BACKGROUND Immune cell profiling of primary and metastatic CNS tumors has been focused on the tumor, not the tumor microenvironment (TME), or has been analyzed via biopsies.METHODS En bloc resections of gliomas (n = 10) and lung metastases (n = 10) were analyzed via tissue segmentation and high-dimension Opal 7-color multiplex imaging. Single-cell RNA analyses were used to infer immune cell functionality.RESULTS Within gliomas, T cells were localized in the infiltrating edge and perivascular space of tumors, while residing mostly in the stroma of metastatic tumors. CD163+ macrophages were evident throughout the TME of metastatic tumors, whereas in gliomas, CD68+, CD11c+CD68+, and CD11c+CD68+CD163+ cell subtypes were commonly observed. In lung metastases, T cells interacted with CD163+ macrophages as dyads and clusters at the brain-tumor interface and within the tumor itself and as clusters within the necrotic core. In contrast, gliomas typically lacked dyad and cluster interactions, except for T cell CD68+ cell dyads within the tumor. Analysis of transcriptomic data in glioblastomas revealed that innate immune cells expressed both proinflammatory and immunosuppressive gene signatures.CONCLUSION Our results show that immunosuppressive macrophages are abundant within the TME and that the immune cell interactome between cancer lineages is distinct. Further, these data provide information for evaluating the role of different immune cell populations in brain tumor growth and therapeutic responses.FUNDING This study was supported by the NIH (NS120547), a Developmental research project award (P50CA221747), ReMission Alliance, institutional funding from Northwestern University and the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, and gifts from the Mosky family and Perry McKay. Performed in the Flow Cytometry & Cellular Imaging Core Facility at MD Anderson Cancer Center, this study received support in part from the NIH (CA016672) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Research Specialist award 1 (R50 CA243707). Additional support was provided by CCSG Bioinformatics Shared Resource 5 (P30 CA046592), a gift from Agilent Technologies, a Research Scholar Grant from the American Cancer Society (RSG-16-005-01), a Precision Health Investigator Award from University of Michigan (U-M) Precision Health, the NCI (R37-CA214955), startup institutional research funds from U-M, and a Biomedical Informatics & Data Science Training Grant (T32GM141746).
Hinda Najem, Martina Ott, Cynthia Kassab, Arvind Rao, Ganesh Rao, Anantha Marisetty, Adam M. Sonabend, Craig Horbinski, Roel Verhaak, Anand Shankar, Santhoshi N. Krishnan, Frederick S. Varn, Víctor A. Arrieta, Pravesh Gupta, Sherise D. Ferguson, Jason T. Huse, Gregory N. Fuller, James P. Long, Daniel E. Winkowski, Ben A. Freiberg, Charles David James, Leonidas C. Platanias, Maciej S. Lesniak, Jared K. Burks, Amy B. Heimberger
Usage data is cumulative from September 2022 through September 2023.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 1,056 | 367 |
134 | 126 | |
Figure | 187 | 12 |
Table | 14 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 29 | 2 |
Citation downloads | 19 | 0 |
Totals | 1,439 | 507 |
Total Views | 1,946 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.