Coley's Tox­ins Re­vis­ited

by Roberto

In the last few years, im­munother­apy has quickly be­come the emerg­ing "fourth pil­lar" in can­cer treat­ment, join­ing surgery, ra­di­a­tion ther­apy and chemother­apy. The ba­sic con­cept be­hind the de­vel­op­ment of im­mune check­point in­hibitors as anti-can­cer ther­a­peu­tics is that ac­ti­vat­ing the im­mune sys­tem can some­times re­sult in the body rid­ding it­self of ma­lig­nant cells. Such ac­ti­va­tion im­munother­apy shows much promise. The first check­point in­hibitor (a mon­o­clonal an­ti­body) was ap­proved for hu­man use in 2011. Since then, many other such ther­a­peu­tics have un­der­gone de­vel­op­ment and are cur­rently used to treat a mul­ti­tude of can­cers. Thus, it was no sur­prise when the 2018 No­bel Prize in Phys­i­ol­ogy and Med­i­cine went to James Al­li­son and Tasuku Honjo "for their dis­cov­ery of can­cer ther­apy by in­hi­bi­tion of neg­a­tive im­mune reg­u­la­tion."

Fig. 1. Fron­tispiece of Coley's 1895 pub­li­ca­tion. Source. Fron­tispiece: Col­orized scan­ning elec­tron mi­cro­graph of Strep­to­coc­cus pyo­genes (yel­low) and a hu­man neu­trophil (blue). Credit: NIAID. Source

These re­cent and very ex­cit­ing ad­vances could lead one to be­lieve that can­cer immuno­therapy is some­thing en­tirely from the twenty-first cen­tury. But the con­cept of ac­ti­vat­ing the im­mune sys­tem to fight can­cer­ous cells goes back to the wan­ing years of the nine­teenth cen­tury. Dur­ing that time, the New York-based bone sur­geon William Co­ley met a pa­tient who had had a se­vere in­op­er­a­ble ma­lig­nancy and was now in com­plete re­mis­sion. The one odd­ity in that clin­i­cal case was that the pa­tient had suf­fered a bac­te­r­ial in­fec­tion at the time of can­cer di­ag­no­sis. This led Co­ley to sur­vey the lit­er­a­ture for anec­do­tal ev­i­dence associ­a­ting in­op­er­a­ble tu­mor re­mis­sions with the in­ci­dence of fevers and in­fec­tions. He was taken by sev­eral ac­counts that linked the oc­cur­rence of erysipelas – bac­te­r­ial in­fec­tions of the su­per­fi­cial layer of the skin – with tu­mors that "mirac­u­lously" dis­ap­peared. Co­in­ci­den­tally, around this time Strep­to­coc­cus pyo­genes was iden­ti­fied as the causative agent of ery­si­pe­las. So, Co­ley be­gan in­ject­ing his can­cer pa­tients with the bac­terium. Us­ing live bac­te­ria proved a bit too har­row­ing and dan­ger­ous for the pa­tients, caus­ing high fevers and some­times even death. He thus opted for heat-killed bac­te­ria. Through many years of try­ing dif­fer­ent com­bi­na­tions on many pa­tients, he fi­nally set­tled on prepa­ra­tions of heat–killed S. pyo­genes and Ser­ra­tia marcescens. These be­came known as Coley's Tox­ins. De­spite the rea­son­able suc­cess of his ther­a­pies, many physi­cians re­mained skep­ti­cal. As ra­di­a­tion ther­apy and chemother­apy ap­proaches gained mo­men­tum along the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, the use of Coley's Tox­ins de­creased. By 1962, their clin­i­cal use was es­sen­tially banned by the U.S. Food & Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion (FDA). Nonethe­less, to­day William Co­ley is re­ferred to as the "Fa­ther of Im­munother­apy."  (If you are a his­tory buff like I am, you'll en­joy this his­tor­i­cal treat­ment of the sub­ject.)

Fig. 2. The mem­branes of S. pyo­genes con­tain the car­di­olipin SpCL1, which specif­i­cally ac­ti­vates den­dritic cells via the TLR2-TLR1 path­way, lead­ing to the pro­duc­tion of proin­flam­ma­tory cy­tokines TNF‑α, IL‑6, IL-12p40 and IL-23. Source

What is it about S. pyo­genes that causes an ac­ti­va­tion of the im­mune sys­tem? Per­haps if there is a spe­cific com­po­nent re­spon­si­ble, it might prove use­ful in the de­vel­op­ment of ad­ditional can­cer im­munother­a­pies. With this as a pos­si­ble in­cen­tive, but surely also dri­ven by the cu­rios­ity for an­swer­ing this long-stand­ing ques­tion, Yern-Hy­erk Shin and col­laborators from the groups of Jon Clardy and Ram­nik Xavier, set out to pu­rify im­muno­genic mol­e­cules from this bac­terium. Their re­sults are a per­fect ex­am­ple of how the bread-and-but­ter chem­istry ap­proaches of ac­tiv­ity-guided pu­rifi­ca­tion and struc­ture elu­ci­da­tion yield clear-cut an­swers to ques­tions in bi­ol­ogy. The au­thors first de­vel­oped a cell-based as­say – us­ing murine bone-mar­row-de­rived den­dritic cells – that al­lowed them to mea­sure the pro­duc­tion of proin­flam­ma­tory cy­tokines. They then ex­tracted small mol­e­cules from the bac­te­r­ial cells and their cul­ture su­per­natants and frac­tion­ated these us­ing re­verse phase and size exclu­sion chro­matog­ra­phy. They dis­cov­ered a sin­gle, cell-as­so­ci­ated mol­e­cule with im­muno­genic ac­tiv­ity. Us­ing the stan­dard tools of the trade – mass spec­troscopy, one- and two-di­­men­­sio­­nal NMR, etc., etc., – and based on their cu­mu­la­tive decades of ex­pe­ri­ence the au­thors de­ter­mined the struc­ture. The mol­e­cule is a car­di­olipin, which they named SpCL‑1, with two stearic acid and two oleic acid side chains. To re­ally nail it down, they syn­the­sized the mol­e­cule from scratch along with a sim­i­lar car­di­olipin with switched acyl chains. Only the syn­thetic mol­e­cule iden­ti­cal to SpCL‑1 had im­muno­genic ac­tiv­ity. Hav­ing the im­muno­gen on hand, they next asked what sig­nal­ing re­cep­tors (Toll-Like Re­cep­tors, or TLRs) were used for the im­mune ac­ti­va­tion by SpCL‑1 and which proin­flam­ma­tory cy­tokines were pro­duced. They got clear an­swers. The SpCL‑1 re­cep­tor is the TLR1-TLR2 het­erodimer and TNF‑α, IL‑6, IL-12p40 and IL-23 are the cy­tokines in­duced.

Will SpCL‑1 be­come use­ful in the de­vel­op­ment of fu­ture can­cer im­munother­a­pies? That an­swer re­mains in the fu­ture. It could be a good start­ing place in the syn­the­sis of small mol­e­cules with speci­ficity that might some­day re­place mon­o­clonal an­ti­bod­ies. In ad­di­tion, the find­ing of this bac­te­r­ial cardiolipin's im­munomod­u­la­tory ac­tiv­ity could have im­pli­ca­tions for the eti­ol­ogy of au­toim­mune dis­eases such as rheumatic fever and lu­pus. These dis­eases are as­so­ci­ated with an­ti­car­di­olipin an­ti­bod­ies. Thus, they could start with the ac­ti­va­tion of au­tore­ac­tive T‑cells by cross-re­ac­tive bac­te­r­ial car­di­olip­ins. In their clos­ing com­ments, the au­thors project a very healthy per­spec­tive: "Even if SpCL‑1 never be­comes ther­a­peu­ti­cally use­ful, it iden­ti­fies a plau­si­ble mol­e­c­u­lar mech­a­nism for a his­tor­i­cally promi­nent can­cer treat­ment, and some poorly un­der­stood au­toim­mune dis­eases."  Stun­ning work won­der­fully un­der­stated.

 

Do you want to com­ment on this post? We would be happy about it! Please send us an email, or com­ment on Mastodon, or on Bluesky.
 

Other Posts