Radiation Blast May Turbocharge Bristol-Myers Melanoma Drug, Report Shows..Jim Breitfeller

Radiating one tumor can trigger the immune system to wipe out tumors in other parts of the body and may boost the effectiveness of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY)’s cancer drug Yervoy, doctors have shown.
Source: Radiation Blast May Turbocharge Bristol-Myers Melanoma Drug



Recent evidence shows that the anti-tumor immune response elicited by radiation therapy or chemotherapy is due to the release by dying tumor cells of HMGB1, which acts on TLR4/MyD88 on dendritic cells.

It has been known that if radiation kills the outer most cells of the tumor, it can shed tumor specific peptides/antigens that are picked up and display on the DCs. It can also get the cells to secrete HMGB-1 which binds to the TLR4 and activates the macrophages which in turn secrete IL-12 and other cytokines and chemoattractants to get the right immune response.



Dr. Rosenberg uses whole body radiation prior to the adoptive cell therapy. He has seen higher responses.

The Immune System needs three Signals:

The role of the CD8+ T cells is to monitor all the cells of the body, ready to destroy any that express foreign antigen fragments in their class I molecules.

Three major events must occur to Activate CD8+ T cell mediated response against melanoma.

First, the T-cell receptor (TRC) must be triggered by a (or multiple) self antigen–derived peptide MHC class I complex. This event depends entirely on appropriate antigen presentation, which is most efficiently provided by mature dendritic cells. Once properly activated, may serve as tumor-specific effector T cells.

Second, simultaneously with T-cell receptor triggering, a distinct second costimulatory signal must be delivered, mediated by IL-2, B7-1, or B7-2, which engage IL-2 receptors and CD28 on the surface of the T cell, respectively . A source of these cofactors for effective CD8+ T-cell stimulation can be provided by CD4+ T cells that release critical amounts of IL-2, or by mature dendritic cells that display an increased level of B7-1/B7-2 costimulatory molecules on their cell surfaces.

Third, inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1, IL-6, IL-12, and IFN-γ provide a third signal that acts directly on T cells, referred to as the “danger signal”. This signal was found to optimally activate TH1 differentiation and lead to clonal expansion of T cells.

Without the tumor derived debris(Tumor-specific antigens), the immune system doesn't know what to go after.No Immune response will occur.

new-melanoma-treatment-a-turning-point-against-cancer?




“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

~Charles Darwin~

Take Care,
Jimmy B

Effective Immunotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma..Jim Breitfeller

Steven A. Rosenberg, MD, PhD
Chief of Surgery, National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

Immunotherapy has emerged as the most effective treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma. Much of the information concerning the immune response to melanoma has come from the study of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), immune cells that infiltrate into the stroma of the growing tumor and can be grown in vitro in the cytokine IL-2.1 TIL have been used to identify dozens of antigens that are presented on melanomas.2 Some antigens such as MART-1 and gp100 are shared by both melanomas and normal melanocytes, whereas others, such as NY-ESO-1, can be expressed on melanomas, but on no other adult tissue except the testes.

Most studies of immunotherapy for melanoma patients have been directed at those with metastatic disease. Although multiple trials of cancer vaccines have been performed in patients with resected lymph nodes at high risk of recurrence, none of these clinical trials have convincingly demonstrated prolonged survival.3 Some controversy exists surrounding the use of interferon alpha for the treatment of stage 3 melanoma; prolonged follow-up of patients in prospective randomized trials has yielded ambiguous results, and many oncologists are concluding that the toxicities of highdose interferon are not warranted given the lack of conclusive evidence of effectiveness in this setting.

Substantial progress has been made, however, in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. It is now possible to cause complete regressions of widely metastatic melanoma at multiple sites in the body utilizing immunotherapy approaches. Immunotherapy Approaches To Metastatic Melanoma Approaches to the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma fall into three major categories, which are summarized in Table 1 at Effective Immunotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma


Take care

Jimmy B


Melanoma_Missionary


"Today might be the worst day of your life...but tomorrow could be the best. You just have to get there."
~Unknown~

Immune System, White Blood Cells, T-Cells, Cancer Cells..Melanoma Jim Breitfeller

How cells activate and produce immune response .

Drug Czars ..FDA Dragging It's Feet!!Melanoma..Jim Breitfeller

Drug Czars

By STEVEN WALKER
published 2007

The Food and Drug Administration recently argued in the D.C. Court of Appeals that it has the power to ban meat and vegetables without violating anyone's fundamental rights. The agency chose this bizarre position in an attempt to counter arguments made by patients and their advocates in Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach. This groundbreaking case challenges the agency's refusal to grant access to investigational drugs, even as a last resort for terminally ill patients.

Last year, a three-judge panel decided that the FDA is violating the due- process rights of terminally ill patients by denying them access to promising investigational drugs. In response the FDA moved for a rehearing by the full court, hoping to prevent a lower court-supervised examination of whether its draconian policies actually serve a narrowly tailored compelling governmental interest. In layman's terms, this means the FDA would have to show its policies toward terminal patients are so critical to the well-being of society that they supersede (in broad and highly imperfect fashion) the fundamental right of an individual to pursue life free of undue government interference. The FDA knows their policies will not survive this test, and doesn't want the question asked.

Consider the FDA's handling of Genasense, a new drug for melanoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two often terminal forms of cancer. The drug is being developed by Genta, a small, innovative company with only one approved drug and limited financial resources. Despite compelling evidence that Genasense is making progress in fighting both diseases, the FDA appears determined to kill the drug.

.In the case of the melanoma application, instead of reviewing the clinical-trial data in accordance with usual methods (which showed positive results), the FDA chose a nonstandard statistical approach aimed at discrediting the results. The agency used this analysis in its briefing to its advisory committee, claiming that the drug might not be effective. The committee then relied on that information to vote against approval.

Now, Genta has found a serious mathematical error in the FDA's analysis, rendering its results meaningless. Genta is filing a complaint under the Federal Data Quality Act to correct the record. But in the meantime, the drug remains unapproved and melanoma patients continue to wait.

Genasense was also shown in a well-run, randomized clinical trial (the FDA's gold standard) to cause a complete disappearance of disease in 17% of patients with advanced CLL when combined with two older drugs. Just 7% of patients in a control group who received only the older drugs experienced similar benefit. The responders to Genasense have seen their relief last an average of 36 months, while those using other drugs saw their cancer return, on average, in 22 months.

Following these results, the Director of the FDA's cancer division, Dr. Richard Pazdur, again convened a public meeting of his advisory committee. After an agency presentation designed to elicit a negative outcome, the panel voted 7 to 3 against approval, triggering an immediate reaction of surprise and dismay among many CLL experts.

But the committee vote is less surprising if one knows that the FDA appointed several voting consultants to the committee (none of them CLL experts), and recused from the meeting the only sitting member of the committee who is an expert in CLL. Perhaps even more troubling, two of the voting committee members worked behind the scenes as undisclosed consultants for the FDA on Genasense, then without disclosure voted in the open meeting.

A shocked Genta quickly requested a meeting with the FDA to seek clarity on the agency's position, and to present additional information from patient follow-up. On the referral of an eminent leukemia expert, Genta asked if we would attend the meeting as witnesses in our capacity as patient advocates. No compensation was offered, requested or received.

Most of the meeting was consumed by getting the FDA to admit the obvious: The long-lasting, complete disappearance of CLL and its symptoms constituted "clinical benefit." Making these arguments were two cancer-medicine professors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the recused ODAC member and an immediate past president of the American Society of Hematology -- all experts in CLL. None were employees of Genta and collectively represented a far more qualified advisory committee than the one that the FDA had convened.

The FDA's inane answer to the CLL experts was that the long-lasting disappearance of disease in patients taking Genasense was a "theoretical construct" and not grounds for approval.

The experts explained to the FDA that complete responses in advanced CLL patients are the medical equivalent of the Holy Grail. The FDA finally agreed, but was unimpressed with emerging data showing responders to Genasense living longer than responders in the control group.

The experts were unanimous in advising that Genasense should be approved, but the FDA was unmoved. The agency's Dr. Pazdur suggested that Genta could make the drug available as an unapproved treatment through an expanded access program -- this from a regulator fond of stating that the best way to get a drug to patients in need is through approval! In this case the agency was saying to Genta: We are not going to approve your drug, but any patient who needs it can have it so long as you give it away.

Genta responded that nonapproval would be a denial of patient access to Genasense because they could not afford to give it away in an expanded access program. Twice, Dr. Pazdur referred to that logic as a "business decision."

Less than 48 hours later, the FDA rejected Genasense. Within days Genta made a "business decision," laying off a third of its staff in a cost cutting move aimed at keeping the doors open long enough to appeal the FDA's decision. The appeal was filed in early April. Genta's announcement of the filing included a statement from one of the expert physicians: "It is puzzling that they would deny approval to a drug that met its primary and key secondary endpoint, especially since these findings were observed in the only randomized controlled trial that has ever been conducted in patients with relapsed CLL."

The FDA's handling of Genasense lays bare the all too common, aggressive incompetence of the FDA's cancer-drug division and should lead to an immediate examination of its policies and leadership, followed by swift corrective action.

As for the FDA's belief that their power to control us and even deny us the pursuit of life itself is unlimited under the Constitution, we can only hope the appeals court disagrees. An agency that blocks progress against deadly diseases -- while arguing that its power to do so is above challenge -- is in dire need of a court supervised review.

Sourcre:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117824324837591782-search.html

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Mr. Walker is co-founder and chief adviser for the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs . He receives no compensation for his work as an advocate, nor has he ever received compensation from any private or public-sector entity involved in drug development, approval or marketing

This drug plus Dacarbazine seems to shed the right antigen-Tumor-specific Peptide

We need every patient and caregiver and family member to write to their Congressperson and Legislators.

This is not right!!!!!!

Bristol Meyer Squibb is violating the due- process rights of terminally ill patients by denying them access to promising investigational drugs. The Anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody.

I am asking you to standup for your Rights and contact your congress person.
Your life might depend on it.

Take Care,

Jimmy B

Once you have the right antigen, it is Presentation Time!!!! Melanoma.. Jim Breitfeller

"Antigens are macromolecules that elicit an immune response in the body. Antigens can be:

•proteins
•polysaccharides
•conjugates of lipids with
◦proteins (lipoproteins) and
◦polysaccharides (glycolipids).

Most of this page will describe how protein antigens are presented to the immune system."


Source:http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AntigenPresentation.html


Antigen Presentation



Take Care,

Jimmy B

First, how did I get the right antigen to be presented on the Antigen Presenting Cell (APC)? Melanoma..Jim Breitfeller

drI am so excited I could not stay away!!!!!!

So now we know what had transpired with the therapy, we need to know how and why it happened. I will try to decipher and or postulate each step of the therapy.

First, how did I get the right antigen to be presented on the Antigen Presenting Cell (APC)?

There are three types of Antigen Presenting Cells:
• Macrophages
• Dendritic Cells
• B Cells

We will focus our attention on the Dendritic cells (DCs ) because I postulate that these cells played a major roll in help generating an immune response. Induced Dendritic cells go through a developental program call maturation, which transforms them into efficient antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and T-cell activators. They are the most potent of the three APCs.
So what really happened? Well, Dr. Kirkwood started me out on Dacarbazine with PaTrin-2. Dacarbazine is a chemotherapy agent, approved by the FDA for fighting Melanoma. Dacarbazine alkylates and cross-links DNA during the phases of the cell cycle, resulting in disruption of DNA function, causing cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis.17 The only problem is that the Melanoma Cells overexpresses this enzyme called MGMT.
Proteins known as DNA repair enzymes are present in cells to target damaged DNA and reverse the modifications caused by alkylating agents. One such enzyme is methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT). MGMT directly reverses the chemical modification guanine, one of the four building blocks of DNA, allowing normal replication to take place.

The DNA-repair enzyme MGMT is a key factor in resistance to alkylating agents. This is one reason why the Dacarbazine therapy doesn’t have a very successful response rate. The MGMT enzyme repairs what the dacarbazine cross-links. So, PaTrin-2 was added to the trial. This drug is known to inactivate the MGMT activity. By inactivating the MGMT enzyme, it makes the tumors cells more susceptible to the chemotherapy.

This therapy was able to get the tumors cells to shed some antigenic Protein which I theorize and was used as the presenting antigen. This made the antigen “tumor-specific.”

Base on a paper by Dr. Olivera J.Finn called Cancer Immunology published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 19, 2008, there are three ways for self antigens to become Tumor Antigens:

1. Mutation
2. over expression
3. Post-translational Modification

I postulate that some failure of the tumor cells to repair the DNA damage cause by the Dacarbazine in the present of PaTrin-2 resulted in a mutation causing the cancer cells to shed an antigenic peptide. But I was still missing a signal or signals to activate my immune system.




I am still here plugging away.



Take Care,

Jimmy B

Blame it on the Tregs!!!! Melanoma.. Jim Breitfeller

As you Know I have been off line lately. I have been following up on some research that I have been doing and actually fired another letter to Dr. Rosenberg. It all has to do with Tregs (CD4+ CD25+ T-cells). They are Known for surpressing the immune response that we want. In Adoptive cell transfer done at the NCI, Rosenberg and colleagues do Lymphodepleting step before injecting the patient with (TILs) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. This is a systemic chemotherapy that transient elimination of host immune system includes:


suppressive cells
regulatory T (Treg) cells,
myeloid derived suppressor (MSC) cells,
Natural killer T cells (NKT) cells
cells competing for cytokines
transiently increased function of antigen presenting cells (APCs)

By doing this It gives the TILs a fighting chance of survival and activation. Il-2 is added for maintance and survival of the TILs.

So I came across a paper "CTLA-4 Blockade Confers Lymphocyte Resistance to Regulatory T-Cells in Advanced Melanoma: Surrogate Marker of Efficacy of Tremelimumab?"

Author by:
Cédric Ménard1,2, François Ghiringhelli1,4,5, Stephan Roux1,2, Nathalie Chaput1,2, Christine Mateus3, Ursula Grohmann6, Sophie Caillat-Zucman7, Laurence Zitvogel1,2 and Caroline Robert1,3

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Center of Clinical Investigations, CBT507, 2 Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale U805, and 3 Department of Medicine, Dermatology Unit, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; 4 Department of Medicine, Centre Georges Francois Leclerc, 5 CRI Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale 866, Faculté de Médecine, Dijon, France; 6 Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy; and 7 Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale U561, Hôpital St. Vincent de Paul, Paris, France

Purpose: Anti–CTL antigen-4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody (mAb) has led to encouraging antitumor activity associated with immune-related adverse events in patients with heavily pretreated melanoma. However, mechanisms of action and surrogate immunologic markers of efficacy have not been reported thus far.

Experimental Design: We monitored the immune responses of 10 melanoma patients included in a phase II clinical trial, which evaluated the efficacy of a second line of therapy of tremelimumab anti–CTLA-4 mAb in patients with metastatic melanoma. The frequency of blood leukocyte populations in association with T cell and regulatory T cell (Treg) functions were evaluated.

Results: Prior to therapy, patients with advanced melanoma presented with a severe CD4+ and CD8+ T cell lymphopenia associated with blunted T-cell proliferative capacities that could be assigned to Treg. Tremelimumab rapidly restored the effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell pool and TCR-dependent T-cell proliferation that became entirely resistant to Treg-mediated suppression. Progression-free survival and overall survival was directly correlated with the acquisition of a biological response defined as the resistance of peripheral lymphocytes to Treg-inhibitory effects (obtained in 7 of 10 patients).

Conclusion: CTLA-4 blockade seems to be a valuable strategy to revive reactive memory T cells anergized in the context of stage IV melanoma, and our work suggests that memory T-cell resistance to Treg resulting from anti–CTLA-4 treatment might be a biological activity marker for tremelimumab in patients with melanoma.

I am the process of obtaining this Paper. I believe it holds another piece of the Melanoma puzzle.


Take Care

Jimmy B

The Innate Immune System is able to recognize self-targets and initiate Inflammatory Response Melanoma..Jim Breitfller

Recent advance in autoimmunity research reveals that the innate immune system is able to recognize self-targets and initiate inflammatory response in a similar way as with pathogens. This is what anti-CTLA-4 blockage has done. Accordingly, alterations in cell morphology are recognized by the innate immune system resulting in an acute inflammatory response (Carroll and Holers,2005).

"Our immune system is an impressive piece of biological machinery using
specialized cells and soluble mediators to protect us from foreign substances such as bacteria, viruses and cancer cells. The immune system is historically divided into two parts, the innate and the adaptive immune systems. Although working together for effective protection these two systems differ from each other in many respects. The innate immune response has componentsrecognizing characteristic features that are common within groups of microbes and cannot distinguish the fine differences between foreign substances. The principal components of innate immunity are physical and chemical barriers, phagocytic cells, blood proteins and cytokines which all react to repeated infections in essentially the same way in which they first responded. The defining characteristics of adaptive or specific immunity are exquisite specificity and the ability to remember and respond more vigorously
to repeated exposures to the same pathogen. The key components of
the adaptive system are B- and T lymphocytes, which can differentiate to
effector or memory cells after stimulation by foreign molecules known as
antigens (Ags)."

Source: Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations
from the Faculty of Medicine 189

Early Immunostimulatory Effects of IgE- and IgG Antibodies

author FREDRIK HJELM

With this in mind, I had an Innate immune response when the CTLA-4 engage the B7 receptor. The response was an inflamatory response on day 15.

Base on the Innate immune response froma natural antibody. It takes about two week to generate a response.This response I posulate as the danger signal needed for T-cells to begin their frontal attack on the foreign invaders (The Cancer Cells).

I am in contact with Kirkwood and Medarex trying to convince them of my theory. I has been a hard sell.

response:Fine theory but just theory that has never been tested in relevant clinical setting…





Jimmy B

EDITORIAL CTLA-4 Blockade: Unveiling Immune Regulation Melanoma ..Jim Breitfeller

Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.923 on December 21 2004

CTLA-4 Blockade: Unveiling Immune Regulation

Glenn Dranoff

Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

To maintain tissue homeostasis under the duress of infection or injury, the immune system is endowed with a diverse repertoire of soluble and cellular effectors. The innate response, composed of granulocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and complement, is rapidly triggered into action, detecting tissue disturbance through a set of germline-encoded pattern recognition receptors. The adaptive reaction, consisting of antibody-producing B cells and T lymphocytes, is slower to develop, but manifests exquisite specificity and memory. These attributes reflect the requirement for expansion of rare clones harboring somatically rearranged immunoglobulin molecules or T-cell receptors specific for foreign proteins or processed peptides presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules. These innate and adaptive responses are carefully orchestrated through soluble and membrane-bound regulators, resulting in the deployment of the most suitable effectors for containing the disorder, while minimizing tissue damage.

Cancer cells similarly provoke immune recognition. In one pathway, innate effectors detect tumor cells directly.1 Natural killer cells and phagocytes express NKG2D molecules that function as receptors for stress-related genes such as MICA and MICB, which are induced as a consequence of cellular transformation. Natural killer cells further scan for the loss of MHC class I molecules on the surface of tumor cells. Dendritic cells use a variety of scavenger receptors to result in the phagocytosis of dying tumor cells.

The adaptive response exploits an indirect pathway, termed cross-priming, to recognize cancer cells.2 In this mechanism, dendritic cells capture tumor cell debris, migrate to regional lymph nodes, and stimulate CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with tumor specificity. Primed T cells thereby acquire the capacity to detect tumor cells directly in a MHC-restricted fashion. CD4+ T cells also contribute to B-cell antibody production.

Antitumor innate and adaptive responses are frequently detected in cancer-bearing hosts, but their biologic importance remains incompletely understood. In some cases, endogenous reactions may function to attenuate disease progression. In multiple cancer types, clinicopathologic studies of early-stage lesions demonstrate that dense intratumoral lymphocyte infiltrates are strongly correlated with reduced frequencies of metastasis and improved patient survival.3 Moreover, in advanced ovarian carcinoma, lymphocyte infiltrates also predict for complete responses and prolonged survival following cytotoxic therapy.4 Consistent with this protective role, several strains of immune-deficient mice display enhanced susceptibility to spontaneous and carcinogen-induced tumors.5 Nonetheless, other compelling data indicate that tumor cells sometimes exploit host responses to promote disease progression.6 Unresolved inflammation may facilitate tumor development by modulating tumor cell growth, apoptosis, invasion, and metastasis. Together, these divergent outcomes underscore a dual role for immunity in carcinogenesis.7

Source:http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/23/4/662
CTLA-4 Blockade: Unveiling Immune Regulation




Take care

Jimmy B

Hand and Hand Tumor Rejection ..Melanoma ..Jim Breitfeller

This diagram goes with the "Tumor Rejection Piece"


Tumor Rejection!!!!!!

To cause the rejection of the tumors cells, The immune system must orchestrate a chain of events mediated by several types of Leukocytes including Dendtric cells (DC), Natuaral Killer cells (NK), CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes and others. This orchestration has many players in it including the T-Regs, sercreted cytokines, and Monoclonal antibodies (mAb’s) and complexes. It is a delicate balance between self and non-self.

At the Lymph Node drainage area, the lymphocytes (CD4+ and CD8+) with their T-cell receptors (TCRs) are able to scan the Dendtric cells (DC’s) for antigen-MHC molecules. (ag-MHC) major histocompatability complex (class I or II). Based on the two signal model, a second signal from CD28 molecule is needed to activate the T-cells (T-lymphocytes). If communcation breaksdown, and the TCR signal only happens, it can lead to tolerance by means of fuctional paralysis of the (APCs) Antigen presenting cells (Anergy) or by the induction of clonal deletion (apoptosis). Anergic cells can act as regulatory T cells by competing at the sites of antigen presentation and adsorbing out stimulatory cytokines such as IL-2. This can halt the activation of the T- lymphocytes and no immune response is initiated.

Once activated fully, the CD4+ T-cells can mobilize to where the event will take place and usually sends out a “danger signal” inflammation. The activated CD4+ T-cells can secrete many different cytokines including IL-4, IL-2 and activate the TH2 cells which are a subset of the CD4+ cells. The TH2 cells stimulate the B cells to mature into plasma cells that secrete antibodies. These antibodies that are produced are the cell-destructive kinds that have anti-tumor behavior. The CD4+ can also cross-prime CD8+ T-cells in the presence of IL-2 and are called (CTLs)Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes. Cross-priming is another name for cross-presentation. The role of the CD8+ T cells is to monitor all the cells of the body, ready to destroy any that express foreign antigen fragments in their class I molecules.

Some CD4+ T cells can develop into CTLs, but they can attack only those cell types (e.g. B cells, macrophages, dendritic cells) that express class II MHC molecules. Virtually every cell in the body expresses class I MHC molecules, so CD8+ CTLs are not limited in the targets they can attack. CTLs have cytoplasmic granules that contain the proteins perforin and granzymes. When the CTL binds to its target, the contents of the granules are discharged. A dozen or more perforin molecules insert themselves into the plasma membrane of target cells forming a pore that enables granzymes to enter the cell. Granzymes are serine proteases. The serine proteases are a family of enzymes that cut certain bonds in other proteins. It is similar to what is in your laundry detergent. They are known as detergent enzymes. They break the bond between the dirt and the fabric. By breaking up these proteins, they start destroying the intracellular workings of the tumor cells.

Next Piece is how the tumor protects itself from the Killer T-cells through a microenviroment and Tregs.


Just plugging away!!

Jimmy B

Patty Luker, This for you!!! Melanoma..Jim Breitfeller

Patty Luker, This for you!!!

This so you don't go into the weekend empty handed



This is my rendition of an activated T-cell with anti CTLA-4 Blockage

T-cell activation requires not only stimulation of the T-cell receptor,but also a secondary costimulation if the CD28 receptors on the T-cell.

I guess my HOMEWORK is starting to payoff.

Have a great weekend Everybody!!!!!!

Take Care

Jimmy B

Dr. Polly Matzinger Danger!! Danger!! Melanoma..Jim Breitfeller

Danger signals
"In a 1994 article entitled "Tolerance, Danger and the Extended Family", Matzinger went several steps further by laying out the idea that antigen-presenting cells respond to "danger signals" - most notably from cells undergoing injury, or stress or "bad cell death" (as opposed to apoptosis, controlled cell death). The alarm signals released by these cells let the immune system know that there is a problem requiring an immune response. She argued that T-cells and the immune response they orchestrate occurs not because of a neonatal definition of "self", as in the previous model, nor because of ancient definitions of pathogens, as in Janeway's argument, but due to a dynamic and constantly-updated response to danger as defined by cellular damage."


The Danger Model

The self-non-self model, the predominant model in immunology since the 1950s, began to encounter problems in the late 1980s when immunologists began to recognize that T-cells depend on other cells to pick up and then present the things to which they will respond — and that the T-cell response depends on whether the other cell (known as antigen-presenting cells) is sending activation signals to the T-cells.

In 1989, drawing on the ideas of Thomas Kuhn, Charles Janeway proposed that the old immunological paradigm had reached the limits of its usefulness--or, as he described it, the asymptote of the increase in knowledge which it had brought. Janeway argued that the innate immune system was the real gatekeeper of whether the immune system responded or did not respond. He also argued that the innate immune system used ancient pattern-recognition receptors to make these decisions - recognizing a pathogen by its unchanging characteristics.

Source:Wikipedia

Part of my Research

Jimmy B