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

An interesting thing about carp is that they can go into anoxic hibernation and switch to an anaerobic metabolism based on converting glycogen to ethanol.

The waste ethanol is diffused out the gills

https://t.co/V3D1umHf04

Carp can switch over to an anaerobic metabolism and quietly exhale booze until the situation gets better.

They basically evolved the same metabolic pathway as yeast, independently.

In theory, if you spent a few thousand years breeding carp for it, you could use them to make booze.

They'd be enormous, almost entirely glycogen deposits with a fish added as an afterthought.

The really interesting thing about anaerobic carp, is that they can go 4-5 months without oxygen by relying on liver glycogen.

You, a human, have only about 100 grams of glycogen in your liver, about 400 more grams in your skeletal muscles. Call it 500 grams total.

In humans, glycogen is also burned for energy. This is where the marathon runner's bonk comes from: you only have about 2,000 calories worth, and running a marathon burns those 2,000 calories.
"The new answer to a 77-year-old problem"

😭


https://t.co/hm9NoaU4nr


https://t.co/8fKDiKjSWc


https://t.co/jkaicC1F2x


https://t.co/PpxWT4Jef4
Ever since @JesseJenkins and colleagues work on a zero carbon US and this work by @DrChrisClack and colleagues on incorporating DER, I've been having the following set of thoughts about how to reduce the risk of failure in a US clean energy buildout. Bottom line is much more DER.


Typically, when we see zero-carbon electricity coupled to electrification of transport and buildings, implicitly standing behind that is totally unprecedented buildout of the transmission system. The team from Princeton's modeling work has this in spades for example.

But that, more even than the new generation required, runs straight into a thicket/woodchipper of environmental laws and public objections that currently (and for the last 50y) limit new transmission in the US. We built most transmission prior to the advent of environmental law.

So what these studies are really (implicitly) saying is that NEPA, CEQA, ESA, §404 permitting, eminent domain law, etc, - and the public and democratic objections that drive them - will have to change in order to accommodate the necessary transmission buildout.

I live in a D supermajority state that has, for at least the last 20 years, been in the midst of a housing crisis that creates punishing impacts for people's lives in the here-and-now and is arguably mostly caused by the same issues that create the transmission bottlenecks.

You May Also Like