Data from Single-Cell Profiling of Sarcomas from Archival Tissue Reveals Programs Associated with Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade
Le résumé fourni par la source
AbstractPurpose: Sarcoma encompasses a diverse group of cancers that are typically resistant to current therapies, including immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), and underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The contexture of sarcomas limits generation of high-quality data using cutting-edge molecular profiling methods, such as single-cell RNA-sequencing, thus hampering progress in understanding these understudied cancers. Experimental Design: Here, we demonstrate feasibility of producing multimodal single-cell genomics and whole-genome sequencing data from frozen tissues, profiling 75,716 cell transcriptomes of five undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and three intimal sarcoma samples, including paired specimens from two patients treated with ICB. Results: We find that genomic diversity decreases in patients with response to ICB, and, in unbiased analyses, identify cancer cell programs associated with therapy resistance. Although interactions of tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes within the tumor ecosystem increase in ICB responders, clonal expansion of CD8+ T cells alone was insufficient to predict drug responses. Conclusions: This study provides a framework for studying rare tumors and identifies salient and treatment-associated cancer cell intrinsic and tumor microenvironmental features in sarcomas.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Data from Single-Cell Profiling of Sarcomas from Archival Tissue Reveals Programs Associated with Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2024
- Éditeur
- American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.