Journal Articles

Molecular heterogeneity and clonal origin of CCR8+ effector regulatory T cells in human cancer

Spotlight 

Swatler, Puccio, et al. used scRNsSeq and flow cytometry to define Treg subsets and analyze heterogeneity and TCR overlap across tissues from 9 tumor types. A common intratumoral Treg signature of 88 genes was defined, and four Treg subsets were further resolved (CCR7+ quiescent; CCR8+ effector; CD161+ Th17-like; intermediate lacking strong functional markers). In NSCLC, CCR8+ effector abundance correlated negatively, and CD161+ Th17-like abundance correlated positively with relapse-free survival. CCR8+ Tregs showed strong tumor localization with clonotype expansion, strong overlap with Tregs in dLN, and some overlap with normal adjacent tissue Tregs and intratumoral Tconv.

Contributed by Ed Fritsch

Swatler, Puccio, et al. used scRNsSeq and flow cytometry to define Treg subsets and analyze heterogeneity and TCR overlap across tissues from 9 tumor types. A common intratumoral Treg signature of 88 genes was defined, and four Treg subsets were further resolved (CCR7+ quiescent; CCR8+ effector; CD161+ Th17-like; intermediate lacking strong functional markers). In NSCLC, CCR8+ effector abundance correlated negatively, and CD161+ Th17-like abundance correlated positively with relapse-free survival. CCR8+ Tregs showed strong tumor localization with clonotype expansion, strong overlap with Tregs in dLN, and some overlap with normal adjacent tissue Tregs and intratumoral Tconv.

Contributed by Ed Fritsch

ABSTRACT: CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Treg) are highly activated in tumors and promote disease progression. Specific, universal targeting of these effector Treg cells is limited by the lack of a conserved signature across human cancers and information on their origin. Here we combine analysis of single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets with spectral flow cytometry and identify a core signature of 88 genes consistently upregulated in intratumoral Treg cells among 9 epithelial cancers. We describe 4 Treg cell subsets – CCR7+ quiescent, CCR8+ effector, CD161+ and intermediate, with distinct tissue distribution, function, differentiation trajectories and molecular drivers. By single-cell T cell receptor sequencing, we observe that protumoral, effector CCR8+ Treg cells exhibit little clonal relationship with other Treg cell subsets inside tumors, but are clonally related to Treg cells in tumor-draining lymph nodes, as well as conventional T cells in tumors. This resource provides insights for development and fine-tuning of CCR8+ Treg cell-targeting therapies in cancer.

Author Info: 1-IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 2- Institute of Genetic and Biomedical Research, UoS Milan, National Research Council, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 3- Departm

Author Info: 1-IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 2- Institute of Genetic and Biomedical Research, UoS Milan, National Research Council, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 3- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy. 4- Discovery Biology, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Redwood City, California, CA, USA. 5- These authors contributed equally: Julian Swatler, Simone Puccio. e-mail: julian.swatler@humanitasresearch.it; enrico.lugli@humanitasresearch.it

Immune checkpoint blockade facilitates primary tumor rejection in a cDC1-independent manner without immunological memory acquisition

Spotlight 

Arisato et al. found that the LLC-2B2 subclone of LLC was universally rejected in ICB-treated WT mice and was also rejected in 36% of ICB-treated Batf3-/- mice. In Batf3-/- mice, rejection was dependent on CD8+ T cells primed by alternative XCR1- APCs, which upregulated costimulatory CD80, CD86, and CD40 in response to soluble factors secreted by LLC-2B2 cells. However, when mice that had cleared LLC-2B2 tumors were rechallenged, all WT mice rejected tumors, while most Batf3-/- mice did not, suggesting that cDC1s were important in establishing protective immune memory. Intratumoral injection of Flt3L-DCs restored protection from rechallenge.

Contributed by Lauren Hitchings

Arisato et al. found that the LLC-2B2 subclone of LLC was universally rejected in ICB-treated WT mice and was also rejected in 36% of ICB-treated Batf3-/- mice. In Batf3-/- mice, rejection was dependent on CD8+ T cells primed by alternative XCR1- APCs, which upregulated costimulatory CD80, CD86, and CD40 in response to soluble factors secreted by LLC-2B2 cells. However, when mice that had cleared LLC-2B2 tumors were rechallenged, all WT mice rejected tumors, while most Batf3-/- mice did not, suggesting that cDC1s were important in establishing protective immune memory. Intratumoral injection of Flt3L-DCs restored protection from rechallenge.

Contributed by Lauren Hitchings

ABSTRACT: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) provides durable therapeutic responses across multiple cancer types. Although crosstalk between T cells and conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1s) is essential, the contribution of other antigen-presenting cells (APCs) to ICB-induced tumor rejection remains unclear. To address this, we show that while the majority of wild type (WT) mice rejected an immunogenic clone of Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) following ICB, 35.7% of Batf3–/– mice, which lack the cDC1 subset, also rejected this LLC clone. ICB induced the upregulation of costimulatory markers on XCR1– APCs in the tumors and lymph nodes of Batf3–/– mice, similar to responses observed in wild-type mice. Mechanistically, conditioned culture media from LLC, but not from ICB-resistant B16F10 melanoma cells, stimulated bone marrow-derived cDC1s and cDC2s, as evidenced by the upregulation of CD40 and CD80 expression. RNA sequencing revealed that antitumor immunity-related genes were upregulated in LLC cells compared with B16F10 cells. To determine the role of cDC1-independent long-term immune memory, we rechallenged ICB-induced tumor-free mice with LLC tumors. We found that, without supplementation of cDC1s during primary rejection, Batf3–/– mice failed to spontaneously reject the rechallenged tumors. These findings demonstrate that ICB can elicit primary antitumor T cell responses against immunogenic tumors in the absence of cDC1s, whereas cDC1s are essential for the establishment of ICB-induced long-term memory. Our study underscores the importance of clinical strategies targeting both cDC1-dependent and cDC1-independent pathways to enhance the durable efficacy of ICB.

Author Info: 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan 2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medici

Author Info: 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan 2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Shinshu Cancer Center, Shinshu University Hospital, Matsumoto, Japan 4. Division of Molecular Psychoimmunology, Institute for Genetic Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan 6. Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan 7. Quantum immunology Team, Institute for Quantum Life science, National Institute for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology (QST), Chiba, Japan 8. Division of Molecular Neuroimmunology, Department of Homeostatic Regulation, National Institute for Physiological Sciences, National Institutes of Natural Sciences, Aichi, Japan 9. Institute for Vaccine Research and Development, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 001-0021, Japan

Enfortumab vedotin induces immunogenic cell death and shows enhanced preclinical antitumor activity when combined with a PD-1 inhibitor Featured  

Untangling the mechanism of enfortumab vedotin – an antibody–drug conjugate that targets Nectin-4 on cancer cells – Olson and Liu et al. showed that upon target binding, the drug is imported into the cell and transported to the lysosome, where MMAE is released, inducing direct cytotoxicity by disrupting microtubule formation and inducing ER stress and immunogenic cell death (ICD). Upon ICD, MMAE is released from the cell, killing nearby bystander cells. ICD also induces macrophage and DC activation, initiating protective antitumor immunity against both Nectin-4+ and Nectin-4- tumor cells. Enfortuman vedotin also synergized with anti-PD-1.

Untangling the mechanism of enfortumab vedotin – an antibody–drug conjugate that targets Nectin-4 on cancer cells – Olson and Liu et al. showed that upon target binding, the drug is imported into the cell and transported to the lysosome, where MMAE is released, inducing direct cytotoxicity by disrupting microtubule formation and inducing ER stress and immunogenic cell death (ICD). Upon ICD, MMAE is released from the cell, killing nearby bystander cells. ICD also induces macrophage and DC activation, initiating protective antitumor immunity against both Nectin-4+ and Nectin-4- tumor cells. Enfortuman vedotin also synergized with anti-PD-1.

ABSTRACT: Enfortumab vedotin is a Nectin-4-directed antibody-drug conjugate designed to deliver the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) to tumor cells. Using preclinical models of urothelial cancer (UC), we expand the understanding of the multifaceted mechanism of action for enfortumab vedotin that includes direct cytotoxicity on Nectin-4-positive tumor cells, indirect bystander effect on neighboring Nectin-4-negative tumor cells, and MMAE-mediated induction of immunogenic cell death (ICD) and associated increase in activated immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Importantly, vaccination with enfortumab vedotin-treated tumor cells results in protection against tumor rechallenge in mice, consistent with antitumor immunity. MMAE-mediated ICD induction modulates the tumor microenvironment in a complementary manner to immune checkpoint inhibition. Accordingly, enfortumab vedotin plus PD-1 inhibitor shows enhanced antitumor activity in vivo. These preclinical findings provide mechanistic hypotheses that may be relevant to the improved clinical outcomes observed for enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab relative to chemotherapy.

Author Info: (1) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (2) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (3) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (4) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (5) Pfizer,

Author Info: (1) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (2) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (3) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (4) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (5) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (6) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (7) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (8) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (9) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (10) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (11) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (12) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (13) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (14) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (15) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (16) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (17) Seagen, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (18) Astellas Pharma Inc., Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. (19) Astellas Research Institute of America LLC, Northbrook, IL 60062, USA. (20) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (21) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. (22) Pfizer, Inc., Bothell, WA 98021, USA. Electronic address: sharsti.sandall@pfizer.com.

Neutralizing the IL-12/IL-23 p40 subunit prevents immune checkpoint blockade toxicity without compromising antitumor efficacy Spotlight 

Groeneveldt et al. investigated mechanisms driving early-stage immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with combination ICB (anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4). Proteomic analysis of serum identified an early, significant increase of p40, a subunit of IL-12/I-23, prior to the onset of clinically apparent irAEs, which was not associated with ICB efficacy. In mouse models that mimic irAEs in patients, p40 neutralization prevented ICB-induced toxicity, without compromising antitumor T cell immunity, including the establishment of tumor-specific responses, suggesting distinct mechanisms that can be uncoupled.

Contributed by Katherine Turner

Groeneveldt et al. investigated mechanisms driving early-stage immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with combination ICB (anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4). Proteomic analysis of serum identified an early, significant increase of p40, a subunit of IL-12/I-23, prior to the onset of clinically apparent irAEs, which was not associated with ICB efficacy. In mouse models that mimic irAEs in patients, p40 neutralization prevented ICB-induced toxicity, without compromising antitumor T cell immunity, including the establishment of tumor-specific responses, suggesting distinct mechanisms that can be uncoupled.

Contributed by Katherine Turner

ABSTRACT: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has markedly improved overall survival in various cancers, but is associated with severe and sometimes fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Current management of irAEs involves discontinuation of ICB therapy and administration of immunosuppressive drugs, such as corticosteroids, which have been associated with decreased antitumor efficacy. Although irAE development is associated with ICB response, it is currently unknown whether their underlying mechanisms are shared or distinct. To identify early and targetable drivers of irAEs, we performed proteomic analyses on the serum of patients with cancer treated with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 combination ICB. We identified a significantly increased concentration of p40, a subunit of IL-12/IL-23, shortly after the start of ICB but before the onset of clinically apparent irAEs. Importantly, increased p40 levels were not associated with ICB efficacy. Neutralizing p40 mitigated ICB-induced toxicity in various mouse models without impairing ICB-induced antitumor efficacy. In conclusion, we demonstrated that IL-12/IL-23p40 is a key mediator of ICB-induced toxicity while being redundant for ICB antitumor efficacy. This shows that the mechanisms underlying ICB toxicity and efficacy can be uncoupled and provides a rationale for p40 blockade in clinical trials with ICB treatment to prevent irAEs in patients.

Author Info: (1) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/018906e22 (2) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam, South-Holland Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (3) Erasmu

Author Info: (1) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/018906e22 (2) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam, South-Holland Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (3) Erasmus MC Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/018906e22 (4) Cancer Research UK Scotland Institute United Kingdom. ROR: https://ror.org/03pv69j64 (5) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (6) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (7) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Rotterdam Netherlands. (8) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (9) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Rotterdam Netherlands. (10) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (11) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (12) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/018906e22 (13) University of Warsaw Poland. ROR: https://ror.org/039bjqg32 (14) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/018906e22 (15) Erasmus MC - Sophia Children's Hospital Rotterdam, South Holland Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/047afsm11 (16) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/018906e22 (17) Erasmus MC Rotterdam Rotterdam Netherlands. (18) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349 (19) Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam Netherlands. ROR: https://ror.org/03r4m3349

Antigen presentation requirements for effective cDC1-based cancer immunotherapy Spotlight 

Ex vivo-differentiated cDC1s offer superior tumor protection compared to monocyte-derived DCs used in DC vaccine trials. Pinesa and Minowa et al. found that vaccine-delivered cDC1s closely resembled tumor-infiltrating endogenous cDC1s transcriptionally. Robust tumor control upon cDC1 vaccination required both MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation on the same cDC1, and transient CD40 stimulation was insufficient to compensate for MHC-II KO on cDC1s vaccines, suggesting direct in cis coordination of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses. Lack of host cDC1s in Irf8+32-/- mice with poorly immunogenic B16 tumors reduced the efficacy of cDC1 vaccination.

Contributed by Ute Burkhardt

Ex vivo-differentiated cDC1s offer superior tumor protection compared to monocyte-derived DCs used in DC vaccine trials. Pinesa and Minowa et al. found that vaccine-delivered cDC1s closely resembled tumor-infiltrating endogenous cDC1s transcriptionally. Robust tumor control upon cDC1 vaccination required both MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation on the same cDC1, and transient CD40 stimulation was insufficient to compensate for MHC-II KO on cDC1s vaccines, suggesting direct in cis coordination of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses. Lack of host cDC1s in Irf8+32-/- mice with poorly immunogenic B16 tumors reduced the efficacy of cDC1 vaccination.

Contributed by Ute Burkhardt

ABSTRACT: Type 1 conventional dendritic cells (cDC1s) are important for generating and sustaining antitumor immunity. Accordingly, the abundance of cDC1s in human tumors correlates with improved outcomes in cancer. Capitalizing on this role, we previously demonstrated that vaccination with murine cDC1s, generated in culture from bone marrow cells (termed here "in vitro-derived cDC1s"), elicits durable tumor control in multiple preclinical models; however, the immunological mechanisms underlying the efficacy of cDC1 vaccination remain unclear. Here, we examined whether in vitro-derived cDC1s resemble tumor-infiltrating DC populations and whether MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation contribute to cDC1-mediated tumor control following vaccination in melanoma. As expected, MHC-I or MHC-II deficiency had minimal impact on the transcriptional state of cDC1s in homeostasis or following stimulation with the adjuvant poly dI:dC. Moreover, in vitro-derived cDC1s cultured under steady-state conditions closely resembled tumor-infiltrating cDC1s, whereas their poly dI:dC-stimulated counterparts resembled CCR7+ tumor-infiltrating DC populations, also referred to as mregDCs or LAMP3+ DCs. Our data further show that both MHC-I and MHC-II contribute to tumor control upon cDC1 vaccination and that coexpression of MHC-I and MHC-II on the same cDC1 is necessary for a robust vaccine response. We also identified an important function for host cDC1s in supporting the efficacy of vaccination with in vitro-derived cDC1s, as judged by impaired tumor control in Irf8+32-/- mice, which lack endogenous cDC1s. Overall, these results indicate that effective antitumor responses depend on MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation by vaccine-delivered cDC1s, with additional contributions from host cDC1s.

Author Info: (1) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The Univer

Author Info: (1) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (2) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (3) Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Division of Discovery Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (4) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (5) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (6) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (7) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (8) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (9) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (10) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (11) Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Division of Discovery Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (12) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. (13) Department of Immunology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.

Tumor immune microenvironment remodeling predicts response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy Spotlight 

Lin et al. developed a longitudinal scRNAseq atlas of 441 ICI-treated tumors from 241 patients across 10 cancer types, and identified 4 conserved TIME states. ICI induced temporal TIME remodeling with early T cell activation, resolution of distinct ISG patterns, and progressive stromal and immune restructuring. During treatment, approximately 40% of tumors transitioned between TIME states, with inflamed or B cell-enriched transitions associated with response and survival, while myeloid-dominant states associated with resistance. A baseline 59-gene transition signature was predictive of ICI response and survival across 1,383 tumors from 19 independent cohorts.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

Lin et al. developed a longitudinal scRNAseq atlas of 441 ICI-treated tumors from 241 patients across 10 cancer types, and identified 4 conserved TIME states. ICI induced temporal TIME remodeling with early T cell activation, resolution of distinct ISG patterns, and progressive stromal and immune restructuring. During treatment, approximately 40% of tumors transitioned between TIME states, with inflamed or B cell-enriched transitions associated with response and survival, while myeloid-dominant states associated with resistance. A baseline 59-gene transition signature was predictive of ICI response and survival across 1,383 tumors from 19 independent cohorts.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

ABSTRACT: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer therapy, yet the basis of variable patient responses remains unclear. We assemble a longitudinal single-cell RNA sequencing atlas of 441 samples from 241 patients across ten cancer entities to map treatment-associated remodeling of the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). With a hierarchical reference-guided deep-phenotyping framework, we define 77 immune and stromal subtypes and resolve four conserved TIME subtypes. Approximately 40% of tumors shift between states during therapy, and the transition is more predictive of outcome than the baseline state. Favorable transitions toward inflamed or B cell-enriched subtype track with improved response and survival, while persistence in or shifts toward myeloid dominance indicate resistance. We derive a 59-gene signature that predicted response and survival for 1,383 baseline tumors across 19 independent cohorts. These findings establish immunotype transitions as a central determinant of ICI efficacy, offering new avenues for response prediction and rational immunotherapy design.

Author Info: (1) Faculty of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. (2) Translational Skin Cancer Research, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen, Medical

Author Info: (1) Faculty of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. (2) Translational Skin Cancer Research, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. (3) Translational Skin Cancer Research, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. (4) German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. (5) Translational Skin Cancer Research, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: j.becker@dkfz-heidelberg.de. (6) Faculty of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel; The Taub Faculty of Computer Science, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. Electronic address: dviraran@technion.ac.il.

In vivo genome-wide CRISPR screens of human T cells in solid tumours Spotlight 

Liu et al. developed a genome-wide in vivo CRISPR screening platform using a T cell-attracting anti-CD3 scFv-expressing A375 tumor model and primary human T cells to identify in vivo regulators of intratumoral T cell abundance and effector function. The abundance screen identified P2RY8-Gα13 as a negative regulator of T cell tumor infiltration, whereas the IFNγ-based functional screen identified GNAS as a key driver of intratumoral T cell dysfunction. GNAS deletion enhanced CAR- and TCR-T cell fitness and efficacy across solid tumor models. P2RY8 and GNAS dual-knockout CAR T cells showed increased infiltration and improved tumor control.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

Liu et al. developed a genome-wide in vivo CRISPR screening platform using a T cell-attracting anti-CD3 scFv-expressing A375 tumor model and primary human T cells to identify in vivo regulators of intratumoral T cell abundance and effector function. The abundance screen identified P2RY8-Gα13 as a negative regulator of T cell tumor infiltration, whereas the IFNγ-based functional screen identified GNAS as a key driver of intratumoral T cell dysfunction. GNAS deletion enhanced CAR- and TCR-T cell fitness and efficacy across solid tumor models. P2RY8 and GNAS dual-knockout CAR T cells showed increased infiltration and improved tumor control.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

ABSTRACT: Large-scale CRISPR screening in human T cells holds significant promise for identifying genetic modifications that enhance cellular immunotherapy. Yet, many regulators of T cell performance in solid tumours are not revealed in vitro(1,2). In vivo screening in tumour-bearing mice is more physiological but has been limited by low intratumoural T cell recovery. Here we developed an in vivo model that efficiently recovers human T cells from solid tumours, permitting genome-wide CRISPR screens with few mice. Tumour-infiltrating T cells from this model exhibit hallmarks of dysfunction compared with splenic T cells, creating an ideal screening context. We performed two genome-wide CRISPR knockout screens to identify regulators of intratumoural T cell abundance and effector function. The abundance screen revealed the P2RY8-G_13 GPCR signalling axis as a negative regulator of T cell tumour infiltration. The effector function screen identified GNAS as a key driver of T cell dysfunction in tumours, whose product, G_s, acts as a convergent node downstream of multiple GPCRs sensing distinct suppressive ligands. Knockout of GNAS rendered T cells resistant to multiple suppressive cues and significantly improved efficacy across diverse solid tumour models in chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and T cell receptor (TCR) systems. Combinatorial knockout of P2RY8-GNAS further enhanced tumour control, demonstrating that complementary in vivo screens can identify orthogonal targets whose combined editing improves therapeutic potency. This flexible, scalable platform can be adapted for systematic discovery of genetic strategies to improve solid tumour T cell therapies.

Author Info: (1) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. qi.liu3@ucsf.edu. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA

Author Info: (1) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. qi.liu3@ucsf.edu. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. qi.liu3@ucsf.edu. (2) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (3) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (4) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (5) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (6) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (7) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (8) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. UCSF CoLabs, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Diabetes Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (9) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (10) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (11) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (12) Department of Microbiology and Immunology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (13) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (14) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (15) Department of Microbiology and Immunology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Division of Pediatric Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (16) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (17) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (18) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. (19) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (20) Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. (21) Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. (22) Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Division of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. (23) Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Division of Computational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA. Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. (24) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (25) Gray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Dotan Center for Advanced Therapies, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. (26) Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (27) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA. Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (28) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA. Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. (29) Department of OB/Gyn, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (30) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (31) Department of Microbiology and Immunology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (32) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA. Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Institute for Human Genetics (IHG), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. (33) Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. julia.carnevale@ucsf.edu. Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. julia.carnevale@ucsf.edu. Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA. julia.carnevale@ucsf.edu. Weill Cancer Hub West, Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. julia.carnevale@ucsf.edu. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. julia.carnevale@ucsf.edu.

A viral-based individualized neoantigen vaccine as adjuvant treatment in resected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized Phase I trial

Spotlight 

Ottensmeier and Delord et al. report a randomized phase I trial of adjuvant TG4050, an individualized MVA-vectored neoantigen vaccine encoding up to 30 predicted neoantigens, in high-risk resected HNSCC. TG4050 was feasible and well tolerated, with no relapses among 16 immediately treated patients after 30 months median follow-up, compared to 3 of 16 who relapsed in the control arm. Neoantigen-specific T cell responses (median of 3 neoantigens per responder) occurred in 73.3% of treated patients and persisted for over one year. Vaccine-reactive CD8+ T cells were polyclonal, cytotoxic, and tissue-resident-like, comprising de novo and expanded pre-existing clones.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

Ottensmeier and Delord et al. report a randomized phase I trial of adjuvant TG4050, an individualized MVA-vectored neoantigen vaccine encoding up to 30 predicted neoantigens, in high-risk resected HNSCC. TG4050 was feasible and well tolerated, with no relapses among 16 immediately treated patients after 30 months median follow-up, compared to 3 of 16 who relapsed in the control arm. Neoantigen-specific T cell responses (median of 3 neoantigens per responder) occurred in 73.3% of treated patients and persisted for over one year. Vaccine-reactive CD8+ T cells were polyclonal, cytotoxic, and tissue-resident-like, comprising de novo and expanded pre-existing clones.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

ABSTRACT: In approximately one third of patients, resected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma will recur. We postulated that the induction of tumor neoantigen-specific T cell responses could prevent relapse. To this end, we developed TG4050, an individualized neoantigen therapeutic vaccine encoding up to 30 patient-specific predicted tumor neoantigens delivered by a Modified Vaccinia Ankara viral vector. We tested adjuvant TG4050 as single agent in a randomized phase I trial comparing treatment with TG4050 immediately after standard of care adjuvant therapy versus watchful waiting and treatment with TG4050 after recurrence (NCT04183166). The primary endpoint was safety, secondary endpoints included feasibility and efficacy, and immunogenicity was exploratory. TG4050 was well tolerated. Of 16 evaluable patients randomized the immediate treatment arm, none relapsed after a median follow-up of 30 months, while 3 of 16 relapsed in the control arm. T cell responses to vaccine neoantigens were detected in 73.3% of patients treated with TG4050 immediately, with a median of 3 neoantigens per responder. These responses were maintained throughout treatment and persisted for over one year after the last dose. Vaccine neoantigen-specific CD8+ T cells had an effector phenotype, displayed high expression of cytotoxic and tissue-resident markers, were polyclonal and comprised both de novo responses and amplification of pre-existing tumor-infiltrating T cell clones. Together, these translational data are consistent with the hypothesis in which single-agent delivery of TG4050 induces long-lasting tumor neoantigen-specific cytotoxic T cell responses that can prevent tumor recurrence.

Author Info:

Author Info:

Genome-scale perturb-seq in primary human CD4+ T cells maps context-specific regulators of T cell programs and human immune traits

Spotlight 

Zhu, Dann, et al. developed a transcriptome-wide and transcription factor genome-wide CRISPRi knockdown perturb-seq platform for human CD4+ T cells to comprehensively identify functional gene networks. Four T cell donors were utilized, and deep single-cell RNAseq was conducted under 3 conditions: resting, 8, and 48 hours after stimulation. Multiple patterns (positive and negative; few or many genes affected), context-specific effects (resting vs. stimulated; Th1 vs. Th2), and complex cytokine regulatory patterns were observed. Integration with GWAS studies confirmed and extended known linkages, and revealed new autoimmune targets.

Contributed by Ed Fritsch

Zhu, Dann, et al. developed a transcriptome-wide and transcription factor genome-wide CRISPRi knockdown perturb-seq platform for human CD4+ T cells to comprehensively identify functional gene networks. Four T cell donors were utilized, and deep single-cell RNAseq was conducted under 3 conditions: resting, 8, and 48 hours after stimulation. Multiple patterns (positive and negative; few or many genes affected), context-specific effects (resting vs. stimulated; Th1 vs. Th2), and complex cytokine regulatory patterns were observed. Integration with GWAS studies confirmed and extended known linkages, and revealed new autoimmune targets.

Contributed by Ed Fritsch

ABSTRACT: Gene regulatory networks encode the fundamental logic of cellular functions, but systematic network mapping remains challenging, especially in cell states relevant to human biology and disease. Here, we perturbed all expressed genes across 22 million primary human CD4(+) T cells from four donors and developed a probe-based perturb-seq platform to measure the transcriptome effects in cells at rest and after stimulation. These data allowed us to map genes regulating immune pathways, including previously uncharacterized regulators of cytokine production. Importantly, active regulators and the gene programs they control changed dramatically across stimulation conditions. Perturbation signatures enabled us to model T cell states observed in population-scale transcriptomic atlases, nominating regulators of T cell polarization and of age-related phenotypes. Finally, we leveraged perturb-seq to implicate context-specific gene regulatory pathways in autoimmune disease risk. Our study provides a foundational resource and new approaches to decode T cell function and human immune traits.

Author Info: (1) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: ronghui.zhu@gladston

Author Info: (1) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: ronghui.zhu@gladstone.ucsf.edu. (2) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: emmadann@stanford.edu. (3) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (4) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA. (5) Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. (6) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA; University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (7) Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. (8) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Allergy and Rheumatology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. (9) Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Arc Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA. (10) Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Arc Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA; Program in Immunology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Weill Foundation West Coast Cancer Hub, Stanford, CA, USA. (11) Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Program in Immunology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Weill Foundation West Coast Cancer Hub, Stanford, CA, USA. (12) Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: pritch@stanford.edu. (13) Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology, San Francisco, CA, USA; Weill Foundation West Coast Cancer Hub, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA; Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: alex.marson@gladstone.ucsf.edu.

Engineered human iPSC-derived dendritic cells dressed with tumor MHC complexes as a cancer vaccine Spotlight 

Xu et al. identified optimal and reproducible culture and cytokine conditions to create universal, human iPSC-derived DCs lacking HLA (B2m/CTIIA KO) and with a CCR7+ migratory DC phenotype. An exosome-inspired process with tumor cell vesicles was used to cross-dress these DCs with peptide:MHC complexes from tumor cells. Cross-dressing promoted antigen presentation and resistance to “non-self” killing by NK cells. With cell lines in vitro and in vivo, the cross-dressed DCs enhanced T cell cytotoxicity and tumor control. Personal cross-dressed vaccines in AML and ovarian cancer were cytolytic in vitro. PD-L1/2 knockout improved activity.

Contributed by Ed Fritsch

Xu et al. identified optimal and reproducible culture and cytokine conditions to create universal, human iPSC-derived DCs lacking HLA (B2m/CTIIA KO) and with a CCR7+ migratory DC phenotype. An exosome-inspired process with tumor cell vesicles was used to cross-dress these DCs with peptide:MHC complexes from tumor cells. Cross-dressing promoted antigen presentation and resistance to “non-self” killing by NK cells. With cell lines in vitro and in vivo, the cross-dressed DCs enhanced T cell cytotoxicity and tumor control. Personal cross-dressed vaccines in AML and ovarian cancer were cytolytic in vitro. PD-L1/2 knockout improved activity.

Contributed by Ed Fritsch

ABSTRACT: Autologous-derived dendritic cells (DCs) are a promising source for cell-based cancer vaccines. However, their therapeutic potential is challenged by the number and quality produced and the diversity of antigens presented. To address these limitations, we present an approach that involves differentiating universal MHC-deficient human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) into CCR7(+) migratory DCs. These DCs are subsequently "dressed" with the full repertoire of MHC-antigen complexes derived from tumor cell membranes, transforming an allogeneic substrate into a personalized cancer vaccine product. The resulting "TumorDressed" DCs effectively activate T cells against tumor antigens. Their function is diminished when CD80/86 is deleted but significantly enhanced by the loss of PD-L1/2. PD-L1/2-null TumorDressed DCs demonstrate robust priming of anti-tumor T cell-mediated cytotoxicity both in vitro and in vivo, including against primary hematologic and solid tumors with matching patient T cells. These findings provide proof of concept for a universal, scalable, adaptable, and off-the-shelf DC cancer vaccine platform.

Author Info: (1) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, Univ

Author Info: (1) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (2) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (3) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (4) Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (5) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (6) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (7) Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. (8) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (9) AIVITA Biomedical, Irvine, CA, USA. (10) Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. (11) Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (12) AIVITA Biomedical, Irvine, CA, USA. (13) AIVITA Biomedical, Irvine, CA, USA. (14) Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (15) Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. (16) Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. (17) Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: robert.blelloch@ucsf.edu.

Close Modal

Small change for you. Big change for us!

This Thanksgiving season, show your support for cancer research by donating your change.

In less than a minute, link your credit card with our partner RoundUp App.

Every purchase you make with that card will be rounded up and the change will be donated to ACIR.

All transactions are securely made through Stripe.