Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Human lung tumor FOXP3+ Tregs upregulate four “Treg-locking” transcription factors
Tatiana Akimova, Tianyi Zhang, Dmitri Negorev, Sunil Singhal, Jason Stadanlick, Abhishek Rao, Michael Annunziata, Matthew H. Levine, Ulf H. Beier, Joshua M. Diamond, Jason D. Christie, Steven M. Albelda, Evgeniy B. Eruslanov, Wayne W. Hancock
Tatiana Akimova, Tianyi Zhang, Dmitri Negorev, Sunil Singhal, Jason Stadanlick, Abhishek Rao, Michael Annunziata, Matthew H. Levine, Ulf H. Beier, Joshua M. Diamond, Jason D. Christie, Steven M. Albelda, Evgeniy B. Eruslanov, Wayne W. Hancock
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Immunology

Human lung tumor FOXP3+ Tregs upregulate four “Treg-locking” transcription factors

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Experimental data indicate that FOXP3+ Tregs can markedly curtail host antitumor immune responses, but the properties of human intratumoral Tregs are still largely unknown, in part due to significant methodologic problems. We studied the phenotypic, functional, epigenetic, and transcriptional features of Tregs in 92 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer, comparing the features of Tregs within tumors versus corresponding blood, lung, and lymph node samples. Intratumoral Treg numbers and suppressive function were significantly increased compared with all other sites but did not display a distinctive phenotype by flow cytometry. However, by undertaking simultaneous evaluation of mRNA and protein expression at the single-cell level, we demonstrated that tumor Tregs have a phenotype characterized by upregulated expression of FOXP3 mRNA and protein as well as significantly increased expression of EOS, IRF4, SATB1, and GATA1 transcription factor mRNAs. Expression of these “Treg-locking” transcription factors was positively correlated with levels of FOXP3 mRNA, with highest correlations for EOS and SATB1. EOS had an additional, FOXP3 mRNA–independent, positive correlation with FOXP3 protein in tumor Tregs. Our study identifies distinctive features of intratumoral Tregs and suggests that targeting Treg-locking transcription factors, especially EOS, may be of clinical importance for antitumor Treg-based therapy.

Authors

Tatiana Akimova, Tianyi Zhang, Dmitri Negorev, Sunil Singhal, Jason Stadanlick, Abhishek Rao, Michael Annunziata, Matthew H. Levine, Ulf H. Beier, Joshua M. Diamond, Jason D. Christie, Steven M. Albelda, Evgeniy B. Eruslanov, Wayne W. Hancock

×

Figure 7

Phenotype of Tregs in different anatomic locations.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Phenotype of Tregs in different anatomic locations.
(A) Heatmap indicati...
(A) Heatmap indicating expression of 35 markers that were evaluated in CD4+FOXP3+ Tregs versus CD4+FOXP3– Teffs in different samples. In total, we evaluated markers in 1,295 Treg-Teff pairs in 301 lung cancer samples, and each marker was evaluated at least 4 (for nonstimulated cells) or 3 (for GARP and LAP) times in different samples. All multiple technical replicates were omitted from the final count leaving only 1 value per 1 unique sample. •, data representative for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma patients; ••, only adenocarcinoma patient and healthy donor data; no marks, all types of cancers data shown, with no apparent differences between cancer types. (B) Representative plots and (C–F) final statistics for the best tumor Treg-specific candidate markers. The following statistics were used: (A) mean of expression in each group and (C–F) 2-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test for row factor, a location of either Tregs or Teffs (PBMC vs. LNs vs. tumors etc.), and with Sidak’s multiple comparisons test for column factor, to compare expression in Tregs versus Teffs. **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Only statistics in row factor in tumor Tregs are shown, full data are shown in Supplemental Table 5. Gating strategies for each marker are shown in Supplemental Figures 6–40.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts