Minor Histocompatibility Ags: Identification Strategies, Clinical Results and Translational Perspectives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 51, 163–171 © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0268-3369/16 www.nature.com/bmt REVIEW Minor histocompatibility Ags: identification strategies, clinical results and translational perspectives R Oostvogels1,2,3, HM Lokhorst3 and T Mutis1,3 Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) and donor lymphocyte infusion are effective treatment modalities for various hematological malignancies. Their therapeutic effect, the graft-versus-tumor (GvT) effect, is based mainly on an alloimmune response of donor T cells directed at tumor cells, in which differences in the expression of minor histocompatibility Ags (mHags) on the cells of the patient and donor have a crucial role. However, these differences are also responsible for induction of sometimes detrimental GvHD. As relapse and development of GvHD pose major threats for a large proportion of allotransplanted patients, additional therapeutic strategies are required. To augment the GvT response without increasing the risk of GvHD, specific mHag- directed immunotherapeutic strategies have been developed. Over the past years, much effort has been put into the identification of therapeutically relevant mHags to enable these strategies for a substantial proportion of patients. Currently, the concept of mHag-directed immunotherapy is tested in clinical trials on feasibility, safety and efficacy. In this review, we will summarize the recent developments in mHag identification and the clinical data on mHag-specific immune responses and mHag-directed therapies in patients with hematological malignancies. Finally, we will outline the current challenges and future prospectives in the field. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 51, 163–171; doi:10.1038/bmt.2015.256; published online 26 October 2015 THE ROLE OF MINOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY AGS IN GVT whereas the mHags exclusively expressed on hematopoietic cells AND GVHD can give rise to a specific GvT effect (Figure 1b).2,3 Based on this Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT), either alone or principle, mHags with a strict hematopoietic tissue restriction are followed by donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI), is a potentially considered ideal targets for immunotherapy in patients with curative treatment for various hematological malignancies. residual or relapsing disease after allo-SCT, because they create 4,5 Essential for the antitumor effect is an immune response of donor the opportunity to separate GvT from GvHD. T cells, and, to a lesser extent, of NK and B cells, already present in the graft, against persistent tumor cells. In the allogeneic transplantation setting, donor T cells attacking the tumor cells CLINICAL APPLICABILITY OF mHAGS are frequently directed at host (allo-)specific Ags rather than As the polymorphic mHags are always presented by a certain HLA tumor-specific Ags.1 Therefore, the therapeutic graft-versus-tumor allele, there are several restrictions for the application of mHag- effect (GvT) is often accompanied by sometimes deleterious specific therapy: first, a genetic mHag mismatch between recipient GvHD. In an HLA-matched transplant setting, the T-cell and donor is required; second, the mismatched mHag gene needs alloreactivity leading to both GvT and GvHD is caused by the to be expressed only on hematopoietic cells and finally donor and recognition of minor histocompatibility Ags (mHags) presented by recipient need to express the appropriate HLA molecule for the cells of the recipient to donor T cells. These mHags are presentation of the specific mHag epitope. Thus, only a small polymorphic HLA-bound peptides that differ between donor and group of patients can be treated with each mHag, and because of recipient as they are degradation products of cellular proteins this individual applicability, the characterization of many mHags is encoded by polymorphic genes. These polymorphisms between necessary to enable broad implementation of mHag-based the host and the donor occur at the level of single or multiple base immunotherapy. Therefore, since 1998, the identification of pairs, due to either single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), hematopoietic-specific mHags has become a major goal of several base pair insertions or deletions (indels) or copy number investigators, devoted to enabling this difficult but ideal therapy variations (CNVs). In contrast to several tumor-associated Ags, for a large group of patients. Tables 1 and 2 represents a summary no self-recognition for mHags occurs and therefore no tolerance is of all identified mHags with their molecular characteristics and induced, leading to potent donor T-cell responses (Figure 1a). additional clinical information on the selection of hematopoietic- Depending on the tissue distribution of the polymorphic genes, specific mHags, respectively. Now, after the identification of mHags are either broadly expressed or are expressed in a around 50 mHags, over 35% of allotransplanted patients are hematopoietic-specific manner. According to current thinking, potential candidates for this targeted therapy. This empirical broadly expressed mHags can give rise to both GvHD and GvT, percentage matches our previous calculations (with calculated 1Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 2Department of Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands and 3Department of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Correspondence: Dr T Mutis, Department of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Room CCA 4.45, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam HV 1081, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Received 25 May 2015; revised 11 August 2015; accepted 15 August 2015; published online 26 October 2015 Minor histocompatibility Ags R Oostvogels et al 164 a toward identification of new mHags that are able to induce Ab responses after allo-SCT. Recipient cell Donor cell T T C C A A PROGRESS IN mHAG IDENTIFICATION METHODS C C G A The molecular characterization of epitopes recognized by mHag- G G specific T-cell clones isolated from an allo-SCT recipient has been A A A A the traditional and the most successful strategy for identification T T G G of mHags. As the genetic origin of mHags was initially unknown, laborious and technically demanding methods were used for this OR purpose, such as peptide elution from HLA molecules or screening of cDNA libraries derived from mHag-positive target cells.9–13 When it was understood that the polymorphic mHag peptides were, in fact, encoded by naturally inherited genetic variations, more efficient genetic identification techniques were introduced. In general, all these techniques aim at the identification of the Donor genetic polymorphism encoding for the mHags via correlation T cell Donor analyses, in which a significant association is sought between the T cell mHag phenotypes of a large number of individuals and known genetic markers in the genome of these individuals. For this purpose, many investigators made use of large pedigrees from the 14 b CEPH reference family collections, and also self-assembled panels of individuals were used.15 The mHag phenotypes of these Donor individuals were usually determined by measuring the response T cell of mHag-specific T-cell clones to Epstein–Barr virus-transformed B cells derived from those individuals. In the very first approach, the genomic locus of the mHag was identified by pairwise Benign blood cell correlation of the mHag phenotypes with about 32 000 SNPs GvT and microsatellite markers throughout the whole genome.16 Donor Nonetheless, this strategy was abandoned after the identification T cell of mHags LRH-1, ACC1 and ACC2,17,18 because for several other Tumor cell mHags the identified genetic locus was too large to precisely identify the mHag.6,19,20 The association of mHag phenotypes with Donor individual SNPs spread throughout the genome appeared a more T cell feasible strategy. The genetic polymorphism information required for these analyses was frequently derived from the HapMap project including 44×106 SNP genotypes for different ethnical populations.21 Making use of the fact that several of the CEPH family members were included as trios (father–mother–child) in GvHD Other tissue the databases of the HapMap Project, we developed a powerful and convenient genome-wide association study (GWAS). Based on the Mendelian inheritance pattern of mHags, we could determine Figure 1. mHags: recognition by T cells and role in GvHD and GvT. the mHag zygosities for many individuals from their mHag (a) Genetic polymorphisms leading to amino-acid differences can phenotypes. Using this extra information in the GWAS analyses, give rise to differential presentation of mHags by the HLA on cells of we could rapidly identify the mHags CD19L, SLC19A1R and the HLA-identical allo-SCT recipient (left), whereas the cells of the UTA2-1L.6,21–23 donor present no or a different Ag (right). Upon recognition of the mHag, the donor T cells become activated and can lyse the cells presenting the mHag. (b) Depending on the site and level of tissue IMPLEMENTING THE 1000 GENOMES PROJECT IN mHAG expression of the mHag, GvT and/or GvHD can develop in the IDENTIFICATION STRATEGIES presence of an mHag mismatch in the donor-versus-recipient (graft- fi versus-host) direction. Although ef cient and often successful, the above-described genetic correlation strategies were still unable to identify the target Ag of a number of mHag-specific T-cell clones, probably because of the limited number of genetic variations represented