Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0248903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248903

Immunotherapy-induced antibodies to endogenous retroviral envelope glycoprotein confer tumor protection in mice

Byong H Kang 1,2, Noor Momin 1,2, Kelly D Moynihan 1,2,3, Murillo Silva 1, Yingzhong Li 1,2, Darrell J Irvine 1,2,3,4,5, K Dane Wittrup 1,2,6,*
Editor: Joseph Najbauer7
PMCID: PMC8049297  PMID: 33857179

Abstract

Following curative immunotherapy of B16F10 tumors, ~60% of mice develop a strong antibody response against cell-surface tumor antigens. Their antisera confer prophylactic protection against intravenous challenge with B16F10 cells, and also cross-react with syngeneic and allogeneic tumor cell lines MC38, EL.4, 4T1, and CT26. We identified the envelope glycoprotein (env) of a murine endogenous retrovirus (ERV) as the antigen accounting for the majority of this humoral response. A systemically administered anti-env monoclonal antibody cloned from such a response protects against tumor challenge, and prophylactic vaccination against the env protein protects a majority of naive mice from tumor establishment following subcutaneous inoculation with B16F10 cells. These results suggest the potential for effective prophylactic vaccination against analogous HERV-K env expressed in numerous human cancers.

Introduction

Success of checkpoint blockade therapies in the past decade has clearly demonstrated the dominant role T cells play in an antitumor response and immunosurveillance [1, 2]. However, the functional role of B cells and antibodies (Abs) in cancer remains less clear [3, 4]. High expression levels of B cell signature genes correlated with improved survival in patients with melanoma, lung adenocarcinoma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, but with poor prognosis in patients with glioblastoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma [57]. In some mouse models, B cells have been shown to exert pro-tumor effects by promoting metastasis [8], angiogenesis [9], and contributing to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment [1012]. In most cases, however, they have been shown to be critical in supporting antitumor effects by augmenting T-cell responses [1317] and by producing anti-tumor Abs that can induce antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) [18] and enhance antigen presentation by dendritic cells [17].

To better understand effective humoral responses to cancer, we investigated anti-tumor Abs induced by curative immunotherapies in mouse models. Successful immunotherapies in mice mediate primary tumor rejection and exhibit protection from a secondary challenge, signifying successful formation of immunological memory [1921]. This protection has been shown to be mediated by not only cellular immune response but also humoral response against tumor cells [20, 22]. We have previously reported that immunotherapy-induced antibodies (iiAbs) from cured mice are able to recognize and bind multiple antigens on cognate tumor cells. Additionally, antisera from cured mice protect naive mice from an intravenous tumor challenge, indicating that the iiAbs alone are sufficiently protective in vivo [20]. Here, we observe that these iiAbs can recognize and delay the growth of heterologous tumor cells, strongly motivating the identification of their cognate antigens. We report that two of the recognized antigens are products of endogenous ecotropic murine leukemia virus (eMLV), with the envelope glycoprotein (env) of eMLV as the dominant cell-surface antigen targeted by the iiAbs in cured mice. Through the use of an anti-env monoclonal antibody (mAb) and subunit vaccination, we show that the Ab response against eMLV env confers tumor protection.

Materials and methods

Mice

C57BL/6NTac mice (6–9 weeks old) were purchased from Taconic. All animal work was conducted under the approval of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Division of Comparative Medicine in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines.

Cells

B16F10, CT26, EL.4, EMT6, and 4T1 cells were purchased from ATCC American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). KP 2677 cells were a gift from T. Jacks (MIT). MC38 cells were a gift from J. Schlom (National Cancer Institute). TC-1 cells were a gift from T.C. Wu (Johns Hopkins University). B16F10, EL.4, EMT6, KP2677, and MC38 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (ATCC) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (HI FBS; Life Technologies), 100 units/ml penicillin, and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Life Technologies). CT26, TC-1, and 4T1 cells were cultured in RPMI (ATCC) supplemented with 10% HI FBS, 100 units/ml penicillin, and 100 μg/ml streptomycin. All tumor cell lines were cultured at 37°C and 5% CO2. HEK-293F cells were purchased from Life Technologies and cultured in FreeStyle 293 Expression Medium (Life Technologies) at 37°C and 8% CO2.

Tumor inoculation and treatments

Mice were anesthetized with 3% isoflurane in 100% oxygen at 0.5 L/min for tumor inoculation and treatments. For initial treatment with the AIPV regimen, an inoculum of 106 B16F10 cells was injected s.c. on the flank of mice in 50 μl sterile PBS. Mice were administered TA99 (100 μg; i.p.), MSA-IL2 (30 μg; i.p.), anti-PD-1 (RMP1-14, BioXCell, 200 μg, i.p.), amph-CpG (1.24 nmol; s.c.), and amph-peptide (20 μg, s.c.) on days 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36. 4

For the heterologous challenge study, mice were first given a secondary challenge of 105 B16F10 cells inoculated on the opposite flank on week 12. On week 24, an inoculum of 105 MC38 cells was injected s.c. on the back of mice in 50 μl sterile PBS.

For the prophylactic monotherapy study, mice were administered TA99 or 1E4.2.1 (200 μg; i.p.) on days –1, 2, 5, 8, and 11. An inoculum of 105 B16F10 cells was injected s.c. on the flank of mice in 50 μl sterile PBS on day 0.

Tumor size was measured as an area (longest dimension × perpendicular dimension) every 2–3 days, and mice were euthanized with 100% CO2 at 3 L/min followed by cervical dislocation when tumor area exceeded 100 mm2. No unexpected mortality or adverse events were observed.

Flow cytometry

Abs to mouse IgG1 (RMG1-1), IgG2a/c (RMG2a-62), IgG2b (RMG2b-1), IgG3 (RMG3-1) were purchased from BioLegend and labeled with Alexa Fluor 647 NHS Ester (Life Technologies). For labeling mouse cell lines, adherent cells were dissociated from flasks with CellStripper (Corning), washed in PBS (Corning) with 1% BSA (Sigma; PBSA), incubated with 1% mouse sera or 10 μg/ml Ab for 1 h on ice with or without the presence of 50 μg/ml soluble monomeric gp70 or gag, then with 1 μg/ml secondary Ab for 30 min on ice. Viability was assessed by PI or DAPI staining. Cells were analyzed using BD FACS LSR II, BD FACSCanto, and BD Accuri flow cytometers, and data were analyzed using FlowJo.

Membrane protein extraction

Membrane proteins of B16F10 and MC38 cells were extracted with Plasma Membrane Protein Extraction Kit (Abcam) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The membrane protein pellet was solubilized in Pierce IP Lysis Buffer (Thermo Fisher) with 1x cOmplete Protease Inhibitor (Roche) for 1D immunoblotting and in 7M urea (Sigma), 2M thiourea (Sigma), 2% CHAPS (Sigma), 50 mM DTT (Sigma), and 1% ZOOM Carrier Ampholytes (Thermo Fisher) for 2D immunoblotting.

Serum immunoblot

Sera were collected in MiniCollect Serum Separator tubes (Greiner Bio-One). Abs to mouse IgG2a/c and IgG2b were labeled with IRDye 800CW NHS Ester (LI-COR). Twenty μg/well of membrane proteins were run on reducing NuPAGE 4–12% Bis-Tris gels (Life Technologies) in MES buffer and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes with iBlot (Life Technologies). After blocking with blocking buffer (0.5x Odyssey Blocking Buffer in TBS; LI-COR) for 1 h at room temperature, membranes were incubated with serum diluted 1:1000 in blocking buffer overnight at 4°C. Membranes were probed with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG Abs diluted 1:2500 in blocking buffer for 1 h at room temperature and imaged on a LI-COR Odyssey Infrared Imaging System.

2D immunoblot

Standard proteins BSA, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and equine myoglobin (Sigma) were biotinylated with NHS-LC-Biotin (Life Technologies). Each ZOOM IPG Strip pH 3–10NL or pH 4.5–5.5 (Life Technologies) was hydrated with 100 μg membrane proteins with or without 0.5 μg of each standard protein in a ZOOM IPGRunner Cassette (Life Technologies) overnight at room temperature. ZOOM IPGRunner Mini-Cell (Life Technologies) was assembled according to the manufacturer’s instructions and isoelectric focusing was performed at 175 V for 15 min, 175–2000 V ramp for 45 min, and 2000 V for 1 h. IPG strips were equilibrated with 1X NuPAGE LDS Sample Buffer with 50 mM DTT for 15 min, then with 1X NuPAGE LDS Sample Buffer with 125 mM iodoacetamide for 15 min. Equilibrated IPG strips were run on NuPAGE 4–12% Bis-Tris ZOOM gels in MES buffer. Gels were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes with iBlot at 20 V for 2 min 20 s for partial transfer of ~25 kDa proteins and for 3 min or 3 min 30 s for ~80 kDa proteins. Membranes were probed with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated streptavidin for fluorescent imaging. For chromogenic immunoblot, membranes were probed with anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs biotinylated with NHS-LC-Biotin (Life Technologies), then with HRP-conjugated streptavidin (R&D Systems), and developed with 1-Step TMB-Blotting Substrate Solution (Thermo Fisher).

Silver stain and mass spectrometry

Gels were silver stained with Pierce Silver Stain for Mass Spectrometry (Thermo Fisher) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, except that they were incubated in silver stain for 15 minutes. Silver stained gels were overlaid on chromogenic immunoblots to identify and excise the spots of interest on the gels. Excised gels were digested with trypsin into polypeptide fragments and analyzed by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).

Protein and vaccine production

Therapeutic proteins and vaccines were produced as described [20]. Total RNA was isolated from B16F10 cells with RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen) and reverse transcribed with SuperScript III RT and random primers (Invitrogen) to synthesize B16F10 first-strand cDNA. eMLV env and gag sequences were amplified from B16F10 first-strand cDNA. eMLV env monomeric gp70 with a C-terminal His tag was cloned into the gWIZ vector (Gelantis) by Gibson assembly and produced by transiently transfecting HEK293F cells with the plasmid and polyethylenimine. The RBD was cloned by site-directed mutagenesis (NEB) and produced as gp70. Gag was expressed as a SUMO fusion using the pE-SUMOpro vector (LifeSensors) in Rosetta-gami 2 (DE) competent cells. Heavy and light chains of anti-env Abs were separately cloned into the gWIZ vector and anti-env Abs were produced by transiently co-transfecting HEK293F cells as above. His-tagged proteins were purified using TALON Metal Affinity Resin (Takara) and Abs were purified using rProtein A Sepharose Fast Flow resin (GE Healthcare). Endotoxin levels were below 0.1 total EU/dose as measured by the QCL-1000 chromogenic LAL assay (Lonza).

Single B cell sorting

Spleen, inguinal and axillary lymph nodes, and femoral bone marrow were harvested from a mouse with anti-env Abs and single-cell dissociated as described [23]. Cells were labeled with fluorescent anti-B220, anti-mouse IgG2b, anti-mouse IgG2a/c, and monomeric gp70. Viable cells positive for B220, IgG2b or IgG2c, and gp70 were analyzed on BD FACSAria II and single-cell sorted into 96-well PCR plates containing lysis buffer with RNasin Plus RNAse inhibitor (Promega). After reverse transcription, heavy and light variable regions were amplified by semi-nested PCR as described [24].

Cryo-fluorescence tomography

1E4 was labeled with Alexa Fluor 750 NHS Ester (Life Technologies) and 500 μg was intravenously injected into a naive mouse bearing a B16F10 tumor. Forty-eight hours later, the mouse was euthanized and fast frozen in hexane with dry ice. Coronal cryosectioning and white-light imaging were performed by EMIT using a Xerra imager. Following each sequential removal of 50 μm thick slices, the tissue-embedded block was imaged at 30 μm in-plane resolution. A 3D image volume of the mouse was generated through multiplanar reformation using 3D Slicer software for anatomic visualization.

Generation of the env-knockdown B16F10

sgRNA candidates against eMLV env were designed with GPP sgRNA Designer (Broad Institute) and 5 were cloned into the pSpCas9(BB)-2A-GFP vector. B16F10 cells were seeded to ~40% confluency a day before were transiently transfected with the plasmid and Lipofectamine 2000 (Life Technologies). Two days after the transfection, the cells were dissociated and live GFP+ cells were sorted on BD FACSAria II and expanded. Upon expansion, the cells were labeled with Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated 1E4 or 1E4.2.1 to sort negative populations. Negative selection was performed 3 more times to enrich the population negative for the cell-surface env expression. B16F10 cells knocked down of env with the sgRNA sequence 5’-TGGAGACCGAGAAACGGTGT-3’ were used for flow cytometry experiments.

scFv affinity-maturation by yeast surface display

Variable regions of 1E4 heavy and light chains were cloned as an scFv into the pCTCON2 vector and expressed on yeast. Yeast cells were incubated with biotinylated monomeric gp70 and chicken anti-c-myc Ab (Exalpha), washed, stained with Alexa-Fluor-488-conjugated streptavidin and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated anti-chicken IgG secondary Ab (Invitrogen), and analyzed by flow cytometry. The affinity of 1E4 scFv was improved by two rounds of affinity maturation as previously described [2527], with each round consisting of error-prone PCR and two to three rounds enrichment by FACS.

Prophylactic vaccine study

ISCOM-like saponin adjuvant incorporating MPLA was prepared as described [28]. Naive mice were vaccinated s.c. at the tail base with 10 μg RBD adjuvanted with 5 μg adjuvant on weeks 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Two to three weeks after each vaccination, sera were collected to analyze Ab responses to gp70. An inoculum of 105 B16F10 cells was injected s.c. on the flank of mice in 50 μl sterile PBS on week 18.

Statistical analysis

Sample sizes were chosen based on previous experiments such that appropriate statistical tests could yield significant results. Statistical analysis was performed using the GraphPad Prism software. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared by log-rank Mantel-Cox test.

Results

iiAbs in cured mice recognize heterologous tumor cell lines

We have previously observed that the combination immunotherapy termed AIPV (short for anti-tumor-associated-antigen [anti-TAA] Ab, extended-half-life interleukin-2, anti-PD-1 Ab, and amphiphile vaccine) causes robust tumor rejection and immunological memory in several mouse models resulting in successful rejection of a secondary subcutaneous rechallenge. This combination therapy induced antisera that were able to recognize cognate tumor cells and protect naive mice from intravenous B16F10 challenge [20]. Surprisingly, we observed that the iiAbs of IgG isotype in ~60% mice cured of B16F10 were able to bind not only cognate tumor cells, but also heterologous tumor cells, including syngeneic tumor cells (Fig 1A) of C57BL/6 background and allogeneic tumor cells of BALB/c background (Fig 1B). We observed that these class-switched Abs were predominantly of IgG2b and IgG2c isotypes, which are the most activating isotypes in C57BL/6 mice [29] (S1 Fig). We tested whether this broad cell-line specificity results in the control of heterologous tumors by inoculating MC38 in B16F10-cured mice that had rejected a secondary subcutaneous challenge. While we did not observe complete rejection, there was a significant growth delay compared to age-matched controls (Fig 1C). To better understand the specificities of these iiAbs, membrane proteins were isolated from B16F10 and MC38 cells and immunoblotted with the sera from mice that rejected a secondary challenge (Fig 1D). The presence of multiple detected antigens distinctive from TRP1, the antigen for anti-TAA mAb TA99 used in the therapy, indicated antigen spreading had occurred during therapy. However, the shared specificities between different cured mice, as well as between B16F10 and MC38 cells, suggested that the convergence of secondary epitopes to a handful of targets had also occurred. We sought to identify the targets of immunological memory as potentially exploitable universal tumor-agnostic antigens for novel immunotherapy.

Fig 1. iiAbs in cured mice cross-react with heterologous mouse tumor cell lines.

Fig 1

The indicated (A) syngeneic and (B) allogeneic tumor cells were incubated with 1% serum of AIPV-treated mice that had previous rejected B16F10 or naive mice. The cells were washed, stained with Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated anti-mouse IgG secondary Ab, and analyzed by flow cytometry. (C) Age-matched mice (n = 5) and mice that were cured of B16F10 and rejected secondary challenge (n = 5) were inoculated with 105 MC38 cells and left untreated. (D) B16F10 (B) and MC38 (M) membrane proteins were immunoblotted with AIPV serum (CM# for each cured mouse), naive serum (N), or TA99 and detected with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs. *P < 0.05.

eMLV env and gag are targeted by the iiAbs

We took advantage of the strong signal over background observed on immunoblots and developed a 2D-gel-based technique to identify the targets of the iiAbs (Fig 2A). Two-dimensional gels have been a powerful tool in maximizing separation between different proteins though its recent application has been limited to 2D DIGE [30] due to inherent gel-to-gel variability. Using this technique, we first ran B16F10 or MC38 membrane proteins (with biotinylated standard proteins for 2D gels with a large pH gradient) on a 2D gel to further separate potential targets (Fig 2B). We empirically optimized the transfer conditions for different molecular weight proteins, identifying a transfer time and voltage for keeping proteins roughly equal on both blotting membrane and the gel. Then, the remaining gel was silver-stained to maximize the signal, and the membrane was chromogenically immunoblotted with serum. Using the standard proteins as landmarks, we overlaid the silver-stained gel over the chromogenic immunoblot to locate the spots of interests on the gel for identification by mass spectrometry (Fig 2C and 2D). Since the signal is lowered due to separation in another dimension, we sought to identify the targets of two sera that showed the strongest signal on 1D immunoblots (Fig 1D). For each serum, its respective target existed in multiple isoforms with different isoelectric points, such that multiple spots could be excised to identify peptides in common (S2 and S3 Figs). These targets were identified by mass spectrometry to be env and gag of the endogenous ecotropic murine leukemia virus (eMLV), an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) found in C57BL/6 mice. It should be noted that this identification required searching for peptide sequences in the Uniprot or full RefSeq database without designating any species, as RefSeq database for Mus musculus does not include endogenous retroviral sequences (S1 and S2 Tables). Awareness of this potential blind spot in database annotation could be critical in the burgeoning field of identifying alternative tumor-specific antigens [31]. The extracellular domain of env (gp70 or SU) and gag were produced recombinantly and immunoblotting with corresponding serum confirmed their specificity (Fig 3A).

Fig 2. Modified 2D immunoblotting allows for the identification of tumor antigens.

Fig 2

(A) The schematic describes the workflow to partially transfer a 2D gel and overlay silver-stained gel on chromogenic immunoblot to identify the spots of interest. (B) B16F10 membrane proteins and biotinylated BSA, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and equine hemoglobin were immunoblotted with CM7 serum and detected with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs (green) and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated streptavidin (red). (C) Identical sample in (B) was partially transferred and chromogenically detected with biotinylated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and HRP-conjugated streptavidin. (D) The gel remaining after the partial transfer was silver-stained and overlaid on the chromogenic immunoblot. Red boxes indicate the spots of interest.

Fig 3. eMLV gp70 is the dominant cell-surface antigen.

Fig 3

(A) eMLV gp70 and gag were recombinantly expressed and immunoblotted with CM6 and CM7 sera and detected as in Fig 1D. (B) B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum or 10 μg/ml TA99 in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 or gag and analyzed as in Fig 1A. (C) B16F10 or B16F10 envKO cells were incubated with 1% serum or 10 μg/ml TA99 or 1E4 and analyzed as in Fig 1A.

eMLV env is the cell-surface antigen targeted by the iiAbs

We next sought to determine whether env or gag are cell-surface antigens on the tumor cells. We first tested whether soluble monomeric gp70 or gag could compete against the iiAbs binding B16F10 cells. Gp70, but not gag, showed marked competition for antiserum binding by flow cytometry (Fig 3B). In fact, all of the sera with reactivity to B16F10 cells were competed by recombinant gp70 (S4 Fig), indicating that env is an immunodominant cell-surface antigen. We also tested sera of mice that were cured of B16F10 with a different therapeutic regimen (TA99 and four different constructs of intratumorally injected MSA-IL2) and found that all of the sera showing reactivity to B16F10 were competed by gp70 (S5A Fig). Additionally, we tested sera of mice cured of CT26 by intratumoral treatment with self-replicating RNAs encoding IL-12 [32] and those that showed cross-reactivity to B16F10 were also competed by gp70 (S5B Fig). This indicated that an anti-env Ab response is not unique to the AIPV therapy, and may likely be induced in other curative immunotherapies. We further tested whether the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of gp70 could compete against the iiAbs binding B16F10 cells. We found that the RBD could compete similarly to gp70, indicating that the RBD portion of gp70 contains predominant epitopes (S6 Fig). To conclusively determine whether there are other cell-surface antigens contributing to the reactivity of the iiAbs, we first sought to isolate anti-env mAbs. We harvested primary and secondary lymphoid organs from an AIPV-treated mouse and single-cell sorted memory B cell populations able to bind monomeric gp70 to express and test anti-env mAbs. One clone termed 1E4 with IgG2c isotype showed the strongest apparent affinity to B16F10 cells at a binding constant (Kd) of around 25 nM (S7 Fig). We then created a B16F10 cell line with the env knocked down by transient expression of CRISPR-Cas9 (B16F10 envKD) and negative selection with 1E4. Strikingly, all of the sera that showed reactivity to B16F10 did not show any binding to B16F10 envKD cells (Fig 3C, S8 Fig). eMLV env has been previously identified as a tumor antigen [3335], containing T-cell antigens able to induce protective immune responses [3638]. One of the peptide antigens found in the transmembrane region of eMLV, p15E, was recently found to be immunodominant in mice bearing MC38 tumors with the use of a knockout cell line [39]. Similarly, by constructing the envKD cell line, we conclusively demonstrated that eMLV env is the primary cell-surface antigen recognized by iiAbs.

Anti-env mAb confers intravenous challenge protection

We next explored whether anti-env mAbs can protect mice from intravenous tumor challenge. As expected, 1E4 showed reactivity to other tumor cell lines tested, including MC38, EL.4, CT26, and 4T1; however it did not bind EMT6, KP2677, and TC-1 (Fig 4A). Based on our finding that the iiAbs in AIPV-treated mice primarily target gp70, we tested whether 1E4 is protective. Similarly to serum from AIPV-treated mice, 1E4 was able to protect naive mice against intravenous B16F10 challenge (Fig 4B), indicating that anti-env Abs in AIPV-treated mice would be capable of contributing to protection [20]. To determine whether 1E4 was specifically targeting tumor cells, we intravenously injected fluorescently-labeled 1E4 into a mouse bearing a B16F10 tumor. Two days later, the mouse was sacrificed and the whole animal was imaged by cryo-fluorescence tomography. We detected a strong signal in the tumor, indicating that 1E4 effectively targeted tumor cells (Fig 4C). To further improve the function of 1E4, the single-chain variable domain (scFv) of 1E4 was affinity-matured by yeast surface display using monomeric gp70 as the antigen. While there was a marked improvement in the affinity of scFv against gp70, there was only a modest improvement in the apparent affinity of mAb to the cell-surface antigen (S7 and S9 Figs). This is likely due to the inability of the monomeric gp70 to recapitulate the conformational epitopes present on the native env trimer. Regardless, we used the affinity-matured clone termed 1E4.2.1 with an affinity at 7.0 nM in subsequent experiments.

Fig 4. Anti-env Ab is cross-reactive and protective against intravenous B16F10 challenge.

Fig 4

(A) Indicated cells were incubated with 10 μg/ml 1E4 and analyzed as in Fig 1A. (B) TA99 or 1E4 was injected i.p. into naive mice 6 h before intravenous challenge of 2.5 × 105 B16F10 cells. Shown are the images of lungs isolated 17 d after the challenge. (C) Five hundred micrograms of Alexa-Fluor-750 labeled 1E4 was intravenously injected into a mouse bearing a B16F10 tumor. Shown is a representative cryo-fluorescence tomography image 48 h after the injection.

Pre-existing anti-env Ab protects against subcutaneous tumor challenge

As seen previously, anti-tumor Ab treatment alone is ineffective against established B16F10 tumors [20]. However, given the observed efficacy in the intravenous tumor challenge, we investigated whether pre-existing anti-env Abs can reject more challenging subcutaneous tumors. To test this, starting one day before subcutaneous inoculation of 105 B16F10 cells (inoculum of a secondary subcutaneous challenge), we administered five doses of 1E4.2.1 every three days. We observed that two out of five mice were completely tumor-free (Fig 5A), indicating that circulating 1E4.2.1 was capable of clearing the inoculum before it was able to implant. We suspected that the infusion of anti-env mAb may not fully mimic anti-env responses that are likely polyclonal in AIPV-treated mice. Therefore, we vaccinated mice with the RBD protein and adjuvant to induce a polyclonal anti-env Ab response. After three boosts, we observed that the serum Abs of vaccinated mice recognized B16F10 as well as MC38 cells by flow cytometry (S10 Fig). After one additional boost, vaccinated mice were subcutaneously challenged with 105 B16F10 cells. We observed that four out of five mice were tumor-free (Fig 5B) and the one vaccinated mouse that succumbed to tumor burden had a low level of anti-env Abs against B16F10 cells (S9 Fig). This prophylactic vaccine study indicates that a strong anti-env Ab response alone can be sufficient to protect mice from a subcutaneous tumor challenge.

Fig 5. Anti-env Ab response is protective against subcutaneous B16F10 challenge.

Fig 5

(A) Naive mice were inoculated with 105 B16F10 cells on day 0 and treated with 200 μg TA99 (n = 5), 1E4.2.1 (n = 5), or PBS (n = 5) on days -1, 2, 5, 8, 11. Arrows indicate treatment points. Shown are tumor area curves and overall survival. (B) Age-matched mice (n = 5) and naive mice vaccinated five times with 10 μg RBD and 5 μg saponin-MPLA nanoparticles (n = 5) were challenged with 105 B16F10 cells. Shown are tumor area curves and overall survival. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01.

Discussion

To date, strategies to improve cancer immunotherapies have largely focused on T cells [2, 40]; however, there is a growing recognition that B cells contribute to anti-tumor immunity [41, 42]. To better understand an effective antitumor humoral response, we characterized anti-tumor Abs found to be protective in mice cured by immunotherapy. We observed that the iiAbs in cured mice cross-react with heterologous tumors and are predominantly of IgG2b and IgG2c, the major isotypes that mediate ADCC [29, 43]. Although the original AIPV therapy targeted TRP1 and TRP2, we found that the humoral response spread to primarily one secondary tumor antigen, eMLV env. This humoral response was found to be protective, as anti-env Abs lead to protection following intravenous challenge as well as subcutaneous challenge. Together, this suggests that a strong humoral response alone can mediate tumor control, at least in the early stages of tumorigenesis.

Our finding has potential implications for human cancer, as around 8% of the human genome consists of ERV genes [44]. ERV expression is known to be suppressed by epigenetic mechanisms in healthy cells [45], but has been shown to be reactivated in tumor cells [46, 47]. Just as eMLV is expressed by different mouse cell lines, human ERV-K (HERV-K) is expressed by numerous human tumors [48]. However, a key distinction between human and murine ERVs is that eMLV can reconstitute infectious virions [49] that can negatively impact the murine immune system [49, 50], suggesting that successful immunotherapies must mount both antitumor and antiviral immune responses. By contrast, there has been no report of replication-competent HERV in humans [51], suggesting that cell-surface env of HERV-K may be a bona fide therapeutic target. Thus far, gene silencing [52], Ab therapy [53], and CAR-T therapy [54, 55] against HERV-K have shown modest effects in tumor control in preclinical studies. However, these experiments were conducted in immunocompromised mice, thereby not incorporating critical effector-function, tumor microenvironment repolarization, and immune-complex driven enhancement of antigen cross presentation, all shown in many previous studies to significantly amplify self-vaccinal T cell responses [56].

Our work also exposes yet another limitation of mouse models, since mouse strains commonly used for cancer research encode for a particularly immunodominant antigen. We observed that humoral response against eMLV env is predominant in curative immunotherapies and T-cell response against eMLV env was shown to be similarly immunodominant in mouse models [39, 57]. Although convergent humoral responses have been observed in humans [58], they are against multiple tumor antigens, in stark contrast to the focused humoral response we observed in mice. This discrepancy suggests that mouse strains widely used are inadequately modeling antigen spreading in humans and the scientific community may benefit from using mice knocked out of Emv2, the gene element encoding eMLV, and their concomitant syngeneic cell lines.

Recently, human Abs with cross-reactivity to non-autologous tumors and ability to control syngeneic mouse tumor cells have been identified from non-progressing cancer patients [58]. Although the identities of all shared antigens have not been made public, this study parallels our observation of cross-reactive Abs with protective efficacy. These findings call for further serological studies to better understand humoral responses in cancer patients in remission. Our work (in particular the protective vaccination result in Fig 5B) also raises the provocative question as to whether vaccination against shared antigens such as env could lead to cancer prophylaxis.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Anti-tumor iiAbs are predominantly IgG2b and IgG2c isotypes.

B16F10 and MC38 cells were incubated with indicated sera, stained with Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated monoclonal Abs against different mouse IgG isotype, and analyzed by flow cytometry.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Identification of gag by modified 2D immunoblotting.

(A) MC38 membrane proteins and biotinylated BSA, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and equine hemoglobin were immunoblotted with CM7 serum and detected with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated streptavidin. (B) Identical sample in (A) was partially transferred and chromogenically detected with biotinylated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and HRP-conjugated streptavidin. (C) The gel remaining after the partial transfer was silver-stained and overlaid on the chromogenic immunoblot. Red boxes indicate the spots of interest.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Identification of env by modified 2D immunoblotting.

(A) B16F10 membrane proteins were immunoblotted with CM6 serum and detected with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs. (B) Identical sample in (A) was partially transferred and chromogenically detected with biotinylated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and HRP-conjugated streptavidin. (C) The gel remaining after the partial transfer was silver-stained and overlaid on the chromogenic immunoblot. Red boxes indicate the spots of interest.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. All of antisera reactive to B16F10 are competed by gp70.

B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum or 10 μg/ml TA99 in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 and analyzed as in Fig 3B.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Other curative immunotherapies induce anti-env Ab response.

(A,B) B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum collected from mice that received indicated immunotherapies in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 and analyzed as in Fig 3B.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. RBD contains major epitopes.

B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 or RBD and analyzed as in Fig 3B.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. 1E4 binds to B16F10 at a nanomolar affinity.

B16F10 cells were incubated with soluble 1E4 and affinity-matured clones at indicated concentrations and analyzed as in Fig 1A.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. None of the antisera bind to B16F10 envKO cells.

B16F10 or B16F10 envKO cells were incubated with 1% serum and analyzed as in Fig 1A.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Affinity maturation of 1E4.

Yeast cells expressing scFv’s of 1E4 and affinity-matured clones were were incubated with chicken anti-c-myc Ab and biotinylated gp70 at indicated concentrations, washed, stained with Alexa-Fluor-488-conjugated streptavidin and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated anti-chicken IgG secondary Ab, and analyzed by flow cytometry.

(TIF)

S10 Fig. Subunit vaccination with RBD induces anti-env Abs able to bind B16F10 and MC38.

Naive mice were vaccinated on weeks 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 with RBD adjuvanted with saponin-MPLA nanoparticles (R# for each RBD-vaccinated mouse) and serum was collected on indicated weeks. B16F10 and MC38 cells were incubated with 1% serum, stained with Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated anti-mouse IgG or IgG2b and IgG2c, and analyzed by flow cytometry. *Asterisk denotes the mouse that succumbed to the tumor challenge.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Search results of the peptides identified in Fig 2D and S2C Fig. Data was searched against the (A) RefSeq Mus musculus database and (B) SwissProt/UniProt database. Orange and b.

lue colors indicate independent experiments. Highlighted row indicates the antigen identified.

(TIF)

S2 Table. Search results of the peptides identified in S3C Fig.

Data was searched against the (A) RefSeq Mus musculus database and (B) SwissProt/UniProt database. Orange and blue colors indicate independent experiments. Highlighted row indicates the antigen identified.

(TIF)

S1 Raw images. Raw immunoblot and gel images files.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Koch Institute’s Swanson Biotechnology Center for technical support. We thank N. Mehta for assistance in method development. We thank M. Burger for assistance in generating the knockdown cell line. We thank E. Spooner for providing protein mass spectrometry services. We thank M. Farhoud at Emit Imaging for performing cryo-fluorescence tomography.

Data Availability

All data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, the Koch Institute Frontier Research Program, the Kathy and Curt Marble Cancer Research Fund, and the Mayo Clinic – Koch Institute Cancer Solutions Team Grant funding, and the National Cancer Institute, CA174795.

References

  • 1.Schumacher TN, Schreiber RD. Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science. 2015. pp. 69–74. 10.1126/science.aaa4971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wei SC, Levine JH, Cogdill AP, Zhao Y, Anang N-AAS, Andrews MC, et al. Distinct Cellular Mechanisms Underlie Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Blockade. Cell. 2017;170: 1120–1133.e17. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yuen GJ, Demissie E, Pillai S. B Lymphocytes and Cancer: A Love–Hate Relationship. Trends in Cancer. 2016. pp. 747–757. 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chiaruttini G, Mele S, Opzoomer J, Crescioli S, Ilieva KM, Lacy KE, et al. B cells and the humoral response in melanoma: The overlooked players of the tumor microenvironment. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6: e1294296. 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1294296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Iglesia MD, Parker JS, Hoadley KA, Serody JS, Perou CM, Vincent BG. Genomic Analysis of Immune Cell Infiltrates Across 11 Tumor Types. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108. 10.1093/jnci/djw144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.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: 549–555. 10.1038/s41586-019-1922-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Petitprez F, de Reyniès A, Keung EZ, Chen TW-W, Sun C-M, Calderaro J, et al. B cells are associated with survival and immunotherapy response in sarcoma. Nature. 2020;577: 556–560. 10.1038/s41586-019-1906-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ruddell A, Harrell MI, Furuya M, Kirschbaum SB, Iritani BM. B lymphocytes promote lymphogenous metastasis of lymphoma and melanoma. Neoplasia. 2011;13: 748–757. 10.1593/neo.11756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yang C, Lee H, Pal S, Jove V, Deng J, Zhang W, et al. B cells promote tumor progression via STAT3 regulated-angiogenesis. PLoS One. 2013;8: e64159. 10.1371/journal.pone.0064159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Affara NI, Ruffell B, Medler TR, Gunderson AJ, Johansson M, Bornstein S, et al. B cells regulate macrophage phenotype and response to chemotherapy in squamous carcinomas. Cancer Cell. 2014;25: 809–821. 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.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: 94–98. 10.1038/nature14395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kobayashi T, Oishi K, Okamura A, Maeda S, Komuro A, Hamaguchi Y, et al. Regulatory B1a Cells Suppress Melanoma Tumor Immunity via IL-10 Production and Inhibiting T Helper Type 1 Cytokine Production in Tumor-Infiltrating CD8 T Cells. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2019. pp. 1535–1544.e1. 10.1016/j.jid.2019.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.DiLillo DJ, Yanaba K, Tedder TF. B cells are required for optimal CD4+ and CD8+ T cell tumor immunity: therapeutic B cell depletion enhances B16 melanoma growth in mice. J Immunol. 2010;184: 4006–4016. 10.4049/jimmunol.0903009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhou P, Qiu J, L’Italien L, Gu D, Hodges D, Chao C-C, et al. Mature B cells are critical to T-cell-mediated tumor immunity induced by an agonist anti-GITR monoclonal antibody. J Immunother. 2010;33: 789–797. 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181ee6ba9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Forte G, Sorrentino R, Montinaro A, Luciano A, Adcock IM, Maiolino P, et al. Inhibition of CD73 Improves B Cell-Mediated Anti-Tumor Immunity in a Mouse Model of Melanoma. The Journal of Immunology. 2012. pp. 2226–2233. 10.4049/jimmunol.1200744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kobayashi T, Hamaguchi Y, Hasegawa M, Fujimoto M, Takehara K, Matsushita T. B cells promote tumor immunity against B16F10 melanoma. Am J Pathol. 2014;184: 3120–3129. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Carmi Y, Spitzer MH, Linde IL, Burt BM, Prestwood TR, Perlman N, et al. Allogeneic IgG combined with dendritic cell stimuli induce antitumour T-cell immunity. Nature. 2015;521: 99–104. 10.1038/nature14424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gilbert AE, Karagiannis P, Dodev T, Koers A, Lacy K, Josephs DH, et al. Monitoring the Systemic Human Memory B Cell Compartment of Melanoma Patients for Anti-Tumor IgG Antibodies. PLoS ONE. 2011. p. e19330. 10.1371/journal.pone.0019330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Victor CT-S, Rech AJ, Maity A, Rengan R, Pauken KE, Stelekati E, et al. Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer. Nature. 2015. pp. 373–377. 10.1038/nature14292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moynihan KD, Opel CF, Szeto GL, Tzeng A, Zhu EF, Engreitz JM, et al. Eradication of large established tumors in mice by combination immunotherapy that engages innate and adaptive immune responses. Nat Med. 2016;22: 1402–1410. 10.1038/nm.4200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Momin N, Mehta NK, Bennett NR, Ma L, Palmeri JR, Chinn MM, et al. Anchoring of intratumorally administered cytokines to collagen safely potentiates systemic cancer immunotherapy. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw2614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tzeng A, Kauke MJ, Zhu EF, Moynihan KD, Opel CF, Yang NJ, et al. Temporally Programmed CD8α DC Activation Enhances Combination Cancer Immunotherapy. Cell Reports. 2016. pp. 2503–2511. 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.11.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhu EF, Gai SA, Opel CF, Kwan BH, Surana R, Mihm MC, et al. Synergistic innate and adaptive immune response to combination immunotherapy with anti-tumor antigen antibodies and extended serum half-life IL-2. Cancer Cell. 2015;27: 489–501. 10.1016/j.ccell.2015.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tiller T, Busse CE, Wardemann H. Cloning and expression of murine Ig genes from single B cells. Journal of Immunological Methods. 2009. pp. 183–193. 10.1016/j.jim.2009.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chao G, Lau WL, Hackel BJ, Sazinsky SL, Lippow SM, Wittrup KD. Isolating and engineering human antibodies using yeast surface display. Nat Protoc. 2006;1: 755–768. 10.1038/nprot.2006.94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Van Deventer JA, Wittrup KD. Yeast Surface Display for Antibody Isolation: Library Construction, Library Screening, and Affinity Maturation. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2014. pp. 151–181. 10.1007/978-1-62703-992-5_10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Angelini A, Chen TF, de Picciotto S, Yang NJ, Tzeng A, Santos MS, et al. Protein Engineering and Selection Using Yeast Surface Display. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2015. pp. 3–36. 10.1007/978-1-4939-2748-7_1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Escolano A, Gristick HB, Abernathy ME, Merkenschlager J, Gautam R, Oliveira TY, et al. Immunization expands B cells specific to HIV-1 V3 glycan in mice and macaques. Nature. 2019;570: 468–473. 10.1038/s41586-019-1250-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nimmerjahn F, Lux A, Albert H, Woigk M, Lehmann C, Dudziak D, et al. FcγRIV deletion reveals its central role for IgG2a and IgG2b activity in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107: 19396–19401. 10.1073/pnas.1014515107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Viswanathan S, Unlü M, Minden JS. Two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis. Nat Protoc. 2006;1: 1351–1358. 10.1038/nprot.2006.234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Smith CC, Selitsky SR, Chai S, Armistead PM, Vincent BG, Serody JS. Alternative tumour-specific antigens. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19: 465–478. 10.1038/s41568-019-0162-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li Y, Su Z, Zhao W, Zhang X, Momin N, Zhang C, et al. Multifunctional oncolytic nanoparticles carrying therapeutic self-replicating RNA eliminate established tumors and prime systemic immunity. Nature Cancer. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Leong SP, Muller J, Yetter RA, Gorelik E, Takami T, Hearing VJ. Expression and modulation of a retrovirus-associated antigen by murine melanoma cells. Cancer Res. 1988;48: 4954–4958. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hayashi H, Matsubara H, Yokota T, Kuwabara I, Kanno M, Koseki H, et al. Molecular cloning and characterization of the gene encoding mouse melanoma antigen by cDNA library transfection. J Immunol. 1992;149: 1223–1229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hampton TA, Conry RM, Khazaeli MB, Shaw DR, Curiel DT, LoBuglio AF, et al. SEREX analysis for tumor antigen identification in a mouse model of adenocarcinoma. Cancer Gene Therapy. 2000. pp. 446–455. 10.1038/sj.cgt.7700124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.White HD, Roeder DA, Green WR. An immunodominant Kb-restricted peptide from the p15E transmembrane protein of endogenous ecotropic murine leukemia virus (MuLV) AKR623 that restores susceptibility of a tumor line to anti-AKR/Gross MuLV cytotoxic T lymphocytes. J Virol. 1994;68: 897–904. 10.1128/JVI.68.2.897-904.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Huang AY, Gulden PH, Woods AS, Thomas MC, Tong CD, Wang W, et al. The immunodominant major histocompatibility complex class I-restricted antigen of a murine colon tumor derives from an endogenous retroviral gene product. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93: 9730–9735. 10.1073/pnas.93.18.9730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kershaw MH, Hsu C, Mondesire W, Parker LL, Wang G, Overwijk WW, et al. Immunization against endogenous retroviral tumor-associated antigens. Cancer Res. 2001;61: 7920–7924. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ye X, Waite JC, Dhanik A, Gupta N, Zhong M, Adler C, et al. Endogenous retroviral proteins provide an immunodominant but not requisite antigen in a murine immunotherapy tumor model. OncoImmunology. 2020. p. 1758602. 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1758602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yadav M, Jhunjhunwala S, Phung QT, Lupardus P, Tanguay J, Bumbaca S, et al. Predicting immunogenic tumour mutations by combining mass spectrometry and exome sequencing. Nature. 2014;515: 572–576. 10.1038/nature14001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Colbeck EJ, Ager A, Gallimore A, Jones GW. Tertiary Lymphoid Structures in Cancer: Drivers of Antitumor Immunity, Immunosuppression, or Bystander Sentinels in Disease? Front Immunol. 2017;8: 1830. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sarvaria A, Madrigal JA, Saudemont A. B cell regulation in cancer and anti-tumor immunity. Cell Mol Immunol. 2017;14: 662–674. 10.1038/cmi.2017.35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nimmerjahn F, Ravetch JV. Divergent immunoglobulin g subclass activity through selective Fc receptor binding. Science. 2005;310: 1510–1512. 10.1126/science.1118948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, Nusbaum C, Zody MC, Baldwin J, et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 2001;409: 860–921. 10.1038/35057062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Maksakova IA, Mager DL, Reiss D. Keeping active endogenous retroviral-like elements in check: the epigenetic perspective. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2008;65: 3329–3347. 10.1007/s00018-008-8494-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rooney MS, Shukla SA, Wu CJ, Getz G, Hacohen N. Molecular and genetic properties of tumors associated with local immune cytolytic activity. Cell. 2015;160: 48–61. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.12.033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tokuyama M, Kong Y, Song E, Jayewickreme T, Kang I, Iwasaki A. ERVmap analysis reveals genome-wide transcription of human endogenous retroviruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115: 12565–12572. 10.1073/pnas.1814589115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cegolon L, Salata C, Weiderpass E, Vineis P, Palù G, Mastrangelo G. Human endogenous retroviruses and cancer prevention: evidence and prospects. BMC Cancer. 2013;13: 4. 10.1186/1471-2407-13-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Li M, Huang X, Zhu Z, Gorelik E. Sequence and insertion sites of murine melanoma-associated retrovirus. J Virol. 1999;73: 9178–9186. 10.1128/JVI.73.11.9178-9186.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ottina E, Levy P, Eksmond U, Merkenschlager J, Young GR, Roels J, et al. Restoration of Endogenous Retrovirus Infectivity Impacts Mouse Cancer Models. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018;6: 1292–1300. 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Young GR, Stoye JP, Kassiotis G. Are human endogenous retroviruses pathogenic? An approach to testing the hypothesis. Bioessays. 2013;35: 794–803. 10.1002/bies.201300049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Li M, Radvanyi L, Yin B, Rycaj K, Li J, Chivukula R, et al. Downregulation of Human Endogenous Retrovirus Type K (HERV-K) Viral RNA in Pancreatic Cancer Cells Decreases Cell Proliferation and Tumor Growth. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23: 5892–5911. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wang-Johanning F, Rycaj K, Plummer JB, Li M, Yin B, Frerich K, et al. Immunotherapeutic potential of anti-human endogenous retrovirus-K envelope protein antibodies in targeting breast tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104: 189–210. 10.1093/jnci/djr540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Zhou F, Krishnamurthy J, Wei Y, Li M, Hunt K, Johanning GL, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells targeting HERV-K inhibit breast cancer and its metastasis through downregulation of Ras. Oncoimmunology. 2015;4: e1047582. 10.1080/2162402X.2015.1047582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Krishnamurthy J, Rabinovich BA, Mi T, Switzer KC, Olivares S, Maiti SN, et al. Genetic Engineering of T Cells to Target HERV-K, an Ancient Retrovirus on Melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21: 3241–3251. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Wittrup KD. Antitumor Antibodies Can Drive Therapeutic T Cell Responses. Trends Cancer Res. 2017;3: 615–620. 10.1016/j.trecan.2017.07.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Song E, Mao T, Dong H, Boisserand LSB, Antila S, Bosenberg M, et al. VEGF-C-driven lymphatic drainage enables immunosurveillance of brain tumours. Nature. 2020;577: 689–694. 10.1038/s41586-019-1912-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.DeFalco J, Harbell M, Manning-Bog A, Baia G, Scholz A, Millare B, et al. Non-progressing cancer patients have persistent B cell responses expressing shared antibody paratopes that target public tumor antigens. Clin Immunol. 2018;187: 37–45. 10.1016/j.clim.2017.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Joseph Najbauer

6 Jan 2021

Pécs, Hungary

January 5, 2021

PONE-D-20-33132

Immunotherapy-induced antibodies to endogenous retroviral envelope glycoprotein confer tumor protection in mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wittrup,

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 by the Reviewers, listed below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2021 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,

Joseph Najbauer, 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.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.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Additional Editor Comments:

Introduction

and immunosurveillance[1,2].

Please chasnge to

and immunosurveillance [1,2].

Please insert space before the reference numbers throughout the manuscript.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Kang et al. describe the identification of the mouse tumor antigen underlying a humoral response and tumor challenge response, Env glycoprotein. The study generally was performed well with appropriate rigor to guide the conclusions. The paper will be of interest to others in the oncology field and the discussion does an excellent job capturing the impact (although not key to Plos One) of the article. I have a few minor concerns that should be addressed to help improve the manuscript prior to publication.

Flow figures are completely lacking quantification- although this allows qualitative claims, authors mention things like "we conclusively demonstrated that eMLV env is the primary cell-surface antigen...." the manuscript would help with quantitation to support such statements.

Figure 1 legend gives statistical confidence ranges ** and *** that were not used in the figure as far as I could tell.

Figure 1D- were all 10 CM samples from cured mice that were successful in rejecting the secondary challenge? same or different mice that those 5 shown in 1C?

Figure 2B- indicate the colors found on the blot in the legend that correspond to IR800 and AF-647.

Env and GP70 are used somewhat interchangeably (referring to protein and gene) and could create confusion, moreover later in the paper monomeric versus trimeric possibilities are introduced. The authors should stick with one naming convention throughout the text and figures. They should also be clear about what protein (monomeric GP70?) is being used for flow assays, competition, affinity maturation and vaccination.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Kang et al studied the roles of antibodies against glycoproteins from murine ERV in immunotherapy and discovered their key roles in mediating anti-tumor effect during cancer immunotherapy. The study was based on previous studies in the Witrrup lab showing that in mice cured of their tumors by different immunotherapeutic methods, antibodies against tumor cell surface antigens played critical roles. The authors adopted a systematic approach and was able to identify eMLV gp70 as the commons murine tumor antigen that was shared among different tumor lines. Of particular interest is the finding that antibodies against this antigen had potent anti-tumor effect against multiple syngeneic or allogenic tumor cell line. The study itself is well designed and carried out in a very competent manner. More importantly, it has significant implications for human cancer treatment since ERV expression has been observed in many human tumors as well.

**********

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: No

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 Apr 15;16(4):e0248903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248903.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Feb 2021

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

 The manuscript has been revised to meet the style requirements.

2.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.

 The original images are compiled in the S1_raw_images.pdf file. They are for Figs 1D, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, S2 and S3.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

 The phrase was removed from the manuscript.


Additional Editor Comments:

Introduction

and immunosurveillance[1,2].

Please chasnge to

and immunosurveillance [1,2].

Please insert space before the reference numbers throughout the manuscript.

Revised.


[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: Yes

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: Kang et al. describe the identification of the mouse tumor antigen underlying a humoral response and tumor challenge response, Env glycoprotein. The study generally was performed well with appropriate rigor to guide the conclusions. The paper will be of interest to others in the oncology field and the discussion does an excellent job capturing the impact (although not key to Plos One) of the article. I have a few minor concerns that should be addressed to help improve the manuscript prior to publication.

Flow figures are completely lacking quantification- although this allows qualitative claims, authors mention things like "we conclusively demonstrated that eMLV env is the primary cell-surface antigen...." the manuscript would help with quantitation to support such statements.

A new panel (Fig 3D) was added to quantitate the significant change in MFI of B16F10 WT vs envKD cells stained with the antisera.

Figure 1 legend gives statistical confidence ranges ** and *** that were not used in the figure as far as I could tell.

Unused ones were removed.

Figure 1D- were all 10 CM samples from cured mice that were successful in rejecting the secondary challenge? same or different mice that those 5 shown in 1C?

All CM mice had rejected a secondary challenge. This was clarified in the text by changing "sera from cured mice" to "sera from cured mice that rejected a secondary challenge."

Figure 2B- indicate the colors found on the blot in the legend that correspond to IR800 and AF-647.

The legend was revised to indicate the colors.

Env and GP70 are used somewhat interchangeably (referring to protein and gene) and could create confusion, moreover later in the paper monomeric versus trimeric possibilities are introduced. The authors should stick with one naming convention throughout the text and figures. They should also be clear about what protein (monomeric GP70?) is being used for flow assays, competition, affinity maturation and vaccination.

 We intended italicized env to refer to the gene and non-italicized env to refer to the envelope glycoprotein made up of gp70 and p15E subunit proteins. The text has been revised to show gp70 only when solubly expressed gp70 was used in the experiment and where applicable, monomeric nature of gp70 was explicitly stated to avoid confusion.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Kang et al studied the roles of antibodies against glycoproteins from murine ERV in immunotherapy and discovered their key roles in mediating anti-tumor effect during cancer immunotherapy. The study was based on previous studies in the Witrrup lab showing that in mice cured of their tumors by different immunotherapeutic methods, antibodies against tumor cell surface antigens played critical roles. The authors adopted a systematic approach and was able to identify eMLV gp70 as the commons murine tumor antigen that was shared among different tumor lines. Of particular interest is the finding that antibodies against this antigen had potent anti-tumor effect against multiple syngeneic or allogenic tumor cell line. The study itself is well designed and carried out in a very competent manner. More importantly, it has significant implications for human cancer treatment since ERV expression has been observed in many human tumors as well.

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: No

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Joseph Najbauer

8 Mar 2021

Pécs, Hungary

March 7, 2021

Immunotherapy-induced antibodies to endogenous retroviral envelope glycoprotein confer tumor protection in mice

PONE-D-20-33132R1

Dear Dr. Wittrup,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript (R1 version) 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,

Joseph Najbauer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

---------------------------------------------------

DEAR EDITORIAL OFFICE,

As requested by Dr. K. Dane Wittrup in his Cover letter dated January 23, 2021, please put the following in the funding statement: “This work was supported in part by the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, the Koch Institute Frontier Research Program, the Kathy and Curt Marble Cancer Research Fund, and the Mayo Clinic – Koch Institute Cancer Solutions Team Grant funding.”

Thank you, and kind regards,

Joseph Najbauer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

--------------------------------------------------------

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: (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

Acceptance letter

Joseph Najbauer

6 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-33132R1

Immunotherapy-induced antibodies to endogenous retroviral envelope glycoprotein confer tumor protection in mice

Dear Dr. Wittrup:

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

Dr. Joseph Najbauer

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 Fig. Anti-tumor iiAbs are predominantly IgG2b and IgG2c isotypes.

    B16F10 and MC38 cells were incubated with indicated sera, stained with Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated monoclonal Abs against different mouse IgG isotype, and analyzed by flow cytometry.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Identification of gag by modified 2D immunoblotting.

    (A) MC38 membrane proteins and biotinylated BSA, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and equine hemoglobin were immunoblotted with CM7 serum and detected with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated streptavidin. (B) Identical sample in (A) was partially transferred and chromogenically detected with biotinylated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and HRP-conjugated streptavidin. (C) The gel remaining after the partial transfer was silver-stained and overlaid on the chromogenic immunoblot. Red boxes indicate the spots of interest.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Identification of env by modified 2D immunoblotting.

    (A) B16F10 membrane proteins were immunoblotted with CM6 serum and detected with IRDye-800CW-conjugated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs. (B) Identical sample in (A) was partially transferred and chromogenically detected with biotinylated anti-mouse IgG2b and IgG2c Abs and HRP-conjugated streptavidin. (C) The gel remaining after the partial transfer was silver-stained and overlaid on the chromogenic immunoblot. Red boxes indicate the spots of interest.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. All of antisera reactive to B16F10 are competed by gp70.

    B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum or 10 μg/ml TA99 in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 and analyzed as in Fig 3B.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Other curative immunotherapies induce anti-env Ab response.

    (A,B) B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum collected from mice that received indicated immunotherapies in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 and analyzed as in Fig 3B.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. RBD contains major epitopes.

    B16F10 cells were incubated with 1% serum in the presence of 50 μg/ml gp70 or RBD and analyzed as in Fig 3B.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. 1E4 binds to B16F10 at a nanomolar affinity.

    B16F10 cells were incubated with soluble 1E4 and affinity-matured clones at indicated concentrations and analyzed as in Fig 1A.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. None of the antisera bind to B16F10 envKO cells.

    B16F10 or B16F10 envKO cells were incubated with 1% serum and analyzed as in Fig 1A.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Affinity maturation of 1E4.

    Yeast cells expressing scFv’s of 1E4 and affinity-matured clones were were incubated with chicken anti-c-myc Ab and biotinylated gp70 at indicated concentrations, washed, stained with Alexa-Fluor-488-conjugated streptavidin and Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated anti-chicken IgG secondary Ab, and analyzed by flow cytometry.

    (TIF)

    S10 Fig. Subunit vaccination with RBD induces anti-env Abs able to bind B16F10 and MC38.

    Naive mice were vaccinated on weeks 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 with RBD adjuvanted with saponin-MPLA nanoparticles (R# for each RBD-vaccinated mouse) and serum was collected on indicated weeks. B16F10 and MC38 cells were incubated with 1% serum, stained with Alexa-Fluor-647-conjugated anti-mouse IgG or IgG2b and IgG2c, and analyzed by flow cytometry. *Asterisk denotes the mouse that succumbed to the tumor challenge.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Search results of the peptides identified in Fig 2D and S2C Fig. Data was searched against the (A) RefSeq Mus musculus database and (B) SwissProt/UniProt database. Orange and b.

    lue colors indicate independent experiments. Highlighted row indicates the antigen identified.

    (TIF)

    S2 Table. Search results of the peptides identified in S3C Fig.

    Data was searched against the (A) RefSeq Mus musculus database and (B) SwissProt/UniProt database. Orange and blue colors indicate independent experiments. Highlighted row indicates the antigen identified.

    (TIF)

    S1 Raw images. Raw immunoblot and gel images files.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES