Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (41)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (41)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (41)
Language
- English (41)
Keywords
- psoriasis (4)
- Merkel cell carcinoma (3)
- immunohistochemistry (3)
- therapy (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- Germany (2)
- PD-L1 (2)
- dermatology (2)
- inflammation (2)
- melanoma (2)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie (41)
- Pathologisches Institut (6)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (5)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken (2)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (2)
- Institut für Humangenetik (1)
- Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (1)
- Institut für Klinische Biochemie und Pathobiochemie (1)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (1)
- Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Neuroradiologie (ehem. Abteilung für Neuroradiologie) (1)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
Oesophageal involvement in mucous membrane pemphigoid is considered rare, but it may be underdiagnosed. To assess the incidence of oesophageal involvement in a group of patients with newly diagnosed mucous membrane pemphigoid we retrospectively analysed the medical records of 30 consecutive patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 at the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Würzburg. Twenty-one patients (70%) reported symptoms indicative of oesophageal mucous membrane pemphigoid. Twelve patients (40%) underwent oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, and oesophageal pathology compatible with mucous membrane pemphigoid was endoscopically found in 9 cases (30%). In all patients indirect and direct immunofluorescence were performed. Patients with and without oesophageal involvement did not differ with regard to the results of indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split human skin and monkey oesophagus. Study results demonstrate the necessity of a standardized diagnostic work-up, including adequate tissue samples for direct immunofluorescence, to prevent underdiagnosis of oesophageal mucous membrane pemphigoid.
The massive infiltration of lymphocytes into the skin is a hallmark of numerous human skin disorders. By co-culturing murine keratinocytes with splenic T cells we demonstrate here that T cells affect and control the synthesis and secretion of chemokines by keratinocytes. While pre-activated CD8\(^+\)T cells induce the synthesis of CXCL9 and CXCL10 in keratinocytes and keep in check the synthesis of CXCL1, CXCL5, and CCL20, keratinocytes dampen the synthesis of CCL3 and CCL4 in pre-activated CD8\(^+\)T cells. One key molecule is IFN-γ that is synthesized by CD8\(^+\)T cells under the control of NFATc1 and NFATc2. CD8\(^+\)T cells deficient for both NFAT factors are unable to induce CXCL9 and CXCL10 expression. In addition, CD8\(^+\)T cells induced numerous type I IFN-inducible “defense genes” in keratinocytes encoding the PD1 and CD40 ligands, TNF-α and caspase-1. The enhanced expression of type I IFN-inducible genes resembles the gene expression pattern at the dermal/epidermal interface in lichen planus, an inflammatory T lymphocyte-driven skin disease, in which we detected the expression of CXCL10 in keratinocytes in close vicinity to the infiltration front of T cells. These data reflect the multifaceted interplay of lymphocytes with keratinocytes at the molecular level.
Background
Immune checkpoint inhibition and in particular anti-PD-1 immunotherapy have revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma. In this regard, higher tumoral PD-L1 protein (gene name: CD274) expression is associated with better clinical response and increased survival to anti-PD-1 therapy. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that tumor suppressor proteins are involved in immune regulation and are capable of modulating the expression of immune checkpoint proteins. Here, we determined the role of p53 protein (gene name: TP53) in the regulation of PD-L1 expression in melanoma.
Methods
We analyzed publicly available mRNA and protein expression data from the cancer genome/proteome atlas and performed immunohistochemistry on tumors with known TP53 status. Constitutive and IFN-ɣ-induced PD-L1 expression upon p53 knockdown in wildtype, TP53-mutated or JAK2-overexpressing melanoma cells or in cells, in which p53 was rendered transcriptionally inactive by CRISPR/Cas9, was determined by immunoblot or flow cytometry. Similarly, PD-L1 expression was investigated after overexpression of a transcriptionally-impaired p53 (L22Q, W23S) in TP53-wt or a TP53-knockout melanoma cell line. Immunoblot was applied to analyze the IFN-ɣ signaling pathway.
Results
For TP53-mutated tumors, an increased CD274 mRNA expression and a higher frequency of PD-L1 positivity was observed. Interestingly, positive correlations of IFNG mRNA and PD-L1 protein in both TP53-wt and -mutated samples and of p53 and PD-L1 protein suggest a non-transcriptional mode of action of p53. Indeed, cell line experiments revealed a diminished IFN-ɣ-induced PD-L1 expression upon p53 knockdown in both wildtype and TP53-mutated melanoma cells, which was not the case when p53 wildtype protein was rendered transcriptionally inactive or by ectopic expression of p53\(^{L22Q,W23S}\), a transcriptionally-impaired variant, in TP53-wt cells. Accordingly, expression of p53\(^{L22Q,W23S}\) in a TP53-knockout melanoma cell line boosted IFN-ɣ-induced PD-L1 expression. The impaired PD-L1-inducibility after p53 knockdown was associated with a reduced JAK2 expression in the cells and was almost abrogated by JAK2 overexpression.
Conclusions
While having only a small impact on basal PD-L1 expression, both wildtype and mutated p53 play an important positive role for IFN-ɣ-induced PD-L1 expression in melanoma cells by supporting JAK2 expression. Future studies should address, whether p53 expression levels might influence response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.
Elucidating the mechanism of action of domatinostat (4SC-202) in cutaneous T cell lymphoma cells
(2019)
Background
Targeting epigenetic modifiers is effective in cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL). However, there is a need for further improvement of this therapeutic approach. Here, we compared the mode of action of romidepsin (FK228), an established class I histone deacetylase inhibitor, and domatinostat (4SC-202), a novel inhibitor of class I HDACs, which has been reported to also target the lysine-specific histone demethylase 1A (LSD1).
Methods
We performed MTS assays and flow cytometric analyses of propidium iodide or annexin V-stained cells to assess drug impact on cellular proliferation, cell cycle distribution, and survival. Histone acetylation and methylation as well as caspase activation was analyzed by immunoblot. Gene expression analysis was performed using NanosString technology. Knockdown and knockout of LSD1 was achieved with shRNA and CRISPR/Cas9, respectively, while the CRISPR/Cas9 synergistic activation mediator system was used to induce expression of endogenous HDACs and LSD1. Furthermore, time-lapse fluorescence microscopy and an in vitro tubulin polymerization assay were applied.
Results
While FK228 as well as 4SC-202 potently induced cell death in six different CTCL cell lines, only in the case of 4SC-202 death was preceded by an accumulation of cells in the G2/M phase of the cell cycle. Surprisingly, apoptosis and accumulation of cells with double DNA content occurred already at 4SC-202 concentrations hardly affecting histone acetylation and methylation, and provoking significantly less changes in gene expression compared to biologically equivalent doses of FK228. Indeed, we provide evidence that the 4SC-202-induced G2/M arrest in CTCL cells is independent of de novo transcription. Furthermore, neither enforced expression of HDAC1 nor knockdown or knockout of LSD1 affected the 4SC-202-induced effects. Since time-lapse microscopy revealed that 4SC-202 could affect mitotic spindle formation, we performed an in vitro tubulin polymerization assay revealing that 4SC-202 can directly inhibit microtubule formation.
Conclusions
We demonstrate that 4SC-202, a drug currently tested in clinical trials, effectively inhibits growth of CTCL cells. The anti-cancer cell activity of 4SC-202 is however not limited to LSD1-inhibition, modulation of histone modifications, and consecutive alteration of gene expression. Indeed, the compound is also a potent microtubule-destabilizing agent.
Background
High response rates of metastatic melanoma have been reported upon immune checkpoint inhibition by PD-1 blockade alone or in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors. However, the majority of patients with a primary resistance to anti-PD-1 monotherapy is also refractory to a subsequent combined checkpoint inhibition. In BRAF wildtype patients with a primary resistance to PD-1 inhibitors, therapeutic options are therefore limited and immune-related adverse events (irAE) have to be taken into consideration when discussing a subsequent immunotherapy.
Case presentation
We report the case of a 68-year-old male patient with metastatic melanoma who experienced an acute renal failure with nephrotic syndrome due to a minimal change disease developing after a single dose of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. A kidney biopsy revealed a podocytopathy without signs of interstitial nephritis. Renal function recovered to almost normal creatinine and total urine protein levels upon treatment with oral steroids and diuretics. Unfortunately, a disease progression (PD, RECIST 1.1) was observed in a CT scan after resolution of the irAE. In a grand round, re-exposure to a PD-1-containing regime was recommended. Consensually, a combined immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab was initiated. Nephrotoxicity was tolerable during combined immunotherapy and a CT scan of chest and abdomen showed a deep partial remission (RECIST 1.1) after three doses of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) and nivolumab (1 mg/kg).
Conclusion
This case illustrates that a fulminant response to combined checkpoint inhibition is possible after progression after anti-PD-1 monotherapy and a severe irAE.
We here present the case of a 67-year-old woman with a history of a slowly progressive, polypous nodule on her left wrist. The lesion was excised, and the histological analysis revealed a clear cell tumour that was relatively sharply demarked from the surrounding tissue extending into the subcutaneous tissue. The tumour showed a characteristic trabecular pattern in which the tumour cells were arranged around numerous vessels. The neoplastic cells had a predominantly epithelioid shape, granular eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm and prominent centrally located nucleoli. The histological differential diagnosis included a metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a primary cutaneous perivascular epithelioid cell tumour (PEComa). Immunohistochemically, the tumour cells revealed homogenous expression of HMB-45, MiTF and CD10, whereas MART-1 and S100 were negative. Antibodies against actin marked the trabecularly arranged vessels, and the neoplastic cells yielded a patchy positivity against actin and desmin. Additional immunohistochemical stains against pan-cytokeratin, CAIX, PAX-8 and EMA were negative. Based on the morphologic and immunophenotypic findings, the histological diagnosis of a CD10-positive cutaneous PEComa was made.
S2k guidelines for the treatment of pemphigus vulgaris/foliaceus and bullous pemphigoid: 2019 update
(2020)
The increasingly frequent use of immunomodulatory agents in dermatology requires the observance of specific recommendations for immunization. These recommendations are developed and regularly updated by the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), an independent advisory group at the Robert Koch Institute. Dermatological patients on immunosuppressive treatment should ideally receive all vaccinations included in the standard immunization schedule. Additionally, it is recommended that they also undergo vaccination against the seasonal flu, pneumococci, and herpes zoster (inactivated herpes zoster subunit vaccine for patients ≥ 50 years). Additional immunizations against Haemophilus influenzae type B, hepatitis B and meningococci may be indicated depending on individual comorbidities and exposure risk. Limitations of use, specific contraindications and intervals to be observed between vaccination and immunosuppression depend on the immunosuppressive agent used and its dosing. Only under certain conditions may live‐attenuated vaccines be administered in patients on immunosuppressive therapy. Given its strong suppressive effect on the humoral immune response, no vaccines – except for flu shots – should be given within six months after rituximab therapy.
This CME article presents current recommendations on immunization in immunocompromised individuals, with a special focus on dermatological patients. Its goal is to enable readers to provide competent counseling and to initiate necessary immunizations in this vulnerable patient group.
The COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 has far‐reaching direct and indirect medical consequences. These include both the course and treatment of diseases. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with SARS‐CoV‐2 can cause considerable immunological alterations, which particularly also affect pathogenetically and/or therapeutically relevant factors.
Against this background we summarize here the current state of knowledge on the interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 with mediators of the acute phase of inflammation (TNF, IL‐1, IL‐6), type 1 and type 17 immune responses (IL‐12, IL‐23, IL‐17, IL‐36), type 2 immune reactions (IL‐4, IL‐13, IL‐5, IL‐31, IgE), B‐cell immunity, checkpoint regulators (PD‐1, PD‐L1, CTLA4), and orally druggable signaling pathways (JAK, PDE4, calcineurin). In addition, we discuss in this context non‐specific immune modulation by glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil and fumaric acid esters, as well as neutrophil granulocyte‐mediated innate immune mechanisms.
From these recent findings we derive possible implications for the therapeutic modulation of said immunological mechanisms in connection with SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19. Although, of course, the greatest care should be taken with patients with immunologically mediated diseases or immunomodulating therapies, it appears that many treatments can also be carried out during the COVID‐19 pandemic; some even appear to alleviate COVID‐19.