非小细胞肺癌患者外周血初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群分布

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的分析非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者外周血初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群分布情况。方法选取2018年6月至12月天津中医药大学第一附属医院肿瘤科NSCLC患者25例,同期健康志愿者20例作为对照,应用流式细胞仪分析外周血初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群含量,所得结果应用SPSS 16.0进行统计分析。结果NSCLC患者初始T细胞/干细胞样中央记忆T细胞(T_N/SCM)百分率及绝对数均明显低于对照组[(7.71±1.11)%vs.(15.84±2.00)%,t=3.685,P=0.001;(8.38±1.23)×10⁷/Lvs.(3.40±0.43)×10⁸/L,t=6.130,P<0.001],中央记忆T细胞(T_CM)百分率及绝对数均明显低于对照组[(6.62±1.16)%vs.(17.88±0.83)%,t=7.641,P<0.001;(7.98±1.78)×10⁷/Lvs.(3.40±0.31)×10⁸/L,t=9.028,P<0.001],CD8⁺T_CM细胞绝对数明显低于对照组[(5.19±1.04)×10⁶/Lvs.(1.49±0.15)×10⁷/L,t=5.561,P<0.001]。NSCLC患者效应记忆T细胞(T_EM)百分率明显高于对照组[(38.27±2.01)%vs.(17.37±1.06)%,t=8.776,P<0.001],CD8⁺T_EM细胞百分率及绝对数均明显高于对照组[(13.93±1.55)%vs.(4.65±0.52)%,t=5.310,P<0.001;(1.48±0.14)×10⁸/Lvs.(9.97±1.14)×10⁷/L,t=2.584,P=0.014],终末分化效应记忆T细胞(T_EMRA)百分率明显高于对照组[(17.33±1.86)%vs.(8.48±1.01)%,t=3.989,P<0.001]。Ⅰ~Ⅱ期NSCLC患者CD8⁺T_CM细胞百分率及绝对数均明显低于Ⅲ~Ⅳ期患者[(0.33±0.06)%vs.(0.89±0.34)%,t=2.600,P=0.020;(3.99±0.84)×10⁶/Lvs.(9.03±3.07)×10⁶/L,t=2.270,P=0.040]。不同病理类型NSCLC患者的初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论NSCLC患者初始/记忆T细胞亚群较健康志愿者发生变化,具有分化能力和长期存活特性的T_N/SCM及T_CM降低,而且Ⅰ~Ⅱ期患者降低更为明显,以发挥免疫效应为主的T_EM及T_EMRA明显升高。

关键词:癌,非小细胞肺,初始T细胞,记忆T细胞亚群

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo investigate the distribution of naïve T cell and memory T cell subsets in the peripheral blood of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.MethodsA total of 25 NSCLC patients from the Oncology Department of the First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine from June to December 2018 were included in the study, and 20 healthy volunteers in the same period were used as controls. Flow cytometry was used to analyze the naïve T cell and memory T cell subsets in peripheral blood. The results were analyzed by SPSS 16.0.ResultsThe percentage and absolute number of naïve T cell/stem-like central memory T cells (T_N/SCM) in NSCLC patients declined compared to the control group [(7.71±1.11)%vs.(15.84±2.00)%,t=3.685,P=0.001; (8.38±1.23)×10⁷/Lvs. (3.40±0.43)×10⁸/L,t=6.130,P<0.001]. The percentage and absolute number of central memory T cells (T_CM) in NSCLC patients declined compared to the control group [(6.62±1.16)%vs.(17.88±0.83)%,t=7.641,P<0.001; (7.98±1.78)×10⁷/Lvs.(3.40±0.31)×10⁸/L,t=9.028,P<0.001]. The absolute number of CD8⁺T_CMin NSCLC patients declined compared to the control group [(5.19±1.04)×10⁶/Lvs. (1.49±0.15)×10⁷/L,t=5.561,P<0.001]. The percentage of effector memory T cells (T_EM) in NSCLC patients increased compared to the control group [(38.27±2.01)%vs.(17.37±1.06)%,t=8.776,P<0.001]. The percentage and absolute number of CD8⁺T_EMin NSCLC patients increased compared to the control group [(13.93±1.55)%vs.(4.65±0.52)%,t=5.310,P<0.001; (1.48±0.14)×10⁸/Lvs.(9.97±1.14)×10⁷/L,t=2.584,P=0.014]. The percentage of effector memory T cells re-expressing CD45RA (T_EMRA) in NSCLC patients increased compared to the control group [(17.33±1.86)%vs.(8.48±1.01)%,t=3.989,P<0.001]. The percentage and absolute number of CD8⁺T_CMin stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ patients declined compared to stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ patients [(0.33±0.06)% vs.(0.89±0.34)%,t=2.600,P=0.020; (3.99±0.84)×10⁶/Lvs.(9.03±3.07)×10⁶/L,t=2.270,P=0.040]. There were no statistically significant differences in the naïve T cells and memory T cell subsets of NSCLC patients with different pathological types.ConclusionIn NSCLC patients, the naïve/memory T cell subsets are changed compared with the healthy volunteers. The T_N/SCMand T_CMthose with the characteristics of differentiation ability and long-term survival are reduced, and those of the stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ patients are reduced significantly. T_EMand T_EMRAwith immunological effect are increased significantly.

Key words:Carcinoma, non-small-cell lung,Naïve T cells,Memory T cell subsets

刘云鹤, 李文涛, 于建春. 非小细胞肺癌患者外周血初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群分布[J]. 国际肿瘤学杂志, 2020, 47(9): 524-529.

Liu Yunhe, Li Wentao, Yu Jianchun. Distribution of naïve T cell and memory T cell subsets in peripheral blood of non-small cell lung cancer patients[J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2020, 47(9): 524-529.

图/表6

图1

图2

T细胞表型	健康志愿者(n=20)	NSCLC患者(n=25)	t值	P值
T_N/SCM	15.84±2.00	7.71±1.11	3.685	0.001
CD8⁺T_N/SCM	1.89±0.24	2.86±0.54	1.528	0.135
T_CM	17.88±0.83	6.62±1.16	7.641	<0.001
CD8⁺T_CM	0.73±0.08	0.47±0.10	1.892	0.066
T_EM	17.37±1.06	38.27±2.01	8.776	<0.001
CD8⁺T_EM	4.65±0.52	13.93±1.55	5.310	<0.001
T_EMRA	8.48±1.01	17.33±1.86	3.989	<0.001

表1

T细胞表型	健康志愿者(n=20)	NSCLC患者(n=25)	t值	P值
T_N/SCM	(3.40±0.43)×10⁸/L	(8.38±1.23)×10⁷/L	6.130	<0.001
CD8⁺T_N/SCM	(3.96±0.49)×10⁷/L	(2.91±0.50)×10⁷/L	1.486	0.146
T_CM	(3.40±0.31)×10⁸/L	(7.98±1.78)×10⁷/L	9.028	<0.001
CD8⁺T_CM	(1.49±0.15)×10⁷/L	(5.19±1.04)×10⁶/L	5.561	<0.001
T_EM	(3.84±0.36)×10⁸/L	(4.32±0.45)×10⁸/L	0.823	0.416
CD8⁺T_EM	(9.97±1.14)×10⁷/L	(1.48±0.14)×10⁸/L	2.584	0.014
T_EMRA	(1.83±0.33)×10⁸/L	(2.04±0.32)×10⁸/L	0.461	0.647

表2

表3

不同分期、不同病理类型NSCLC患者初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群百分率比较($\bar{x}\pm s$,%)"

T细胞表型		TNM分期				t值		P值		病理类型		t值		P值
T细胞表型		Ⅰ~Ⅱ期(n=18)		Ⅲ~Ⅳ期(n=7)		t值		P值		腺癌(n=17)	鳞状细胞癌(n=8)	t值		P值
T_N/SCM		7.60±1.24		8.08±2.72		0.180		0.860		8.38±1.40	6.63±1.88	0.750		0.460
CD8⁺T_N/SCM		2.84±0.59		2.91±1.44		0.050		0.960		2.70±0.45	3.12±1.28	0.370		0.720
T_CM		6.05±1.26		8.45±2.83		0.880		0.390		6.55±1.46	6.75±2.02	0.080		0.930
CD8⁺T_CM		0.33±0.06		0.89±0.34		2.600		0.020		0.48±0.15	0.46±0.12	0.080		0.930
T细胞表型	TNM分期				t值		P值		病理类型				t值		P值
T细胞表型	Ⅰ~Ⅱ期(n=18)		Ⅲ~Ⅳ期(n=7)		t值		P值		腺癌(n=17)		鳞状细胞癌(n=8)		t值		P值
T_EM	38.61±2.13		37.19±5.44		0.300		0.770		38.13±1.81		38.50±4.59		0.080		0.930
CD8⁺T_EM	13.26±1.04		16.08±6.02		0.770		0.450		12.91±1.19		15.58±3.68		0.820		0.420
T_EMRA	17.62±2.15		16.42±4.14		0.270		0.790		18.48±2.08		15.46±3.64		0.780		0.440

表3

表4

不同分期、不同病理类型NSCLC患者初始T细胞及记忆T细胞亚群绝对计数比较($\bar{x}\pm s$)"

T细胞表型	TNM分期		t值	P值	病理类型		t值	P值
T细胞表型	Ⅰ~Ⅱ期(n=18)	Ⅲ~Ⅳ期(n=7)	t值	P值	腺癌(n=17)	鳞状细胞癌(n=8)	t值	P值
T_N/SCM(×10⁷/L)	8.35±1.40	8.48±2.88	0.050	0.960	9.10±1.40	7.21±2.35	0.740	0.470
CD8⁺T_N/SCM(×10⁶/L)	28.11±4.44	32.18±7.15	0.340	0.740	28.81±4.93	29.51±11.20	0.070	0.950
T_CM(×10⁷/L)	7.76±2.16	8.69±3.17	0.220	0.830	7.72±2.04	8.39±3.47	0.180	0.860
CD8⁺T_CM(×10⁶/L)	3.99±0.84	9.03±3.07	2.270	0.040	5.27±1.44	5.05±1.52	0.100	0.920
T_EM(×10⁷/L)	44.22±5.80	40.02±3.63	0.390	0.700	46.41±6.72	38.04±4.22	0.900	0.380
CD8⁺T_EM(×10⁷/L)	14.62±1.65	15.34±3.06	0.210	0.840	14.80±1.84	14.76±2.38	0.010	0.990
T_EMRA(×10⁷/L)	20.40±3.60	20.45±7.32	0.010	0.990	23.00±4.27	16.20±4.47	1.040	0.310

表4

参考文献17

[1]	Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018,68(6):394-424. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492. doi:10.3322/caac.21492pmid:30207593
[2]	Devesa SS, Bray F, Vizcaino AP, et al. International lung cancer trends by histologic type: male∶female differences diminishing and adenocarcinoma rates rising[J]. Int J Cancer, 2005,117(2):294-299. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21183. doi:10.1002/ijc.21183pmid:15900604
[3]	Thapa P, Farber DL. The role of the thymus in the immune response[J]. Thorac Surg Clin, 2019,29(2):123-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2018.12.001. doi:10.1016/j.thorsurg.2018.12.001pmid:30927993
[4]	Butcher EC, Picker LJ. Lymphocyte homing and homeostasis[J]. Science, 1996,272(5258):60-66. DOI: 10.1126/science.272.5258.60. doi:10.1126/science.272.5258.60pmid:8600538
[5]	Fu C, Jiang A. Dendritic cells and CD8 T cell immunity in tumor microenvironment[J]. Front Immunol, 2018,9:3059. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.03059. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.03059
[6]	MacLennan IC, Gulbranson-Judge A, Toellner KM, et al. The changing preference of T and B cells for partners as T-dependent antibody responses develop[J]. Immunol Rev, 1997,156:53-66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-065x.1997.tb00958.x. doi:10.1111/j.1600-065x.1997.tb00958.xpmid:9176699
[7]	Garside P, Ingulli E, Merica RR, et al. Visualization of specific B and T lymphocyte interactions in the lymph node[J]. Science, 1998,281(5373):96-99. DOI: 10.1126/science.281.5373.96. doi:10.1126/science.281.5373.96pmid:9651253
[8]	Klenerman P, Hill A. T cells and viral persistence: lessons from diverse infections[J]. Nat Immunol, 2005,6(9):873-879. DOI: 10.1038/ni1241. pmid:16116467
[9]	Bingaman AW, Farber DL. Memory T cells in transplantation: generation, function, and potential role in rejection[J]. Am J Transplant, 2004,4(6):846-852. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00453.x. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00453.xpmid:15147417
[10]	Westermann J, Ehlers EM, Exton MS, et al. Migration of naive, effector and memory T cells: implications for the regulation of immune responses[J]. Immunol Rev, 2001,184:20-37. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-065x.2001.1840103.x. doi:10.1034/j.1600-065x.2001.1840103.xpmid:12086313
[11]	Geginat J, Sallusto F, Lanzavecchia A. Cytokine-driven proliferation and differentiation of human naïve, central memory and effector memory CD4 + T cells [J]. Pathol Biol (Paris), 2003,51(2):64-66. DOI: 10.1016/s0369-8114(03)00098-1. doi:10.1016/S0369-8114(03)00098-1
[12]	Sallusto F, Lenig D, Förster R, et al. Two subsets of memory T lymphocytes with distinct homing potentials and effector functions[J]. Nature, 1999,401(6754):708-712. DOI: 10.1038/44385. doi:10.1038/44385pmid:10537110
[13]	Sathaliyawala T, Kubota M, Yudanin N, et al. Distribution and compartmentalization of human circulating and tissue-resident memory T cell subsets[J]. Immunity, 2013,38(1):187-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.09.020. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2012.09.020pmid:23260195
[14]	Wang X, Wong CW, Urak R, et al. Comparison of naïve and central memory derived CD8⁺effector cell engraftment fitness and function following adoptive transfer [J]. Oncoimmunology, 2015,5(1):e1072671. DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2015.1072671. doi:10.1080/2162402X.2015.1072671pmid:26942092
[15]	Kaech SM, Cui W. Transcriptional control of effector and memory CD8⁺T cell differentiation [J]. Nat Rev Immunol, 2012,12(11):749-761. DOI: 10.1038/nri3307. doi:10.1038/nri3307pmid:23080391
[16]	Gattinoni L, Speiser DE, Lichterfeld M, et al. T memory stem cells in health and disease[J]. Nat Med, 2017,23(1):18-27. DOI: 10.1038/nm.4241. doi:10.1038/nm.4241pmid:28060797
[17]	Hinrichs CS, Borman ZA, Cassard L, et al. Adoptively transferred effector cells derived from naive rather than central memory CD8⁺T cells mediate superior antitumor immunity [J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009,106(41):17469-17474. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0907448106. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907448106pmid:19805141