Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy: The Importance of Dendritic Cell Migration

Song, Min-Seon; Nam, Ji-Hee; Noh, Kyung-Eun; Lim, Dae-Seog

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7827246

Journal of Immunology Research

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Abbreviations Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 7827246 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7827246

Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy: The Importance of Dendritic Cell Migration

Min-Seon Song,¹Ji-Hee Nam,¹Kyung-Eun Noh,¹and Dae-Seog Lim¹

Academic Editor: M. Victoria Delpino

Received12 Oct 2023

Revised22 Mar 2024

Accepted27 Mar 2024

Published08 Apr 2024

Abstract

Dendritic cells (DCs) are specialized antigen-presenting cells that are crucial for maintaining self-tolerance, initiating immune responses against pathogens, and patrolling body compartments. Despite promising aspects, DC-based immunotherapy faces challenges that include limited availability, immune escape in tumors, immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment, and the need for effective combination therapies. A further limitation in DC-based immunotherapy is the low population of migratory DC (around 5%–10%) that migrate to lymph nodes (LNs) through afferent lymphatics depending on the LN draining site. By increasing the population of migratory DCs, DC-based immunotherapy could enhance immunotherapeutic effects on target diseases. This paper reviews the importance of DC migration and current research progress in the context of DC-based immunotherapy.

1. Introduction

Dendritic cells (DCs) are immune cells that play a vital role in linking innate and adaptive immune responses to efficiently promote immune defense and maintain tolerance [1, 2]. DCs can be subdivided into distinct subsets, which include plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) producing interferon (IFN), monocyte-derived DCs (Mo-DCs), classical or conventional DCs (cDCs), and Langerhans cells (LCs), which reside in the epidermis [3–5].

DCs internalize self and non-self antigens (Ags) and present them using major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules. Endogenous Ags are presented on MHC class I molecules to CD8⁺ T cells, whereas exogenous Ags are presented on MHC class II molecules to CD4⁺ T cells [6, 7]. Following exposure to pathogen-derived Ags, DCs undergo maturation, during which the secretion of inflammatory cytokines, the expression of costimulatory molecules, and MHC molecules increase. Several factors can affect the maturation of DCs; e.g., exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulates the Toll-like pattern recognition receptor (TLR)-4 to increase downstream signaling that activates the nuclear factor kappa B (NFκB) transcription factor. Mature DCs (mDCs) upregulate chemokine receptors, such as C-C chemokine receptor type 7 (CCR7), and then migrate to draining lymph node (dLN), which is essential for initiating T-cell-mediated immune response [1, 6].

DC migration through lymphatic vessels toward secondary lymphoid organs involves changes in the expression of adhesion molecules and chemokine receptors and cytoskeleton reorganization. This enables the differentiation of immature DCs (imDCs) in peripheral tissues and the migration of Ag-transporting DCs to afferent lymphatics and Ag-presenting mDCs to lymphoid tissues [8].

DC migrates to dLN to encounter naïve T cells bearing Ag-specific T-cell receptors (TCRs). DCs present Ag to T cells through MHC molecules. These interactions between DC-T cells, the so-called immunological synapse (IS), require three sequential signals: TCR recognition of Ags (Signal 1), signal transduction between DC-T cells using costimulatory molecules (Signal 2), and cytokine release (Signal 3). A lack of costimulation can lead to anergy or tolerance of T cells [3, 9, 10]. This signal guides T cells to develop into Ag-specific effector types; CD4⁺ T cells differentiate into effector helper T (Th) cells, while CD8⁺ T cells differentiate into cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) [8, 11]. The DC network efficiently promotes T-cell-mediated immunity, allowing selective targeting and direct elimination of infected or cancerous cells. Additionally, activated T cells can migrate to nonlymphoid tissues, further contributing to their effector functions at various locations [8].

DC-based immunotherapy has significant potential for the treatment of cancer and other diseases. Although DC-based immunotherapies have shown promise, it is important to note that the field of immunotherapy is rapidly evolving, and the effectiveness of these approaches can vary depending on the type of disease, patient characteristics, and other factors [12, 13]. Improving DC migration to LN could enhance DC-mediated immune responses by providing an Ags to T cells. DC migration is a significant factor that contributes to activating the T-cell-mediated immune system, targeting not only cancer but also inflammation and other specific disorders. Therefore, this review focuses on the crucial role of DC migration in DC-based immunotherapy.

2. History of DC-Based Immunotherapy

2.1. DC-Based Anticancer Immunotherapy

Cancer treatments have continuously evolved and advanced. In the 1800s, surgery focused on removing tumors and nearby tissues to halt cancer cell progression and spread, although this did not limit the risk of cancer recurrence, particularly in metastatic cases. During the 1900s, X-rays or radioactive isotopes were used in radiation therapy to target cancer cells, but could also damage neighboring organs [14]. In the 2000s, targeted cancer therapy involved the disruption of specific pathways linked to carcinogenesis and tumor growth [15]. Since the 2010s, immunotherapeutic treatments have employed immunomodulatory approaches designed to enhance overall immune responsiveness, amplifying anticancer immune responses [16]. Therefore, novel therapeutic approaches are required to improve antitumor responses.

mDCs have been used for cancer immunotherapy and have demonstrated therapeutic potential against metastatic tumors. Subcutaneous vaccination with tumor lysate-pulsed DCs minimized or prevented the spread of pulmonary metastatic nodules and partially inhibited tumor growth in mice [17]. Additionally, cDC1 vaccination induces antitumor CD8⁺ CTLs, whereas cDC2 vaccination reduces tumor growth and promotes Th17 cells in mice [18]. DCs have also shown therapeutic effects in cancers, such as colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer [19–21], although DC-based immunotherapy has not achieved the expected efficacy in most solid tumors, even in murine models. However, coadministration of cytokines with DC vaccination has shown promising results, significantly suppressing tumor growth and improving in vivo immune responses [22]. In order to enhance the longevity of DCs in vivo and promote increased migration, one approach is to coadminister cytokines, such as inflammatory cytokines (e.g., interleukin (IL)-2, IL-12, and IFN), as adjuvants with a DC vaccination [22–25]. Thus, DC vaccination that enhances DC migration through coadministration with cytokines may become a novel approach in cancer immunotherapy.

2.2. DC-Based Treatment of Inflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases

Autoimmune diseases are pathological conditions that affect 3%–10% of the general population and are characterized by dysregulated inflammation against auto-Ags, where the immune system mistakenly attacks its own healthy cells and organs, leading to inflammation and damage [26]. Immunosuppressive drugs, such as azathioprine and methotrexate, were introduced in the 1950s and 1960s and used to suppress the overactive immune response in autoimmune diseases, providing additional treatment options in addition to corticosteroids [27]. In the 21st century, targeted therapies have contributed to a new era of treating autoimmune diseases. Biological drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, IL blockers, and B-cell inhibitors, have gained widespread use, offering more precise and effective treatments with fewer side effects than traditional immunosuppressive drugs [28].

Conventional treatments for autoimmune diseases involve suppressing general immune function to modulate uncontrolled inflammation. Tolerogenic DCs (tDCs) are characterized by reduced expression of costimulatory molecules and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-12, while exhibiting elevated production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-10 [11]. For example, CD103⁺ DC, one of the cDC2 subsets in the gut, can promote immune tolerance by inducing regulatory T (Treg) cells [3]. In the mouse spleen, the cholesterol regulatory pathway that involves liver X receptor (LXR) α/β also can control the immunogenic and tolerogenic cDC maturation [29]. These tDCs are instrumental in maintaining immune homeostasis by activating Treg cells, inhibiting effector T cells, and modulating Th1/Th2 immune responses [30, 31]. tDCs play an important role because they are used as anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive targets in several models of autoimmune diseases, contributing to the induction of peripheral tolerance [26, 30].

Additionally, tDC-based therapy is applicable to autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus, Crohn’s disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) [31–35]. Monocyte-derived tDCs (Mo-tDCs) from patients with RA exhibit a tolerogenic phenotype characterized by reduced levels of costimulatory molecules, low production of proinflammatory cytokines, and impaired stimulation of autologous Ag-specific T cells comparable with that of healthy controls. Furthermore, tDCs suppress mDC-induced T-cell proliferation and IFN-γ and IL-17 production [33]. The therapeutic potential of tDCs has been demonstrated in experimental autoimmune myocarditis by inducing Treg cells belonging to the CD4⁺CD25⁺ subset [30]. Moreover, in acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs), heart tissue-specific Mo-tDCs generate Treg cells that can be used for effective therapeutic remodeling after MI [36]. For autoimmune diseases, increasing the migration of tDC may produce more effective treatment outcomes than those currently observed.

2.3. DC-Based Immunotherapy: Features and Limitations

DC-based immunotherapy is a cutting-edge approach to disease treatment that harnesses the power of the patient’s own immune system. The process involves isolating DCs from the patient’s blood or tissue and then modifying them in the laboratory to present tumor-specific Ags. These Ag-loaded DCs are reintroduced into the patient, effectively training the immune system to recognize and target cancer cells. Notably, an advantage of this personalized treatment is the induction of a targeted and robust immune response while minimizing harm to healthy cells [37]. Furthermore, the potential to generate memory T cells provides the opportunity for long-lasting protection against cancer recurrence. Although challenges remain, DC-based immunotherapy holds considerable promise in revolutionizing cancer care and offering new opportunities to patients [38].

However, DC-based immunotherapy is limited by the complex and labor-intensive process involved in generating personalized vaccines for each patient because specialized facilities and skilled personnel are required to harvest, manipulate, and load DC with Ags [12, 37, 38]. The personalized nature of treatment can be time-consuming and expensive, potentially delaying its administration to patients with rapidly progressing cancers. Furthermore, while DCs are crucial in activating T cells and initiating an immune response, cancer cells may evade the immune system [12, 39, 40].

Another limitation of DC-based immunotherapy is associated with DC migration. After administration, DCs must migrate efficiently to LNs to activate T cells and initiate a strong immune response. However, administered cells may not reach the LNs, causing potential inefficiencies in the immune activation process. Moreover, the tumor microenvironment can affect the effective presentation of Ags by affecting DC movement and function [41–44]. Ongoing research optimizes DC-based immunotherapy and overcomes these limitations to provide more effective and accessible treatment options. Current research is focused on developing strategies to improve DC migration and to optimize their therapeutic potential in the fight against cancer and other target diseases. Resolving these migration challenges is crucial to enhancing the overall efficacy of DC-based immunotherapy.

3. Migration of DCs

3.1. DC Maturation and Migration Processes

imDCs have a star-like morphology (so-called dendrites) with dendritic extensions. These extensions enable environmental surveying and perform broad movements to capture Ags within tissues or organs through processes such as phagocytosis or endocytosis. Consequently, imDCs need to modify their cytoskeleton to facilitate Ag engulfment [45].

In contrast, as DCs mature, their phagocytic activity decreases, whereas their mobility increases, and they exit from resident tissues. mDCs then migrate through lymphatic vessels to interact with T cells and trigger an adaptive immune response. DCs undergo substantial cytoskeletal rearrangements, primarily involving the actin cytoskeleton. This cytoskeletal reorganization plays a vital role in DC migration, Ag-presentation, cell–cell interactions, and IS formation, thus initiating T-cell priming [46–48]. Cortical stiffness in DCs is linked to the reorganization of their cytoskeleton. mDCs exhibit a higher level of cortical stiffness than imDCs [45, 49].

Migration of DCs from the injury site to the lymphatic vessel is dependent on the expression of CCR7, which is upregulated in mDCs in response to stimuli activating the DCs. In particular, CCR7 is crucial not only for the entry of DCs into the LN but also to facilitate the entry of naïve T cells into the same LN. CCR7 also facilitates the migration of DCs from the tumor microenvironment to the tumor-dLN [50, 51]. Therefore, the regulation of expression of CCR7 ultimately affects DC chemotaxis [52].

3.2. Influence of DC Migration on T Cells

DCs have limited ability to migrate to distant LNs but excel in migration through lymphatic vessels to reach nearby LNs [36], where they are particularly efficient in inducing Ag and/or tissue-specific T cells [45, 53]. The interaction between DCs and T cells, including the formation of an IS, is based on several factors, including the mechanical stiffness of DCs and the expression of costimulatory molecules, such as CD40 and CD80/CD86. Reducing the stiffness of DCs decreases their cytoskeleton dynamics, affects DC-T-cell interactions, and may result in a decline in the capacity to activate T cells. Costimulatory molecules expressed in DCs also play a pivotal role in the interaction between DCs and T cells [9, 10].

3.3. The Migratory Function of DCs and How to Increase Migratory Capacity

DC migration can be affected by various factors, such as cytokines and metabolites, which can decrease or increase DC motility [49, 54]. For example, nucleotide adenosine-5^′-monophosphate (AMP) promotes the migration of humans imDC by triggering actin polymerization [55]. In addition, LCs, one of the specific subsets of DCs that reside in the epidermis, undergo maturation under the influence of well-known DC maturation-inducing cytokines, including IL-1β and TNF [56]. When a sufficient concentration of these cytokines is present in the intracellular environment, the activated DCs can be sustained for a prolonged period [52, 56].

In contrast, IFN-β inhibits bone marrow-derived DC migration in vitro and in vivo through signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT)-1 signaling [57]. Prostaglandin D2 (PGD₂) also impedes lung DC migration to the dLN [58]. A decrease in DC migration results in inadequate activation of Ag-specific effector T cells, reduces the number of effector T cells, and weakens the immune response. Most injected DCs die at the injection site, resulting in only approximately 10% of migratory DCs reaching the dLN, which is insufficient to induce differentiation of naïve T cells. Therefore, improving DC migration capacity can overcome these issues [41, 44].

3.4. Upregulation of F-Actin Rearrangement-Related Genes

During maturation, DCs undergo significant changes in their cytoskeletal organization. The actin cytoskeleton is critical for supporting cellular functions by controlling the structural integrity and movement of the cell and the localization, clustering, and stability of transmembrane proteins [46, 59, 60]. Actin-related protein 2/3 (Arp2/3) is a protein complex that assembles actin dimers, which regulate the actin cytoskeleton [61, 62]. Upregulating genes involved in F-actin, such as Arp2/3, to promote F-actin rearrangement could improve cytoplasmic extension of DC, potentially enhancing DC migration.

3.5. Cytokine-Induced Upregulation of Adhesion Molecules

Inflammation triggers the release of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1β and IL-12, by immune cells, allowing the activation of lymphatic endothelial cells [63]. This activation prompts increased adhesion molecule expression, such as vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) [63, 64]. Integrins, which are expressed on DCs, are adhesion molecules that play a crucial role in DC migration. Lymphocyte function-associated Ag 1 (LFA-1; CD11a, αLβ2 integrin) mediates DC binding to ICAM-1 on the surface of lymphatic endothelial cells, facilitating DC migration into lymphatic vessels and toward LN. Very late Ag-4 (VLA-4; CD49d/CD29, α4β1) is also involved in adhesion of DC to VCAM-1 expressed on lymphatic endothelial cells, promoting DC migration [64, 65]. These integrins facilitate the attachment of DCs to endothelial cells, allowing their migration from peripheral tissues to LNs, where they play essential roles in immune surveillance and activation [64–66]. Consequently, this establishes durable intracellular adhesion, promoting improved transmigration of DCs and facilitating their efficient transit to the dLN through interactions with integrin ligands on DCs.

3.6. Appropriate Expression of Chemokine Receptors

Chemokine receptors are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) with seven-transmembrane-spanning domains. Chemokine receptor-expressing DCs migrate to dLN to bind to chemokines [63, 67–70]. Upon exposure to the C–C motif chemokine ligand (CCL)-19 of the CCR7 ligand, the DCs undergo internalization of both the receptor and the ligand. Through this internalization process, DCs generate a self-generated chemokine gradient. However, when chemokine gradients are low, DCs are difficult to perceive, whereas high gradients lead to receptor saturation, hindering cells from sensing spatial differences [71–73]. Stable gradients of CCL19 are crucial for stabilizing directionality because disruption of these gradients leads to impaired cytoskeletal polarization and persistent chemotaxis. Therefore, it may be important for DC migration that DCs properly express CCR7 to enable the formation of self-generated chemokine gradients.

3.7. Migration-Related Factors in DC

DC migration can be regulated through various factors such as chemokine receptors, genes, and cytokines that are involved in DC migration.

CCR7 can trigger DC migration from the epidermis and dermis to CCL-21-expressing lymphatic vessels within the dermis [74]. Additionally, CCR7 can also induce the migration of small intestinal DC to mesenteric LNs [67]. In cancer, CCL25/CCR9 coordinates the recruitment of pDCs to metastatic LN and carcinoma tissues [75]. The migration of pDCs is also influenced by type I IFN (IFN-I) [76]. Furthermore, IL-10 and tumor growth factor (TGF)-β1 promote cellular adhesion while inhibiting DC migration to dLN [77]. Ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 2 (Enpp2) facilitates the conversion of lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) into lysophosphatidic acid (LPA), thus enhancing the migratory activity of Mo-DCs [78]. PDZ and Lim domain protein 4 (Pdlim4) governs F-actin rearrangement and is involved in dendrite formation and is involved in CCR-JNK-mediated migration of Mo-DC [46]. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE₂) stimulates CCR7 expression in Mo-DC, causing a reorganization of the F-actin cytoskeleton and regulation of DC migration [60, 79]. Therefore, regulation of the factors involved in DC migration could potentially increase the capacity for DC migration.

4. Clinical Trials DC-Based Immunotherapy

4.1. Clinical Trials of DC-Based Anticancer Immunotherapy

(a)

(b)

Among the total of 245 clinical trials currently underway that use immunotherapy to target cancer (as of July 2023), four trials are in early phase 1 (2%), 86 trials are in phase 1 (35%), and 63 trials are in phase 1/2 (26%). Furthermore, 85 trials are in phase 2 (35%), one trial is in phase 2/3, and six trials are in phase 3 (2%). Phases 1 and 2 account for approximately 96% of these current trials (Figure 1(a)). Currently, clinical trials using DC-based approaches are underway for various types of cancer, and a significant number of trials are ongoing for melanoma, brain tumors, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, in that order. Furthermore, the status of trials based on cancer types shows that most of the trials have been completed (Figure 1(b)). Moreover, to improve the efficacy of cancer treatment, DCs are coadministered with current anticancer drugs or concomitantly administered with cytokines such as IFN-I as adjuvants [22–25, 76, 80–82]. However, there are no clinical results using adjuvants to improve DC migration.

4.2. Clinical Trials of DC-Based Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases

Thirteen clinical trials were found to be ongoing for targeting autoimmune diseases using DC-based approaches (Table 1). Five clinical trials target multiple sclerosis, with one study of unknown status, one study not yet recruiting, two studies currently recruiting, and one study completed. For neuromyelitis optica, one clinical trial has been completed. Three clinical trials are focused on RA, with one study of unknown status, one study currently recruiting, and one study completed. For T1DM, five clinical trials are reported, with two studies of unknown status, one study not yet recruiting, one study currently recruiting, and one study completed. Most of the clinical phases represented are in Phase 1 or 2. In clinical trials targeting autoimmune diseases, clinical progression has been conducted using tDC, which secretes anti-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-10 and TGF-β) and induces immune tolerance. In ongoing clinical trials, the majority involve the administration of tDC alone. In research targeting autoimmune diseases, there are no clinical results that focus on adjuvants to enhance DC migration.

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

DC-based immunotherapy is influenced by the migratory function of DCs. After administration, most DCs lose viability at the injection site, and only around 5%–10% of DCs migrate to the LNs [41, 44]. Therefore, increasing the population of migratory DCs to more than 10% has potential as an alternative to overcome the current limitations of DC-based immunotherapy. However, a clinical trial administration of IFN-α (one of IFN-I) together with DCs, no clinical studies focusing on the migratory function of DC are currently ongoing [22]. Regulating the migratory capacity of DCs by expressing the factors involved in DC migration (Table 2) or enhancing the migration capacity of DCs in clinical settings could promote a more effective DC-based therapeutic outcome. In conclusion, we suggest that increasing the migratory capacity of DCs may enhance therapeutic effects not only for cancer but also for other target diseases (Figure 2).

Abbreviations

DCs:	Dendritic cells
IFN:	Interferon
pDCs:	Plasmacytoid DCs
MoDCs:	Monocyte-derived DCs
cDCs:	Conventional DCs
LCs:	Langerhans cells
Ags:	Antigens
MHC:	Major histocompatibility complex
LPS:	Lipopolysaccharide
TLR:	Toll-like pattern recognition receptor
NFκB:	Nuclear factor kappa B
mDCs:	Mature DCs
CCR:	C–C chemokine receptor
dLN:	Draining lymph node
imDCs:	Immature DCs
TCRs:	T-cell receptors
IS:	Immunological synapse
Th cells:	Helper T cells
CTLs:	Cytotoxic T lymphocytes
NK cells:	Natural killer cells
IL:	Interleukin
TNF:	Tumor necrosis factor
tDCs:	Tolerogenic DCs
Treg cells:	Regulatory T cells
LXR:	Liver X receptor
RA:	Rheumatoid arthritis
T1DM:	Type 1 diabetes mellitus
Mo-tDCs:	Monocyte-derived tDCs
AMIs:	Acute myocardial infarctions
AMP:	Nucleotide adenosine-5^′-monophosphate
STAT:	Signal transducer and activator of transcription
PGD₂:	Prostaglandin D2
Arp2/3:	Actin-related protein 2/3
VCAM-1:	Vascular cell adhesion molecule 1
ICAM-1:	Intracellular adhesion molecule 1
LFA-1:	Lymphocyte function-associated antigen 1
VLA-4:	Very late antigen-4
GPCRs:	G protein-coupled receptors
CC:	C–C motif chemokine ligand
TGF:	Tumor growth factor
Enpp2:	Ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 2
LPC:	Lysophosphatidylcholine
LPA:	Lysophosphatidic acid
Pdlim4:	PDZ and Lim domain protein 4
PGE₂:	Prostaglandin E2.

Data Availability

No data are used or generated during this study.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Authors’ Contributions

Min-Seon Song conceived the presented idea and wrote the manuscript with support from Ji-Hee Nam and Kyung-Eun Noh. Dae-Seog Lim developed the idea and supervised this work. All authors discussed the idea and contributed to the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Korea Alzheimer’s Research, Inc. and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education (grant number: 2021R1I1A2045723).

References

H. Yoneyama, K. Matsuno, and K. Matsushima, “Migration of dendritic cells,” International Journal of Hematology, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 204–207, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, X. Zhang, Y. Cheng, and X. Cao, “Dendritic cell migration in inflammation and immunity,” Cellular & Molecular Immunology, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 2461–2471, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Sichien, B. N. Lambrecht, M. Guilliams, and C. L. Scott, “Development of conventional dendritic cells: from common bone marrow progenitors to multiple subsets in peripheral tissues,” Mucosal Immunology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 831–844, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Reizis, “Classical dendritic cells as a unique immune cell lineage,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 209, no. 6, pp. 1053–1056, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Granot, T. Senda, D. J. Carpenter et al., “Dendritic cells display subset and tissue-specific maturation dynamics over human life,” Immunity, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 504–515, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Guermonprez, J. Valladeau, L. Zitvogel, C. Théry, and S. Amigorena, “Antigen presentation and T cell stimulation by dendritic cells,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 621–667, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Alloatti, F. Kotsias, J. G. Magalhaes, and S. Amigorena, “Dendritic cell maturation and cross-presentation: timing matters!,” Immunological Reviews, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 97–108, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. Villablanca, V. Russo, and J. R. Mora, “Dendritic cell migration and lymphocyte homing imprinting,” Histology and Histopathology, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 897–910, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Dustin, S.-Y. Tseng, R. Varma, and G. Campi, “T cell-dendritic cell immunological synapses,” Current Opinion in Immunology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 512–516, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. D. Sckisel, M. N. Bouchlaka, A. M. Monjazeb et al., “Out-of-sequence signal 3 paralyzes primary CD4+ T-cell-dependent immunity,” Immunity, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 240–250, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. K. Raker, M. P. Domogalla, and K. Steinbrink, “Tolerogenic dendritic cells for regulatory T cell induction in man,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 6, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
R. L. Sabado and N. Bhardwaj, “Directing dendritic cell immunotherapy towards successful cancer treatment,” Immunotherapy, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 37–56, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. He, K. Roussak, F. Ma et al., “CD5 expression by dendritic cells directs T cell immunity and sustains immunotherapy responses,” Science, vol. 379, no. 6633, Article ID eabg2752, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. T. DeVita Jr. and E. Chu, “A history of cancer chemotherapy,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 21, pp. 8643–8653, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. Joo, I. Visintin, and G. Mor, “Targeted cancer therapy—are the days of systemic chemotherapy numbered?” Maturitas, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 308–314, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Melero, G. Gaudernack, W. Gerritsen et al., “Therapeutic vaccines for cancer: an overview of clinical trials,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 509–524, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-S. Jang, J.-H. Lee, N.-C. Jung et al., “Rsad2 is necessary for mouse dendritic cell maturation via the IRF7-mediated signaling pathway,” Cell Death & Disease, vol. 9, no. 8, Article ID 823, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Laoui, J. Keirsse, Y. Morias et al., “The tumour microenvironment harbours ontogenically distinct dendritic cell populations with opposing effects on tumour immunity,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, Article ID 13720, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tong, G. Lu, Z. Wang, S. Hao, G. Zhang, and H. Sun, “Tubeimuside I improves the efficacy of a therapeutic Fusobacterium nucleatum dendritic cell-based vaccine against colorectal cancer,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 14, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Krishnan, M. D. Allison, C. Yang et al., “Antigen-presenting type-I conventional dendritic cells facilitate curative checkpoint blockade immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer,” 2023, bioRxiv.
View at: Google Scholar
A. M. Aldahlawi and K. S. A. Zaher, “Dendritic cell-based immunity: screening of dendritic cell subsets in breast cancer-bearing mice,” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 150–160, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Ernstoff, T. S. Crocenzi, J. D. Seigne et al., “Developing a rational tumor vaccine therapy for renal cell carcinoma: immune Yin and Yang,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 733s–740s, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Fallarino, C. Uyttenhove, T. Boon, and T. F. Gajewski, “Improved efficacy of dendritic cell vaccines and successful immunization with tumor antigen peptide-pulsed peripheral blood mononuclear cells by coadministration of recombinant murine interleukin-12,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 324–333, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shimizu, R. C. Fields, M. Giedlin, and J. J. Mulé, “Systemic administration of interleukin 2 enhances the therapeutic efficacy of dendritic cell-based tumor vaccines,” Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, vol. 96, no. 5, pp. 2268–2273, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ramanathan, H. Choudry, H. Jones et al., “Phase II trial of adjuvant dendritic cell vaccine in combination with celecoxib, interferon-α, and rintatolimod in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastases,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 4637–4646, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Jung and W.-U. Kim, “Targeted immunotherapy for autoimmune disease,” Immune Network, vol. 22, no. 1, Article ID 2, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. A. Paoluzi, R. Pica, A. Marcheggiano et al., “Azathioprine or methotrexate in the treatment of patients with steroid-dependent or steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: results of an open-label study on efficacy and tolerability in inducing and maintaining remission,” Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1751–1759, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Graßhoff, S. Comdühr, L. R. Monne et al., “Low-dose IL-2 therapy in autoimmune and rheumatic diseases,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 12, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Bosteels, S. Maréchal, C. de Nolf et al., “LXR signaling controls homeostatic dendritic cell maturation,” Science Immunology, vol. 8, no. 83, Article ID eadd3955, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-H. Lee, T.-H. Kim, H. E. Park et al., “Myosin-primed tolerogenic dendritic cells ameliorate experimental autoimmune myocarditis,” Cardiovascular Research, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 203–210, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Obreque, F. Vega, A. Torres et al., “Autologous tolerogenic dendritic cells derived from monocytes of systemic lupus erythematosus patients and healthy donors show a stable and immunosuppressive phenotype,” Immunology, vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 648–659, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. G. Lee, N.-C. Jung, J.-H. Lee et al., “Tolerogenic dendritic cells show gene expression profiles that are different from those of immunogenic dendritic cells in DBA/1 mice,” Autoimmunity, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 90–101, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. H. Rachel, E. A. Amy, D. I. John, and M. U. H. Catharien, “Generation and characterisation of therapeutic tolerogenic dendritic cells for rheumatoid arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 69, no. 11, 2042, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Jauregui-Amezaga, R. Cabezón, A. Ramírez-Morros et al., “Intraperitoneal administration of autologous tolerogenic dendritic cells for refractory Crohn’s disease: a phase I study,” Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1071–1078, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. E. Phillips, Y. Garciafigueroa, C. Engman, M. Trucco, and N. Giannoukakis, “Tolerogenic dendritic cells and T-regulatory cells at the clinical trials crossroad for the treatment of autoimmune disease; emphasis on type 1 diabetes therapy,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 10, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
E. H. Choo, J.-H. Lee, E.-H. Park et al., “Infarcted myocardium-primed dendritic cells improve remodeling and cardiac function after myocardial infarction by modulating the regulatory T cell and macrophage polarization,” Circulation, vol. 135, no. 15, pp. 1444–1457, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gardner, Á. de Mingo Pulido, and B. Ruffell, “Dendritic cells and their role in immunotherapy,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 11, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
R. L. Sabado, S. Balan, and N. Bhardwaj, “Dendritic cell-based immunotherapy,” Cell Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 74–95, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. J. Tacken, R. Torensma, and C. G. Figdor, “Targeting antigens to dendritic cells in vivo,” Immunobiology, vol. 211, no. 6–8, pp. 599–608, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ueno, E. Klechevsky, N. Schmitt et al., “Targeting human dendritic cell subsets for improved vaccines,” Seminars in Immunology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Verdijk, E. G. J. G. Aarntzen, W. J. Lesterhuis et al., “Limited amounts of dendritic cells migrate into the T-cell area of lymph nodes but have high immune activating potential in melanoma patients,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 2531–2540, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. T. Ahrens, R. Flores, H. Xu, and P. A. Morel, “In vivo imaging platform for tracking immunotherapeutic cells,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 983–987, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. A. Christian, F. Benencia, M. C. Milone et al., “In vivo dendritic cell tracking using fluorescence lifetime imaging and near-infrared-emissive polymersomes,” Molecular Imaging and Biology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 167–177, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-W. Noh, Y. T. Lim, and B. H. Chung, “Noninvasive imaging of dendritic cell migration into lymph nodes using near-infrared fluorescent semiconductor nanocrystals,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 3908–3918, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Leblanc-Hotte, C. Audiger, G. Chabot-Roy et al., “Immature and mature bone marrow-derived dendritic cells exhibit distinct intracellular mechanical properties,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, Article ID 1967, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-Y. Yoo, N.-C. Jung, J.-H. Lee et al., “Pdlim4 is essential for CCR7-JNK-mediated dendritic cell migration and F-actin-related dendrite formation,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 11035–11044, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Vestre, I. Persiconi, M. B. Distefano et al., “Rab7b regulates dendritic cell migration by linking lysosomes to the actomyosin cytoskeleton,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 134, no. 18, Article ID jcs259221, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Leithner, L. M. Altenburger, R. Hauschild et al., “Dendritic cell actin dynamics control contact duration and priming efficiency at the immunological synapse,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 220, no. 4, Article ID e202006081, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Choi, J.-E. Kwon, and Y.-K. Cho, “Dendritic cell migration is tuned by mechanical stiffness of the confining space,” Cells, vol. 10, no. 12, Article ID 3362, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. W. Roberts, M. L. Broz, M. Binnewies et al., “Critical role for CD103+/CD141+ dendritic cells bearing CCR7 for tumor antigen trafficking and priming of T cell immunity in melanoma,” Cancer Cell, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 324–336, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Binnewies, A. M. Mujal, J. L. Pollack et al., “Unleashing type-2 dendritic cells to drive protective antitumor CD4+ T cell immunity,” Cell, vol. 177, no. 3, pp. 556–571.e16, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. J. Randolph, “Dendritic cell migration to lymph nodes: cytokines, chemokines, and lipid mediators,” Seminars in Immunology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 267–74, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Constantino, C. Gomes, A. Falcão, B. M. Neves, and M. T. Cruz, “Dendritic cell-based immunotherapy: a basic review and recent advances,” Immunologic Research, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 798–810, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kobayashi, E. Umemoto, and M. Miyasaka, “The role of extracellular ATP in homeostatic immune cell migration,” Current Opinion in Pharmacology, vol. 68, Article ID 102331, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Panther, T. Dürk, D. Ferrari et al., “AMP affects intracellular Ca²⁺ signaling migration, cytokine secretion and T cell priming capacity of dendritic cells,” PLOS ONE, vol. 7, no. 5, Article ID e37560, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Merad, F. Ginhoux, and M. Collin, “Origin, homeostasis and function of Langerhans cells and other langerin-expressing dendritic cells,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 935–947, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-H. Yen, W. Kong, and D. Ganea, “IFN-β inhibits dendritic cell migration through STAT-1-mediated transcriptional suppression of CCR7 and matrix metalloproteinase 9,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 184, no. 7, pp. 3478–3486, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hammad, H. J. de Heer, T. Soullie, H. C. Hoogsteden, F. Trottein, and B. N. Lambrecht, “Prostaglandin D2 inhibits airway dendritic cell migration and function in steady state conditions by selective activation of the D prostanoid receptor 1,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 171, no. 8, pp. 3936–3940, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zeng, X. Xu, Y. Zhang et al., “Tumor-derived factors impaired motility and immune functions of dendritic cells through derangement of biophysical characteristics and reorganization of cytoskeleton,” Cell Motility, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 186–198, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Diao, J. Huang, X. Zheng et al., “Prostaglandin E2 serves a dual role in regulating the migration of dendritic cells,” International Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 207–218, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Machesky and K. L. Gould, “The Arp2/3 complex: a multifunctional actin organizer,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 117–121, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Rodríguez-Fernández and O. Criado-García, “The actin cytoskeleton at the immunological synapse of dendritic cells,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 9, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Johnson and D. G. Jackson, “Control of dendritic cell trafficking in lymphatics by chemokines,” Angiogenesis, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 335–345, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Altorki, W. Muller, A. Brass, and S. Cruickshank, “The role of β2 integrin in dendritic cell migration during infection,” BMC Immunology, vol. 22, no. 1, Article ID 2, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Vicente-Manzanares, C. K. Choi, and A. R. Horwitz, “Integrins in cell migration—the actin connection,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 122, no. 2, pp. 199–206, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. LaFlamme, S. Mathew-Steiner, N. Singh, D. Colello-Borges, and B. Nieves, “Integrin and microtubule crosstalk in the regulation of cellular processes,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 75, no. 22, pp. 4177–4185, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Jang, N. Sougawa, T. Tanaka et al., “CCR7 Is critically important for migration of dendritic cells in intestinal lamina propria to mesenteric lymph nodes,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 176, no. 2, pp. 803–810, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, X. Zhang, K. Chen et al., “CCR7 Chemokine receptor-inducible lnc-Dpf3 restrains dendritic cell migration by inhibiting HIF-1α-mediated glycolysis,” Immunity, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 600–615.e15, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Rawat, A. Tewari, X. Li et al., “CCL5-producing migratory dendritic cells guide CCR5+ monocytes into the draining lymph nodes,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 220, no. 6, Article ID e20222129, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. P. Brandum, A. S. Jørgensen, M. M. Rosenkilde, and G. M. Hjortø, “Dendritic cells and CCR7 expression: an important factor for autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammation, and cancer,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 22, no. 15, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Donà, J. D. Barry, G. Valentin et al., “Directional tissue migration through a self-generated chemokine gradient,” Nature, vol. 503, no. 7475, pp. 285–289, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Quast, K. Zölzer, D. Guu et al., “A stable chemokine gradient controls directional persistence of migrating dendritic cells,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 10, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Alanko, M. C. Uçar, N. Canigova et al., “CCR7 acts as both a sensor and a sink for CCL19 to coordinate collective leukocyte migration,” Science Immunology, vol. 8, no. 87, Article ID eadc9584, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Ohl, M. Mohaupt, N. Czeloth et al., “CCR7 governs skin dendritic cell migration under inflammatory and steady-state conditions,” Immunity, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 279–288, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yu, Y. Mei, Y. Dong et al., “CCR9-CCL25 mediated plasmacytoid dendritic cell homing and contributed the immunosuppressive microenvironment in gastric cancer,” Translational Oncology, vol. 33, Article ID 101682, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Swiecki, Y. Wang, W. Vermi, S. Gilfillan, R. D. Schreiber, and M. Colonna, “Type I interferon negatively controls plasmacytoid dendritic cell numbers in vivo,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 208, no. 12, pp. 2367–2374, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Xu, X. Liu, J. Long et al., “Interleukin-10 reorganizes the cytoskeleton of mature dendritic cells leading to their impaired biophysical properties and motilities,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 2, Article ID e0172523, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-H. Lee, S.-Y. Choi, S.-Y. Park et al., “Enpp2 Expression by dendritic cells is a key regulator in migration,” Biomedicines, vol. 9, no. 11, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Scandella, Y. Men, S. Gillessen, R. Förster, and M. Groettrup, “Prostaglandin E2 is a key factor for CCR7 surface expression and migration of monocyte-derived dendritic cells,” Blood, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1354–1361, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Nesselhut, D. Marx, H. Lange et al., “Systemic treatment with anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab in combination with vaccine therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 34, no. 15_suppl, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-C. Vo, T.-N. Nguyen-Pham, H.-J. Lee et al., “Combination therapy with dendritic cells and lenalidomide is an effective approach to enhance antitumor immunity in a mouse colon cancer model,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 27252–27262, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kongsted, T. H. Borch, E. Ellebaek et al., “Dendritic cell vaccination in combination with docetaxel for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: randomized phase II study,” Cytotherapy, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 500–513, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. L. Sokol, R. B. Camire, M. C. Jones, and A. D. Luster, “The chemokine receptor CCR8 promotes the migration of dendritic cells into the lymph node parenchyma to initiate the allergic immune response,” Immunity, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 449–463.e6, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Imai, Y. Minamiya, S. Koyota et al., “Inhibition of dendritic cell migration by transforming growth factor-β1 increases tumor-draining lymph node metastasis,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 31, no. 1, Article ID 3, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Cumberbatch and I. Kimber, “Dermal tumour necrosis factor-alpha induces dendritic cell migration to draining lymph nodes, and possibly provides one stimulus for Langerhans’ cell migration,” Immunology, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 257–263, 1992.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Yamakita, F. Matsumura, M. W. Lipscomb et al., “Fascin1 promotes cell migration of mature dendritic cells,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 186, no. 5, pp. 2850–2859, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wang, M. Song, M. Liu et al., “Fascin inhibitor increases intratumoral dendritic cell activation and anti-cancer immunity,” Cell Reports, vol. 35, no. 1, Article ID 108948, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. D. Lucas, J. B. Schafer, J. Matsuda, M. Kraus, M. A. Burchill, and B. A. J. Tamburini, “PD-L1 reverse signaling in dermal dendritic cells promotes dendritic cell migration required for skin immunity,” Cell Reports, vol. 33, no. 2, Article ID 108258, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Kurz, S. S. Diebold, T. Hieronymus et al., “The impact of c-met/scatter factor receptor on dendritic cell migration,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1832–1838, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
J.-H. Baek, C. Birchmeier, M. Zenke, and T. Hieronymus, “The HGF receptor/met tyrosine kinase is a key regulator of dendritic cell migration in skin immunity,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 1699–1707, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. I. Hamouda, C. Schalla, A. Sechi, M. Zenke, R. K. Schneider, and T. Hieronymus, “Met-signaling controls dendritic cell migration in skin by regulating podosome formation and function,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 143, no. 8, pp. 1548–1558.e13, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Rhee, M.-C. Zhong, B. Reizis, C. Cheong, and A. Veillette, “Control of dendritic cell migration, T cell-dependent immunity, and autoimmunity by protein tyrosine phosphatase PTPN12 expressed in dendritic cells,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 888–899, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Min-Seon Song et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

276

Downloads

138

Citations