Extrinsic regulation of unwanted immune responses
The unwanted immune responses that occur in autoimmune disease, transplant rejection,
and allergy present slightly different problems, and the approach to developing
effective treatment is correspondingly different for each. We have already discussed
the treatment of allergy in Chapter
12: the problems in this case are due to the production of IgE, and the goals
are, accordingly, to treat the adverse consequences of an IgE response, or to induce
the production of IgG instead of IgE against the allergenic antigens. In autoimmune
disease and graft rejection the problem is an immune response to tissue antigens,
and the goal is to downregulate the response to avoid damage to the tissues or
disruption of their function. From the point of view of management, the single most
important difference between allograft rejection and autoimmunity is that allografts
are a deliberate surgical intervention and the immune response to them can be
foreseen, whereas autoimmune responses are not detected until they are already
established. Effective treatment of an established immune response is much harder to
achieve than prevention of a response before it has had a chance to develop, and
autoimmune diseases are generally harder to control than a de novo
immune response to an allograft. The relative difficulty of suppressing established
immune responses is seen in animal models of autoimmunity, in which methods able to
prevent the induction of autoimmune disease generally fail to halt established
disease.
Current treatments for immunological disorders are nearly all empirical in origin,
using immunosuppressive drugs identified by screening large numbers of natural and
synthetic compounds. The drugs currently used to suppress the immune system can be
divided into three categories: first, powerful anti-inflammatory drugs of the
corticosteroid family such as prednisone; second, cytotoxic drugs such as
azathioprine and cyclophosphamide; and third, fungal and bacterial derivatives, such
as cyclosporin A, FK506 (tacrolimus), and rapamycin (sirolimus), which inhibit
signaling events within T lymphocytes. These drugs are all very broad in their
actions and inhibit protective functions of the immune system as well as harmful
ones. Opportunistic infection is therefore a common complication of
immuno-suppressive drug therapy. The ideal immunosuppressive agent would be one that
targets the specific part of the adaptive immune response that causes tissue injury.
Paradoxically, antibodies themselves, by virtue of their exquisite specificity,
might offer the best possibility for the therapeutic inhibition of specific immune
responses. We will also consider experimental approaches to controlling specific
immune responses by manipulating the local cytokine environment or by manipulating
antigen so as to divert the response from a pathogenic pathway to an innocuous one.
We have discussed in Chapters 12 and
13 how the pathological responses
that cause allergy, autoimmunity, or graft rejection can be prevented by innocuous,
nonpathological T-cell responses.
14-1. Corticosteroids are powerful anti-inflammatory drugs that alter the
transcription of many genes
Figure 14.1
.
The structure of the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drug
prednisone
Prednisone is a synthetic analogue of the natural
adrenocorticosteroid cortisol. Introduction of the 1,2 double bond
into the A ring increases anti-inflammatory potency approximately
fourfold compared with cortisol, without modifying the
sodium-retaining activity of the compound.
Figure 14.2
.
Mechanism of steroid action
Corticosteroids are lipid-soluble molecules that enter cells by
diffusing across the plasma membrane and bind to their receptors in
the cytosol. Binding of corticosteroid to the receptor displaces a
dimer of a heat-shock protein named Hsp90, exposing the DNA-binding
region of the receptor. The steroid:receptor complex then enters the
nucleus and binds to specific DNA sequences in the promoter regions
of steroid-responsive genes. Corticosteroids exert their numerous
effects by modulating the transcription of a wide variety of
genes.
Corticosteroid drugs are powerful anti-inflammatory agents that are used widely
to suppress the harmful effects of
immune responses of autoimmune or allergic
origin, as well as those induced by
graft rejection.
Corticosteroids are pharmacological derivatives of
members of the glucocorticoid family of steroid hormones; one of the most widely
used is prednisone, which is a
synthetic analogue of cortisol (). Cortisol acts through intracellular receptors that are
expressed in almost every cell of the body. On binding hormone, these receptors
regulate the transcription of specific genes, as illustrated in .
The expression of as many as 1% of genes in the genome may be regulated by
glucocorticoids, which can either induce or, less commonly, suppress the
transcription of responsive genes. The pharmacological effects of corticosteroid
drugs result from exposure of the glucocorticoid receptors to supraphysiological
concentrations of ligand. The abnormally high level of ligation of
glucocorticoid receptors causes exaggerated glucocorticoid-mediated responses,
which have both beneficial and toxic effects.
Figure 14.3
.
Anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroid therapy
Corticosteroids regulate the expression of many genes, with a net
anti-inflammatory effect. First, they reduce the production of
inflammatory mediators, including cytokines, prostaglandins, and
nitric oxide. Second, they inhibit inflammatory cell migration to
sites of inflammation by inhibiting the expression of adhesion
molecules. Third, corticosteroids promote the death by apoptosis of
leukocytes and lymphocytes.
Given the large number of genes regulated by corticosteroids and that different
genes are regulated in different tissues, it is hardly surprising that the
effects of steroid therapy are very complex. The beneficial effects are
antiinflammatory and are summarized in ; however, there are also many adverse effects, including fluid
retention, weight gain, diabetes, bone mineral loss, and thinning of the skin.
The use of corticosteroids to control disease requires a careful balance between
helping the patient by reducing the inflammatory manifestations of disease and
avoiding harm from the toxic side-effects of the drug. For this reason,
corticosteroids used in transplant
recipients and to treat inflammatory
autoimmune and allergic disease are often administered in combination with other
drugs in an effort to keep the dose and toxic effects to a minimum. In
autoimmunity and
allograft rejection, corticosteroids are commonly combined with
cytotoxic
immunosuppressive drugs.
14-2. Cytotoxic drugs cause immunosuppression by killing dividing cells and have
serious side-effects
Figure 14.4
.
The structure and metabolism of the cytotoxic immunosuppressive
drugs azathioprine and cyclophosphamide
Azathioprine was developed as a modification of the anti-cancer drug
6-mercaptopurine; by blocking the reactive thiol group, the
metabolism of this drug is slowed down. It is slowly converted
in vivo to 6-mercaptopurine, which is then
metabolized to 6-thio-inosinic acid, which blocks the pathway of
purine bio-synthesis. Cyclopho-sphamide was similarly developed as a
stable pro-drug, which is activated enzymatically in the body to
phosphoramide mustard, a powerful and unstable DNA-alkylating
agent.
The two cytotoxic drugs most commonly used as immunosuppressants are azathioprine and cyclophosphamide (). Both interfere with DNA
synthesis and have their major pharmacological action on dividing tissues. They
were developed originally to treat cancer and, after observations that they were
cytotoxic to dividing
lymphocytes, were found to be immunosuppressive as well.
The use of these compounds is limited by a range of toxic effects on tissues
that have in common the property of continuous cell division. These effects
include decreased immune function, as well as anemia, leukopenia,
thrombocytopenia, damage to intestinal epithelium, hair loss, and fetal death or
injury. As a result of their toxicity, these drugs are used at high doses only
when the aim is to eliminate all dividing
lymphocytes, and in these cases
treated patients require subsequent
bone marrow transplantation to restore their
hematopoietic function. They are used at lower doses, and in combination with
other drugs such as corticosteroids, to treat unwanted
immune responses.
Azathioprine is converted in vivo to a purine antagonist that
interferes with the synthesis of nucleic acids and is toxic to dividing cells.
It is metabolized to 6-thioinosinic acid, which competes with inosine
monophosphate, thereby blocking the synthesis of adenosine monophosphate and
guanosine monophosphate and thus inhibiting DNA synthesis. It is less toxic than
cyclophosphamide, which is metabolized to phosphoramide mustard, which alkylates
DNA. Cyclophosphamide is a member of the nitrogen mustard family of compounds,
which were originally developed as chemical weapons. With this pedigree goes a
range of highly toxic effects including inflammation of and hemorrhage from the
bladder, known as hemorrhagic cystitis, and induction of bladder neoplasia.
14-3. Cyclosporin A, FK506 (tacrolimus), and rapamycin (sirolimus) are powerful
immunosuppressive agents that interfere with T-cell signaling
There are now relatively nontoxic alternatives to the cytotoxic class of drugs
that can be used for immunosuppression in transplant patients. The systematic
study of products from bacteria and fungi has led to the development of a large
number of important medicines including the two immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporin A and FK506 or tacrolimus, which are now widely used to treat transplant
recipients. Cyclosporin A is a cyclic decapeptide derived from a soil fungus
from Norway, Tolypocladium inflatum. FK506, now known as
tacrolimus, is a macrolide compound from the filamentous bacterium
Streptomyces tsukabaensis found in Japan; macrolides are
compounds that contain a many-membered lactone ring to which is attached one or
more deoxy sugars. Another Streptomyces macrolide, called rapamycin or sirolimus, is being evaluated in
clinical studies and is also likely to become important in the prevention of
transplant rejection; rapamycin is derived from Streptomyces
hygroscopicus, found on Easter Island (‘Rapa ui’ in
Polynesian—hence the name of the drug). All three compounds exert their
pharmacological effects by binding to members of a family of intracellular
proteins known as the immunophilins, forming complexes that interfere with
signaling pathways important for the clonal expansion of lymphocytes (see Chapter 6).
Figure 14.5
.
Cyclosporin A and tacrolimus inhibit lymphocyte and some
granulocyte responses
Cyclosporin A and tacrolimus block T-cell proliferation by inhibiting the
phosphatase activity of a Ca
2+-activated enzyme called
calcineurin at nanomolar
concentrations. Their mechanism of action, which we will discuss further in the
next section, revealed a role for
calcineurin in transmitting signals from the
T-cell receptor to the nucleus. Both drugs reduce the expression of several
cytokine genes that are normally induced on T-cell activation (). These include interleukin
(
IL)-2, whose synthesis by
T lymphocytes is an important growth signal for T
cells.
Cyclosporin A and tacrolimus inhibit T-cell proliferation in response to
either specific
antigens or
allogeneic cells and are used extensively in medical
practice to prevent the rejection of
allogeneic organ grafts. Although the major
immunosuppressive effects of both drugs are probably the result of inhibition of
T-cell proliferation, they also act on other cells and have a large variety of
other immunological effects (see ), some of which might turn out to be important
pharmacologically.
Cyclosporin A and tacrolimus are effective, but they are not problem-free. First,
as with the cytotoxic agents, they affect all immune responses indiscriminately.
The only way of controlling their immunosuppressive action is by varying the
dose; at the time of grafting, high doses are required but, once a graft is
established, the dose can be decreased to allow useful protective immune
responses while maintaining adequate suppression of the residual response to the
grafted tissue. This is a difficult balance that is not always achieved.
Furthermore, although T cells are particularly sensitive to the actions of these
drugs, their molecular targets are found in other cell types and therefore these
drugs have effects on many other tissues. Cyclosporin A and tacrolimus are both
toxic to kidneys and other organs. Finally, treatment with these drugs is
expensive because they are complex natural products that must be taken for
prolonged periods. Thus there is room for improvement in these compounds, and
better and less expensive analogues are being sought. Nevertheless, at present,
they are the drugs of choice in clinical transplantation, and they are also
being tested in a variety of autoimmune diseases, especially those that, like
graft rejection, are mediated by T cells.
14-4. Immunosuppressive drugs are valuable probes of intracellular signaling
pathways in lymphocytes
Figure 14.6
.
Cyclosporin A and tacrolimus inhibit T-cell activation by
interfering with the serine/threonine-specific phosphatase
calcineurin
Signaling via T-cell receptor-associated tyrosine kinases leads to
the activation and increased synthesis of the transcription factor
AP-1 and other partner proteins, as well as increasing the
concentration of Ca2+ in the cytoplasm (left panels). The
Ca2+ binds to calcineurin and thereby activates it to
dephosphorylate the cytoplasmic form of members of the family of
nuclear factors of activated T cells (NFATc). Once dephosphorylated,
the active NFATc family members migrate to the nucleus to form a
complex with AP-1 and other partner proteins; the NFATc:AP-1
complexes can then induce the transcription of genes required for
T-cell activation, including the IL-2 gene. When cyclosporin A (CsA)
or tacrolimus are present, they form complexes with their
immunophilin targets, cyclophilin (CyP) and FK-binding protein
(FKBP), respectively (right panels). The complex of cyclophilin with
cyclosporin A can bind to calcineurin and block its ability to
activate NFATc family members. The complex of tacrolimus with FKBP
binds to calcineurin at the same site, also blocking its
activity.
The mechanism of action of cyclosporin A and tacrolimus is now fairly well
understood. Each binds to a different group of immunophilins: cyclosporin A to
the cyclophilins, and tacrolimus to the FK-binding proteins (FKBP). These
immunophilins are peptidyl-prolyl
cis-trans isomerases but
their isomerase activity does not seem to be relevant to the immunosuppressive
activity of the drugs that bind them. Rather, the immunophilin:drug complexes
bind and inhibit the Ca
2+-activated serine/threonine phosphatase
calcineurin.
Calcineurin is activated in
T cells when intracellular calcium ion
levels rise after
T-cell receptor binding; on activation it dephosphorylates the
NFATc family of transcription factors in the cytoplasm, allowing them to migrate
to the nucleus, where they form complexes with nuclear partners including the
transcription factor AP-1, and induce transcription of genes including those for
IL-2,
CD40 ligand, and
Fas ligand (, and see
Sections 6-11
and
8-10). This pathway is inhibited by
cyclosporin A and tacrolimus, which thus inhibit the clonal expansion of
activated
T cells.
Calcineurin is found in other cells besides
T cells but at
higher levels;
T cells are therefore particularly susceptible to the inhibitory
effects of these drugs.
Rapamycin has a different mode of action from either cyclosporin A or tacrolimus.
Like tacrolimus, it binds to the FKBP family of immunophilins. However, the
rapamycin:immunophilin complex has no effect on calcineurin activity but,
instead, blocks the signal transduction pathway triggered by ligation of the
IL-2 receptor. Rapamycin also inhibits lymphocyte proliferation driven by IL-4
and IL-6, implying a common postreceptor pathway of signaling by these
cytokines. The rapamycin:immunophilin complex acts by binding to a protein
kinase named mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin; also known as FRAP, RAFT1, and
RAPT1). This kinase phosphorylates two downstream intracellular targets. The
first is another kinase, p70 S6 kinase, which in turn regulates the translation
of many proteins. The second is PHAS-1, a repressor of protein translation,
which is inhibited by phosphorylation mediated by mTOR. Both PHAS-1 and p70 S6
kinase appear to mediate the effects of rapamycin in lymphocytes. Because
rapamycin has different pharmacological activities from cyclosporin A and
tacrolimus, trials are being undertaken to see if combination therapy involving
rapamycin given together with either cyclosporin A or tacrolimus might provide
more effective and safer treatment than the use of just one of these drugs. The
rationale for such studies is that it may be possible to use lower amounts of
each drug when used in combination, compared with the amounts required for
treatment with a single agent. This might be a means of reducing unwanted
side-effects.
14-5. Antibodies against cell-surface molecules have been used to remove specific
lymphocyte subsets or to inhibit cell function
Cytotoxic drugs kill all proliferating cells and therefore indiscriminately
affect all types of activated lymphocyte and any other cell that is dividing.
Cyclosporin A, tacrolimus, and rapamycin are more selective, but still inhibit
most adaptive immune responses. In contrast, antibodies can interfere with
immune responses in a nontoxic and much more specific manner. The potential of
antibodies for removal of unwanted lymphocytes is demonstrated by anti-lymphocyte globulin, a
preparation of immunoglobulin from horses immunized with human lymphocytes,
which has been used for many years to treat acute graft rejection episodes.
Anti-lymphocyte globulin does not, however, discriminate between useful
lymphocytes and those responsible for unwanted responses. Moreover, horse
immunoglobulin is highly antigenic in humans and the large doses used in therapy
are often followed by the development of serum sickness, caused by the formation
of immune complexes of horse immunoglobulin and human anti-horse immunoglobulin
antibodies (see Chapter 12).
Nevertheless, anti-lymphocyte globulins are still in use to treat acute
rejection and have stimulated the quest for monoclonal antibodies to achieve
more specifically targeted effects.
Immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies act by one of two general mechanisms.
Some monoclonal antibodies trigger the destruction of lymphocytes in
vivo, and are referred to as depleting antibodies, whereas others
are nondepleting and act by blocking the function of their target protein
without killing the cell that bears it. IgG monoclonal antibodies that cause
lymphocyte depletion target these cells to macrophages and NK cells, which bear
Fc receptors and which respectively kill the lymphocytes by phagocytosis and
antibody-dependent cytotoxicity. Many antibodies are being tested for their
ability to inhibit allograft rejection and to modify the expression of
autoimmune disease. We will discuss some of these examples after looking at the
measures being taken to prepare monoclonal antibodies for therapy in humans.
14-6. Antibodies can be engineered to reduce their immunogenicity in humans
The major impediment to therapy with monoclonal antibodies in humans is that
these antibodies are most readily made by using mouse cells, and humans rapidly
develop antibody responses to mouse antibodies. This not only blocks the actions
of the mouse antibodies but leads to allergic reactions, and if treatment is
continued can result in anaphylaxis (see Section 12-10). Once this has happened, future treatment with any
mouse monoclonal antibody is ruled out. This problem can, in principle, be
avoided by making antibodies that are not recognized as foreign by the human
immune system, and three strategies are being explored for their construction.
One approach is to clone human V regions into a phage display library and select
for binding to human cells, as described in Appendix I (see Section
A-13). In this way, monoclonal antibodies that are entirely human in
origin can be obtained. Second, mice lacking endogenous immunoglobulin genes can
be made transgenic (see Appendix I, Section
A-46) for human immunoglobulin heavy- and light-chain loci by using
yeast artificial chromosomes. B cells in these mice have receptors encoded by
human immunoglobulin genes but are not tolerant to most human proteins. In these
mice, it is possible to induce human monoclonal antibodies against epitopes on
human cells or proteins.
Finally, one can graft the complementarity-determining regions (CDRs) of a mouse
monoclonal antibody, which form the antigen-binding loops, onto the framework of
a human immunoglobulin molecule, a process known as humanization. Because antigen-binding specificity is
determined by the structure of the CDRs (see Chapter 3), and because the overall frameworks of mouse
and human antibodies are so similar, this approach produces a monoclonal
antibody that is antigenically identical to human immunoglobulin but binds the
same antigen as the mouse monoclonal antibody from which the CDR sequences were
derived. These recombinant antibodies are far less immunogenic in humans than
the parent mouse monoclonal antibodies, and thus they can be used for the
treatment of humans with far less risk of anaphylaxis.
14-7. Monoclonal antibodies can be used to inhibit allograft rejection
Antibodies specific for various physiological targets have been used in attempts
to prevent the development of allograft rejection by inhibiting the development
of harmful inflammatory and cytotoxic responses. One approach is to perfuse the
organ before transplantation with antibodies that react with antigen-presenting
cells and thus target them for destruction within the mononuclear phagocytic
system. Depletion of antigen-presenting cells in the graft by this method is
effective at preventing allograft rejection in animal models, although there is
no convincing evidence that it is successful in humans. Antibodies have,
however, been used to treat episodes of graft rejection in humans. Anti-CD3
antibodies are moderately effective as an adjunct to immunosuppressive drugs in
the treatment of episodes of transplanted kidney rejection.
A further approach to inhibiting allograft rejection is the blockade of the
co-stimulatory signals needed to activate T cells that recognize donor antigens.
In animal studies of graft rejection, a fusion protein made from CTLA-4 and the
Fc portion of human immunoglobulin, which binds to both B7.1 and B7.2 (see Section 8-5), has allowed the long-term
survival of certain grafted tissues. Even more effective in a primate model of
renal allograft rejection was the use of a humanized monoclonal antibody against
the CD40 ligand (CD154), present on T cells (see Section 8-17). CD40 ligand binds to CD40, expressed on
dendritic and endothelial cells, stimulating these cells to secrete cytokines
such as IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12. The mechanism of the immunosuppressive effect of
anti-CD40 ligand antibody is not known, but it is most likely to be a
consequence of blocking the activation of dendritic cells by T helper cells
recognizing donor antigens.
Figure 14.7
.
A tissue graft given together with anti-CD4 antibody can induce
specific tolerance
Mice grafted with tissue from a genetically different mouse reject
that graft. Having been primed to respond to the antigens in the
graft, they then reject a subsequent graft of identical tissue more
rapidly (left panels). Mice injected with anti-CD4 antibody alone
can recover immune competence when the antibody disappears from the
circulation, as shown by a normal primary rejection of graft tissue
(center panels). However, when tissue is grafted and anti-CD4
antibody is administered at the same time, the primary rejection
response is markedly inhibited (right panels). An identical graft
made later in the absence of anti-CD4 antibody is not rejected,
showing that the animal has become tolerant to the graft antigen.
This tolerance can be transferred with T cells to naive recipients
(not shown).
Monoclonal antibodies against other targets have also had some success in
preventing
graft rejection in animals. Of particular interest are certain
nondepleting anti-
CD4 antibodies: when given for a short time during primary
exposure to grafted tissue, these lead to a state of tolerance in the
recipient
(). This tolerant state is
an example of the dominant immune suppression discussed in
Section 13-27. It is long-lived and can be transferred to
naive
recipients by
CD4 T cells producing cytokines typical of T
H2
cells, although
T cells producing other patterns of cytokines might also be
involved (see
Section 14-9). The
presence of anti-
CD4 antibody at the time of
transplantation might favor the
development of a nondamaging T
H2 response, rather than an
inflammatory T
H1 response, because of a reduced strength of
interaction between the graft cell
antigens and responding naive
T cells, as
discussed in
Section
10-7.
In human bone marrow transplantation, depleting antibodies directed at mature T
lymphocytes have proved particularly useful. Elimination of mature T lymphocytes
from donor bone marrow before infusion into a recipient is very effective at
reducing the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (see Section 13-21). In this disease, the T lymphocytes in the
donor bone marrow recognize the recipient as foreign and mount a damaging
alloreaction against the recipient, causing rashes, diarrhea, and pneumonia,
which is often fatal.
14-8. Antibodies can be used to alleviate and suppress autoimmune disease
Figure 14.8
.
Anti-inflammatory effects of anti-TNF-α therapy in rheumatoid
arthritis
The clinical course of 24 patients was followed for 4 weeks after
treatment with either a placebo or a monoclonal antibody against
TNF-α at a dose of 10 mg kg-1. The antibody therapy was
associated with a reduction in both subjective and objective
parameters of disease activity (as measured by pain score and
swollen-joint count, respectively) and in the systemic inflammatory
acute-phase response, measured as a fall in the concentration of the
acute-phase reactant C-reactive protein. Data courtesy of R.N.
Maini.
Autoimmune disease is detected only once the
autoimmune response has caused
tissue damage or has disturbed specific physiological functions. There are three
main approaches to treatment. First, anti-inflammatory therapy can reduce tissue
injury caused by an inflammatory
autoimmune response; second, immunosuppressive
therapy can be aimed at reducing the
autoimmune response; and third, treatment
can be directed specifically at compensating for the result of the damage. For
example, diabetes, which is induced by autoimmune attack on pancreatic β cells,
is treated by insulin replacement therapy. Anti-inflammatory therapy for
autoimmune disease includes the use of anti-cytokine antibodies; anti-
TNF-α
antibodies induce striking temporary remissions in rheumatoid arthritis (). Antibodies can also be used to
block cell migration to sites of inflammation; for example, anti-CD18 antibodies
prevent leukocytes adhering tightly to vascular endothelium and reduce
inflammation in animal models of disease.
Figure 14.9
.
Anti-MHC class II antibody can inhibit the development of
experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis
In mice with experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE),
macrophages process myelin basic protein (MBP) and present MBP
peptides to TH1 lymphocytes in conjunction with
co-stimulatory signals. Activated TH1 cells secrete
cytokines, which activate macrophages. The activated macrophages
can, in turn, injure the oligodendrocytes. Antibodies against MHC
class II molecules block this process by blocking the interaction
between TH1 cells and antigen-presenting macrophages.
The ultimate goal of immunotherapy for autoimmune disease is specific
intervention to restore tolerance to the relevant autoantigens. Two experimental
approaches are under investigation. The first aims at blocking the specific
response to autoantigen. One way to attempt this is to identify the clonally
restricted
T-cell receptors or immunoglobulin carried by the
lymphocytes that
cause disease, and to target these with antibodies directed against idiotypic
determinants on the relevant
antigen receptor. Another way is to identify
particular MHC class I or class II molecules responsible for presenting peptides
from autoantigens and to inhibit their
antigen-presenting function selectively
with antibodies or blocking peptides. This approach has been successful in some
animal models of autoimmunity, for example experimental autoimmune
encephalomyelitis (EAE) (), in
which it seems that a limited number of
clones of
T cells, responding to a
single peptide, might cause disease. However, autoimmune disease in humans and
most animal models is driven by a polyclonal response to autoantigens by T and B
lymphocytes. For this reason, immunotherapy based on the identification of
specific receptors carried by pathogenic
lymphocytes is unlikely to succeed.
Immunotherapy based on the identification of the particular
MHC molecules that
drive an
autoimmune response is more likely to be effective, but such therapy
would also inhibit some protective
immune responses.
14-9. Modulation of the pattern of cytokine expression by T lymphocytes can inhibit
autoimmune disease
The second approach to immunotherapy for autoimmune disease is to try to turn a
pathological autoimmune response into an innocuous one. This approach is being
pursued experimentally because, as we learned in Chapter 13, tolerance to tissue antigens does not always
depend on the absence of a T-cell response; instead, it can be actively
maintained by T cells secreting cytokines that suppress the development of a
harmful, inflammatory T-cell response. As the pattern of cytokines expressed by
T lymphocytes is critical in determining the perpetuation and expression of
autoimmune disease, the manipulation of cytokine expression offers a way of
controlling it. There are various techniques, collectively known as immune modulation, that can affect
cytokine expression by T lymphocytes. These involve manipulating the cytokine
environment in which T-cell activation takes place, or manipulating the way
antigen is presented, as these factors have been observed to influence the
differentiation and cytokine-secreting function of the activated T cells (see
Sections 8-13, 10-5, and 10-6).
As discussed in earlier chapters, CD4 T lymphocytes can be subdivided into two
major subsets, the TH1 cells, which secrete interferon (IFN)-γ, and
the TH2 cells, which secrete IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and transforming
growth factor (TGF)-β. In many cases, autoimmune disease is associated with the
activation of TH1 cells, which activate macrophages and drive an
inflammatory immune response. In animal models of experimentally induced
autoimmune disease, such as EAE, the relative activation of the TH1
and TH2 subsets of T lymphocytes can be manipulated to give either a
TH1 response and disease, or a TH2 response that
confers protection against disease. The preferential activation of
TH1 or TH2 cells can be achieved by direct manipulation of
the cytokine environment or by administering antigen by particular routes, for
example by feeding (see Section
14-10).
Recent evidence shows that patterns of cytokines secreted by T lymphocytes are
very complicated and that the TH1 and TH2 subdivision of T
lymphocytes is a considerable oversimplification. For example, CD4 T cells have
been identified that develop in a cytokine environment rich in IL-10, and in
turn secrete high levels of IL-10 and little IL-2 and IL-4. This pattern of
cytokine secretion has bystander effects on other T cells and suppresses
antigen-induced activation of other CD4 T lymphocytes. These cells have been
provisionally designated Tr1 cells (T regulatory cells 1).
Another subset of T cells with immunosuppressive bystander effects secretes TGF-β
as the dominant cytokine and has been designated TH3. Such cells
might be predominantly of mucosal origin and activated by the mucosal
presentation of antigen (see Section
14-10).
A further subset of T cells also seems to be implicated in immunoregulation.
These are the NK1.1+ CD4 T cells, so named because they bear the
receptor NK1.1, which is usually found on NK cells. NK1.1+ T cells,
which we discussed in Section 10-5,
recognize antigens, including lipid antigens, presented by the class I-like
molecule CD1 (see Section 5-18) and
respond by secreting IL-4. Thus, when stimulated, the NK1.1+ T cells
can act to promote TH2 responses. Although there is no direct
evidence that NK1.1+ T cells are involved in immunomodulation in
humans, in mice that suffer spontaneous autoimmune disease this population of
cells is either missing or decreased. Furthermore, transfer of NK1.1+
T cells into such mice prevents the onset of the autoimmune disease.
Immune modulation aims to alter the balance between different subsets of
responding T cells such that helpful responses are promoted and damaging
responses are suppressed. As a therapy for autoimmunity it has the advantage
that one might not need to know the precise nature of the autoantigen
stimulating the autoimmune disease. This is because the administration of
cytokines or antigen to modulate the immune response causes changes in the
pattern of cytokine expression that have bystander effects on lymphocytes with
the presumed autoreactive receptors. However, the drawback of this approach is
the unpredictability of the results. In murine models of diseases such as
diabetes and EAE, most of the results suggest that a TH2 response can
protect against TH1-mediated disease, but there is evidence that
TH2 lymphocytes can also contribute to the pathology of these
diseases.
An additional problem is the difficulty of modulating established immune
responses. Experiments in animals have shown that anti-cytokine antibodies (or
recombinant cytokines) present at the time of immunization with an autoantigen
can sometimes divert a pathogenic immune response. In contrast, the modification
of an ongoing immune response is much harder to achieve with this approach,
although there have been some examples of experimental success, as we will see
later.
14-10. Controlled administration of antigen can be used to manipulate the nature of
an antigen-specific response
When the target antigen of an unwanted response is identified, it is possible to
manipulate the response by using antigen directly rather than by using
antibodies or relying on the bystander effects discussed in the previous
section. This is because the way in which antigen is presented to the immune
system affects the nature of the response, and the induction of one type of
response to an antigen can inhibit a pathogenic response to the same
antigen.
As mentioned in Chapter 12, this
principle has been applied with some success to the treatment of allergies
caused by an IgE response to very low doses of antigen. Repeated treatment of
allergic individuals with higher doses of allergen seems to divert the allergic
response to one dominated by T cells that favor the production of IgG and IgA
antibodies. These antibodies are thought to desensitize the patient by binding
the small amounts of allergen normally encountered and preventing it from
binding to IgE.
With T cell-mediated autoimmune disease, there has been considerable interest in
using peptide antigens to suppress pathogenic responses. The type of CD4 T-cell
response induced by a peptide depends on the way in which it is presented to the
immune system. For instance, peptides given orally tend to prime TH2
T cells that make IL-4 or T cells that make predominantly TGF-β without
activating TH1 cells or inducing a great deal of systemic antibody.
These mucosal immune responses have relatively little pathogenic potential.
Indeed, experiments in animal models indicate that they can protect against
induced autoimmune disease. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis is induced
by injection of myelin basic protein in complete Freund's adjuvant and resembles
multiple sclerosis, whereas collagen arthritis is similarly induced by injection
of collagen type II and has features in common with rheumatoid arthritis. Oral
administration of myelin basic protein or type II collagen inhibits the
development of disease in animals (see Fig.
13.34), and has some beneficial effects in reducing the activity of
preestablished disease. Trials using this approach in humans with multiple
sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis have found marginal therapeutic effects.
Intravenous delivery of peptides can also inhibit inflammatory responses
stimulated by the same peptide presented in a different context. When a soluble
peptide is given intravenously, it binds preferentially to MHC class II
molecules on resting B cells and tends to induce anergy in TH1 cells.
Thus, a careful choice of the dose or structure of antigen, or its route of
administration, can allow us to control the type of response that results.
Whether such approaches can be effective in manipulating the established immune
responses driving human autoimmune diseases remains to be seen.
Summary
Existing treatments for unwanted immune responses, such as allergic reactions,
autoimmunity, and graft rejection, depend largely on three types of drug.
Anti-inflammatory drugs, of which the most potent are the corticosteroids, are
used for all three types of response. These have a broad spectrum of actions,
however, and a correspondingly wide range of toxic side-effects; their dose must
be controlled carefully. They are therefore normally used in combination with
either cytotoxic or immunosuppressive drugs. The cytotoxic drugs kill all
dividing cells and thereby prevent lymphocyte proliferation, but they suppress
all immune responses indiscriminately and also kill other types of dividing
cells. The immunosuppressive drugs act by intervening in the intracellular
signaling pathways of T cells. They are less generally toxic than the cytotoxic
drugs, but they also suppress all immune responses indiscriminately. They are
also much more expensive than cytotoxic drugs.
Immunosuppressive drugs are now the drugs of choice in the treatment of
transplant patients, where they can be used to suppress the immune response to
the graft before it has become established. Autoimmune responses are already
well established at the time of diagnosis and, in consequence, are much more
difficult to suppress. They are therefore less responsive to the
immunosuppressive drugs and, for that reason, they are usually controlled with a
combination of corticosteroids and cytotoxic drugs. In animal experiments,
attempts have been made to target immunosuppression more specifically, by
blocking the response to autoantigen with the use of antibodies or antigenic
peptides, or by diverting the immune response into a nonpathogenic pathway by
manipulating the cytokine environment, or by administering antigen through the
oral route where a nonpathogenic immune response is likely to be invoked. None
of these treatments is yet proven in humans, and most require that the relevant
antigen be known. For that reason, and because they are relatively ineffective
against established immune responses, the promise of these approaches in animal
models might be difficult to realize in a clinical context.
Using the immune response to attack tumors
Cancer is one of the three leading causes of death in industrialized nations. As
treatments for infectious diseases and the prevention of cardiovascular disease
continue to improve, and the average life expectancy increases, cancer is likely to
become the most common fatal disease in these countries. Cancers are caused by the
progressive growth of the progeny of a single transformed cell. Therefore, curing
cancer requires that all the malignant cells be removed or destroyed without killing
the patient. An attractive way to achieve this would be to induce an immune response
against the tumor that would discriminate between the cells of the tumor and their
normal cell counterparts. Immunological approaches to the treatment of cancer have
been attempted for over a century, with tantalizing but unsustainable results.
Experiments in animals have, however, provided evidence for immune responses to
tumors and have shown that T cells are a critical mediator of tumor immunity. More
recently, advances in our understanding of antigen presentation and the molecules
involved in T-cell activation have provided new immunotherapeutic strategies based
on a better molecular understanding of the immune response. These are showing some
success in animal models and are now being tested in human patients.
14-11. The development of transplantable tumors in mice led to the discovery that
mice could mount a protective immune response against tumors
The finding that tumors could be induced in mice after treatment with chemical
carcinogens or irradiation, coupled with the development of inbred strains of
mice, made it possible to undertake the key experiments that led to the
discovery of immune responses to tumors. These tumors could be transplanted
between mice, and the experimental study of tumor rejection has generally been
based on the use of such tumors. If these bear MHC molecules foreign to the mice
into which they are transplanted, the tumor cells are readily recognized and
destroyed by the immune system, a fact that was exploited to develop the first
MHC-congenic strains of mice. Specific immunity to tumors must therefore be
studied within inbred strains, so that host and tumor can be matched for their
MHC type.
Transplantable tumors in mice exhibit a variable pattern of growth when injected
into syngeneic recipients. Most tumors grow progressively and eventually kill
the host. However, if mice are injected with irradiated tumor cells that cannot
grow, they are frequently protected against subsequent injection with a normally
lethal dose of viable cells of the same tumor. There seems to be a spectrum of
immunogenicity among transplantable tumors: injections of irradiated tumor cells
seem to induce varying degrees of protective immunity against a challenge
injection of viable tumor cells at a distant site. These protective effects are
not seen in T-cell deficient mice but can be conferred by adoptive transfer of T
cells from immune mice, showing the need for T cells to mediate all these
effects.
Figure 14.10
.
Tumor rejection antigens are specific to individual
tumors
Mice immunized with an irradiated tumor and challenged with viable
cells of the same tumor can, in some cases, reject a lethal dose of
that tumor (left panels). This is the result of an immune response
to tumor rejection antigens. If the immunized mice are challenged
with viable cells of a different tumor, there is no protection and
the mice die (right panels).
These observations indicate that the tumors express antigenic peptides that can
become targets of a tumor-specific T-cell response. The
antigens expressed by
experimentally induced murine tumors, often termed
tumor-specific transplantation antigens
(
TSTAs), or
tumor rejection antigens
(
TRAs), are usually specific for an individual tumor. Thus
immunization with irradiated tumor cells from tumor X protects a syngeneic mouse
from challenge with live cells from tumor X but not from challenge with a
different syngeneic tumor Y, and vice versa ().
14-12. T lymphocytes can recognize specific antigens on human tumors
Figure 14.11
.
Proteins selectively expressed in human tumors are candidate
tumor rejection antigens
The molecules listed here have all been shown to be recognized by
cytotoxic T lymphocytes raised from patients with the tumor type
listed.
Figure 14.12
.
Tumor rejection antigens may arise by point mutations in self
proteins, which occur during the process of oncogenesis
In some cases a point mutation in a self protein may allow a new
peptide to associate with MHC class I molecules (lower left panel).
In other cases, a point mutation occurring within a self peptide
that can bind self MHC proteins causes the expression of a new
epitope for T-cell binding (lower right panel). In both cases, these
mutated peptides will not have induced tolerance by the clonal
deletion of developing T cells and can be recognized by mature T
cells.
Tumor rejection
antigens are peptides of tumor-cell proteins that are presented
to
T cells by
MHC molecules. These peptides can become the targets of a
tumor-specific T-cell response because they are not displayed on the surface of
normal cells, at least not at levels sufficient to be recognized by
T cells. Six
different categories of tumor rejection
antigens can be distinguished and
examples of each of these are given in . The first category consists of
antigens that are strictly
tumor specific. These
antigens are the result of point mutations or gene
rearrangements, which often arise as part of the process of oncogenesis. Point
mutations may evoke a T-cell response either by allowing
de
novo binding of a peptide to MHC class I molecules or by creating a
new
epitope for
T cells by modification of a peptide that already binds class I
molecules (). A special class
of tumor-specific
antigen in the case of B- and T-cell tumors, which are derived
from single
clones of
lymphocytes, are the idiotypic sequences unique to the
antigen receptor expressed by the
clone.
Figure 14.13
.
Tumor rejection antigens are peptides of cell proteins presented
by self MHC class I molecules
This figure shows two ways in which tumor rejection antigens may
arise from unmutated proteins. In some cases, proteins that are
normally expressed only in male germ cell tissues are reexpressed by
the tumor cells (lower left panel). As these proteins are normally
expressed only during germ cell development, and in cells lacking
MHC antigens, T cells are not tolerant of these self antigens and
can respond to them as though they were foreign proteins. In other
tumors, over-expression of a self protein increases the density of
presentation of a normal self peptide on tumor cells (lower right
panel). Such peptides are then presented at high enough levels to be
recognized by T cells. It is often the case that the same germ cell
or self proteins are overexpressed in many tumors of a given tissue
origin, giving rise to shared tumor rejection antigens.
The second category comprises proteins encoded by genes that are normally
expressed only in male germ cells, which do not express
MHC molecules and
therefore cannot present peptides from these molecules to
T lymphocytes. Tumor
cells show widespread abnormalities of gene expression, including the activation
of these genes and thus the presentation of these proteins to
T cells; hence,
these proteins are effectively tumor specific in their expression as
antigens
().
The third category of tumor rejection
antigen is comprised of differentiation
antigens encoded by genes that are only expressed in particular types of tissue.
The best examples of these are the differentiation
antigens expressed in
melanocytes and melanoma cells; a number of these
antigens are proteins involved
in the pathways of production of the black pigment, melanin. The fourth category
is comprised of
antigens that are strongly overexpressed in tumor cells compared
with their normal counterparts (see ). An example is HER-2/neu (also known as c-Erb-2), which is a
receptor
tyrosine kinase homologous to the epidermal growth factor receptor.
This receptor is overexpressed in many adenocarcinomas, including breast and
ovarian cancers, where it is linked with a poor prognosis. MHC class
I-restricted,
CD8-positive cytotoxic
T lymphocytes have been found infiltrating
solid tumors overexpressing HER-2/neu but are not capable of destroying such
tumors
in vivo. The fifth category of tumor rejection
antigens
is comprised of molecules that display abnormal posttranslational modifications.
An example is underglycosylated mucin, MUC-1, which is expressed by a number of
tumors, including breast and pancreatic cancers.
Proteins encoded by viral oncogenes comprise the sixth category of tumor
rejection antigen. These oncoviral proteins are viral proteins that may play a
critical role in the oncogenic process and, because they are foreign, they can
evoke a T-cell response. Examples of such proteins are the human papilloma type
16 virus proteins, E6 and E7, which are expressed in cervical carcinoma.
Although each of these categories of tumor rejection antigen may evoke an
anti-tumor response in vitro and in vivo, it
is exceptional for such a response to be able to spontaneously eliminate an
established tumor. It is the goal of tumor immunotherapy to harness and augment
such responses to treat cancer more effectively. In this respect, the
spontaneous remission occasionally observed in cases of malignant melanoma and
renal cell carcinoma, even when disease is quite advanced, offers hope that this
goal is achievable.
In melanoma, tumor-specific antigens were discovered by culturing irradiated
tumor cells with autologous lymphocytes, a reaction known as the mixed
lymphocyte-tumor cell culture. From such cultures, cytotoxic T lymphocytes could
be identified that would kill, in an MHC-restricted fashion, tumor cells bearing
the relevant tumor-specific antigen. Melanomas have been studied in detail using
this approach. Cytotoxic T cells reactive against melanoma peptides have been
cloned and used to characterize melanomas by the array of tumor-specific
antigens displayed. These studies have yielded three important findings. The
first is that melanomas carry at least five different antigens that can be
recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. The second is that cytotoxic T
lymphocytes reactive against melanoma antigens are not expanded in
vivo, suggesting that these antigens are not immunogenic in
vivo. The third is that the expression of these antigens can be
selected against in vitro and possibly also in
vivo by the presence of specific cytotoxic T cells. These
discoveries offer hope for tumor immunotherapy, an indication that these
antigens are not naturally strongly immunogenic, and also a caution about the
possibility of selecting, in vivo, tumor cells that can escape
recognition and killing by cytotoxic T cells.
Consistent with these findings, functional melanoma-specific
T cells can be
propagated from peripheral blood
lymphocytes, from tumor-infiltrating
lymphocytes, or by draining the lymph nodes of patients in whom the melanoma is
growing. Interestingly, none of the peptides recognized by these
T cells derives
from the mutant proto-oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes that are likely to be
responsible for the initial transformation of the cell into a cancer cell,
although a few are the products of mutant genes. The rest derive from normal
genes but are displayed at levels detectable by
T cells for the first time on
tumor cells, as illustrated in .
Antigens of the MAGE family are not expressed in any normal
adult tissues, with the exception of the testis, which is an immunologically
privileged site. They probably represent early developmental
antigens
reexpressed in the process of tumorigenesis. Only a minority of melanoma
patients have
T cells reactive against the MAGE
antigens, indicating that these
antigens are either not expressed or are not immunogenic in most cases. The most
common melanoma
antigens are peptides from the enzyme tyrosinase or from three
other proteins—gp100, MART1, and gp75. These are differentiation
antigens
specific to the melanocyte lineage from which melanomas arise. It is likely that
overexpression of these
antigens in tumor cells leads to an abnormally high
density of specific peptide:MHC complexes and this makes them immunogenic.
Although in most cases tumor rejection
antigens are presented as peptides
complexed with MHC class I molecules, tyrosinase has been shown to stimulate
CD4
T-cell responses in some melanoma patients by being ingested and presented by
cells expressing MHC class II.
Tumor rejection antigens shared between most examples of a tumor, and against
which tolerance can be broken, represent candidate antigens for tumor vaccines.
The MAGE antigens are candidates because of their limited tissue distribution
and their shared expression by many melanomas. It might seem dangerous to use
tumor vaccines based on antigens that are not truly tumor-specific because of
the risk of inducing autoimmunity. Often, however, the tissues from which tumors
arise are dispensable; the prostate is perhaps the best example of this. With
melanoma, however, some melanocyte-specific tumor rejection antigens are also
expressed in certain retinal cells, in the inner ear, in the brain, and in the
skin. Despite this, melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy with whole tumor
cells or tumor-cell extracts, although occasionally developing vitiligo—a
destruction of pigmented cells in the skin that correlates well with a good
response to the tumor—do not develop abnormalities in the visual, vestibular,
and central nervous systems, perhaps because of the low level of expression of
MHC class I molecules in these sites.
In addition to the human tumor
antigens that have been shown to induce cytotoxic
T-cell responses (see ), many
other candidate tumor rejection
antigens have been identified by studies of the
molecular basis of cancer development. These include the products of mutated
cellular oncogenes or tumor suppressors, such as
Ras and p53, and also fusion
proteins, such as the Bcr-Abl
tyrosine kinase that results from the chromosomal
translocation (t9;22) found in chronic myeloid leukemia. It is intriguing that,
in each of these cases, no specific cytotoxic T-cell response has been
identified in cultures of autologous
lymphocytes with tumor cells bearing these
mutated
antigens. However, cytotoxic
T lymphocytes specific for these
antigens
can be developed
in vitro by using peptide sequences derived
either from the mutated sequence or from the fusion sequence of these common
oncogenic proteins; these
cytotoxic T cells are able to recognize and kill tumor
cells. In chronic myeloid leukemia, it is known that, after treatment and bone
marrow
transplantation, mature
lymphocytes from the
bone marrow donor infused
into the patient can help to eliminate any residual tumor. At present, it is not
clear whether this is a
graft-versus-host effect, where the
donor lymphocytes
are responding to alloantigens
expressed on the leukemia cells, or whether there is a specific anti-leukemic
response. The ability to prime the
donor cells against leukemia-specific
peptides offers the prospect of enhancing the anti-leukemic effect while
minimizing the risk of
graft-versus-host disease. It is a challenge for
immunologists to understand why these mutated proteins do not prime cytotoxic T
cells in the patients in which the tumors arise. They are excellent targets for
therapy, as they are unique to the tumor and have a causal role in
oncogenesis.
14-13. Tumors can escape rejection in many ways
Burnet called the ability of the immune system to detect tumor cells and destroy
them ‘immune surveillance.’
However, it is difficult to show that tumors are subject to surveillance by the
immune system; after all, cancer is a common disease, and most tumors show
little evidence of immunological control. The incidence of the common tumors in
mice that lack lymphocytes is little different from their incidence in mice with
normal immune systems; the same is true for humans deficient in T cells. The
major tumor types that occur with increased frequency in immunodeficient mice or
humans are virus-associated tumors; immune surveillance thus seems to be
critical for control of virus-associated tumors, but the immune system does not
normally respond to the novel antigens deriving from the multiple genetic
alterations in spontaneous tumors. The goal in the development of anti-cancer
vaccines is to break the tolerance of the immune system for antigens expressed
mainly or exclusively by the tumor.
Figure 14.14
.
Tumors can escape immune surveillance in a variety of
ways
First, tumors can have low immunogenicity (left panel). Some tumors
do not have peptides of novel proteins that can be presented by MHC
molecules, and therefore appear normal to the immune system. Others
have lost one or more MHC molecules, and most do not express
co-stimulatory proteins, which are required to activate naive T
cells. Second, tumors can initially express antigens to which the
immune system responds but lose them by antibody-induced
internalization or antigenic variation. When tumors are attacked by
cells responding to a particular antigen, any tumor that does not
express that antigen will have a selective advantage (center panel).
Third, tumors often produce substances, such as TGF-β, that suppress
immune responses directly (right panel).
Figure 14.15
.
Loss of MHC class I expression in a prostatic carcinoma
Some tumors can evade immune surveillance by loss of expression of
MHC class I molecules, preventing their recognition by CD8 T cells.
A section of a human prostate cancer that has been stained with a
peroxidase-conjugated antibody to HLA class I is shown. The brown
stain correlating with HLA class I expression is restricted to
infiltrating lymphocytes and tissue stromal cells. The tumor cells
that occupy most of the section show no staining. Photograph
courtesy of G. Stamp.
Figure 14.16
.
Tumors that lose expression of all MHC class I molecules as a
mechanism of escape from immune surveillance are more susceptible to
NK cell killing
Regression of transplanted tumors is largely due to the actions of
cytotoxic T cells (CTLs), which recognize novel peptides bound to
MHC class I antigens on the surface of the cell (left panels). NK
cells have inhibitory receptors that bind MHC class I molecules, so
variants of the tumor that have low levels of MHC class I, although
less sensitive to CD8 cytotoxic T cells, become susceptible to NK
cells (center panels). Although nude mice lack T
cells, they have higher than normal levels of NK cells, and so
tumors that are sensitive to NK cells grow less well in
nude mice than in normal mice. Transfection
with MHC class I genes can restore both resistance to NK cells and
susceptibility to CD8 cytotoxic T cells (right panels). However,
tumors that lose only one MHC class I molecule can escape a specific
cytotoxic CD8 T-cell response while remaining NK resistant. The
bottom panels show scanning electron micrographs of NK cells
attacking leukemia cells. Left panel: shortly after binding to the
target cell, the NK cell has put out numerous microvillous
extensions and established a broad zone of contact with the leukemia
cell. The NK cell is the smaller cell on the left in both
photographs. Right panel: 60 minutes after mixing, long
micro-villous processes can be seen extending from the NK cell
(bottom left) to the leukemia cell and there is extensive damage to
the leukemia cell membrane; the plasma membrane of the leukemia cell
has rolled up and fragmented under the NK cell attack. Photographs
courtesy of J.C. Hiserodt.
It is not surprising that spontaneously arising tumors are rarely rejected by T
cells, as in general they probably lack either distinctive antigenic peptides or
the adhesion or co-stimulatory molecules needed to elicit a primary T-cell
response. Moreover, there are other mechanisms whereby tumors can avoid immune
attack or evade it when it occurs (). Tumors tend to be genetically unstable and can lose their
antigens by mutation; in the event of an
immune response, this instability might
generate mutants that can escape the
immune response. Some tumors, such as colon
and cervical cancers, lose the expression of a particular MHC class I molecule
(), perhaps through
immunoselection by
T cells specific for a peptide presented by that MHC class I
molecule. In experimental studies, when a tumor loses expression of all MHC
class I molecules, it can no longer be recognized by
cytotoxic T cells, although
it might become susceptible to
NK cells (). However, tumors that lose only one MHC class I molecule might
be able to avoid recognition by specific
CD8 cytotoxic T cells while remaining
resistant to
NK cells, conferring a selective advantage
in
vivo.
Yet another way in which tumors might evade rejection is by making
immunosuppressive cytokines. Many tumors make these, although in most cases
little is known of their precise nature. TGF-β was first identified in the
culture supernatant of a tumor (hence its name, transforming growth factor-β)
and, as we have seen, tends to suppress inflammatory T-cell responses and
cell-mediated immunity, which are needed to control tumor growth. A number of
tumors of different tissue origins, such as melanoma, ovarian carcinoma, and
B-cell lymphoma, have been shown to produce the immunosuppressive cytokine
IL-10, which can reduce dendritic cell development and activity. Thus, there are
many different ways in which tumors avoid recognition and destruction by the
immune system.
14-14. Monoclonal antibodies against tumor antigens, alone or linked to toxins, can
control tumor growth
Figure 14.17
.
Monoclonal antibodies that recognize tumor-specific antigens
might be used in a variety of ways to help eliminate tumors
Tumor-specific antibodies of the correct isotypes might be able to
direct the lysis of the tumor cells by NK cells, activating the NK
cells via their Fc receptors (left panels). A more useful strategy
might be to couple the antibody to a powerful toxin (center panels).
When the antibody binds to the tumor cell and is endo-cytozed, the
toxin is released from the antibody and can kill the tumor cell. If
the antibody is coupled to a radionuclide (right panels), binding of
the antibody to a tumor cell will deliver a dose of radiation
sufficient to kill the tumor cell. In addition, nearby tumor cells
could also receive a lethal radiation dose, even though they did not
bind the antibody.
Figure 14.18
.
Examples of tumor antigens that have been targeted by monoclonal
antibodies in therapeutic trials
CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Figure 14.19
.
Recurrent colorectal cancer can be detected with a radiolabeled
monoclonal antibody against carcinoembryonic antigen
A patient with a possible recurrence of a colorectal cancer was
injected intravenously with an indium- 111-labeled monoclonal
antibody to carcinoembryonic antigen. The recurrent tumor is seen as
two red spots located in the pelvic region. The blood vessels are
faintly outlined by circulating antibody that has not bound to the
tumor. Photograph courtesy of A.M. Peters.
The advent of monoclonal antibodies suggested the possibility of targeting and
destroying tumors by making antibodies against tumor-specific
antigens (). This depends on finding a
tumor-specific
antigen that is a cell-surface molecule. Some of the cell-surface
molecules that have been targeted in experimental clinical trials are shown in
. So far there has been
limited success with this approach, although, as an adjunct to other therapies,
it holds promise. Some striking initial results have been reported in the
treatment of breast cancer with a humanized monoclonal
antibody, known as
Herceptin, which targets a growth factor receptor, HER-2/neu, that is
overexpressed in about a quarter of breast cancer patients. As we discussed in
Section 14-12, this overexpression
accounts for HER-2/neu evoking an antitumor T-cell response, although HER-2/neu
is also associated with a poorer prognosis. It is thought that Herceptin acts by
blocking interaction between the receptor and its natural ligand and by
downregulating the level of expression of the receptor. The effects of this
antibody can be potentiated when it is combined with conventional chemotherapy.
A second monoclonal
antibody that has promise for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's
B-cell lymphoma binds to CD20 and is known as Rituximab. Ligation and clustering
of CD20 transduces a signal that causes lymphocyte apoptosis. Monoclonal
antibodies coupled to γ-emitting radioisotopes have also been used to image
tumors, for the purpose of diagnosis and monitoring tumor spread ().
The first reported successful treatment of a tumor with monoclonal antibodies
used anti-idiotypic antibodies to target B-cell lymphomas whose surface
immunoglobulin expressed the corresponding idiotype. The initial course of
treatment usually leads to a remission, but the tumor always reappears in a
mutant form that no longer binds to the antibody used for the initial treatment.
This case represents a clear example of genetic instability enabling a tumor to
evade treatment.
Other problems with tumor-specific or tumor-selective monoclonal antibodies as
therapeutic agents include inefficient killing of cells after binding of the
monoclonal antibody and inefficient penetration of the antibody into the tumor
mass. The first problem can often be circumvented by linking the antibody to a
toxin, producing a reagent called an immunotoxin; two favored
toxins are ricin A chain and Pseudomonas toxin. Both approaches
require the antibody to be internalized to allow the cleavage of the toxin from
the antibody in the endocytic compartment, allowing the toxin chain to penetrate
and kill the cell.
Two other approaches using monoclonal
antibody conjugates involve linking the
antibody molecule to chemotherapeutic drugs such as adriamycin or to
radioisotopes. In the first case, the
specificity of the monoclonal
antibody for
a cell-surface
antigen on the tumor concentrates the drug to the site of the
tumor. After internalization, the drug is released in the
endosomes and exerts
its cytostatic or cytotoxic effect.
Monoclonal antibodies linked to
radionuclides (see )
concentrate the radioactive source in the tumor site. Both these approaches have
the advantage of also killing neighboring tumor cells, because the released drug
or radioactive emissions can affect cells adjacent to those that actually bind
the
antibody. Ultimately, combinations of toxin-, drug-, or radionuclide-linked
monoclonal antibodies, together with vaccination strategies aimed at inducing T
cell-mediated immunity, might provide the most effective cancer
immunotherapy.
14-15. Enhancing the immunogenicity of tumors holds promise for cancer
therapy
Although vaccines based on tumor antigens are, in principle, the ideal approach
to T cell-mediated cancer immunotherapy, it may be many decades before the
dominant tumor antigens for common cancers are identified. Even then, it is not
clear how widely the relevant epitopes will be shared between tumors, and
peptides of tumor rejection antigens will be presented only by particular MHC
alleles. To be effective, a tumor vaccine may therefore need to include a range
of tumor antigens. MAGE-1 antigens, for example, are recognized only by T cells
in melanoma patients expressing the HLA-A1 haplotype. However, the range of
MAGE-type proteins that has now been characterized encompasses peptide epitopes
presented by many HLA class I and II molecules.
Until recently, most cancer vaccines have used the individual patient's tumor
removed at surgery as a source of vaccine antigens. These cell-based vaccines
are prepared by mixing either irradiated tumor cells or tumor extracts with
bacterial adjuvants such as BCG or Corynebacterium parvum,
which enhance their immunogenicity (see Appendix I, Section A-4). Such vaccines have generated modest
therapeutic results in melanomas but have, in general, been disappointing.
Where candidate tumor rejection antigens have been identified, for example in
melanoma, experimental vaccination strategies include the use of whole proteins,
peptide vaccines based on sequences recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes
(either administered alone or presented by the patient's own dendritic cells),
and recombinant viruses encoding these peptide epitopes. A novel experimental
approach to tumor vaccination is the use of heat-shock proteins isolated from
tumor cells. The underlying principle of this therapy is that one of the
physiological activities of heat-shock proteins is to act as intracellular
chaperones of antigenic peptides. There is evidence for receptors on the surface
of professional antigen-presenting cells that take up certain heat-shock
proteins together with any bound peptides. Uptake of heat-shock proteins via
these receptors delivers the accompanying peptide into the antigen-processing
pathways leading to peptide presentation by MHC class I molecules. This
experimental technique for tumor vaccination has the advantage that it does not
depend on any prior knowledge of the nature of the relevant tumor rejection
antigens, but the disadvantage that the heat-shock proteins purified from the
cell carry very many peptides, so that any tumor rejection antigen might
constitute only a tiny fraction of the peptides bound to the heat-shock
protein.
Figure 14.20
.
Transfection of tumors with the gene for B7 or for GM-CSF
enhances tumor immunogenicity
A tumor that does not express co-stimulatory molecules will not
induce an immune response, even though it might express tumor
rejection antigens (TRAs), because naive CD8 T cells specific for
the TRA cannot be activated by the tumor. The tumor therefore grows
progressively in normal mice and eventually kills the host (top
panels). If such tumor cells are transfected with a co-stimulatory
molecule, such as B7, TRA-specific CD8 T cells now receive both
signal 1 and signal 2 from the same cell (see Section 8-5) and can therefore be activated
(center panels). The same effect can be obtained by transfecting the
tumor with the gene encoding GM-CSF, which attracts and stimulates
the differentiation of dendritic cell precursors (bottom panels).
Both these strategies have been tested in mice and shown to elicit
memory T cells, although results with GM-CSF are more impressive.
Because TRA-specific CD8 cells have now been activated, even the
original B7-negative or GM-CSF negative tumor cells can be
rejected.
A further experimental approach to tumor vaccination in mice is to increase the
immunogenicity of tumor cells by introducing genes that encode co-stimulatory
molecules or cytokines. This is intended to make the tumor itself more
immunogenic. The basic scheme of such experiments is shown in . A tumor cell transfected with
the gene encoding the co-stimulatory molecule B7 (see
Section 8-5) is implanted in a syngeneic animal. These
B7-positive cells can activate tumor-specific naive
T cells to become armed
effector
T cells able to reject the tumor cells. They are also able to stimulate
further proliferation of the armed effector cells that reach the site of
implantation. These
T cells can then target the tumor cells whether they express
B7 or not; this can be shown by reimplanting nontransfected tumor cells, which
are also rejected.
The second strategy, that of introducing cytokine genes into tumors so that they
secrete the relevant cytokine, is aimed at attracting antigen-presenting cells
to the tumor and takes advantage of the paracrine nature of cytokines. In mice,
the most effective tumor vaccines so far are tumor cells that secrete
granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), which induces the
differentiation of hematopoietic precursors into dendritic cells and attracts
these to the site. GM-CSF is also thought to function as an adjuvant, activating
the dendritic cells. It is believed that these cells process the tumor antigens
and migrate to the local lymph nodes, where they induce potent anti-tumor
responses. The B7-transfected cells seem less potent in inducing anti-tumor
responses, perhaps because the bone marrow-derived dendritic cells express more
of the molecules required to activate naive T cells than do B7-transfected tumor
cells. In addition, the tumor cells do not share the dendritic cells' special
ability to migrate into the T-cell areas of the lymph nodes, where they are
optimally placed to interact with passing naive T cells (see Section 8-6).
The potency of dendritic cells in activating T-cell responses provides the
rationale for yet another strategy for vaccinating against tumors. The use of
antigen-pulsed autologous dendritic cells to stimulate therapeutically useful
cytotoxic T-cell responses to tumors has been developed in experimental models,
and there have been initial trials in humans with cancer.
Clinical trials are in progress to determine the safety and efficacy of many of
these approaches in human patients. What is uncertain is whether people with
established cancers can generate sufficient T-cell responses to eliminate all
their tumor cells under circumstances in which any tumor-specific naive T cells
might have been rendered tolerant to the tumor. Moreover, there is always the
risk that immunogenic transfectants will elicit an autoimmune response against
the normal tissue from which the tumor derived.
Summary
Tumors represent outgrowths of a single abnormal cell, and animal studies have
shown that some tumors elicit specific immune responses that suppress their
growth. These seem to be directed at MHC-bound peptides derived from antigens
that might be mutated, inappropriately expressed, or overexpressed in the tumor
cells. T-cell deficient individuals, however, do not develop more tumors than
normal individuals. This is probably chiefly because most tumors do not make
distinctive antigenic proteins or do not express the co-stimulatory molecules
necessary to initiate an adaptive immune response. Tumors also have other ways
of avoiding or suppressing immune responses, such as ceasing to express MHC
class I molecules, or making immunosuppressive cytokines. Monoclonal antibodies
have been developed for tumor immunotherapy by conjugation to toxins or to
cytotoxic drugs or radionuclides, which are thereby delivered at high dose
specifically to the tumor cells. More recently, attempts have been made to
develop vaccines based on tumor cells taken from patients and made immunogenic
by the addition of adjuvants, or by pulsing autologous dendritic cells with
tumor-cell extracts or tumor antigens. This approach has been extended in animal
experiments to transfection of tumor cells with genes encoding co-stimulatory
molecules or cytokines that attract and activate dendritic cells.
Manipulating the immune response to fight infection
Infection is the leading cause of death in the human population. The two most
important contributions to public health in the past 100 years have been sanitation
and vaccination, which together have dramatically reduced deaths from infectious
disease. Modern immunology grew from the success of Jenner's and Pasteur's vaccines
against smallpox and chicken cholera, respectively, and its greatest triumph has
been the global eradication of smallpox, announced by the World Health Organization
in 1980. A global campaign to eradicate polio is now under way.
Adaptive immunity to a specific infectious agent can be achieved in several ways. One
early strategy was to deliberately cause a mild infection with the unmodified
pathogen. This was the principle of variolation, in which the inoculation of a small
amount of dried material from a smallpox pustule would cause a mild infection
followed by long-lasting protection against reinfection. However, infection
following variolation was not always mild: fatal smallpox ensued in about 3% of
cases, which would not meet modern criteria for safety. Jenner's achievement was the
realization that infection with a bovine analogue of smallpox, vaccinia (from
vacca—a cow), which caused cowpox, would provide protective
immunity against smallpox in humans without the risk of significant disease. He
named the process vaccination, and
Pasteur, in his honour, extended the term to the stimulation of protection to other
infectious agents. Humans are not a natural host of vaccinia, which establishes only
a brief and limited subcutaneous infection but contains antigens that stimulate an
immune response that is cross-reactive with smallpox antigens and thereby confers
protection from the human disease.
This established the general principles of safe and effective vaccination, and
vaccine development in the early part of the 20th century followed two empirical
pathways. The first was the search for attenuated organisms with reduced
pathogenicity that would stimulate protective immunity; the second was the
development of vaccines based on killed organisms and, subsequently, purified
components of organisms that would be as effective as live whole organisms. Killed
vaccines were desirable because any live vaccine, including vaccinia, can cause
lethal systemic infection in the immunosuppressed.
Figure 14.21
.
Recommended childhood vaccination schedules (in red) in the United
States
Each red bar denotes a time range during which a vaccine dose should be
given. Bars spanning multiple months indicate a range of times during
which the vaccine may be given. * Tetanus and diptheria toxoids
only.
Figure 14.22
.
Diseases for which effective vaccines are still needed
*The number of people infected is estimated at ~200 million, of which 20
million have severe disease. †Current measles vaccines are effective but
heat-sensitive, which makes their use difficult in tropical countries.
Estimated mortality data for 1999 from World Health Report
2000 (World Health Organization).
Immunization is now considered so safe and so important that most states in the
United States require all children to be immunized against measles, mumps, and polio
viruses with live
attenuated vaccines, as well as against tetanus (caused by
Clostridium tetani), diphtheria (caused by
Coryne-
bacterium diphtheriae), and whooping cough (caused by
Bordetella pertussis), with inactivated toxins or
toxoids
prepared from these
bacteria (see
Fig. 1.33).
More recently, a vaccine has become available against
Haemophilus
B, one of the causative agents of meningitis. Current vaccination schedules for
children in the United States are shown in . Impressive as these accomplishments are, there are still many
diseases for which we lack effective vaccines, as shown in . Even where a vaccine such as measles or polio can
be used effectively in developed countries, technical and economic problems can
prevent its widespread use in developing countries, where mortality from these
diseases is still high. The development of vaccines therefore remains an important
goal of immunology and the latter half of the 20th century saw a shift to a more
rational approach, based on a detailed molecular understanding of microbial
pathogenicity, analysis of the protective host response to pathogenic organisms, and
the understanding of the regulation of the
immune system to generate effective T-
and B-lymphocyte responses.
14-16. There are several requirements for an effective vaccine
The particular requirements for successful vaccination vary according to the
nature of the infecting organism. For extracellular organisms, antibody provides
the most important adaptive mechanism of host defense, whereas for control of
intracellular organisms, an effective CD8 T-lymphocyte response is also
essential. The ideal vaccination provides host defense at the point of entry of
the infectious agent; stimulation of mucosal immunity is therefore an important
goal of vaccination against those many organisms that enter through mucosal
surfaces.
Effective protective immunity against some microorganisms requires the presence
of preexisting antibody at the time of exposure to the infection. For example,
the clinical manifestations of tetanus and diphtheria are entirely due to the
effects of extremely powerful exotoxins (see Fig. 9.23). Preexisting antibody against the bacterial exotoxin is
necessary to provide a defense against these diseases. Preexisting antibodies
are also required to protect against some intracellular pathogens, such as the
poliomyelitis virus, which infect critical host cells within a short period
after entering the body and are not easily controlled by T lymphocytes once
intracellular infection is established.
Immune responses to infectious agents usually involve antibodies directed at
multiple epitopes and only some of these antibodies confer protection. The
particular T-cell epitopes recognized can also affect the nature of the
response. For example, as we saw in Chapter 11, the predominant epitope recognized by T cells after
vaccination with respiratory syncytial virus induces a vigorous inflammatory
response but fails to elicit neutralizing antibodies and thus causes pathology
without protection. Thus, an effective vaccine must lead to the generation of
antibodies and T cells directed at the correct epitopes of the infectious agent.
For some of the modern vaccine techniques, in which only one or a few epitopes
are used, this consideration is particularly important.
Figure 14.23
.
There are several criteria for an effective vaccine
A number of very important additional constraints need to be satisified by a
successful vaccine (). First,
it must be safe. Vaccines must be given to huge numbers of people, relatively
few of whom are likely to die of, or sometimes even catch, the disease that the
vaccine is designed to prevent. This means that even a low level of toxicity is
unacceptable. Second, the vaccine must be able to produce protective immunity in
a very high proportion of the people to whom it is given. Third, because it is
impracticable to give large or dispersed rural populations regular ‘booster’
vaccinations, a successful vaccine must generate long-lived immunological
memory. This means that both B and
T lymphocytes must be primed by the vaccine.
Fourth, vaccines must be very cheap if they are to be administered to large
populations. Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective measures in health
care, but this benefit is eroded as the cost-per-dose rises.
An effective vaccination program provides herd immunity—by lowering the number of
susceptible members of a population, the natural reservoir of infected
individuals in that population falls, reducing the probability of transmission
of infection. Thus, even nonvaccinated members of a population can be protected
from infection if the majority are vaccinated.
14-17. The history of vaccination against Bordetella pertussis
illustrates the importance of developing an effective vaccine that is perceived
to be safe
The history of vaccination against the bacterium that causes whooping cough,
Bordetella pertussis, provides a good example of the
challenges of developing and disseminating an effective vaccine. At the turn of
the 20th century, whooping cough killed approximately 0.5% of American children
under the age of 5 years. In the early 1930s, a trial of a killed, whole
bacterial cell vaccine on the Faroe Islands provided evidence of a protective
effect. In the United States, systematic use of a whole-cell vaccine in
combination with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (the DPT vaccine) since the
1940s resulted in a decline in the annual infection rate from 200 to less than 2
cases per 100,000 of the population. First vaccination with DPT was typically
given at the age of 3 months.
Whole-cell pertussis vaccine causes side-effects, typically redness, pain, and
swelling at the site of the injection; less commonly, vaccination is followed by
high temperature and persistent crying. Very rarely, fits and a short-lived
sleepiness or a floppy unresponsive state ensue. During the 1970s, widespread
concern developed after several anecdotal observations that encephalitis leading
to irreversible brain damage might very rarely follow pertussis vaccination. In
Japan, in 1972, approximately 85% of children were given the pertussis vaccine,
and fewer than 300 cases of whooping cough and no deaths were reported. As a
result of two deaths after vaccination in Japan in 1975, DPT was temporarily
suspended and then reintroduced with the first vaccination at 2 years of age
rather than 3 months. In 1979 there were approximately 13,000 cases of whooping
cough and 41 deaths. The possibility that pertussis vaccine very rarely causes
severe brain damage has been studied extensively and expert consensus is that
pertussis vaccine is not a primary cause of brain injury. There is no doubt that
there is greater morbidity from whooping cough than from the vaccine.
The public and medical perception that whole-cell pertussis vaccination might be
unsafe provided a powerful incentive to develop safer pertussis vaccines. Study
of the natural immune response to B. pertussis showed that
infection induced antibodies against four components of the bacterium—pertussis
toxin, filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, and fimbrial antigens. Immunization
of mice with these antigens in purified form protected them against challenge
with pertussis. This has led to the development of acellular pertussis vaccines,
all of which contain purified pertussis toxoid, that is, toxin inactivated by
chemical treatment, for example with hydrogen peroxide or formaldehyde, or more
recently by genetic engineering of the toxin. Some also contain one or more of
the filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, and fimbrial antigens. Current
evidence shows that these are probably as effective as whole-cell pertussis
vaccine and are free of the common minor side-effects of the whole-cell
vaccine.
The main messages of the history of pertussis vaccination are, first, that
vaccines must be extremely safe and free of side-effects; second, that the
public and the medical profession must perceive the vaccine to be safe; and
third, that careful study of the nature of the protective immune response can
lead to acellular vaccines that are safer than and as effective as whole-cell
vaccines.
14-18. Conjugate vaccines have been developed as a result of understanding how T and
B cells collaborate in an immune response
Although acellular vaccines are inevitably safer than vaccines based on whole
organisms, a fully effective vaccine cannot normally be made from a single
isolated constituent of a microorganism, and it is now clear that this is
because of the need to activate more than one cell type to initiate an immune
response. One consequence of this insight has been the development of conjugate
vaccines. We have already described briefly one of the most important of these
in Section 9-2.
Many bacteria, including Neisseria meningitidis
(meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus),
and Haemophilus species, have an outer capsule composed of
polysaccharides that are species- and typespecific for particular strains of the
bacterium. The most effective defense against these microorganisms is
opsonization of the polysaccharide coat with antibody. The aim of vaccination is
therefore to elicit antibodies against the polysaccharide capsules of the
bacteria.
Capsular polysaccharides can be harvested from bacterial growth medium and,
because they are T-cell independent antigens, they can be used on their own as
vaccines. However, young children under the age of 2 years cannot make good
T-cell independent antibody responses and cannot be vaccinated effectively with
polysaccharide vaccines. An efficient way of overcoming this problem (see Fig. 9.4) is to chemically conjugate
bacterial polysaccharides to protein carriers, which provide peptides that can
be recognized by antigen-specific T cells, thus converting a T-cell independent
response into a T-cell dependent anti-polysaccharide antibody response. By using
this approach, various conjugate vaccines have been developed against
Haemophilus influenzae, an important cause of serious
childhood chest infections and meningitis, and these are now widely applied.
14-19. The use of adjuvants is another important approach to enhancing the
immunogenicity of vaccines
Purified antigens are not usually strongly immunogenic on their own and most
acellular vaccines require the addition of adjuvants, which are defined as substances that enhance the
immunogenicity of antigens (see Appendix I,
Section A-4). For example, tetanus toxoid is not immunogenic in the
absence of adjuvants, and tetanus toxoid vaccines often contain aluminum salts,
which bind polyvalently to the toxoid by ionic interactions and selectively
stimulate antibody responses. Pertussis toxin, produced by B.
pertussis, has adjuvant properties in its own right and, when given
mixed as a toxoid with tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, not only vaccinates
against whooping cough but also acts as an adjuvant for the other two toxoids.
This mixture makes up the DPT triple vaccine given to infants in the first year
of life.
Many important adjuvants are sterile constituents of bacteria, particularly of
their cell walls. For example, Freund's complete adjuvant, widely used in
experimental animals to augment antibody responses, is an oil and water emulsion
containing killed mycobacteria. A complex glycolipid, muramyl dipeptide, which
can be extracted from mycobacterial cell walls or synthesized, contains much of
the adjuvant activity of whole killed mycobacteria. Other bacterial adjuvants
include killed B. pertussis, bacterial polysaccharides,
bacterial heat-shock proteins, and bacterial DNA. Many of these adjuvants cause
quite marked inflammation and are not suitable for use in vaccines for
humans.
It is thought that most, if not all, adjuvants act on antigen-presenting cells,
especially on dendritic cells, and reflect the importance of these cells in
initiating immune responses. As we learned in Section 8-6, dendritic cells are widely distributed throughout the
body, where they act as sentinels to detect potential pathogens at their portals
of entry. These tissue dendritic cells take up antigens from their environment
by phagocytosis and macropinocytosis, and they are tuned to respond to the
presence of infection by migrating into lymphoid tissue and presenting these
antigens to T cells. They appear to detect the presence of pathogens in two main
ways. The first of these is direct, and follows the ligation and activation of
receptors for invading micro-organisms. These include receptors of the
complement system, Toll-like receptors (TLRs), and other pattern recognition
receptors of the innate immune system. There is much that we still have to learn
about the direct mechanisms of detection of infectious agents. For example,
bacterial DNA containing unmethylated CpG dinucleotide motifs, bacterial
heat-shock proteins, and muramyl dipeptides each have powerful activating
effects on antigen-presenting cells, and, while there is indirect evidence that
many adjuvants use various TLRs, it is not known how they are detected. When
dendritic cells are activated through direct interactions with the products of
infectious agents, they respond by secreting cytokines and expressing
co-stimulatory molecules, which in turn stimulate the activation and
differentiation of antigen-specific T cells.
The second mechanism of stimulation of dendritic cells by invading organisms is
indirect and involves their activation by cytokine signals derived from the
inflammatory response triggered by infection (see Chapter 2). Cytokines such as GM-CSF are particularly
effective in activating dendritic cells to express co-stimulatory signals and,
in the context of viral infection, dendritic cells also express interferon
(IFN)-α and IL-12.
Adjuvants trick the immune system into responding as though there were an active
infection, and just as different classes of infectious agent stimulate different
types of immune response (see Chapter
10), different adjuvants may promote different types of response, for
example, an inflammatory TH1 response or an antibody-dominated
response. Some adjuvants, for example, pertussis toxin, stimulate mucosal immune
responses, which are particularly important in defense against organisms
entering through the digestive or respiratory tracts. These adjuvants have been
discussed earlier when we described mucosal immunity and will be further
discussed in Section 14-26.
Following our increased understanding of the mechanisms of action of adjuvants,
rational approaches to improving the activity of vaccines in clinical settings
are being implemented. One approach is to coadminister cytokines. For example,
IL-12 is a cytokine produced by macrophages, dendritic cells, and B cells that
stimulates T lymphocytes and NK cells to release IFN-γ and promotes a
TH1 response. It has been used as an adjuvant to promote
protective immunity against the protozoan parasite Leishmania
major. Certain strains of mice are susceptible to severe cutaneous
and systemic infection by L. major; these mice mount an immune
response that is predominantly TH2 in type and is ineffective in
eliminating the organism (see Section
10-6). The coadministration of IL-12 with a vaccine containing
leishmania antigens generated a TH1 response and protected the mice
against challenge with L. major. The use of IL-12 to promote a
TH1 response has also proved valuable in reducing the pathogenic
consequences of experimental parasitic infection by Schistosoma
mansoni and will be considered in Section 14-27. These are important examples of how an understanding
of the regulation of immune responses can enable rational intervention to
enhance the effectiveness of vaccines.
14-20. Live-attenuated viral vaccines are usually more potent than ‘killed’ vaccines
and can be made safer by using recombinant DNA technology
Most antiviral vaccines currently in use consist of inactivated or live
attenuated viruses. Inactivated, or ‘killed,’ viral vaccines consist of viruses
treated so that they are unable to replicate. Live-attenuated viral vaccines are
generally far more potent, perhaps because they elicit a greater number of
relevant effector mechanisms, including cytotoxic CD8 T cells: inactivated
viruses cannot produce proteins in the cytosol, so peptides from the viral
antigens cannot be presented by MHC class I molecules and thus cytotoxic CD8 T
cells are not generated by these vaccines. Attenuated viral vaccines are now in
use for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella.
Figure 14.24
.
Viruses are traditionally attenuated by selecting for growth in
nonhuman cells
To produce an attenuated virus, the virus must first be isolated by
growing it in cultured human cells. The adaptation to growth in
cultured human cells can cause some attenuation in itself; the
rubella vaccine, for example, was made in this way. In general,
however, the virus is then adapted to growth in cells of a different
species, until it grows only poorly in human cells. The adaptation
is a result of mutation, usually a combination of several point
mutations. It is usually hard to tell which of the mutations in the
genome of an attenuated viral stock are critical to attenuation. An
attenuated virus will grow poorly in the human host, and will
therefore produce immunity but not disease.
Traditionally, attenuation is achieved by growing the virus in cultured cells.
Viruses are usually
selected for preferential growth in nonhuman cells and, in
the course of selection, become less able to grow in human cells (). Because these
attenuated
strains replicate poorly in human hosts, they induce immunity but not disease
when given to people. Although
attenuated virus strains contain multiple
mutations in genes encoding several of their proteins, it might be possible for
a pathogenic virus strain to reemerge by a further series of mutations. For
example, the type 3 Sabin polio vaccine strain differs at only 10 of 7429
nucleotides from a wild-type progenitor strain. On extremely rare occasions,
reversion of the vaccine to a neurovirulent strain can occur, causing paralytic
disease in the unfortunate
recipient.
Attenuated viral vaccines can also pose particular risks to immunodeficient
recipients in whom they often behave as virulent opportunistic infections.
Immunodeficient infants who are vaccinated with live-attenuated polio before
their inherited immunoglobulin deficiencies have been diagnosed are at risk
because they cannot clear the virus from their gut, and there is therefore an
increased chance that mutation of the virus will lead to fatal paralytic
disease. For the same reason, patients with immunoglobulin deficiencies show an
abnormal susceptibility to chronic infection by opportunistic enteroviruses, and
can develop chronic, and ultimately lethal, echovirus encephalitis if mutation
of the virus leads to neurovirulence.
Figure 14.25
.
Attenuation can be achieved more rapidly and reliably with
recombinant DNA techniques
If a gene in the virus that is required for virulence but not for
growth or immunogenicity can be identified, this gene can be either
multiply mutated (left lower panel) or deleted from the genome
(right lower panel) by using recombinant DNA techniques. This
procedure creates an avirulent (nonpathogenic) virus that can be
used as a vaccine. The mutations in the virulence gene are usually
large, so that it is very difficult for the virus to revert to the
wild type.
An empirical approach to attenuation is still in use but might be superseded by
two new approaches that use recombinant DNA technology. One is the isolation and
in vitro mutagenesis of specific viral genes. The mutated
genes are used to replace the wild-type gene in a reconstituted virus genome,
and this deliberately
attenuated virus can then be used as a vaccine (). The advantage of this
approach is that mutations can be engineered so that reversion to wild type is
virtually impossible.
Such an approach might be useful in developing live influenza vaccines. As we
learned in Chapter 11, the
influenza virus can reinfect the same host several times, because it undergoes
antigenic shift and thus escapes the original immune response. The current
approach to vaccination against influenza is to use a killed virus vaccine that
is reformulated annually on the basis of the prevalent strains of virus. The
vaccine is moderately effective, reducing mortality in elderly populations and
morbidity in healthy adults. The ideal influenza vaccine would be an attenuated
live organism that matched the prevalent virus strain. This could be created by
first introducing a series of attenuating mutants into the gene encoding a viral
polymerase protein, PB2. The mutated gene segment from the attenuated virus
could then be substituted for the wild-type gene in a virus carrying the
relevant hemagglutinin and neuraminidase antigenic variants of the current
epidemic or pandemic strain. This last procedure could be repeated as necessary
to keep pace with the antigenic shift of the virus.
14-21. Live-attenuated bacterial vaccines can be developed by selecting
nonpathogenic or disabled mutants
Similar approaches are being used for bacterial vaccine development.
Salmonella typhi, the causative agent of typhoid, has been
manipulated to develop a live vaccine. A strain of wild-type bacteria was
mutated using nitrosoguanidine; a new strain was selected to be defective in the
enzyme UDP-galactose epimerase, thus blocking the pathway for synthesis of
lipopolysaccharide, an important determinant of bacterial pathogenesis. Recent
approaches to the rational design of attenuated Salmonella
vaccines have involved the specific targeting of genes encoding enzymes in the
biosynthetic pathways of amino acids containing aromatic rings, such as tyrosine
and phenylalanine. Mutating these genes makes auxotrophic organisms, which are
dependent for growth on an external supply of an essential nutrient that
wild-type bacteria would be capable of biosynthesizing. These bacteria grow
poorly in the gut but should survive long enough as a vaccine to induce an
effective immune response.
It is not only vaccination of humans against Salmonella that is
important. Modern methods of mass production of chickens for food has led to
extensive infection of poultry with Salmonella strains that are
pathogenic to humans and an increasingly important cause of food poisoning.
Thus, in parts of the world where typhoid is prevalent, vaccinating humans has a
high priority. In other parts, where food poisoning caused by Salmonella
typhimurium and S. enteritidis infection is
common, vaccination of chickens would contribute to public health.
14-22. Attenuated microorganisms can serve as vectors for vaccination against many
pathogens
An effective live-attenuated typhoid vaccine would not only be valuable in its
own right but could also serve as a vector for presenting antigens from other
organisms. Attenuated strains of Salmonella have been used as
carriers of heterologous genes encoding tetanus toxoid and antigens from
organisms as diverse as Listeria monocytogenes,
Bacillus anthracis, Leishmania major,
Yersinia pestis, and Schistosoma mansoni.
Each of these has been used as an oral vaccine to protect mice against
experimental challenge with the respective pathogen.
Viral vectors can similarly be engineered to carry heterologous peptides or
proteins from other microorganisms. Although vaccinia is no longer needed to
protect against the development of smallpox, it remains a candidate as an
avirulent carrier of heterologous antigens. Genes encoding protective antigens
from several different organisms could be placed in a single vaccine strain.
This approach makes it possible to immunize individuals against several
different pathogens at once, but such a vaccine could not be used twice because
the vaccinia vector itself generates long-lasting immunity that would neutralize
its effectiveness on a second administration; this is an example of the
phenomenon called ‘original antigenic sin’ (see Fig. 10.30). The development of successful heterologous vaccines
requires the identification of protective antigens; it therefore depends on the
analytical power of recombinant DNA methods, as well as their use to manipulate
gene structure.
Plant viruses, which are nonpathogenic to humans, have been used as a source of
novel vaccine vectors. These viruses can be engineered to incorporate
heterologous peptide antigens into chimeric coat proteins. The success of this
approach relies on the successful identification of protective peptide antigens
as well as the immunogenicity of the vaccine. Using this strategy, mice have
been protected against lethal challenge with rabies virus by prior feeding with
spinach leaves infected by recombinant alfalfa mosaic virus incorporating a
rabies virus peptide. Popeye may need rejuvenation as a role model to encourage
children to eat spinach.
14-23. Synthetic peptides of protective antigens can elicit protective
immunity
Figure 14.26
.
‘Reverse’ immunogenetics can be used to identify protective
T-cell epitopes against infectious diseases
Population studies show that the MHC class I variant HLA-B53 is
associated with resistance to cerebral malaria. Self nonapeptides
were eluted from HLA-B53 and found to have a strong preference for
proline at the second position. Candidate nonapeptide sequences
containing proline at position 2 were then identified in several
malarial protein sequences and synthesized. These synthetic
nonapeptides were then tested to see whether they fitted well into
the peptide groove of HLA-B53 by assaying whether HLA-B53 would
assemble to form a stable cell-surface heterodimer in the presence
of peptide. Peptide sequences identified by this approach were then
tested to see whether they would induce the proliferation of T cells
from patients infected by malaria. Such sequences are good
candidates for incorporation into vaccines.
One route to vaccine development is the identification of the T-cell peptide
epitopes that stimulate protective immunity. This can be approached in two ways.
One possibility is to synthesize systematically overlapping peptides from
immunogenic proteins and to test each in turn for its ability to stimulate
protective immunity. An alternative, but no less arduous approach—‘reverse’
immunogenetics—has been used in developing a vaccine against malaria ().
The immunogenicity of T-cell peptide epitopes depends on their specific
associations with particular polymorphic variants of MHC molecules. The starting
point for the studies on malaria was an association between the human MHC class
I molecule HLA-B53 and resistance to cerebral malaria—a relatively infrequent
complication of infection but one that is usually fatal. The hypothesis is that
these MHC molecules are protective because they present peptides that are
particularly good at evoking cytotoxic T lymphocytes. A direct route to
identifying the relevant peptides is to elute them from MHC molecules of cells
infected with the pathogen. In HLA-B53, a high proportion of the peptides eluted
had proline in the second of nine positions; this information was used to
identify candidate protective peptides from four proteins of Plasmodium
falciparum expressed in the early phase of hepatocyte infection, an
important phase of infection to target in an effective immune response. One of
the candidate peptides, from liver stage antigen-1, is recognized by cytotoxic T
cells when bound to HLA-B53.
This approach is being extended to other MHC class I and class II molecules
associated with protective immune responses against infection. Recently, a
protective peptide epitope was eluted from MHC class II molecules in
Leishmania-infected macrophages and used as a guide to
isolate the gene from Leishmania. The gene was then used to
make a protein-based vaccine that primed mice from susceptible strains for
responses to Leishmania.
These results show considerable promise, but they also illustrate one of the
major drawbacks to the approach. A malaria peptide that is restricted by HLA-B53
might not be immunogenic in an individual lacking HLA-B53: indeed, this
presumably accounts for the higher susceptibility of these individuals to
natural infections. Because of the very high polymorphism of MHC molecules in
humans it will be necessary to identify panels of protective T-cell epitopes and
construct vaccines containing arrays of these to develop vaccines that will
protect the majority of a susceptible population.
Figure 14.27
.
ISCOMs can be used to deliver peptides to the MHC class I
processing pathway
ISCOMs (immune stimulatory complexes) are lipid micelles that will
fuse with cell membranes. Peptides trapped in ISCOMs can be
delivered to the cytosol of an antigen-presenting cell (APC),
allowing the peptide to be transported into the endoplasmic
reticulum, where it can be bound by newly synthesized MHC class I
molecules and hence transported to the cell surface as peptide:MHC
class I complexes. This is a possible means for delivering vaccine
peptides to activate CD8 cytotoxic T cells. ISCOMs can also be used
to deliver proteins to the cytosol of other types of cell, where
they can be processed and presented as though they were a protein
produced by the cell.
There are other problems with peptide vaccines. Peptides are not strongly
immunogenic and it is particularly difficult to generate MHC class I-specific
responses by
in vivo immunization with peptides. One approach
to this problem is to integrate peptides by genetic engineering into carrier
proteins within a viral vector, such as hepatitis B core
antigen, which are then
processed
in vivo through natural
antigen-processing pathways.
A second possible technique is the use of
ISCOMs (immune stimulatory complexes). These are lipid carriers that
act as
adjuvants but have minimal toxicity. They seem to load peptides and
proteins into the cell cytoplasm, allowing MHC class I-restricted T-cell
responses to peptides to develop (). These carriers are being developed for use in human
immunization. Another approach to delivering protective peptides, which we
discussed in the previous section, is the genetic engineering of infectious
microorganisms to create vaccines that stimulate immunity without causing
disease.
14-24. The route of vaccination is an important determinant of success
Most vaccines are given by injection. This route has two disadvantages, the first
practical, the second immunological. Injections are painful and expensive,
requiring needles, syringes, and a trained injector. They are unpopular with the
recipient, reducing vaccine uptake, and mass vaccination by this approach is
laborious. The immunological drawback is that injection may not be the most
effective way of stimulating an appropriate immune response as it does not mimic
the usual route of entry of the majority of pathogens against which vaccination
is directed.
Many important pathogens infect mucosal surfaces or enter the body through
mucosal surfaces. Examples include respiratory microorganisms such as B.
pertussis, rhinoviruses and influenza viruses, and enteric
microorganisms such as Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella
typhi, enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, and
Shigella. The enteric microorganisms are particularly
important pathogens in underdeveloped countries. It is therefore important to
understand how these organisms stimulate mucosal immunity and to develop
vaccines that behave similarly. To this end, there are efforts to develop
vaccines that can be administered to the mucosa orally or by nasal
inhalation.
The power of this approach is illustrated by the effectiveness of live-attenuated
polio vaccines. The Sabin polio vaccine consists of three attenuated polio virus
strains and is highly immunogenic. Moreover, just as polio itself can be
transmitted by fecal contamination of public swimming pools and other failures
of hygiene, the vaccine can be transmitted from one individual to another by the
orofecal route. Infection with Salmonella likewise stimulates a
powerful mucosal and systemic immune response and, as we saw in Section 14-21, has been attenuated for use
as a vaccine and carrier of heterologous antigens for presentation to the
mucosal immune system.
The rules of mucosal immunity are poorly understood. On the one hand,
presentation of soluble protein antigens by the oral route often results in
tolerance, which is important given the enormous load of foodborne and airborne
antigens presented to the gut and respiratory tract. As discussed in Sections 14-10 and 13-28, the ability to induce tolerance by oral or nasal
administration of antigens is being explored as a therapeutic mechanism for
reducing unwanted immune responses. On the other hand, the mucosal immune system
can respond to and eliminate mucosal infections such as pertussis, cholera, and
polio. The proteins from these microorganisms that stimulate immune responses
are therefore of special interest. One group of powerfully immunogenic proteins
at mucosal surfaces is a group of bacterial toxins that have the property of
binding to eukaryotic cells and are protease-resistant. A recent finding of
potential practical importance is that certain of these molecules, such as the
E. coli heat-labile toxin and pertussis toxin, have
adjuvant properties that are retained even when the parent molecule has been
engineered to eliminate its toxic properties. These molecules can be used as
adjuvants for oral or nasal vaccines. In mice, nasal insufflation of either of
these mutant toxins together with tetanus toxoid resulted in the development of
protection against lethal challenge with tetanus toxin.
14-25. Protective immunity can be induced by injecting DNA encoding microbial
antigens and human cytokines into muscle
Figure 14.28
.
DNA vaccination by injection of DNA encoding a protective antigen
and cytokines directly into muscle
Influenza hemagglutinin contains both B- and T-cell epitopes. When a
DNA plasmid containing the gene for hemagglutinin is injected
directly into muscle, an influenza-specific immune response
consisting of both antibody and cytotoxic CD8 T cells results. The
response can be enhanced by including a plasmid encoding GM-CSF in
the injection. The plasmid DNAs are presumably expressed by some of
the cells in the muscle tissue into which they are injected,
provoking an immune response that involves both antibody and
cytotoxic T cells. The details of this process are not yet
understood.
The latest development in vaccination has come as a surprise even to the
scientists who first developed the method. The story begins with attempts to use
nonreplicating bacterial plasmids encoding proteins for gene therapy: proteins
expressed
in vivo from these plasmids were found to stimulate
an
immune response. When DNA encoding a viral
immunogen is injected
intramuscularly, it leads to the development of
antibody responses and cytotoxic
T cells that allow the mice to reject a later challenge with whole virus (). This response does not appear
to damage the muscle tissue, is safe and effective, and, because it uses only a
single microbial gene, does not carry the risk of active infection. This
procedure has been termed ‘DNA
vaccination.’ DNA coated onto minute metal projectiles can be
administered by ‘biolistic’ (biological ballistic) gun, so that several metal
particles penetrate the skin and enter the muscle beneath. This technique has
been shown to be effective in animals and might be suitable for mass
immunization, although it has yet to be tested in humans. Mixing in plasmids
that encode cytokines such as GM-CSF makes immunization with genes encoding
protective
antigens much more effective, as was seen earlier for tumor
immunity.
14-26. The effectiveness of a vaccine can be enhanced by targeting it to sites of
antigen presentation
An important way of enhancing the effectiveness of a vaccine is to target it
efficiently to antigen-presenting cells. This is an important mechanism of
action of vaccine adjuvants. There are three complementary approaches. The first
is to prevent proteolysis of the antigen on its way to antigen-presenting cells.
Preserving antigen structure is an important reason why so many vaccines are
given by injection rather than by the oral route, which exposes the vaccine to
digestion in the gut. The second and third approaches are to target the vaccine
selectively, once in the body, to antigen-presenting cells and to devise methods
of engineering the selective uptake of the vaccine into antigen-processing
pathways within the cell.
Techniques to enhance the uptake of antigens by antigen-presenting cells include
coating the antigen with mannose to enhance uptake by mannose receptors on
antigen-presenting cells, and presenting the antigen as an immune complex to
take advantage of antibody and complement binding by Fc and complement
receptors. The effects of DNA vaccination have been enhanced experimentally by
injecting DNA encoding antigen coupled to CTLA-4, which enables the selective
binding of the expressed protein to antigen-presenting cells carrying B7, the
receptor for CTLA-4 (see Section
8-5).
A more complicated set of strategies involves targeting vaccine antigens
selectively into antigen-presenting pathways within the cell. For example, human
papillomavirus E7 antigen has been coupled to the signal peptide that targets a
lysosomal-associated membrane protein to lysosomes and endosomes. This directs
the E7 antigen directly to the intracellular compartments in which antigens are
cleaved to peptides before binding to MHC class II molecules (see Section 5-5). A vaccinia virus
incorporating this chimeric antigen induced a greater response in mice to E7
antigen than did vaccinia incorporating wild-type E7 antigen alone. A second
approach is the use of ISCOMs, which seem to encourage the entry of peptides
into the cytoplasm, thus enhancing the loading of peptides onto MHC class I
molecules (see Section 14-23).
An improved understanding of the mechanisms of mucosal immunity (see Chapter 10) has led to
the development of techniques to target antigens to M cells overlying Peyer's
patches (see Fig. 1.10). These specialized
epithelial cells lack the mucin barrier and digestive properties of other
mucosal epithelial cells. Instead, they can bind and endocytose macromolecules
and micro-organisms, which are transcytosed intact and delivered to the
underlying lymphoid tissue. In view of these properties, it is not surprising
that some pathogens target M cells to gain entry to the body. The counterattack
by immunologists is to gain a detailed molecular understanding of this mechanism
of bacterial pathogenesis and subvert it as a delivery system for vaccines. For
example, the outer membrane fimbrial proteins of Salmonella
typhimurium have a key role in the binding of these bacteria to M
cells. It might be possible to use these fimbrial proteins or, ultimately, just
their binding motifs, as targeting agents for vaccines. A related strategy to
encourage the uptake of mucosal vaccines by M cells is to encapsulate antigens
in particulate carriers that are taken up selectively by M cells.
14-27. An important question is whether vaccination can be used therapeutically to
control existing chronic infections
There are many chronic diseases in which infection persists because of a failure
of the immune system to eliminate disease. These can be divided into two groups,
those infections in which there is an obvious immune response that fails to
eliminate the organism, and those in which the infection seems to be invisible
to the immune system and evokes a barely detectable immune response.
In the first category, the immune response is often partly responsible for the
pathogenic effects. Infection by the helminth Schistosoma
mansoni is associated with a powerful TH2-type response,
characterized by high IgE levels, circulating and tissue eosinophilia, and a
harmful fibrotic response to schistosome ova, leading to hepatic fibrosis. Other
common parasites, such as Plasmodium and
Leishmania species, cause damage because they are not
eliminated effectively by the immune response in many patients. Mycobacteria
causing tuberculosis and leprosy cause persistent intracellular infection; a
TH1 response helps to contain these infections but also causes
granuloma formation and tissue necrosis (see Fig. 8.43). Among viruses, hepatitis B and hepatitis C infections
are commonly followed by persistent viral carriage and hepatic injury, resulting
in death from hepatitis or from hepatoma. HIV infection, as we have seen in
Chapter 11, persists despite
an ongoing immune response.
There is a second category of chronic infection, predominantly viral, in which
the immune response fails to clear infection because of the relative
invisibility of the infectious agent to the immune system. A good example is
herpes simplex type 2, which is transmitted venereally, becomes latent in nerve
tissue, and causes genital herpes, which is frequently recurrent. This
invisibility seems to be caused by a viral protein, ICP-47, which binds to the
TAP complex and inhibits peptide transport into the endoplasmic reticulum in
infected cells (see Chapter 4).
Thus viral peptides are not presented to the immune system by MHC class I
molecules. Another example in this category of chronic infection is genital
warts, caused by certain papilloma viruses to which very little immune response
is evoked.
There are two main immunological approaches to the treatment of chronic
infection. One is to try to boost or change the pattern of the host immune
response by using cytokine therapy. The second is to attempt therapeutic
vaccination to see whether the host immune response can be supercharged by
immunization with antigens from the infectious agent in combination with
adjuvant. There has been substantial pharmaceutical investment in therapeutic
vaccination but it is too early to know whether the approach will be
successful.
Figure 14.29
.
Treatment with anti-IL-4 antibody at the time of infection with
Leishmania major allows normally susceptible
mice to clear the infection
The top panel shows a hematoxylin-eosin-stained section through the
footpad of a mouse of the BALB/c strain infected with
Leishmania major (small red dots). Large
numbers of parasites are present in tissue macrophages. The bottom
panel shows a similar preparation from a mouse infected in the same
experiment but simultaneously treated with a single injection of
anti-IL-4 monoclonal antibody. Very few parasites are present.
Photographs courtesy of R.M. Locksley.
Some promise for the cytokine therapy approach comes from the experimental
treatment of leprosy: one can clear certain leprosy lesions by the injection of
cytokines directly into the lesion, which may cause reversal of the type of
leprosy seen. Another example in which cytokine therapy has been shown to be
effective in treating an established infection depends on combining a cytokine
with an anti-parasitic drug. In a proportion of mice infected with
Leishmania and subsequently treated with a combination of
drug therapy and
IL-12, the
immune response deviated from a T
H2 to a
T
H1 pattern and the infection was cleared. In most of the animal
studies, however, it seems that the anti-cytokine
antibody or the cytokine needs
to be present at the first encounter with the
antigen to modulate the response
effectively. For example, in experimental leishmaniasis in mice, susceptible
BALB/c mice injected with anti-
IL-4
antibody at the time of infection clear
their infection (). However,
if administration of anti-
IL-4
antibody is delayed by just one week, there is
progressive growth of the parasite and a dominant T
H2 response.
14-28. Modulation of the immune system might be used to inhibit immunopathological
responses to infectious agents
We have mentioned several times the possibility of modulating immunity by
cytokine manipulation of the immune response. This approach is being explored as
a means of inhibiting harmful immune responses to a number of important
infections. As we have seen in the preceding section, the liver fibrosis in
schistosomiasis results from the powerful TH2-type response. The
coadministration of S. mansoni ova together with IL-12 does not
protect mice against subsequent infection with S. mansoni
cercariae but has a striking effect in reducing hepatic granuloma formation and
fibrosis in response to ova. IgE levels are reduced, with reduced tissue
eosinophilia, and the cytokine response indicates the activation of
TH1 rather than TH2 cells. Although these results
indicate that it might be possible to use a combination of antigen and cytokines
to vaccinate against the pathology of diseases for which a fully protective
vaccine is unavailable, they do not solve the difficulty of applying this
approach in patients whose infection is already established.
Summary
The greatest triumphs of modern immunology have come from vaccination, which has
eradicated or virtually eliminated several human diseases. It is the single most
successful manipulation of the immune system so far, because it takes advantage
of the immune system's natural specificity and inducibility. Nevertheless, there
are many important infectious diseases for which there is still no effective
vaccine. The most effective vaccines are based on attenuated live
microorganisms, but these carry some risk and are potentially lethal to
immunosuppressed or immunodeficient individuals. Better techniques for
developing live-attenuated vaccines, or vaccines that incorporate both
immunogenic components and protective antigens of pathogens, are therefore being
sought. Most current viral vaccines are based on live attenuated virus, but many
bacterial vaccines are based on components of the micro-organism, including
components of the toxins that it produces. Protective response to carbohydrate
antigens can be enhanced by conjugation to a protein. Vaccines based on peptide
epitopes are still at an experimental stage and have the problem that the
peptide is likely to be specific for particular variants of the MHC molecules to
which they must bind, as well as being only very weakly immunogenic. A vaccine's
immunogenicity often depends on adjuvants that can help, directly or indirectly,
to activate antigen-presenting cells that are necessary for the initiation of
immune responses. The development of oral vaccines is particularly important for
stimulating immunity to the many pathogens that enter through the mucosa.
Cytokines have been used experimentally as adjuvants to boost the immunogenicity
of vaccines or to bias the immune response along a specific path.