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

"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

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.