With @franklowery our new study on attributes of T cells that contribute to successful cell therapy in cancer patients in @ScienceMagazine today w/ colleagues @slgoff_SB, @NCI_CCR_SB @theNCI a TL;DR thread on key findings with caveats :) 1/10

@NCI_CCR_SB has a long history of using tumor infiltrating T cells (TILs) to treat cancers since well.. before I was even born. We analyzed our most successful melanoma ACT trial for cell surface phenotypes in TIL infusion products of patients (aPD1/immunotherapy naive) /2
Surprisingly we found a CD39- TIL subset (CD39-CD69-, DN) associated with ACT-response. TBH we were expecting the opposite (CD39+). We only included CD39 bcz multiple groups (e.g. Simoni et al, 2018) had reported CD39+ as enriching for anti-tumor/neoantigen reactive T cells. /3
CD39- DN TILs RNA/epigenetics resemble stem-like memory progenitors, and in vitro were able to self-renew, and give rise to other CD39+ subsets. OTOH the most dominant subset of patient infusion products were CD39+ CD69+ (DP) and these guys were terminally differentiated.. /4
So, to clarify we specifically analyzed tumor-specific mutation-reactive Tcells. Turns out, ACT-responders had pool of neoantigen-reactive TILs in the CD39- phenotype, while non-responders did not (despite other irrelevant CD39- Tcells) -> not all CD39- T cells are bystanders /5
But previous studies aren’t wrong! Even in responders, we find most neoantigen-reactive TILs are CD39+CD69+ (DP). So, we find the same and agree: CD39 does enrich for mutation reactivity. The nuance is those T cells don’t seem to contribute to response at least in this cohort. /6
In this subgroup, we found no differences btwn resp. vs nonresp. in total # of neoag-specific TILs infused or CD39+ neoag TILs infused. By single cell tracking of mutation-reactive TCRs in patient blood, we found DN TCRs tended to persist longer than DP (they crash faster!). /7
We confirmed this in NYESO-TCR responder by tracking TCR clones over 5yrs! and in Pmel mouse model. In sum: we think stem-like T cells causing ACT response are different from TIL subsets enriched with tumor-reactivity. Recent ICB studies suggest this too (e.g. Kurtulus et al) /8
Caveats: Unsure if neog stem-like Tcells true in other tumor, immuno/cell therapy. We study TIL infusions -> probly diffnt from ex vivo TIL. We can’t comment on PRs/SDs (excluded). In 3 CRs, TIL-infusion was exclusively CD39+DP term diff. Tcells: so.. what’s happening there..? /9
These and many more questions to answer. This is the first in hopefully a series of studies we @NCI_CCR_SB have ongoing with respect to TIL phenotypes, so stay tuned :/ Finally, big thanks to my mentors Steve Rosenberg and Paul Robbins. ~fin

More from Science

https://t.co/hXlo8qgkD0
Look like that they got a classical case of PCR Cross-Contamination.
They had 2 fabricated samples (SRX9714436 and SRX9714921) on the same PCR run. Alongside with Lung07. They did not perform metagenomic sequencing on the “feces” and they did not get


A positive oral or anal swab from anywhere in their sampling. Feces came from anus and if these were positive the anal swabs must also be positive. Clearly it got there after the NA have been extracted and were from the very low-level degraded RNA which were mutagenized from

The Taq.
https://t.co/yKXCgiT29w to see SRX9714921 and SRX9714436.
Human+Mouse in the positive SRA, human in both of them. Seeing human+mouse in identical proportions across 3 different sequencers (PRJNA573298, A22, SEX9714436) are pretty straight indication that the originals

Were already contaminated with Human and mouse from the very beginning, and that this contamination is due to dishonesty in the sample handling process which prescribe a spiking of samples in ACE2-HEK293T/A549, VERO E6 and Human lung xenograft mouse.

The “lineages” they claimed to have found aren’t mutational lineages at all—all the mutations they see on these sequences were unique to that specific sequence, and are the result of RNA degradation and from the Taq polymerase errors accumulated from the nested PCR process

You May Also Like

12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4. @DillikiBiili

Share for the benefit of everyone.

Here are the setups from @Pathik_Trader Sir first.

1. Open Drive (Intraday Setup explained)


Bactesting results of Open Drive


2. Two Price Action setups to get good long side trade for intraday.

1. PDC Acts as Support
2. PDH Acts as


Example of PDC/PDH Setup given