Countering the 'counterattack' hypothesis (original) (raw)

Nature Medicine volume 7, page 259 (2001)Cite this article

To the editor

In this issue, O'Connell et al. suggest that Fas ligand (FasL) mediates immune privilege by protecting tumors or tissues from immune attack, but we maintain that there is no convincing evidence of this. We would also like to re-emphasize our views of FasL: contrary to the suggestion of O'Connell and colleagues, we do not regard FasL as “solely a mediator of inflammation”, but instead, find that Fas and its ligand are involved in target cell killing and immune cell homeostasis, especially as mediators of activation induced cell death in T-cells2. Although there can be differences of opinion, there are a number of important studies omitted from this commentary crucial to the interpretation of evidence supporting the 'FasL counterattack' hypothesis1.

We caution against any dismissal of concerns about scientific methods and reagents1. Faulty reagents have been and continue to be a significant source of error2. The antibodies used in many studies have been clearly shown to lack specificity3. This is especially the case for the monoclonal antibody mAb33 from Transduction Labs, which stains CD95L-transfected and untransfected cells to a similar extent, labels tissue sections that lack CD95L mRNA and stains a protein by 2D-electrophoresis with a different mobility than FasL. A similar lack of specificity has been observed for both the C-20 and N-20 antibodies from Santa Cruz Biotechnology. The validity of functional assays, especially those using Jurkat cell death, have been challenged by others4.

Well-controlled work in experimental animals clearly indicates that engineered expression of FasL on tumors or transplanted tissues actually results in accelerated rejection, rather than immune privilege2,5. Though FasL-mediated inflammation can be abrogated through a variety of means, animal studies simply do not demonstrate that conferring FasL expression to a tumor or a tissue grants it immune privilege. In fact, one promising new use for FasL is to induce inflammation and immunity6,7.

Clinical data is used to support the case that FasL expression by tumors correlates with disease progression and or with poor prognosis1. Several studies omitted from the analysis in this issue1 are inconsistent with this hypothesis8,9.

Although mounting experimental evidence has indicated that FasL does not play a role in immune privilege in the testis10, many still support the possibility of FasL-mediated immune privilege in the eye. A team lead by Caspi recently found that neither lack of Fas nor lack of FasL on ocular tissue alters eye pathology in a model of experimental autoimmune uveitis11. Also, if FasL expression in the eye was critical for the maintenance of immune privilege, patients with autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, who cannot signal through Fas, would be expected to have ocular immune dysfunction, but they do not (J. Puck, pers. comm. and ref. 12). Thus, reports of FasL-mediated immune privilege in the eye do not appear to have clinical corroboration.

Thus, if one takes into account all of the experimental data, one may conclude that the body of evidence supporting a role for FasL in immune privilege is lacking. Thomas Huxley once lamented: “The great tragedy of science—The slaying of an original, beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

References

  1. O'Connell, J., Houston, A., Bennett, M.W., O'Sullivan, G.C. & Shanahan, F. Immune privilege or inflammation? Insights into the Fas ligand enigma. Nature Med 7, 271–274 (2001).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  2. Restifo, N.P. Not so Fas: Re-evaluating the mechanisms of immune privilege and tumor escape. Nature Med. 6, 493–495 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  3. Fiedler, P., Schaetzlein, C.E. & Eibel, H. Constitutive expression of FasL in thyrocytes. Science 279, 2015a (1998).
    Article Google Scholar
  4. Favre-Felix, N. et al. Cutting edge: the tumor counterattack hypothesis revisited: colon cancer cells do not induce T cell apoptosis via the Fas (CD95, APO-1) pathway. J. Immunol. 164, 5023–5027 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  5. Kang, S.M. et al. Fas ligand expression in islets of Langerhans does not confer immune privilege and instead targets them for rapid destruction. Nature Med. 3, 738–743 (1997).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  6. Rescigno, M. et al. Fas engagement induces the maturation of dendritic cells (DCs), the release of interleukin (IL)-1β, and the production of interferon γ in the absence of IL-12 during DC-T cell cognate interaction. A new role for fas ligand in inflammatory responses. J. Exp. Med. 192, 1661–1668 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  7. Restifo, N.P. Building better vaccines: How apoptotic cell death can induce inflammation and activate innate and adaptive immunity. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 12, 597–603 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  8. Ragnarsson, G.B. et al. Intracellular fas ligand in normal and malignant breast epithelium does not induce apoptosis in fas-sensitive cells [in process citation]. Br. J. Cancer. 83, 1715–1721 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  9. Basolo, F. et al. Suppression of Fas expression and down-regulation of Fas ligand in highly aggressive human thyroid carcinoma. Lab. Investig. 80, 1413–1419 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  10. Allison, J., Georgiou, H.M., Strasser, A. & Vaux, D.L. Transgenic expression of CD95 ligand on islet βcells induces a granulocytic infiltration but does not confer immune privilege upon islet allografts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 94, 3943–3947 (1997).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Wahlsten, J.L., Gitchell, H.L., Chan, C.C., Wiggert, B. & Caspi, R.R. Fas and fas ligand expressed on cells of the immune system, not on the target tissue, control induction of experimental autoimmune uveitis. J. Immunol. 165, 5480–5486 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Straus, S.E., Sneller, M., Lenardo, M.J., Puck, J.M. & Strober, W. An inherited disorder of lymphocyte apoptosis: the autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome. Ann. Intern. Med. 130, 591–601 (1999).
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
    Nicholas P. Restifo

Authors

  1. Nicholas P. Restifo
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Restifo, N. Countering the 'counterattack' hypothesis.Nat Med 7, 259 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/85357

Download citation

This article is cited by

Associated content