly managed by IgG supplementation

Below is a curation of various examples of the need for developing a Pharmacovigilence Framework for Engineered T-Cell Therapies

As shown above the first reported side effects from engineered T-cell or CAR-T therapies stemmed from the first human trial occuring at University of Pennsylvania, the developers of the first CAR-T therapy.  The clinical investigators however anticipated the issue of a potential cytokine storm and had developed ideas in the pre-trial phase of how to ameliorate such toxicity using anti-cytokine antibodies.  However, until the trial was underway they were unsure of which cytokines would be prominent in causing a cytokine storm effect from the CAR-T therapy.  Fortunately, the investigators were able to save patient 1 (described here in other posts) using anti-IL1 and 10 antibodies.  

Over the years, however, multiple trials had to be discontinued as shown below in the following posts:

What does this mean for Immunotherapy? FDA put a temporary hold on Juno’s JCAR015, Three Death of Celebral Edema in CAR-T Clinical Trial and Kite Pharma announced Phase II portion of its CAR-T ZUMA-1 trial

The NIH has put a crimp in the clinical trial work of Steven Rosenberg, Kite Pharma’s star collaborator at the National Cancer Institute. The feds slammed the brakes on the production of experimental drugs at two of its facilities–including cell therapies that Rosenberg works with–after an internal inspection found they weren’t in compliance with safety and quality regulations.

In this instance Kite was being cited for manufacturing issues, apparantly fungal contamination in their cell therapy manufacturing facility.  However shortly after other CAR-T developers were having tragic deaths in their initial phase 1 safety studies.

Juno Halts Cancer Trial Using Gene-Altered Cells After 3 Deaths

Juno halts its immunotherapy trial for cancer after three patient deaths

By DAMIAN GARDE @damiangarde and MEGHANA KESHAVAN @megkesh

JULY 7, 2016

In Juno patient deaths, echoes seen of earlier failed company

By SHARON BEGLEY @sxbegle

JULY 8, 2016

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/08/juno-echoes-of-dendreon/

After a deadly clinical trial, will immune therapies for cancer be a bust?

By DAMIAN GARDE @damiangarde

JULY 8, 2016

This led to warnings by FDA and alteration of their trials as well as the use of their CART as a monotherapy

Well That Was Quick! FDA Lets Juno Restart Trial With a New Combination Chemotherapuetic

FDA lets Juno restart cancer-treatment trial

Certainly with so many issues there would seem to be more rigorous work to either establish a pharmacovigilence framework or to develop alternative engineered T cells with a safer profile

However here we went again

New paper sheds fresh light on Tmunity’s high-profile CAR-T deaths
Jason Mast
Editor
The industry-wide effort to push CAR-T therapies — wildly effective in several blood cancers — into solid tumors took a hit last year when Tmunity, a biotech founded by CAR-T pioneer Carl June and backed by several blue-chip VCs, announced it shut down its lead program for prostate cancer after two patients died.

On a personal note this trial was announced in a Bio International meeting here in Philadelphia a few years ago in 2019

see Live Conference Coverage on this site

eProceedings for BIO 2019 International Convention, June 3-6, 2019 Philadelphia Convention Center; Philadelphia PA, Real Time Coverage by Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

and the indication was for prostate cancer, in particular hormone resistant castration resistant.  Another one was planned for pancreatic cancer from the same group and the early indications were favorable.

Below is the referenced paper from Pubmed:

However Genentech (subsidiary of Roche) may now be using some data to develop therapies which may combat resistance to CART therapies which may provide at least, for now, a toxicokinetic approach to reducing AEs by lowering the amount of CARTs needed to be administered.

Source: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/genentech-uncovers-how-cancer-cells-resist-t-cell-attack-potential-boon-immunotherapy

Resisting attack by repairing the damage

Membrane repair in target cell defenses

Killer T cells destroy virus-infected and cancer cells by secreting two protein toxins that act as a powerful one-two punch. Pore-forming toxins, perforins, form holes in the plasma membrane of the target cell. Cytotoxic proteins released by T cells then pass through these portals, inducing target cell death. Ritter et al. combined high-resolution imaging data with functional analysis to demonstrate that tumor-derived cells fight back (see the Perspective by Andrews). Protein complexes of the ESCRT family were able to repair perforin holes in target cells, thereby delaying or preventing T cell–induced killing. ESCRT-mediated membrane repair may thus provide a mechanism of resistance to immune attack. —SMH

Abstract

Cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and natural killer cells kill virus-infected and tumor cells through the polarized release of perforin and granzymes. Perforin is a pore-forming toxin that creates a lesion in the plasma membrane of the target cell through which granzymes enter the cytosol and initiate apoptosis. Endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRT) proteins are involved in the repair of small membrane wounds. We found that ESCRT proteins were precisely recruited in target cells to sites of CTL engagement immediately after perforin release. Inhibition of ESCRT machinery in cancer-derived cells enhanced their susceptibility to CTL-mediated killing. Thus, repair of perforin pores by ESCRT machinery limits granzyme entry into the cytosol, potentially enabling target cells to resist cytolytic attack.

Cytotoxic lymphocytes, including cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and natural killer (NK) cells, are responsible for identifying and destroying virus-infected or tumorigenic cells. To kill their targets, CTLs and NK cells secrete a pore-forming toxin called perforin through which apoptosis-inducing serine proteases (granzymes) are delivered directly into the cytosol. Successful killing of target cells often requires multiple hits from single or multiple T cells (1). This has led to the idea that cytotoxicity is additive, often requiring multiple rounds of sublethal lytic granule secretion events before a sufficient threshold of cytosolic granzyme activity is reached to initiate apoptosis in the target (2).

Loss of plasma membrane integrity induced by cytolytic proteins or mechanical damage leads to a membrane repair response. Damage results in an influx of extracellular Ca²⁺, which has been proposed to lead to the removal of the membrane lesion by endocytosis, resealing of the lesions by lysosomal secretion, or budding into extracellular vesicles (3). Perforin pore formation was initially reported to enhance endocytosis of perforin (4), but subsequent work has challenged this claim (5). Endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRT) proteins can repair small wounds and pores in the plasma membrane caused by bacterial pore-forming toxins, mechanical wounding, and laser ablation (6, 7). ESCRT proteins are transiently recruited to sites of membrane damage in a Ca²⁺-dependent fashion, where they assemble budding structures that shed to eliminate the wound and restore plasma membrane integrity. ESCRT-dependent membrane repair has been implicated in the resealing of endogenous pore-mediated plasma membrane damage during necroptosis (8) and pyroptosis (9).

Localization of target-derived ESCRT proteins to the cytolytic synapse

To investigate whether ESCRT-mediated membrane repair might be involved in the removal of perforin pores during T cell killing, we first determined whether ESCRT proteins in cancer-derived cells were recruited to sites of CTL engagement after perforin secretion. We used CTLs from OT-I mice that express a high-affinity T cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes the ovalbumin peptide SIINFEKL (OVA_257-264) bound to the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) allele H-2Kb (10). We performed live-cell microscopy of OT-I CTLs engaging SIINFEKL-pulsed target cells that express enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP)–tagged versions of Tsg101 or Chmp4b, two ESCRT proteins implicated in membrane repair (6). To correlate recruitment of ESCRT proteins with perforin exposure in time, we monitored CTL-target interaction in media with a high concentration of propidium iodide (PI), a cell-impermeable fluorogenic dye that can rapidly diffuse through perforin pores to bind and illuminate nucleic acids in the cytosol and nucleus of the target (5). EGFP-tagged ESCRT proteins were consistently recruited to the site of CTL engagement within 30 to 60 s after PI influx (Fig. 1, A and B). EGFP-Tsg101 and EGFP-Chmp4b in target cells accumulated at the cytolytic synapse after PI influx in 25 of 27 (92.6%) and 31 of 33 (93.9%) of conjugates monitored, respectively, compared with a cytosolic EGFP control, which was not recruited (Fig. 1C and movies S1 to S3). Notably, ESCRT-laden material, presumably membrane fragments, frequently detached from the target cell and adhered to the surface of the CTL (Fig. 1, D and E, and movie S2). We observed this phenomenon in ~60% of conjugates imaged in which targets expressed EGFP-Tsg101 or EGFP-Chmp4b (17 of 27 and 20 of 33 conjugates, respectively; Fig. 1D). Shedding of ESCRT-positive membrane from the cell after repair occurs after laser-induced plasma membrane wounding (6, 7). Plasma membrane fragments shed from the target cell into the synaptic cleft likely contain ligands for CTL-resident receptors. Target cell death would separate the CTL and target, revealing target-derived material on the CTL surface.

OPEN IN VIEWER

3D cryo-SIM and FIB-SEM imaging of CTLs caught in the act of killing target cells

Although live-cell imaging indicated that ESCRT complexes were rapidly recruited at sites of T cell–target cell contact, light microscopy alone is of insufficient resolution to establish that this event occurred at the immunological synapse (IS). We thus sought to capture a comprehensive view of the IS in the moments immediately after secretion of lytic granules. We used cryo–fluorescence imaging followed by correlative focused ion beam–scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM), which can achieve isotropic three-dimensional (3D) imaging of whole cells at 8-nm resolution or better (11–13). To capture the immediate response of target cells after perforin exposure, we developed a strategy whereby cryo-fixed CTL-target conjugates were selected shortly after perforation, indicated by the presence of a PI gradient in the target (fig. S1A). In live-cell imaging experiments, PI fluorescence across the nucleus of SIINFEKL-pulsed ID8 target cells began as a gradient and became homogeneous 158 ± 64 s, on average, after initial PI influx (N = 31 conjugates; fig. S1, B and C, and movie S4). Thus, fixed CTL-target conjugates that exhibited a gradient of PI across the nucleus would have been captured within ~3 min of perforin exposure.

Coverslips of CTL-target conjugates underwent high-pressure freezing and were subsequently imaged with wide-field cryogenic fluorescence microscopy followed by 3D cryo–structured illumination microscopy (3D cryo-SIM) performed in a customized optical cryostat (14). We selected candidate conjugates for FIB-SEM imaging on the basis of whether a gradient of PI fluorescence was observed across the nucleus of the target emanating from an attached CTL (movie S5). FIB-SEM imaging of the CTL-target conjugate at 8-nm isotropic voxels resulted in a stack of >10,000 individual electron microscopy (EM) images. The image stack was then annotated using a human-assisted machine learning–computer vision platform to segment the plasma membranes of each cell along with cell nuclei and various organelles (https://ariadne.ai/).

We captured four isotropic 3D 8-nm-resolution EM datasets of CTLs killing cancer cells moments after the secretion of lytic granule contents (Fig. 2A and movie S6). Semiautomated segmentation of the cell membranes, nuclei, lytic granules, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, and centrosomes of the T cells allow for easier visualization and analysis of the 3D EM data. All FIB-SEM datasets and segmentations can be explored online at https://openorganelle.janelia.org (see links in the supplementary materials). Reconstructed views of the segmented data clearly demonstrate the polarization of the centrosome, Golgi apparatus, and lytic granules to the IS—all of which are hallmarks of CTL killing [Fig. 2A, i to iii, and movie S6, time stamp (TS) 1:33] (15, 16). On the target cell side, we noted cytoplasmic alterations consistent with cell damage including enhanced electron density of mitochondria adjacent to the IS (fig. S2A). Close visual scanning of the postsynaptic target cell membrane in the raw EM data failed to reveal obvious perforin pores, which have diameters (16 to 22 nm) close to the limit of resolution for this technique (17).

OPEN IN VIEWER

The segmentation of the two cells illustrates the detailed topography of the plasma membrane of the CTL and target at the IS (fig. S2B). The raw EM and segmentation data reveal a dense accumulation of particles, vesicles, and multilamellar membranous materials, which crowd the synaptic cleft between the CTL and the target (Fig. 2B and movie S6, TS 0:40 to 0:50). The source of this intercellular material (IM) was likely in part the lytic granules because close inspection revealed similar particles and dense vesicles located within as-yet-unreleased granules (fig. S2C). To determine whether some of the membranous material within the intercellular space might also have been derived from the target cell, we examined the surface topology of the postsynaptic target cell. We noted multiple tubular and bud-like protrusions of the target cell membrane that extended into the synaptic space; thus, at least some of the membrane structures observed were still in continuity with the target cell (Fig. 2C and movie S6, TS 0:58 to 1:11). ESCRT proteins have been shown to generate budding structures in the context of plasma membrane repair (6), which led us to next assess where target-derived ESCRT proteins are distributed in the context of the postsecretion IS.

To map the localization of target-derived ESCRT proteins onto a high-resolution landscape of the IS, we captured three FIB-SEM datasets that have associated 3D cryo-SIM fluorescence data for mEmerald-Chmp4b localization (Fig. 3A, fig. S3, and movie S7). This correlative light and electron microscopy (CLEM) revealed that mEmerald-Chmp4b expressed in the target cell was specifically recruited to the target plasma membrane opposite the secreted IM (Fig. 3, B and C). The topography of the plasma membrane at the site of ESCRT recruitment was markedly convoluted, exhibiting many bud-like projections (movie S7, TS 0:37 to 0:40). mEmerald-Chmp4b fluorescence also overlapped with some vesicular structures in the intercellular synaptic space (Fig. 3C). Together, the live-cell imaging and the 3D cryo-SIM and FIB-SEM CLEM demonstrate the localization of ESCRT proteins at the synapse that was the definitive site of CTL killing and was thus spatially and temporally correlated to perforin secretion. These data implicate the ESCRT complex in the repair of perforin pores.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Function of ESCRT proteins in repair of perforin pores

We next investigated whether ESCRT inhibition could enhance the susceptibility of target cells to CTL-mediated killing. Prolonged inactivation of the ESCRT pathway is itself cytotoxic (9). We thus developed strategies to ablate ESCRT function that would allow us a window of time to assess CTL killing (fig. S4). We used two approaches to block ESCRT function: CRISPR knockout of the Chmp4b gene or overexpression of VPS4a^E228Q (E228Q, Glu²²⁸ → Gln), a dominant-negative kinase allele that impairs ESCRT function (fig. S4, A to C) (10). We took care to complete our assessment of target killing well in advance of spontaneous target cell death (fig. S4D).

We tested the capacity of OT-I CTLs to kill targets presenting one of four previously characterized peptides that demonstrate a range of potencies at stimulating the OT-I TCR: SIINFEKL (N4), the cognate peptide, and three separate variants (in order of highest to lowest affinity), SIITFEKL (T4), SIIQFEHL (Q4H7), and SIIGFEKL (G4) (18, 19). Target cells were pulsed with peptide, washed, transferred to 96-well plates, and allowed to adhere before the addition of OT-I CTLs. Killing was assessed by monitoring the uptake of a fluorogenic caspase 3/7 indicator (Fig. 4, A to D, and fig. S5A). Killing was significantly more efficient in ESCRT-inhibited target cells for both CRISPR depletion of Chmp4b (Fig. 4, A to C) and expression of the dominant-negative VPS4a^E228Q (Fig. 4D). The difference in killing between the ESCRT-inhibited and control cells was greater when the lower-potency T4, Q4H7, and G4 peptides were used. Nevertheless, ESCRT inhibition moderately improved killing efficiency even in the case of the high-potency SIINFEKL peptide. ESCRT inhibition had no effect on MHC class I expression on the surface of target cells (fig. S5B). Thus, ESCRT inhibition could sensitize target cells to perforin- and granzyme-mediated killing, especially at physiologically relevant TCR-peptide MHC affinities.

OPEN IN VIEWER

We next directly tested the effects of ESCRT inhibition when target cells were exposed to both recombinant perforin (Prf) and granzyme B (GZMB), the most potently proapoptotic granzyme in humans and mice (20). Prf alone at high concentrations can lyse cells (4), so we first determined a sublytic Prf concentration that would temporarily permeabilize the plasma membrane but permit the cells to recover. B16-F10 cells expressing either VPS4a^WT (WT, wild-type) or VPS4a^E228Q were exposed to a range of Prf concentrations in the presence of PI, and cell viability and PI uptake were assessed using flow cytometry. Cells that expressed dominant-negative VPS4a^E228Q were more sensitive to Prf alone than ESCRT-competent cells (Fig. 4, E and F). At 160 ng/ml Prf, there was no significant difference in cell viability for either condition. Cells in the live gate that were PI+ had been permeabilized by Prf but recovered. Although the percentage of PI+ live cells was similar under both sets of conditions, the mean fluorescence intensity of PI was higher in live ESCRT-inhibited cells (fig. S6). A delay in plasma membrane resealing could account for this difference.

We reasoned that delaying perforin pore repair might also enhance GZMB uptake into the target. ESCRT-inhibited cells were more sensitive to combined perforin-GZMB when cell death was measured by Annexin V staining (Fig. 4, G and H). Similar results were observed when these experiments were repeated with a murine lymphoma cancer cell line (fig. S7). The observation that ESCRT-inhibited target cells are more sensitive to both CTL-secreted and Prf-GZMB supports the hypothesis that the ESCRT pathway contributes to membrane repair after Prf exposure.

Escaping cell death is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Our findings suggest that ESCRT-mediated membrane repair of perforin pores may restrict accessibility of the target cytosol to CTL-secreted granzyme, thus promoting survival of cancer-derived cells under cytolytic attack. Although other factors may contribute to setting the threshold for target susceptibility to killing, the role of active repair of perforin pores must now be considered as a clear contributing factor.

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the Mellman laboratory for advice, discussion, and reagents; B. Haley for assistance with plasmid construct design; the Genentech FACS Core Facility for technical assistance; S. Van Engelenburg of Denver University for invaluable discussions and guidance; A. Wanner, S. Spaar, and the Ariande AI AG (https://ariadne.ai/) for assistance with FIB-SEM segmentation, CLEM coregistration, data presentation, and rendering; D. Bennett of the Janelia Research Campus for assisting with data upload to https://openorganelle.janelia.org; and the Genentech Postdoctoral Program for support.

Funding: A.T.R. and I.M. are funded by Genentech/Roche. C.S.X., G.S., A.W., D.A., N.I., and H.F.H. are funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

Please look for a Followup Post concerning “Developing a Pharmacovigilence Framework for Engineered T-Cell Therapies”

References

1. Ertl HC, Zaia J, Rosenberg SA, June CH, Dotti G, Kahn J, Cooper LJ, Corrigan-Curay J, Strome SE: Considerations for the clinical application of chimeric antigen receptor T cells: observations from a recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Symposium held June 15, 2010. Cancer research 2011, 71(9):3175-3181.
2. Morgan RA, Yang JC, Kitano M, Dudley ME, Laurencot CM, Rosenberg SA: Case report of a serious adverse event following the administration of T cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor recognizing ERBB2. Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 2010, 18(4):843-851.
3. Kandalaft LE, Powell DJ, Jr., Coukos G: A phase I clinical trial of adoptive transfer of folate receptor-alpha redirected autologous T cells for recurrent ovarian cancer. Journal of translational medicine 2012, 10:157.

Other posts on this site on Immunotherapy and Cancer include

Report on Cancer Immunotherapy Market & Clinical Pipeline Insight

New Immunotherapy Could Fight a Range of Cancers

Combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 immunotherapy shows promising results against advanced melanoma

Molecular Profiling in Cancer Immunotherapy: Debraj GuhaThakurta, PhD

Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy

$20 million Novartis deal with ‘University of Pennsylvania’ to develop Ultra-Personalized Cancer Immunotherapy

Upcoming Meetings on Cancer Immunogenetics

Tang Prize for 2014: Immunity and Cancer

ipilimumab, a Drug that blocks CTLA-4 Freeing T cells to Attack Tumors @DM Anderson Cancer Center

Juno’s approach eradicated cancer cells in 10 of 12 leukemia patients, indicating potential to transform the standard of care in oncology