Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 19;16(1):e0245608. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245608

A novel cancer immunotherapy using tumor-infiltrating B cells in the APCmin/+ mouse model

Xinying Wang 1, Shohei Asami 1, Daisuke Kitamura 1,*
Editor: Hiroyasu Nakano2
PMCID: PMC7815094  PMID: 33465122

Abstract

Accumulating evidence has suggested a correlation of tumor infiltrating B cells (TiBcs) and a good prognosis of cancer diseases. In some cases, TiBcs appear to have experienced antigen stimulation since they have undergone class-switching and somatic hypermutation and formed tertiary lymphoid structures around tumors together with T cells. Assuming TiBcs include those that recognize some tumor antigens, we sought to investigate their possible usefulness for cell-mediated immunotherapies. To expand usually small number of TiBcs in vitro, we modified our B cell culture system: we transduced B cells with ERT2-Bach2 so that they grow unlimitedly provided with tamoxifen, IL-21 and our original feeder cells. Such cells differentiate into plasma cells and produce antibodies upon withdrawal of tamoxifen, and further by addition of a Bach2-inhibitor in vitro. As a preliminary experiment, thus expanded splenic B cells expressing a transgenic antigen receptor/antibody against hen egg lysozyme were intravenously injected into mice pre-implanted with B16 melanoma cells expressing membrane-bound HEL in the skin, which resulted in suppression of the growth of B16 tumors and prolonged survival of the recipient mice. To test the usefulness of TiBcs for the immunotherapy, we next used APCmin/+ mice as a model that spontaneously develop intestinal tumors. We cultured TiBcs separated from the tumors of APCmin/+ mice as above and confirmed that the antibodies they produce recognize the APCmin/+ tumor. Repeated injection of such TiBcs into adult APCmin/+ mice resulted in suppression of intestinal tumor growth and elongation of the survival of the recipient mice. Serum antibody from the TiBc-recipient mice selectively bound to an antigen expressed in the tumor of APCmin/+ mice. These data suggest a possibility of the novel individualized cancer immunotherapy, in which TiBcs from surgically excised tumor tissues are expanded and infused into the donor patients.

Introduction

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) are present in the tumor microenvironment. Numerous reports have shown association between the number of TIL and the patient’s chance for survival in various types of cancers [1]. But TILs are induced to become dysfunctional in the tumor microenvironment, resulting in the abrogation of antitumor immune responses [2]. Although much of tumor immunology has been focused on CD8+ cytotoxic T cells whose activity has been shown to be closely related to patient survival [3], other types of cells must reasonably collaborate with CD8+ T cells. It was reported that B cells account for 25% of all lymphocytes in some tumors [4], and as much as 40% in some breast cancer subjects [2, 5]. B cells infiltrating in tumor tissues (tumor-infiltrating B cells, TiBcs) are thought to be involved in anti-tumor immunity. Correlation between the number of TiBcs and survival of the disease patients has been reported for various cancers, including cutaneous melanoma, breast and ovarian cancer [6]. Since TiBcs often express class-switched and mutated antigen receptors, they are considered as antigen-activated and affinity-maturated memory B cells (MBCs) that may have recognized cell surface or intracellular tumor antigens [7]. Accordingly, antibodies (Abs) against tumor antigens have been frequently found in the serum of cancer patients [8]. For example, studies have shown that approximately 50% of breast cancer patients develop antibody (Ab) responses to primary tumors [5] and that levels of antigen/Ab complex in the serum are higher in breast cancer patients compared to healthy controls [5, 9].

It is assumed that immune responses to autologous tumors are initially driven by innate signals in the tumor microenvironment, which supposedly promotes B cell infiltration into the tumor tissues [10]. It is assumed that, if such B cells recognize antigens expressed by the tumor cells, they proliferate, undergo immunoglobulin gene mutations, and develop into MBCs, perhaps with the aid of helper T cells that have also been developed in response to the tumor antigens. The clonally expanded MBCs may reside in the tumor tissue and occasionally respond to their cognate tumor antigens to produce tumor-specific Abs. Such MBCs may also work as antigen presenting cells and promote T cell response to the tumor [10]. As some of TiBcs and Abs thereof may specifically bind and respond to cancer cells of the donor patient and therefore should be applicable to individualized immunotherapy.

Keeping such applications of TiBcs in mind, we previously developed a culture system to efficiently expand B cell in vitro, namely, in-vitro-induced germinal center B (iGB) cell culture system. In this system, B cells from tissues or blood are cultured on a feeder layer of 40LB cells, a mouse fibroblast line expressing exogenous CD40L and BAFF [11]. In the original protocol, mouse splenic naïve B cells are successively cultured with IL-4 and IL-21, each for 4 days, which resulted in some 10,000-fold increase of the number of B cells. The proliferating B cells (termed iGB cells) phenotypically and functionally resemble genuine GC B cells, class-switched to either IgG1 or IgE, expressing GC-signature transcription factors such as Bcl-6 and Bach2, although they do not undergo somatic mutation of immunoglobulin genes. During the culture with IL-21, the iGB cells gradually differentiate into plasma cells, due to gradual expression of Blimp1, a master regulator of B cell differentiation into plasma cells. The growth of iGB cells usually stops by day 10 of the culture probably due to their overall differentiation. However, we have established that exogenous Bach2 expression allows their limitless growth, provided with the replenishment of feeder cells and IL-21, based on the report that Bach2 suppresses the expression of gene encoding Blimp1 [12]. It has also been found that pre-activated B cells such as GC and memory B cells can be cultured without initial supplement of IL-4 but starting with IL-21 (our unpublished data).

When iGB cells are cultured with IL-4 and IL-21 successively, and those deprived of IgE+ and CD138+ cells are transferred into mice, such cells differentiate into plasma cells in vivo and produce Abs, mostly of IgG1, for as long as a month [11, 13]. Thus, we sought to utilize this iGB cell transfer as a new cancer immunotherapy, which would supply Ab-producing cells to patients instead of Abs. To test this possibility in mice as a model, we generated mouse melanoma cell line B16 expressing membrane-anchored from of hen egg lysozyme (mHEL) [14] as a surrogate tumor antigen, and generated iGB cells from spleen B cells of Hy10 mice, which carry a hen egg lysozyme (HEL)-specific heavy chain (VDJ9) and light chain (κ5) genes in knock-in and transgenic configurations, respectively [15]. The mHEL-expressing B16 (B16-mHEL) cells colonized and formed numerous numbers of tumors in lungs three weeks after intravenous transfer, as the original B16 cells would do. When the Hy10-derived iGB (Hy10-iGB) cells were injected intravenously (i.v.) on the next day of the B16-mHEL injection, anti-HEL IgG Abs were produced in vivo and the tumor formation in lungs was almost completely suppressed, whereas iGB cells derived from normal C57BL/6 (B6) mice hardly suppressed it [13].

In the present study, we further developed the iGB-cell-mediated immunotherapy model. We first tested whether the Hy10-iGB cell injection inhibit progression of tumors of B16-mHEL cells pre-implanted subcutaneously (s.c.) in mice. We then used APCmin/+ mice, a model of human genetic disease familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), as a model that spontaneously develops tumors [16, 17]. We collected TiBcs from intestinal polyps of APCmin/+ mice, cultured them as iGB cells, and then injected into adult APCmin/+ mice regularly to examine whether the TiBc-derived iGB cells can ameliorate tumor progression in these mice.

Materials and methods

Mice

C57BL/6 (B6) mice were purchased from Japan SLC. APCmin/+ mice (a gift of Dr. Iwakura) had been backcrossed to the congenic C57BL/6 strains. Mice 8–10 weeks of age were used for experiments unless indicated otherwise. All mice were maintained in our mouse facility under specific pathogen-free conditions. When we dissected the mice, mice were killed by cervical dislocation under anesthesia with Isoflurane in all mouse experiments. In survival studies, mice were monitored daily for general appearance and weighed every week. When mice show signs of losing ability to ambulate, they were euthanized as above. All animals were treated under the protocols approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Tokyo University of Science (ACUC-TUS), by researchers who were trained for animal care through a lecture held by ACUC-TUS.

Cell line

B16-mHEL-GFP mouse melanoma cells [13] and 40LB [11] were maintained in D-MEM medium (high glucose; Wako) supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 units/ml penicillin, and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (GIBCO) in a humidified atmosphere at 37°C with 5% CO2.

Isolation and culture of primary B cells

Naïve B cells were purified from the spleens of Hy10 mice by 2-step negative sorting: cells were stained with biotinylated monoclonal Abs (MoAbs) against CD43 (BD Pharmingen, S7), CD4 (BioLegend, GK1.5), CD8α (BioLegend, 53–6.7), CD49b (BioLegend, DX5), Ter-119 (BioLegend, TER-119), and then streptavidin-particle-DM (BD Biosciences), passed first through an iMag column (BD Biosciences) and unbound cells were then passed through a MACS LS column (Miltenyi Biotec). The unbound cells were mostly B cells (>97% purity). Purified naïve B cells were cultured in B cell medium (BCM) on a feeder layer of irradiated 40 LB cells with IL-4 and IL-21, sequentially, to generate iGB cells [11].

TiBcs were purified from the tumor of the APCmin/+ mice. Intestinal tumors were cut off and incubated in a small bottle with 10 ml of pre-warmed collagenase buffer for 20 min at 37°C with continuous agitation. The dispersed cells were put into a 15 ml tube, into which 4 ml of 40% Percoll buffer was added and mixed by pipetting and vortex. Then 4 ml of 80% Percoll buffer was gently added under the 40% Percoll buffer. The tube was then centrifuged (2000 rpm for 20 min), and a middle layer about 2–3 ml was collected into a new 15 ml tube. The tube was filled with 10 ml of 5% FCS/RPMI and centrifuged (1400 rpm for 7 min at 4°C). Thus isolated TiBcs were cultured in BCM on a feeder layer of irradiated 40 LB cells with IL-21 to generate iGB cells.

B cells were purified from normal intestinal tissues of mice as follows: small intestines were cut into pieces and put into a small bottle, into which 10 ml pre-warmed EDTA buffer was added. The bottle was incubated for 20 min at 37°C with continuous agitation. The following steps were the same as the method to purify and culture TiBcs as described above.

To remove 40LB cells from iGB cells after the culture, the cells from the culture were stained with biotinylated anti-H-2Kd (BioLegend, SF1-1.1) Ab and Streptavidin Particle Plus DM, followed by negative sorting using the iMag system (BD Biosciences).

Retroviral transduction

For production of retrovirus, pMXs-ERT2-Bach2-ires-CD8α vector, encoding a mutated estrogen receptor hormone-binding domain (ERT2) fused with human Bach2 (ERT2-Bach2) and mouse CD8α as an infection marker, were transfected into Plat-E cells by PEI (Mw 40,000; Polysciences). The virus-containing supernatant was harvested 2 days after transfection and added to day 3 iGB cells. Cells were spin-infected at 2000 rpm, 37°C for 90 min with 10 μg/ml DOTAP Liposomal Transfection Reagent (Roche). One day later, cells were harvested, seeded on new 40LB feeder layers, and cultured in BCM with IL-21.

Flow cytometry

TiBcs were stained with various combinations of the following Abs: FITC-, PE-, PE-Cy7-, PerCy5.5- and APC Cy7-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Southern Biotech, 1030–02), IgA (Southern Biotech, 1165–11), IgM (eBioscience, 11/41), IgD (BioLegend, 11-26c.2a) and B220 (BioLegend, RA3-6B2). Cells were stained with propidium iodide, just before analysis, to eliminate dead cells in the data analyses. When the iGB cells were analyzed, 40LB feeder cells were gated out based on FSC versus SSC. Analysis was performed by FACS Calibur or Canto II (BD Bioscience). The results were analyzed by FlowJo (Tree Star, Inc.).

Antibody production from iGB cells in culture

ERT2-Bach2-transduced iGB cells were transferred onto a feeder layer of irradiated 40LA cells (40LB cells stably transfected with mouse APRIL expression vector) and further cultured in BCM supplemented with heme (10 μM), IL-5 (10 ng/ml) and IL-6 (10 ng/ml) for 5 days.

ELISA

Flat-bottom 96-well plate (Nunc) was coated with 1 mg/ml of anti-mouse IgA (Southern Biotech, 1040–01), IgM (Southern Biotech, 1020–01) or IgG (Southern Biotech, 1030–01) by incubating at room temperature for 1 hour, and then blocked with 3% BSA or 5% FCS. The diluted supernatants of B cell culture were added to the wells and allowed to react for 1 hour at room temperature. As a standard, Mouse Reference Serum (Bethyl, RS10-101) was 2-fold serially diluted. Abs bound to the plate were detected with 1 mg/ml of HRP-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgA (Southern Biotech, 1040–05), IgM (Southern Biotech, 1020–05) or IgG (Southern Biotech, 1033–05) after 1 h incubation. Then Abs bound to the plate were developed with TMB substrate (Sigma) and the reaction was terminated by sulfuric acid. Absorbance values were measured at 450 nm using plate reader (Bio-Rad).

Immunofluorescence microscopy

Freshly isolated normal intestinal tissues and tumor tissues were snap-frozen in OCT compound (Sakura Finetek) and 5 to 6-μm-thick sections were prepared using a cryostat. After drying at room temperature, sections were fixed in acetone for 10 min and then allowed to dry. Nonspecific binding was blocked with 3% BSA/PBS for 30 min at room temperature, and then the slides were washed and stained for 1 h at room temperature with mouse anti-E-Cadherin (BD Transduction Laboratories, 610182) or supernatants of iGB cell culture or mouse sera, appropriately diluted as indicated. After washing, the slides were stained for 1 h at room temperature with Alexa Fluor® 660 goat anti-mouse IgG(H+L) (Invitrogen, A21054) and anti-mouse B220-FITC (BioLegend, RA3-6B2) or anti-mouse IgG-FITC (Southern Biotech, 1030–02), respectively. After washing, slides were mounted with the fluorescent mounting medium (ProLong Gold antifade reagent with DAPI, Invitrogen) and examined using an immunofluorescence microscope (BZ-9000; Keyence).

The fixed sections were also stained with haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) through gradual changes of alcohols for dehydration.

Immunohistochemistry

Freshly isolated normal intestinal and tumor tissues were snap-frozen in OCT compound (Sakura Finetek) and 5 to 6-μm-thick sections were prepared using a cryostat. After drying at room temperature, sections were fixed in acetone for 10 min and then allowed to dry. Then sections were treated in 95°C sodium citrate buffer for 15 min to restore antigens. Nonspecific binding was blocked with 3% BSA/PBS for 30 min at room temperature, and then the slides were washed and stained for 1 h at room temperature with antibodies against cleaved caspase 3 (Cell Signaling, D175) or Ki67 (Cell Signaling, D3B5), appropriately diluted as indicated. After washing, the slides were stained for 1 h at room temperature with anti-rabbit-HRP. After washing, slides were mounted with the DAB (Dako) and counter stain with hematoxylin, examined using an immunofluorescence microscope (BZ-9000, Keyence).

Western blotting

Total proteins were extracted from normal intestinal tissues and tumor tissues. Equivalent amounts of proteins were subjected to SDS-PAGE and transferred to a PVDF membrane. The blots were probed with the indicated sera or anti-GAPDH (MBL, 3H12) as the primary Ab, followed by incubation with HRP-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (Southern Biotech,1033–05) as the secondary Ab. Immunoreactive protein bands were visualized using the enhanced chemiluminescence detection kit (Sigma-Aldrich) on a ChemiDoc MP imaging system (Bio-Rad).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the Student’s t test as appropriate. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. To assess survival rate, the Kaplan-Meier model was used and comparison of survival between groups was performed using the LogRank test with GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).

Results

Antigen-specific iGB cells suppress growth of pre-implanted melanoma tumor

Previously, we demonstrated that infusion of HEL-specific iGB cells (Hy10-iGB) inhibited metastatic growth of B16 melanoma cells expressing membrane-bound HEL (B16-mHEL) that were transferred i.v. into mice at the same timing and prolonged survival of the mice [13]. To further verify the efficacy of the iGB-cell-mediated cancer therapy in a mouse model, we examined whether infusion of iGB cells suppress the growth of pre-existing tumor. For this experiment, we retrovirally transduced Hy10-iGB cells with ERT2-Bach2, which enable the cells to grow unlimitedly on 40LB feeder cells provided with IL-21 and tamoxifen. Bach2 is known to suppress the expression of Blimp1, a master regulator of plasma cell differentiation, and tamoxifen-induced Bach2 activation allows unlimited expansion of iGB cells (to be reported elsewhere).

We injected the Hy10-iGB cells (or PBS alone as a control) i.v. into B6 mice that had been implanted s.c. with B16-mHEL cells seven days previously (Fig 1A). B16-mHEL cells formed a skin tumor of readily visible size (~5 mm in diameter) by the time of the Hy10-iGB cell injection. In the mice injected with Hy10 iGB cells, serum IgG1 concentration was apparently increased by day 7 (Fig 1B) as expected with our previous report [13], considering that the cultured Hy10 iGB cells were mostly IgG1+ and must have differentiated into plasma cells in vivo being free of tamoxifen. At 10 days after injection of Hy10-iGB cells, the size of the B16-mHEL cell tumor was significantly smaller as compared to mice injected with PBS alone (Fig 1C). Long-term observation of these mice revealed that the mice injected with Hy10 iGB cells survived significantly longer than those with PBS alone (Fig 1D). These data indicated that HEL-specific Abs produced by iGB-cell-derived plasma cells in vivo inhibited growth and perhaps metastasis of the pre-implanted B16-mHEL cells in the recipient mice, and imply a possible clinical application of human iGB cells for a cancer therapy.

Fig 1. Hy10-iGB cells suppressed pre-existing B16-mHEL cell growth in situ.

Fig 1

(A) The experimental strategy. B16-mHEL-GFP cells (5×105 cells/mouse) were transferred s.c. into C57BL/6 mice on day -7. On day 0, ERT2-Bach2-transduced iGB cells (1×107 cells/mouse) derived from splenic B cells of Hy10 mice (Hy10-iGB) or PBS alone were transferred i.v. into the mice. (B) Concentration of IgG1 in the sera of the mice on day 7 was determined by ELISA. n = 5. ***p<0.001. (C) The size of tumors in the mice in (B) was monitored until day 10. The volume of the tumors was calculated using the equation: V = 4π(L1xL22)/3 cm3, where V = volume (cm3), L1 = the longest radius (cm), L2 = the shortest radius (cm). n = 5. **p<0.01. (D) Survival rate of mice was compared using LogRank test. n = 5. *p<0.05. All data are representative of two independent experiments.

Production of tumor-specific antibody from TiBc-derived iGB cells

To apply iGB cells for a cancer therapy, B cells recognizing some tumor antigens would be needed. Such B cells are likely very few in peripheral blood of a cancer patient but might be enriched in TiBcs. Expecting to utilize TiBcs from surgically resected specimens for the future application, we used APCmin/+ mice as a model system. APCmin/+ mice carry a Min (multiple intestinal neoplasia) mutant allele of the APC (adenomatous polyposis coli) locus that encodes a nonsense mutation at codon 850. Like humans with germline mutations in APC, APCmin/+ mice are predisposed to intestinal adenoma formation [16], thus providing a good animal model for studying the role of intestinal tumorigenesis [17].

We first histologically analyzed the intestine of APCmin/+ mice for the presence of TiBcs. We found small clusters of B cells sparsely scattered mainly in the interstitial regions of the tumor and in the lamina propria of normal mucosa (Fig 2A). To utilize the TiBcs in the tumor of APCmin/+ mice, we isolated B cells from intestinal tumors of APCmin/+ mice and those from normal intestinal tissues of APC+/+ mice for a control. We cultured these B cells on the 40LB feeder layer with IL-21 (iGB cell culture) and transduced them with ERT2-Bach2. In a typical case, the proportion of IgG+ cells was low in the TiBcs before the culture (day 0), but the number of them increased for about 14-fold of the starting number by day 7, whereas the number of IgM+ and IgA+ cells increased for about 2- and 5.8-fold, respectively (Fig 2B and 2C). It remains elusive whether this result is due to a selective growth of IgG+ cells or to de novo class switching to IgG in the iGB cell culture.

Fig 2. Antibody produced by APCmin/+ TiBcs binds to original tumor tissue.

Fig 2

(A) Representative data of immunofluorescent staining. Sections of intestinal tissue of a 20-week-old APCmin/+ mouse were stained with hematoxylin/eosin (HE, right), or with Abs against B220 (green) and E-Cadherin (red) together with DAPI (blue, left). (B) TiBcs of an APCmin/+ mouse were transduced with ERT2-Bach2 and cultured on γ-irradiated 40LB cells in BCM with IL-21 and tamoxifen. Before (day 0) and on day 7 of the iGB cell culture, B cells were analyzed for expression of Ig classes by flow cytometry. Th data represents the cells within the lymphocyte gate defined by side- and forward-scatter and gated as B220+. A number at each window indicates the percentages of the B cells (top) or of the gated IgMIgDcells (bottom). (C) The numbers of IgG+, IgA+ and IgD+ IgM+ cells on day 0 and day 7 of the culture, estimated by the data in (B). (D) Day 7 iGB cells derived from mixed normal intestinal tissue B cells from three APC+/+ mice (Int. B-iGB) and those from mixed TiBcs from three APCmin/+ mice (TiBc-iGB) were transferred onto 40LA feeder cells and further cultured in the medium without tamoxifen with addition of heme, IL-5 and IL-6, for 5 days. Concentration of IgG, IgA and IgM in the supernatants was estimated by ELISA. (E) A representative data of immunofluorescent staining. Serial sections of intestinal tissue of a 20-week-old APCmin/+ mouse were stained with hematoxylin/eosin (HE), with anti-E-Cadherin Ab (red), or with culture supernatants (diluted to contain 1 μg/ml IgG) of the Int. B-iGB cells or the TiBcs-iGB cells as the primary Ab, followed by anti-mouse IgG-FITC (green) as the secondary Ab, as indicated. For the immunofluorescent analysis, sections were simultaneously stained with DAPI (blue). Images (merged with DAPI image for immunofluorescent staining) of normal areas (left) and tumor areas (right) are shown. All data are representative of two independent experiments.

To obtain Abs from expanded iGB cells, we withdrew tamoxifen from the culture and further added heme to inactivate Bach2 function to allow these iGB cells to differentiate into plasma cells producing Ab (the system will be reported elsewhere). Heme was previously reported to bind to Bach2 to inhibit its DNA-binding activity, leading to Blimp1 induction in B cells [12]. iGB cells of normal intestinal tissue B cells from APC+/+ mice (Int. B-iGB) and those from TiBcs from APCmin/+ mice (TiBc-iGB) were cultured on feeder layers of 40LA cells (40LB cells expressing APRIL) with heme, IL-5 and IL-6 for 5 days. IgG production was efficient in this culture system, whereas IgA and IgM production was minimum (Fig 2D). The supernatants on day 5 were used as primary Abs for immunofluorescent staining of the sections of intestines including tumors of APCmin/+ mice. The results showed that the IgG Ab from TiBc-iGB cells could stain a tumor area, but not a normal area, of the intestinal tissue, while IgG Ab from Int. B-iGB cells did not significantly stained either areas (Fig 2E). These data indicate that TiBcs from APCmin/+ mice tumor included B cells that are specific to some antigens expressed in the tumor and thus likely to have responded to such antigens in situ.

TiBc-derived iGB cells inhibit intestinal tumor growth in APCmin/+ mice in vivo

The results of these in vitro studies suggested that Abs produced from TiBc-iGB cells may suppress tumor growth in APCmin/+ mice. The propagated TiBc-iGB or Int. B-iGB cells, prepared as above, or PBS alone, were transferred i.v. into 8-week-old APCmin/+ mice, at the timing when the intestinal tumors become visible in most APCmin/+ mice, and the injection was repeated every two weeks for 8 weeks (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. APCmin/+-derived TiBcs inhibit tumor progression in APCmin/+ mice in vivo.

Fig 3

(A) Experimental strategy. The Int. B-iGB cells or TiBc-iGB cells used in Fig 2D (5×106 cells/mouse) or PBS alone were injected i.v. into 8-week-old APCmin/+ mice five times at every two weeks. (B) Survival rates of the mice in the three groups treated as in (A) after the last injection of iGB cells (week 0), were compared using LogRank test, n = 7. *p<0.01. (C) Body weights of survived mice in (B) were monitored until 20 weeks of age and changes of body weights from those in 8 weeks of age (divided by the weight at 8-week) were expressed as percentages. Data are shown as mean ±SEM *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. (D) Photographs of the intestines of the APCmin/+ mice treated as in (A) taken at 16-weeks of age (left), n = 5. The number of tumors within the indicated range of diameter (mm) per each intestine, counted on the photographs, is plotted (right). Data are expressed as mean +SEM **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. (E) Representative data of immunohistochemistry staining. Serial sections of intestinal tumor areas of intestines from the APCmin/+ mice, each one selected from the three groups in (D), were stained with hematoxylin/eosin (HE), or with Abs against cleaved caspase 3 or Ki67, as indicated. All data are representative of two independent experiments.

Long-term observation of these mice revealed that the APCmin/+ mice injected with PBS alone or the Int. B-iGB cells started to die in one or three weeks after the last injection, respectively, and all of them died within 20 weeks in the two groups. By contrast, mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells survived much longer and 43% of them survived for longer than 30 weeks (Fig 3B). Accordingly, bodyweight loss was mitigated in the mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells as compared to those with Int. B-iGB cells or PBS alone (Fig 3C). Intestines of mice in a different set of the same experiment were inspected at 16 weeks of age. The intestines of the mice that received Int. B-iGB cells or PBS alone had a numerous number of tumors. By contrast, there were markedly fewer number of tumors, especially of larger sizes (longer than 3 mm in diameter), in the intestines of mice that had received TiBc-iGB cells (Fig 3D). Immunohistochemistry staining of the tumor tissues revealed that somewhat increased expression of active (cleaved) caspase3 and decreased expression of Ki67 in the tumors of the mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells, as compared with those with Int. B-iGB cells or PBS alone (Fig 3E). Collectively, these data strongly suggest that tumor-specific Abs produced in-vivo by TiBc-iGB cell-derived plasma cells inhibited tumor growth in the intestine and prolonged survival of the recipient APCmin/+ mice.

Sera of TiBc-iGB cell-transferred mice bind to antigens of APCmin/+ mouse tumors

In the setting of the experiment shown in Fig 3, Abs produced in vivo from the transferred iGB cells and those produced by the host cannot be distinguished owing to their syngeneic origins, except by showing the tumor-specificity of the TiBc-iGB-cell-derived Abs, if any. Thus, sera of APCmin/+ mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells, Int. B-iGB cells or PBS alone were examined for their binding to intestinal tissues of APCmin/+ mice. The immunofluorescence microscopy demonstrated that the serum IgG from the mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells bound to a tumor area but scarcely to a normal area of the same intestinal tissue, whereas serum IgG from those transferred with Int. B-iGB cells or PBS alone little bound to the tumor and the normal areas (Fig 4A). Thus, TiBc-iGB cells appear into differentiate to plasma cells in vivo and to produce Abs which selectively recognize antigens on tumor tissues.

Fig 4. Serum antibodies of TiBc-injected mice recognize APCmin/+ tumor antigens.

Fig 4

(A) Representative data of immunofluorescent staining. Serial sections of intestinal tissue of a 20-week-old APCmin/+ mouse were stained with hematoxylin/eosin (HE), with anti-E-Cadherin Ab (red), or with undiluted sera of mice having been transferred with PBS alone, Int. B-iGB cells or TiBc-iGB cells (mixture of three randomly selected sera from mice in each group in Fig 3B) as the primary Abs, followed by anti-mouse IgG-FITC (green) as the secondary Ab, as indicated. For the immunofluorescent analysis, sections were simultaneously stained with DAPI (blue). Images (merged with DAPI image for immunofluorescent staining) of normal area (top row) and tumor area (bottom row) are shown. (B) Combined extracts from normal intestinal tissues of two APC+/+ mice or from intestinal tumors of two APCmin/+ mice, respectively, were subjected to Western blot analyses using sera (diluted to include 10 μg/ml IgG) from mice having been transferred with PBS alone, Int. B-iGB cells or TiBc-iGB cells as the primary Ab (randomly selected sera from mice in each group in Fig 3B), and HRP-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG as the secondary Ab (n = 3 per group). The blot was re-probed with Ab against GAPDH, serving as an internal reference protein (lower panels). All data are representative of two independent experiments.

Above result was further evaluated by Western blot analysis against proteins extracted from intestinal tumors of APCmin/+ mice or those from normal intestine of APC+/+ mice. IgG Abs in the sera from APCmin/+ mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells, Int. B-iGB cells or PBS alone commonly detected several bands in the extract of the tumor, but the those with TiBc-iGB cells selectively detected a band of about 20 kDa, which was not detected in the extract of the normal intestine (Fig 4B). Collectively, these data indicate that Abs produced in vivo from the transferred TiBc-iGB cells can recognize a certain antigen that is specifically present in the tumor tissue of APCmin/+ mice.

Discussion

There is increasing evidence that TiBcs play complex functions in tumor immunity. On the one hand, TiBcs have the function of promoting tumors by producing IL-10, TGF-β, and IL-35; by the lymphotoxin/ IKKa-BMI1 signaling pathway; or by directly promoting tumor progression through engaging PD-L1/PD-1 molecules [18, 19]. On the other hand, TiBcs can inhibit tumor development through Ab production, serving as antigen presenting cells, and secreting antitumor cytokines [20]. Recent clinical research demonstrated that in patients with immunotherapy, tumor infiltrating B cells are positively associated with improved survival [2124]. Moreover, TiBcs were reported to decrease tumor cells viability by activating T cells and NK cells. It has been shown in a mouse model that depletion of B cells enhances tumor growth in hepatocellular carcinoma [25]. These contradictory observations may be partly due to the heterogeneity and different subpopulations of B cells in different tumor microenvironments (TME) under various therapies [26]. It was found that a special subset of B cells defined as regulatory B cells increased in TME and was associated with progression of various cancers [25]. Despite mixed views on the role on TiBcs, it is assumed that most of the TiBcs recognized some tumor-associated antigens before developing into various subsets of tumor-residing B cells, and therefore their B-cell receptor/Ab repertoire may be specific to tumors and thus useful for Ab-mediated immunotherapy.

Moutai et al reported that the transferred iGB cells colonized the bone marrow and produced Ab, mainly of the IgG1 class, for several weeks [13]. The results of the experiment shown here revealed that the transfer of iGB cells specific for a surrogate tumor Ag (HEL) suppressed growth of pre-existing (in contrast to simultaneously injected [13]) melanoma cell tumor expressing the same Ag and prolonged the survival of the recipient mice. Tumor inhibition is likely mediated by anti-HEL IgG1 that was produced by the plasma cells derived from the iGB cells, as Moutai et al reported that such anti-HEL IgG1 bound to HEL-expressing melanoma cells having grown in vivo. The mechanism for the antibody-mediated tumor inhibition in this model is currently unclear. Although it is unlikely that the mouse IgG1 Ab mediates the antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), but it is possible that it mediates antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) through binding to FcγRII on phagocytes [27].

TiBcs isolated from intestinal tumors of APCmin/+ mice, similarly to splenic B cells, could be cultured in iGB cell culture system for a long period by transduction with ERT2-Bach2 provided with tamoxifen. Although the TiBc-iGB cells carry a heterozygous Apc gene mutation, the extents of their growth rate, class switching and Ab production were similar to those of Int. B-iGB cells derived from APC+/+ mice in our culture system. The TiBc-iGB cells were able to produce IgG Abs by withdrawal of tamoxifen and addition of heme, the latter being consistent with published data [12]. However, concentration of Abs produced by the TiBc-iGB cells into the supernatant was variable and often very low on 40LB feeder cells. We solved this problem by using a new feeder cells, 40LA, expressing APRIL in addition to CD40L and BAFF. The iGB cells cultured on the 40LA with heme, IL-5, and IL-6 produced considerable amount of IgG in the supernatant. Thus, we have established a feasible method to expand TiBcs in culture unlimitedly, and to produce considerable amount of Abs from the TiBcs in culture.

The IgG Abs produced from the TiBc-iGB cells could specifically recognize the intestinal tumors in APCmin/+ mice in immunofluorescence staining assay (Fig 2E). Although we could not evaluate their differentiation into plasma cells or Ab production in mice after transfer, which are indistinguishable from host-derived plasma cells or Abs existing in far excess, inhibition of tumor growth and prolonged survival of APCmin/+ mice by the transfer of the TiBc-iGB cells are likely mediated by tumor binding of the Abs produced from the transferred TiBc-iGB cells via differentiation into plasma cells. To support this notion, sera from the mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells contained Abs that selectively recognize some antigens in the tumors of APCmin/+ mice, as demonstrated by immunofluorescence microscopy. In this experiment (Fig 4A), as well as in the experiment in which supernatant of TiBc-iGB cells was used for staining of tumors of APCmin/+ mice (Fig 2E), the signals did not appear to be restricted to a particular type of cells in the tumor, although the strength of the signal was heterogenous. This may be plausible if the TiBcs in tumors of individual APCmin/+ mice are polyclonal and produce Abs against various (neo)antigens in the tumors with various affinities.

Western blot analysis (Fig 4B) demonstrated that the serum Abs in the TiBc-iGB-transferred mice commonly bound to a ~20 kD protein in the extract of tumors of APCmin/+ mice but not of normal intestines. This data suggests that TiBcs in the tumors formed in individual APCmin/+ mice recognize a dominant epitope of a protein among many various epitopes, expressed in the APCmin/+ mouse tumors. As far as we know, no tumor-specific antigens exhibiting epitopes for antibodies in APCmin/+ mice have been reported, and therefore it has been totally unknown whether individual APCmin/+ mice or even individual tumors in the same mouse express the same tumor antigens. In this regard, the ~20 kD tumor antigen of APCmin/+ mice detected by Abs derived from TiBcs in APCmin/+ mice across the individuals implies the presence of a common tumor neo-antigen recognized by TiBcs among individual APCmin/+ mice. Such common neo-antigens can be generated by frequent site-specific point mutations, tumor-specific protein modifications, ectopic expression of silent genes, or shared frameshift mutations that have recently been reported to be frequently found in some adenocarcinomas with mismatch repair deficiency and to express immunogenic common neo-peptides in human patients [28]. Identification of such common neo-antigens would lead to generation of therapeutic anti-tumor Abs and anti-tumor vaccines in the model system.

As a next step, we are trying to culture human TiBcs taken from the surgically excised tumor specimens in the iGB cell culture system and to obtain Abs thereof by the similar method as described above. If such Abs bind to the original tumor tissue, we will go on to clonally identify the TiBc-derived iGB cells that produce tumor-specific monoclonal Abs. Such monoclonal Abs would be direct seeds for anti-tumor Ab drugs after clarification of their recognizing (neo-) antigens. Their B cell receptor genes may be applied to generation of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) for CAR-T cell therapy. From our data, transferring the TiBc-derived iGB cells directly to donor patients appears to be a fascinating alternative of individualized cancer immunotherapies, although further steps of verification should be required for its clinical application.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

S1 File

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Nguyen Tien Dat and Dominika Papiernik (RIBS, Tokyo University of Science) for their contribution to the primary stage of this work, Dr. Tatsuya Moutai (Kaneka corporation) for establishing Bach2-mediated culture system, Dr. Robert Brink (Garvan Institute of Medical Research) for pcDNA3-mHEL plasmid, Drs. Jason G. Cyster (UCSF) and Takaharu Okada (RIKEN IMS) for Hy10 mice, Kei Haniuda, Saori Fukao and other members of Kitamura laboratory for technical advice.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Area, 17H05803 and 19H04818 (DK), from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (https://www.mext.go.jp/en/); and Takeda Science Foundation (https://www.takeda-sci.or.jp). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Binnewies M, Roberts EW, Kersten K, Chan V, Fearon DF, Merad M, et al. Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nature Medicine. 2018;24(5):541–50. 10.1038/s41591-018-0014-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yuen GJ, Demissie E, Pillai S. B lymphocytes and cancer: a love-hate relationship. Trends Cancer. 2016;2(12):747–57. 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pagès F, Galon J, Dieu-Nosjean MC, Tartour E, Sautès-Fridman C, Fridman WH. Immune infiltration in human tumors: a prognostic factor that should not be ignored. Oncogene. 2010;29(8):1093–102. 10.1038/onc.2009.416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chin Y, Janseens J, Vandepitte J, Vandenbrande J, Opdebeek L, Raus J. Phenotypic analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from human breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1992;12(5):1463–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Coronella-Wood JA, Hersh EM. Naturally occurring B-cell responses to breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2003;52(12):715–38. 10.1007/s00262-003-0409-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Linnebacher M, Maletzki C. Tumor-infiltrating B cells: The ignored players in tumor immunology. Oncoimmunology. 2012;1(7):1186–8. 10.4161/onci.20641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nielsen JS, Sahota RA, Milne K, Kost SE, Nesslinger NJ, Watson PH, et al. CD20+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have an atypical CD27- memory phenotype and together with CD8+ T cells promote favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(12):3281–92. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Reuschenbach M, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Wentzensen N. A systematic review of humoral immune responses against tumor antigens. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009;58(10):1535–44. 10.1007/s00262-009-0733-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rossen RD, Reisberg MA, Hersh EM, Gutterman JU. The C1q binding test for soluble immune complexes: clinical correlations obtained in patients with cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1977;58(5):1205–15. 10.1093/jnci/58.5.1205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang SS, Liu W, Ly D, Xu H, Qu L, Zhang L. Tumor-infiltrating B cells: their role and application in anti-tumor immunity in lung cancer. Cell Mol Immunol. 2019;16(1):6–18. 10.1038/s41423-018-0027-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nojima T, Haniuda K, Moutai T, Matsudaira M, Mizokawa S, Shiratori I, et al. In-vitro derived germinal centre B cells differentially generate memory B or plasma cells in vivo. Nat Commun. 2011;2:465 10.1038/ncomms1475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Watanabe-Matsui M, Muto A, Matsui T, Itoh-Nakadai A, Nakajima O, Murayama K, et al. Heme regulates B-cell differentiation, antibody class switch, and heme oxygenase-1 expression in B cells as a ligand of Bach2. Blood. 2011;117(20):5438–48. 10.1182/blood-2010-07-296483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Moutai T, Yamana H, Nojima T, Kitamura D. A novel and effective cancer immunotherapy mouse model using antigen-specific B cells selected in vitro. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92732 10.1371/journal.pone.0092732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hartley SB, Crosbie J, Brink R, Kantor AB, Basten A, Goodnow CC. Elimination from peripheral lymphoid tissues of self-reactive B lymphocytes recognizing membrane-bound antigens. Nature. 1991;353(6346):765–9. 10.1038/353765a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Allen CD, Okada T, Tang HL, Cyster JG. Imaging of germinal center selection events during affinity maturation. Science. 2007;315(5811):528–31. 10.1126/science.1136736 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Moser AR, Luongo C, Gould KA, McNeley MK, Shoemaker AR, Dove WF. ApcMin: a mouse model for intestinal and mammary tumorigenesis. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31a(7–8):1061–4. 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00181-h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Leclerc D, Deng L, Trasler J, Rozen R. ApcMin/+ mouse model of colon cancer: gene expression profiling in tumors. J Cell Biochem. 2004;93(6):1242–54. 10.1002/jcb.20236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shen M, Sun Q, Wang J, Pan W, Ren X. Positive and negative functions of B lymphocytes in tumors. Oncotarget. 2016;7(34):55828–39. 10.18632/oncotarget.10094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shalapour S, Font-Burgada J, Di Caro G, Zhong Z, Sanchez-Lopez E, Dhar D, et al. Immunosuppressive plasma cells impede T-cell-dependent immunogenic chemotherapy. Nature. 2015;521(7550):94–8. 10.1038/nature14395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Guo FF, Cui JW. The Role of Tumor-Infiltrating B Cells in Tumor Immunity. J Oncol. 2019;2019:2592419 10.1155/2019/2592419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cabrita R, Lauss M, Sanna A, Donia M, Skaarup Larsen M, Mitra S, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures improve immunotherapy and survival in melanoma. Nature. 2020;577(7791):561–5. 10.1038/s41586-019-1914-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Helmink BA, Reddy SM, Gao J, Zhang S, Basar R, Thakur R, et al. B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures promote immunotherapy response. Nature. 2020;577(7791):549–55. 10.1038/s41586-019-1922-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Petitprez F, de Reyniès A, Keung EZ, Chen TW, Sun CM, Calderaro J, et al. B cells are associated with survival and immunotherapy response in sarcoma. Nature. 2020;577(7791):556–60. 10.1038/s41586-019-1906-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lu Y, Zhao Q, Liao JY, Song E, Xia Q, Pan J, et al. Complement Signals Determine Opposite Effects of B Cells in Chemotherapy-Induced Immunity. Cell. 2020;180(6):1081–97.e24. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Garnelo M, Tan A, Her Z, Yeong J, Lim CJ, Chen J, et al. Interaction between tumour-infiltrating B cells and T cells controls the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2017;66(2):342–51. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liu Z, Fu YX. Chemotherapy Induces Cancer-Fighting B Cells. Cell. 2020;180(6):1037–9. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Watanabe M, Wallace PK, Keler T, Deo YM, Akewanlop C, Hayes DF. Antibody dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) and antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) of breast cancer cells mediated by bispecific antibody, MDX-210. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 1999;53 199–207. 10.1023/a:1006145507567 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Roudko V, Bozkus CC, Orfanelli T, McClain CB, Carr C, O’Donnell T, et al. Shared immunogenic poly-epitope frameshift mutations in microsatellite unstable tumors. Cell. 2020;183(6):1634–49. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hiroyasu Nakano

9 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-19053

A novel cancer immunotherapy using tumor-infiltrating B cells in the APC (min/+) mouse model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kitamura

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

While both reviewers feel that the study is interesting, they have several concerns about the authors’ results and experimental conditions. Specifically, histological analysis is very poor and not sufficient to support the authors’ conclusion. Moreover, it is unclear why the authors only focus on IgG, but not IgM or IgA. Finally, the mechanism how TiBcs reduce the size and numbers of tumor is not investigated.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hiroyasu Nakano, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors clearly demonstrated that TIBCs, which have been expanded on 40LB system, suppressed intestinal tumor growth and elongated the survival of recipient APCmin/+ mice.

There are several basic questions or concerns, which would be better if they could be answered or discussed in the manuscript.

1. As compared to the infusion experiment of HEL-specific iGB cells into mice, what is the effect of HEL-specific iGB cells on tumor cells in in vitro culture? Please describe the mechanism how TIBCs attack tumor cells in vitro and in vitro. Which is important to suppress the tumor growth, B cells or the antibodies produced by TIBCs? The authors mentioned ‘by a similar mechanism as monoclonal Ab drugs in vivo [27]’, in line 413. ‘Similar’ is not enough scientific.

2. In Figure 2, the authors showed that significant number of IgM/IgA positive cells could be expanded on their 40LB culture system. However, they ignored IgM/IgA antibodies. Please discuss why. Also, in Figure 1A, the number of population size (%) should be moved out of dots. In the same figure, unnecessary small characters (such as <pe-cy7-a> IgM, etc.) should be cleared.

3. In Figures 2D and 4B, FITC signals were too damn to identify which cells were stained, tumor cell or epithelial cells. Please replace the data with clearer ones or magnified ones. Otherwise, I do not think convincing.

4. In Figures 2D, 4B and 4C, please specify the origins of antibodies and tissue sections. Were they always derived from the same individual? Is it already widely accepted that any APCmin/+ mice express the same tumor antigen and produce the antibodies against the same antigen? Individual difference should be considered or discussed.

5. Figure 4C, please explain why IgM/IgA antibodies were ignored.

6. In line 183, ‘mg/ml‘ should be ‘�g/ml’. In line 195, ‘6-mm-thick’ should be ‘6-�m-thick’.

7. This is a naïve question. Did TIBC-iGB cells successfully infiltrate into tumor? It would be better to have such data to convince the general readers.</pe-cy7-a>

Reviewer #2: Functional roles of tumor-infiltrating T cells in tumor expansion or regression have been extensively investigated. However, their roles of tumor-infiltrating B cells are limited. In the previous study, the authors’ group has developed a system to efficiently expand primary B cells in vitro. Using this system, in this manuscript, Wang et al. investigate the effect of tumor-infiltrating B cells on tumor growth in vivo. Repeated injection of tumor-infiltrating B cells into Apcmin/+ mice dramatically prolongs their survival and reduces the size and numbers of tumors. Moreover, the authors show that numbers of IgG-positive cells appear in the tumor tissues of Apcmin/+ mice. Although the study presented here is interesting and deserves for publication, there are several concerns need to be addressed before publication. The followings are specific comments.

Major pints:

1. TIBCs does not appear to be appropriate for abbreviation of tumor-infiltrating B cells, since TIBCs are frequently used for abbreviation of total iron binding capacities. The reviewer recommends that the authors might use TiBcs instead of TIBCs (Linnebacher et al, Oncoimmunology, 1:1186-1188).

2. In Figures 2D, 3E, and 4B, it is unclear whether B cells accumulate around the tumor tissues. The authors need to show more representative images of hematoxylin-eosin staining of normal and tumor tissues of the small intestines. Moreover, the authors need to perform immunohistochemistry using antibody against a specific marker of B cells (B220).

3. In Figures 2 to 4, the authors isolate and expand tumor-infiltrating B cells from Apcmin/+ mice. Since B cells also harbor Apc mutation, the authors need to discuss the possibility that the mutation of Apc gene might affect the function of TiBcs.

4. In Figures 2D and 4B, the immunofluorescent analysis of the tissues stained with the culture supernatants or murine sera is not conclusive. It is hard to speculate which cells, such as tumor cells, infiltrated B cells, or normal epithelial cells are stained with the antibodies. Thus, the authors need to show more representative images. Ideally, the authors might perform double immunostaining with the culture supernatant or murine sera along with antibodies against a specific marker of B cells (B220) and epithelial cells (E-cadherin).

5. In Figure 3, the effect of injection of TiBcs on survival of Apcmin/+ mice appears to be dramatic. However, numbers of mice analyzed in Figure 3D are not sufficient to draw conclusion. To further verify the authors’ conclusion in Figure 3D, the authors need to increase numbers of mice (more than 4 or 5 mice per each group). It is unclear how injection of TiBcs reduces the size of tumors. To address this issue, the authors need to quantify numbers of tumor cells undergoing apoptosis (active caspase 3-positive cells) and numbers of proliferating tumor cells (Ki67-positive cells).

6. In the Material and Methods and Figure legends, they have to describe how they performed the statistical analysis.

Minor points:

1. In Figure 2A, the size of characters representing percentages of cell populations is very small. The authors need to change them to more larger ones.

2. The authors need to include scale bars in all images of histological analysis.

3. In Materials and Methods, clone names or catalog numbers of the antibodies used in the study should be mentioned.

4. In Figure 4C, the authors need to include the results of Western blotting with anti-tubulin or beta-actin to ensure equal loading of each sample.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Reiko Shinkura

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 19;16(1):e0245608. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245608.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Dec 2020

Reviewer #1:

The authors clearly demonstrated that TIBCs, which have been expanded on 40LB system, suppressed intestinal tumor growth and elongated the survival of recipient APCmin/+ mice.

There are several basic questions or concerns, which would be better if they could be answered or discussed in the manuscript.

Comment 1: As compared to the infusion experiment of HEL-specific iGB cells into mice, what is the effect of HEL-specific iGB cells on tumor cells in in vitro culture? Please describe the mechanism how TIBCs attack tumor cells in vitro and in vitro. Which is important to suppress the tumor growth, B cells or the antibodies produced by TIBCs? The authors mentioned ‘by a similar mechanism as monoclonal Ab drugs in vivo [27]’, in line 413. ‘Similar’ is not enough scientific.

Our response: In our previous report (PLOS ONE 2014, 9:e92732; [13]), we demonstrated that the same HEL-specific iGB cells develop into bone-marrow plasma cells and produce HEL-specific IgG1 (and IgG2b in low abundance) in vivo after being injected into mice. In addition, when B16-mHEL cells were also injected i.v., the anti-HEL IgG1 bound to the surface of B16-mHEL cells in excised lung tumors and suppressed tumor growth in the lungs. Therefore, we suppose that antibody should play a main role for this tumor suppression, also in the current experiment shown in the Fig 1. In both experiments, the HEL-specific iGB cells, generated from spleen B cells initially stimulated with IL-4, dominantly produced IgG1 in vivo. IgG1-mediated tumor suppression is not likely mediated by ADCC or CDC but might be by the antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP), as we have described in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript (page 24, line 482~485).

The suggested in-vitro experiment would be that B16-mHEL cells are incubated with HEL-specific IgG1 and effecter cells such as macrophages or neutrophils. Even if we would find a condition in which the B16-mHEL cells are killed by ADCP, it would not prove that is happening in vivo. Elucidation of the mechanism for the iGB cell-mediated tumor suppression in vivo would need various kinds of experiments that might not always show clear evidence, which we think would be a subject on the next stage of this project.

Comment 2: In Figure 2, the authors showed that significant number of IgM/IgA positive cells could be expanded on their 40LB culture system. However, they ignored IgM/IgA antibodies. Please discuss why. Also, in Figure 1A, the number of population size (%) should be moved out of dots. In the same figure, unnecessary small characters (such as IgM, etc.) should be cleared.

Our response: In order to obtain more abundant Abs from the iGB cells, we have changed the culture method for the Ab production, namely using 40LA feeder cells with IL-5 and IL-6 (described in the revised Materials and Methods section). This allowed production of relatively large amount of IgG (6~7 μg/ml) but little IgA or IgM (30~40 ng/ml) in the supernatant (the new Fig 2D), as described in the revised manuscript (page 18, line 347~349), although the reason for the inefficient IgA/IgM production is unclear. Therefore, we have used only anti-mouse IgG as the secondary Ab for the sections primarily stained with the supernatants (the new Fig 2E).

We have revised the former Fig 2A (supposedly meant by the reviewer) according to the reviewer’s comment, as shown in the new Fig 2B.

Comment 3: In Figures 2D and 4B, FITC signals were too damn [dim?] to identify which cells were stained, tumor cell or epithelial cells. Please replace the data with clearer ones or magnified ones. Otherwise, I do not think convincing.

Our response: To improve the staining data in the former Fig 2D, we have used new iGB cell culture supernatants containing a higher concentration of IgG, as stated above. As a result, the FITC signal became brighter and specific to the tumor region, except a few spots in the normal intestinal tissue and other control staining, which may represent IgG+ plasma cells detected by the secondary anti-mouse IgG Ab.

As for the former Fig 4B, we stained the sections with sera of iGB-cell-transferred mice containing 10 μg/ml of IgG, in which the concentration of the iGB-cell-derived IgG was unknown (indistinguishable from endogenous IgG of the host) and supposedly low. Therefore, we have used undiluted sera in the new experiment, which has improved the staining to some extent as shown in the new Fig 4A.

In both experiments, the signals did not appear to be restricted to a particular type of cells in the tumor, although the strength of the signal was heterogenous. This may be plausible if the TiBcs in tumors of individual APCmin/+ mice are polyclonal and produce Abs against various (neo)antigens in the tumors with various affinities. This notion has now been described in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript (page 25, line 511~517).

Comment 4: In Figures 2D, 4B and 4C, please specify the origins of antibodies and tissue sections. Were they always derived from the same individual? Is it already widely accepted that any APCmin/+ mice express the same tumor antigen and produce the antibodies against the same antigen? Individual difference should be considered or discussed.

Our response: In the former Figs 2D, 4B, 4C, the origins of iGB cells producing Abs and those of tissue sections were different. In the corresponding new Figs 2E, 4A, 4B, as well as in the new Figs 3, Abs were derived form TiBc-iGB cells originated from mixed TiBcs of three APCmin/+ mice, or from Int. B-iGB cells originated from mixed intestinal B cells of three APC+/+ mice. The tissue sections and extracts for Western blotting were from individuals that were different from the origins of the Abs.

As far as we know, no tumor antigens recognized by any antibodies produced in APCmin/+ mice have been reported, and we are the first to derive Abs from TiBc in the tumor of APCmin/+ mice. Therefore, it is totally unknown whether individual APCmin/+ mice or even individual tumors in the same mouse express the same tumor antigens for antibodies. In this regard, the ~20 kD protein expressed in the tumors of APCmin/+ mice detected by the sera of mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells (originated from different individuals) implies that the presence of a tumor antigen commonly recognized by TiBcs of individual APCmin/+ mice. Such common neo-antigens can be generated by frequent site-specific point mutations, tumor-specific protein modifications, ectopic expression of silent genes, or shared frameshift mutations that has recently been reported to be frequently found in some adenocarcinomas with mismatch repair deficiency and express immunogenic common neo-peptides in human patients (Cell 2020, 183:1634; [28]). This consideration has now been included in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript (page 25, line 520~536).

Comment 5: Figure 4C, please explain why IgM/IgA antibodies were ignored.

Our response: We have performed Western blotting using the same protein samples and the same set of primary Abs (sera) as in the new Fig 4B (corresponding to the former Fig 4C) with anti-IgA or anti-IgM Abs as the secondary Abs. As a result, no tumor-specific bands were selectively detected with the sera of mice injected with TiBc-iGB cells. Therefore, we have not included these data in the revised manuscript but deposited in the Supporting Information for reference.

Comment 6: In line 183, ‘mg/ml‘ should be ‘μg/ml’. In line 195, ‘6-mm-thick’ should be ‘6-μm-thick’.

Our response: We have corrected these errors.

Comment 7: This is a naïve question. Did TIBC-iGB cells successfully infiltrate into tumor? It would be better to have such data to convince the general readers.

Our response: We think that the transferred TiBc-iGB cells need not infiltrate into tumors to exert anti-tumor activity, as they differentiate into plasma cells somewhere such as the bone marrow and produce anti-tumor Abs, as we previously reported for iGB cells derived from spleen B cells ([13]; mentioned in page 23, line 474~475 in the revised manuscript). Therefore, we do not think that the suggested data is necessary.

Reviewer #2:

Functional roles of tumor-infiltrating T cells in tumor expansion or regression have been extensively investigated. However, their roles of tumor-infiltrating B cells are limited. In the previous study, the authors’ group has developed a system to efficiently expand primary B cells in vitro. Using this system, in this manuscript, Wang et al. investigate the effect of tumor-infiltrating B cells on tumor growth in vivo. Repeated injection of tumor-infiltrating B cells into Apcmin/+ mice dramatically prolongs their survival and reduces the size and numbers of tumors. Moreover, the authors show that numbers of IgG-positive cells appear in the tumor tissues of Apcmin/+ mice. Although the study presented here is interesting and deserves for publication, there are several concerns need to be addressed before publication. The followings are specific comments.

Major pints:

Comment 1: TIBCs does not appear to be appropriate for abbreviation of tumor-infiltrating B cells, since TIBCs are frequently used for abbreviation of total iron binding capacities. The reviewer recommends that the authors might use TiBcs instead of TIBCs (Linnebacher et al, Oncoimmunology, 1:1186-1188).

Our response: We have replaced all the ‘TIBCs’ with ‘TiBcs’ in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: In Figures 2D, 3E, and 4B, it is unclear whether B cells accumulate around the tumor tissues. The authors need to show more representative images of hematoxylin-eosin staining of normal and tumor tissues of the small intestines. Moreover, the authors need to perform immunohistochemistry using antibody against a specific marker of B cells (B220).

Our response: We have now replaced the former Figs 2D, 3E and 4B with the corresponding new Figs 2E, 3E, and 4A. Since it was difficult to identify B cells in the hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining images, we have performed immunofluorescent staining with anti-B220 antibody of intestinal tissue including normal and tumor areas of APCmin/+ mice. As shown in the new Figs 2A, small clusters of B cells sparsely scattered mainly in the interstitial regions of the tumor and in the lamina propria of normal mucosa. We have stated this in the revised manuscript (page 16, line 304-306).

Comment 3: In Figures 2 to 4, the authors isolate and expand tumor-infiltrating B cells from Apcmin/+ mice. Since B cells also harbor Apc mutation, the authors need to discuss the possibility that the mutation of Apc gene might affect the function of TiBcs.

Our response: Although the heterozygous Apc gene mutation in B cells might affect some aspect of their function, we observed similar extents of proliferation, class switching, and Ab production between TiBc-iGB cells derived from APCmin/+ mice and Int.B-iGB cells from APC+/+ mice in our culture system (described in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript; page 24, line 488~491). We could not evaluate the in vivo growth of the transferred iGB cells or their differentiation into plasma cells since they are indistinguishable from the host B cells or plasma cells existing in far excess. In addition, we could not quantify the Abs produced from the iGB cells since they are indistinguishable from the Abs produced by the host mice (partly mentioned in the Discussion section; page 25, line 504~506). Therefore, it is almost impossible to assess the in vivo effect of the APC mutation on the iGB cells after transfer into mice. At least, lymphoma did not develop in the mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells, as supported by their better survival than the mice transferred with Int. B-iGB cells.

Comment 4: In Figures 2D and 4B, the immunofluorescent analysis of the tissues stained with the culture supernatants or murine sera is not conclusive. It is hard to speculate which cells, such as tumor cells, infiltrated B cells, or normal epithelial cells are stained with the antibodies. Thus, the authors need to show more representative images. Ideally, the authors might perform double immunostaining with the culture supernatant or murine sera along with antibodies against a specific marker of B cells (B220) and epithelial cells (E-cadherin).

Our response: We have performed again the immunofluorescent staining as shown in the new Figs 2E and 4A (corresponding the former 2D and 4B). Serial sections of intestines of APCmin/+ mice including normal and tumor area have been stained with the supernatants (Fig 2E) or the mouse sera (Fig 4A), or anti-E-Cadherin, together with DAPI. We think the resulting data have been significantly improved. Since the anti-E-Cadherin Ab that stained well among those we tested was of mouse IgG2a/κ (BD transduction laboratory 610182; cross-reacting to mouse E-Cadherin) that needs secondary anti-mouse IgG Ab, we could not do the multiple staining as the reviewer suggested. To show the presence of B cells in the tumor of APCmin/+ mice, we have performed double staining for B220 and E-Cadherin with DAPI as shown in the new Fig 2A (though the E-Cadherin staining was weak in this combination).

As stated in the response to the Comment 3 of the Reviewer #1, the signals did not appear to be restricted to a particular type of cells in the tumor, although the strength of the signal was heterogenous, in both experiments. This may be plausible if the TiBcs in tumors of individual APCmin/+ mice are polyclonal and produce Abs against various (neo)antigens in the tumors with various affinities. This notion has now been described in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript (page 25, line 511~517).

Comment 5: In Figure 3, the effect of injection of TiBcs on survival of Apcmin/+ mice appears to be dramatic. However, numbers of mice analyzed in Figure 3D are not sufficient to draw conclusion. To further verify the authors’ conclusion in Figure 3D, the authors need to increase numbers of mice (more than 4 or 5 mice per each group). It is unclear how injection of TiBcs reduces the size of tumors. To address this issue, the authors need to quantify numbers of tumor cells undergoing apoptosis (active caspase 3-positive cells) and numbers of proliferating tumor cells (Ki67-positive cells).

Our response: According to the reviewer’s requested, we have newly performed the experiment with increased number of mice (n=5 for the new Fig 3D), setting control mice transferred with iGB cells derived from normal intestinal B cells of APC+/+ mice (Int. B-iGB) or PBS alone (the same controls as in Fig 3B, C). The result clearly showed that injection of TiBc-iGB cells reduce the size of tumors in APCmin/+ mice (the new Fig 3D).

To address the mechanism, we have performed immunohistochemistry analysis of the tumors with Abs against active (cleaved) caspase 3 and Ki67. We could not quantify the number of positive cells because of their various and uneven distribution throughout the intestines, and we also think that the positive number would not always corelate with the effect on tumor cells because they do not include already dead and disappeared cells. Nevertheless, the result has demonstrated that active caspase 3 staining appears stronger and Ki67 staining weaker in the tumors of mice transferred with TiBc-iGB cells (the new Fig 3E), suggesting that the tumor cells were dying through apoptosis and their growth was inhibited by Abs produced from the transferred TiBc-iGB cells.

We have described this result in the Result section (page 20, line 394~397) and the method for the immunohistochemistry in the Materials and Methods section (page 12, line 227~239) in the revised manuscript.

Comment 6: In the Material and Methods and Figure legends, they have to describe how they performed the statistical analysis.

Our response: We have described about the method of statistical analysis in the Material and Methods section (page 13, line 250~254) and the relevant parts of the Figure legends of the revised manuscript.

Minor points:

1. In Figure 2A, the size of characters representing percentages of cell populations is very small. The authors need to change them to more larger ones.

Our response: We have enlarged the font size of the numbers and put them out of the windows in the new Fig 2B (corresponding to the former Fig 2A).

2. The authors need to include scale bars in all images of histological analysis.

Our response: We have included the scale bars in all the images in the new Figs 2A, 2E, 3E, and 4A.

3. In Materials and Methods, clone names or catalog numbers of the antibodies used in the study should be mentioned.

Our response: The clone names for the Abs have been included in Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript.

4. In Figure 4C, the authors need to include the results of Western blotting with anti-tubulin or beta-actin to ensure equal loading of each sample.

Our response: For the sample loading control, the Western blot has been re-probed with anti-GAPDH antibody that we have been using for that purpose.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-19053.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hiroyasu Nakano

5 Jan 2021

A novel cancer immunotherapy using tumor-infiltrating B cells in the APCmin/+ mouse model

PONE-D-20-19053R1

Dear Dr. Kitamura

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hiroyasu Nakano, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the revised version, the authors discussed all the raised points logically and well-discussed on limitations of experiments. Now it is ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Hiroyasu Nakano

7 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-19053R1

A novel cancer immunotherapy using tumor-infiltrating B cells in the APCmin/+ mouse model

Dear Dr. Kitamura:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Hiroyasu Nakano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset

    (XLSX)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    S1 File

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-19053.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES