Abstract
Intravenously administered bacteria reportedly accumulate in tumors. Furthermore, systemic administration of attenuated Salmonella typhimurium has little or no significant side-effects in humans. Consequently, we engineered such bacteria to improve their oncolytic activity by stably inserting a gene encoding LIGHT, a cytokine known to promote tumor rejection. Unlike control bacteria, attenuated S. typhimurium expressing LIGHT inhibited growth of primary tumors, as well as the dissemination of pulmonary metastases, in various mouse tumor models employing murine carcinoma cell lines in immunocompetent mice. Antitumor activity was achieved without significant toxicity and was associated with infiltration of inflammatory cells and dependent on the LIGHT receptors, herpes virus entry mediator (HVEM), and lymphotoxin-β receptor (LTβR). These findings provide evidence that nonvirulent bacteria can be exploited as targeting vehicles for local generation of therapeutic proteins in tumors.
Keywords: cancer therapy, immunotherapy, tumor homing
Although reports of using bacteria to treat tumors in humans date as far back as to 1893 (1), thus far, microbial-based approaches to cancer immunotherapy are limited to use of bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) for superficial bladder carcinomas (2, 3). It has been reported that bacteria administered by i.v. injection accumulate in solid tumors. In mouse studies, for example, Salmonella typhimurium (a facultative anaerobe) accumulate within tumors to concentrations as high as 109 colony-forming units (cfu) per gram of tumor tissue (4, 5). Various explanations have been proposed for the preferential growth of bacteria in tumors, including superior nutrient availability from materials released by necrotic cells in hypoxic regions, impaired bactericidal activity of macrophages and neutrophil granulocytes in low oxygen environments found in solid tumors, suppression of the immune system by tumor-derived factors such as TGF-β, and reduced exposure to antibodies and complement-factors because of irregular vasculature and positive pressure within tumors. We hypothesized therefore that bacteria might effectively home to tumors in vivo, creating opportunities for direct stimulation of inflammatory responses within tumors and for local production of immunostimulatory cytokines produced by genetically engineered microbes.
Recently, a lipid A-negative strain of S. typhimurium was used for phase I human clinical trials and was found to be safe at doses up to 109 cfu per m2 body surface area, but without evidence of antitumor activity (6, 7). Humans are not a natural host for S. typhimurium, and the elimination of lipid A prevents production of endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide), making these microorganisms nonvirulent. Because they have an acceptable safety profile (5, 8) and are able to synthesize recombinant cytokines at high levels (9), we chose these bacteria for our studies, with a goal to explore the preclinical antitumor activity of S. typhimurium engineered to secrete cytokines. With the ability to grow anaerobically, we reasoned that S. typhimurium could grow even in hypoxic areas of tumors, which tend to be resistant to radiation or chemotherapy. Also, bacteria have an advantage over recombinant viruses used for cancer gene therapy, in that it is possible to immediately terminate treatment by using antibiotics. Furthermore, unlike viruses, no foreign genetic material is inserted into the host genome, thus avoiding the risk of treatment-induced malignancy, recently observed with retrovirus-based gene therapy (10).
We chose for our studies the cytokine LIGHT (also known as TNFSF14 or HVEM-L), which is homologous to lymphotoxin, a TNF-family cytokine. LIGHT binds both the lymphotoxin-β receptor (LTβR), which is expressed on many epithelial cancers, and herpes virus entry mediator (HVEM), a receptor expressed by T lymphocytes (11). LIGHT has recently been recognized as a growth factor for dendritic cells (DCs) (12, 13), cells involved in antigen presentation and immune response initiation. Also, the LIGHT receptor, LTβR, transduces signals inducing expression of chemokines, such as CCL21, which stimulates emigration of DCs (14), T and B cells (15), and natural killer (NK) cells (16), as well as possibly having direct antiangiogenic effects through chemokine receptors CXCL9 and CXL10 (11, 17–19). We report that attenuated S. typhimurium engineered to express LIGHT demonstrate promising antitumor activity in immunocompetent mice harboring syngeneic tumors, with little evidence of systemic toxicity.
Results
Protein Expression and Intratumoral Accumulation of Attenuated Salmonella.
To engineer the attenuated S. typhimurium strain purI−/msbB− for expressing LIGHT, we used the plasmid pGEN206, in which a human LIGHT cDNA was expressed with an N-terminal appended leader sequence that directs protein secretion under control of an ompC promoter. The engineered bacteria were grown in culture and recovered by centrifugation, and the resulting cell-containing pellet and cleared culture supernatant were tested for LIGHT protein by immunoblotting, revealing the presence of LIGHT in both cells and supernatant (Fig. 1A). Control Salmonella (transformed with empty plasmid) and their culture supernatants did not contain LIGHT protein.
Fig. 1.
Characterization of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella. (A) Expression of 29-kDa LIGHT protein was demonstrated by immunoblot analysis of Salmonella transformed with empty plasmid (Sal) or LIGHT-expression plasmid (Sal + LIGHT). Samples were normalized for total protein content. (B) BALB/c mice bearing s.c. CT-26 colon carcinomas were injected i.v. with Salmonella transformed with empty plasmid (Sal + vector) or with luciferase encoding plasmid (Sal + LUC). After 14 days, mice were injected with luciferin and imaged by using a device that measures intensity of emitted light (see color scale at right). Data for the representative mouse shown were analyzed by using Image Pro Plus 5.1 software.
Salmonella reportedly accumulate in solid tumors in vivo (4, 5, 20). To explore the tumor targeting of the attenuated purI−/msbB− strain, we transformed these bacteria with a plasmid encoding luciferase and injected them i.v. into tumor-bearing mice, using a bioluminescence whole animal imaging method to localize the bacteria. In five of five mice evaluated, strong luminescent emissions were detected specifically in s.c. tumors (see Fig. 1B for example). We conclude therefore that the attenuated S. typhimurium strain used here retains its ability to target tumors in vivo. Furthermore, this capability remains unchanged after transformation with empty or LIGHT-bearing plasmids, respectively [supporting information (SI) Fig. 4]. In addition, for all six of the carcinoma lines tested, namely CT-26, D2F2, B16, LLC, HeLa, and PPC-1, attenuated Salmonella were able to infect the cancer cells in culture as revealed by the presence of GFP-emitting bodies in the cytosol (data not shown).
Salmonella Expressing LIGHT Inhibit Primary and Metastatic Tumor Growth.
We explored the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella in immunocompetent BALB/c mice bearing s.c. syngeneic tumors, using either D2F2 breast (Fig. 2A) or CT-26 colon (Fig. 2B) carcinoma cells. Mice with established tumors (≈50 mm3) were injected i.v. with PBS, untransformed Salmonella, Salmonella transformed with empty plasmid, or Salmonella expressing LIGHT. Marked reduction of tumor growth was observed in mice treated with Salmonella expressing LIGHT, compared with control bacteria and PBS-treated mice (Fig. 2 A and B). Salmonella containing empty plasmid were not significantly different from PBS, indicating that bacterial targeting to tumors by itself is insufficient for antitumor activity.
Fig. 2.
Effect of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella on tumor growth. (A) BALB/c mice (n = 8) were injected s.c. with 1.25 × 105 D2F2 breast carcinoma cells. After 14 days, when tumors reached ≈50 mm3, mice were injected i.v. with PBS (♦), untransformed Salmonella (■), Salmonella containing empty vector (▴), or Salmonella with LIGHT-expression plasmid (○). Tumor volumes (mm3) were estimated by external calipers (mean ± SD). (B) Mice were injected s.c. with 2.5 × 105 CT-26 colon carcinoma cells and injected i.v. with untransformed Salmonella (■), Salmonella containing empty vector (▴), or Salmonella containing LIGHT expression plasmid (○) after 9, 14, and 19 days. External tumor volumes were measured (mean ± SD; n = 5). (C–E) Mice (n = 8) were injected i.v. with 5 × 104 D2F2 breast carcinoma cells and then injected i.v. with PBS, untransformed Salmonella (Sal), Salmonella containing empty vector (Sal + vector), or Salmonella containing LIGHT plasmid (Sal + LIGHT) after 6, 13, and 20 days. After 50 days, animals were killed, and lungs were weighed (mean ± SEM; normal lung weight ∼0.15 g) (C), photographed (representative lungs shown) (D), and scored for metastases (E), assessing the percentage of lung surface covered by metastases: 0 = 0%, 1 = <20%, 2 = 20–50%, 3 = >50%. *, P < 0.05.
To evaluate the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing bacteria in a more stringent model of cancer, we injected CT-26 cells i.v. to establish pulmonary metastases, and then treated mice 9, 14, and 19 days later with PBS, untransformed Salmonella, bacteria transformed with empty plasmid, or LIGHT-expressing Salmonella. Using either lung weights (Fig. 2C) or a metastasis scoring method (Fig. 2 D and E) to evaluate effects, LIGHT-expressing bacteria markedly suppressed metastatic tumor growth, compared with control-treated animals. Again, untransformed Salmonella and Salmonella containing empty plasmid were not significantly different from PBS, indicating that bacterial targeting to tumors by itself is insufficient for antitumor activity.
During our experiments, no animals from control or treatment groups died, lost weight, or showed overt signs of disease. To more carefully determine whether LIGHT-expressing Salmonella cause toxicity, we performed histological analysis of tissues and organs of BALB/c mice bearing s.c. tumors at 34 days after i.v. injection with LIGHT-expressing Salmonella. Lungs and kidney were completely normal. Liver showed mild inflammation, as predicted by prior studies (5), presumably because of bacteria uptake by Kupffer cells. The major histopathological finding was splenomegaly [416 ± 61 mg for Salmonella, 451 ± 101 mg for Salmonella plus empty vector and 429 ± 82 mg for Salmonella plus LIGHT vector vs. 165 ± 35 mg for PBS-treated mice (n = 3)], which was characterized by expansion of both the white and the red pulp. Analysis of circulating hematopoietic cells showed slight lymphocytosis in some instances, but was otherwise normal (data not shown). Thus, treatment with LIGHT-expressing Salmonella is well tolerated, particularly for a cytokine-based cancer therapy.
Antitumor Activity of LIGHT–Expressing Bacteria Is Dependent on LIGHT Receptors.
The mechanism accounting for the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella was investigated by using neutralizing soluble receptor-Ig (R-Ig) fusion proteins that target the LIGHT receptors HVEM and LTβR (21, 22). For these experiments, C57BL/6 mice were injected s.c. with Lewis lung carcinoma cells and the neutralizing HVEM-Ig or LTβR-Ig. As with the other tumor models, LIGHT-expressing Salmonella but not control Salmonella greatly inhibited tumor growth (Fig. 3A). Anti-HVEM and anti-LTβR partially neutralized the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella (P < 0.05).
Fig. 3.
Analysis of mechanism of antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella. (A) C57BL/6 mice (n = 5) were injected s.c. with 4 × 105 Lewis lung carcinoma cells. After 7 days, mice were injected i.v. with PBS, Salmonella (Sal), Salmonella containing empty vector (Sal + vector), or Salmonella containing LIGHT plasmid (Sal + LIGHT). For neutralization of LIGHT effects, mice were injected i.v. on days 5 and 15 with HVEM-Ig or LTβR-Ig. External tumor weights were assessed on day 22 (mean ± SD; *, P < 0.05). (B) Relative percentages of B cells (CD19+) (black bars), CD4+ T cells (CD3+/CD4+) (gray bars), and CD8+ T cells (CD3+/CD8+) (white bars) were determined by FACS analysis (mean ± SD; n = 3) of tumors excised from mice treated as above and compared with PBS control. (C) FACS analysis of DCs (CD11c+/CD205+) as in B of spleens. (D) CT-26 colon tumors were excised from mice (n = 3), and lysates were prepared, normalized for total protein content, and analyzed by ELISA for CXCL9 chemokine. Data represent nanograms of CXCL9 per gram of total protein (mean ± SD). *, P < 0.05.
Histological examination of tumors by hematoxylin/eosin (H&E) staining showed massive inflammatory cell infiltrates in tumors obtained from mice treated with LIGHT-expressing bacteria, whereas few leukocytes were seen in the tumors of PBS-treated mice, and only slight infiltrates were detected in mice treated with untransformed Salmonella or with Salmonella containing empty vector (SI Fig. 5). Flow cytometry analysis of cell suspensions prepared from resected tumors showed striking increases in B cells (CD19+) and in both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (Fig. 3B). Depleting CD4 or CD8-positive cells in vivo by using complement-fixing anti-CD4 or anti-CD8 antibodies neutralized most of the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella, suggesting that both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells make contributions to the antitumor activity. Immunodepletion using an antibody targeting the NK cell antigen NK1.1 also reduced the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella (data not shown), implying a role also for these immune effector cells.
Spleens from mice receiving various treatments showed an approximate doubling of DCs [336 ± 48% versus 164 ± 27% CD11c+CD205+ cells (compared with PBS control); Fig. 3C] for mice treated with Salmonella containing LIGHT or control plasmid, respectively, versus empty plasmid (P < 0.05). Thus, consistent with the documented role of LIGHT as a DC cell growth factor (12), LIGHT-expressing Salmonella induced increases in DC cells in vivo.
The massive inflammatory cell infiltration into tumors of mice treated with LIGHT-expressing bacteria suggested involvement of chemoattractants (SI Fig. 5). LIGHT is known to induce expression of chemokine CXCL9 (23), which leads to attraction of CXCR3 chemokine receptor-expressing cells, such as T cells (24). Using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), we determined that levels of intratumoral CXCL9 were approximately doubled in mice treated with LIGHT-expressing Salmonella compared with control bacteria (Fig. 3D). Thus, the antitumor activity of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella is associated with increased expression of CXCL9.
Discussion
In summary, we have provided proof of principle that attenuated bacteria can be engineered to secrete human cytokines and used as a targeted antitumor therapy with little systemic toxicity. The data shown here focus on the cytokine LIGHT, but significant antitumor activity was also obtained by using FasL or IL-18 (unpublished data), implying that the strategy illustrated here may be applicable to several cytokines. By relying on the intrinsic tendency of S. typhimurium to target to solid tumors, this strategy allows for localized production of cytokines within tumors, which would be expected to reduce systemic side effects and to focus inflammatory and immune responses at tumor sites. Using bacteria to produce cytokines in situ may be particularly advantageous for cytokines that are difficult to produce and purify by recombinant DNA methods because of protein instability or poor protein yield. Moreover, because bacteria can be propagated cost-effectively, such therapy should be relatively inexpensive to produce for clinical use. The recent demonstration that attenuated Salmonella are safe when administered to humans (6) suggests that further studies should be performed to evaluate the preclinical safety of LIGHT-expressing Salmonella for possible testing in human clinical trials.
Experimental Procedures
Animals, Bacterial Strains, Cell Lines, and Plasmid Vectors.
Female BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice were purchased at ≈6–8 weeks of age from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). All animal experiments were performed according to the National Institutes of Health Guide for Care and Use of Experimental Animals and approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research (AUF 04-152). Attenuated lipid A-negative S. typhimurium (purI-/msbB−) were generated as described (4). The D2F2 cell line was a gift from W.-Z. Wei (Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI); CT-26 and Lewis lung carcinoma cells were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA). cDNAs encoding luciferase (pGL3; Promega Corporation, Madison, WI), enhanced green fluorescent protein (pEGFP; Clontech, Mountain View, CA), or an N-terminal secretory leader sequence (MISSSSIS; described in ref. 26), followed by human LIGHT (InvivoGen, San Diego, CA), were inserted into pGEN206. This vector is a slightly modified form of pGEN222 (25) in which the parA locus has been exchanged with a parM and a parR locus. In addition, a repA locus has been introduced between the origin of replication and the multiple cloning sites. Protein expression of pGEN206-LIGHT was demonstrated by immunoblotting of 109 cfu Salmonella, bearing nothing or vector, or their respective culture supernatants with a polyclonal rabbit anti-human LIGHT antibody provided by C.F. Ware (La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, La Jolla, CA). The experiment to demonstrate infection of tumor cells via Salmonella in vitro was performed by a standard gentamycin protection assay (26).
Optical Luminescence Imaging of Mice and Image Processing.
Live animal luminescence optical imaging was performed 15 min after i.p. injection of 10 mg of luciferin per mouse by using the Xenogen system (Hopkinton, MA). Imaging parameters were selected and implemented by using the instrument's Image Pro Plus 5.1 software. Bright field and luminescence photographs were obtained and merged with the same program. The reported images are real-time unprocessed images.
Tumor Cell Challenge and Treatment with Salmonella and Antibodies.
For experiments involving primary tumors, BALB/c mice (n = 5–8 per group) were challenged s.c. with a lethal dose of either 1.25 × 105 D2F2 breast carcinoma cells or 2.5 × 105 CT-26 colon carcinoma cells, then treated with either PBS or 5 × 106 cfu of various types of Salmonella per mouse at days 9, 14, and 19, as indicated. Tumor volumes were measured by using an external caliper at various times and calculated as length/2 × width2. To establish pulmonary metastases, BALB/c mice (n = 8) were first injected i.v. with 5 × 104 D2F2 breast carcinoma cells and then treated i.v. with PBS, or indicated Salmonella (5 × 106 cfu per mouse) after 6, 13, and 20 days. After 50 days, lungs were weighed (mean ± SEM) and examined for metastases, assessing the percentage of lung surface covered by metastases as follows: 0, 0%; 1, <20%; 2, 20–50%; 3, >50%. For experiments involving antibody-mediated depletion/blocking, C57BL/6 mice (n = 5) were challenged s.c. with 4 × 105 Lewis lung carcinoma cells and treated i.v. after 7 days with PBS, Salmonella, Salmonella plus empty vector, or Salmonella plus LIGHT-bearing vector, including groups of mice that have been treated i.p. with 500 μg per mouse of antibodies against CD4+ T cells (anti-CD4 clone GK1.5; ATCC), CD8+ T cells (anti-CD8 clone 2.43; ATCC), NK cells (anti-asialo-GM; Wako Chemical, Dallas, TX), or with 100 μg per mouse of neutralizing soluble receptor-Ig (R-Ig) against HVEM (HVEM-Ig), or LTβR (LTβR-Ig, both provided by Biogen Idec, San Diego, CA) after 5 and 15 days. Animals were killed and tumor weights were measured at 22 days.
Immunohistochemistry, FACS Analysis, and ELISA of Tumors and/or Spleens.
Mice were killed with an overdose of anesthetic. For immunohistochemistry, tissues were fixed in paraformaldehyde, embedded in paraffin, and stained with H&E. For additional details, see SI Experimental Procedures. For FACS analysis, tissues from CT-26 tumor-bearing mice (n = 3) treated as outlined above were dispersed into single cell suspensions and stained according to the manufacturer's suggestions, by using individual and combinations of antibodies directly conjugated with fluorochromes (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ), including stains for DCs (CD11c+/CD205), NK cells (DX5+), B cells (CD19+), CD4+ T cells (CD3+/CD4+), or CD8+ T cells (CD3+/CD8+). The results shown consist of comparisons of the different groups with the PBS control (= 100% ± SD). For ELISA, a portion of tumors from the same mice (n = 3) was extracted by using a 1% Nonidet P-40 solution in PBS, and analyzed by ELISA for the CXCL9 chemokine (R & D Systems, Minneapolis, MN). Data represent nanograms of cytokine per gram of total protein.
Statistics.
Statistical significance of data from control and treatment groups was determined by two-tailed Student's t test. The significance of metastases scores was determined by Mann–Whitney U test. Findings were regarded as significant, if P < 0.05.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Wei-Zen Wei for D2F2 cells and Dr. Carl F. Ware for anti-LIGHT antibody. We acknowledge the support of National Institutes of Health Grant CA69381. M.L. received an Austrian Program for Advanced Research and Technology (APART) fellowship from the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Abbreviations
- LTβR
lymphotoxin-β receptor
- HVEM
herpes virus entry mediator
- DC
dendritic cell
- NK
natural killer.
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701959104/DC1.
References
- 1.Coley WB. Clin Orthop. 1893;262:3–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Herr HW. Br J Urol. 1997;80:762–765. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00431.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Jackson AM, Ivshina AV, Senko O, Kuznetsova A, Sundan A, O'Donnell MA, Clinton S, Alexandroff AB, Selby PJ, James K, Kuznetsov VA. J Urol. 1998;159:1054–1063. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Clairmont C, Lee KC, Pike J, Ittensohn M, Low KB, Pawelek J, Bermudes D, Brecher SM, Margitich D, Turnier J, et al. J Infect Dis. 2000;181:1996–2002. doi: 10.1086/315497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rosenberg SA, Spiess PJ, Kleiner DE. J Immunother. 2002;25:218–225. doi: 10.1097/01.CJI.0000014623.45316.93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Toso JF, Gill VJ, Hwu P, Marincola FM, Restifo NP, Schwartzentruber DJ, Sherry RM, Topalian SL, Yang JC, Stock F, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:142–152. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Yu YA, Shabahang S, Timiryasova TM, Zhang Q, Beltz R, Gentschev I, Goebel W, Szalay AA. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:313–320. doi: 10.1038/nbt937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Thamm DH, Kurzman ID, King I, Li Z, Sznol M, Dubielzig RR, Vail DM, MacEwen EG. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:4827–4834. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Carrier MJ, Chatfield SN, Dougan G, Nowicka UT, O'Callaghan D, Beesley JE, Milano S, Cillari E, Liew FY. J Immunol. 1992;148:1176–1181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Marwick C. Br Med J. 2003;326:181. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.181/a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wang JM, Deng X, Gong W, Su S. J Immunol Methods. 1998;220:1–17. doi: 10.1016/s0022-1759(98)00128-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schneider K, Potter KG, Ware CF. Immunol Rev. 2004;202:49–66. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.00206.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Morel Y, Truneh A, Sweet RW, Olive D, Costello RT. J Immunol. 2001;167:2479–2486. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.5.2479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kellermann SA, Hudak S, Oldham ER, Liu YJ, McEvoy LM. J Immunol. 1999;162:3859–3864. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nagira M, Imai T, Yoshida R, Takagi S, Iwasaki M, Baba M, Tabira Y, Akagi J, Nomiyama H, Yoshie O. Eur J Immunol. 1998;28:1516–1523. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4141(199805)28:05<1516::AID-IMMU1516>3.0.CO;2-J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kim CH, Pelus LM, Appelbaum E, Johanson K, Anzai N, Broxmeyer HE. Cell Immunol. 1999;193:226–235. doi: 10.1006/cimm.1999.1483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Angiolillo AL, Sgadari C, Taub DD, Liao F, Farber JM, Maheshwari S, Kleinman HK, Reaman GH, Tosato G. J Exp Med. 1995;182:155–162. doi: 10.1084/jem.182.1.155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Strieter RM, Polverini PJ, Arenberg DA, Kunkel SL. Shock. 1995;4:155–160. doi: 10.1097/00024382-199509000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sgadari C, Angiolillo AL, Tosato G. Blood. 1996;87:3877–3882. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Zhao M, Yang M, Li XM, Jiang P, Baranov E, Li S, Xu M, Penman S, Hoffman RM. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:755–760. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408422102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Fan Z, Yu P, Wang Y, Wang Y, Fu ML, Liu W, Sun Y, Fu YX. Blood. 2006;107:1342–1351. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-08-3485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wang YG, Kim KD, Wang J, Yu P, Fu YX. J Immunol. 2005;175:6997–7002. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.10.6997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Yu P, Lee Y, Liu W, Chin RK, Wang J, Wang Y, Schietinger A, Philip M, Schreiber H, Fu YX. Nat Immunol. 2004;5:141–149. doi: 10.1038/ni1029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Colvin RA, Campanella GS, Sun J, Luster AD. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:30219–30227. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M403595200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Galen JE, Nair J, Wang JY, Wasserman SS, Tanner MK, Sztein MB, Levine MM. Infect Immun. 1999;67:6424–6433. doi: 10.1128/iai.67.12.6424-6433.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Damiano JS, Newman RM, Reed JC. J Immunol. 2004;173:6338–6345. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.10.6338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.



