The recent work by Newton and coworkers [1] that recently appeared on this journal describes how in vitro culture of monocyte-derived dendritic cells (DC) could be suitably used to enhance T-cell proliferative responses in HIV-1 infected patients in adjuvant immunotherapeutic protocols. The work is undoubtedly of high technical value, uses patient groups chosen in an elegant manner, and suitably adopts autologous DC–T cell mixed lymphocyte cultures to explore DC function. The perceived feeling upon reading the work is that based on their normal function and phenotype immunotherapy with monocyte-derived DC could be straightforwardly useful in HIV-1 infection, in addition to HAART, and should be introduced in future plans for in vivo development. Unfortunately, although apparently these conclusions are supported by the excellent work performed, they are not supported by accumulating evidence outside the limited focus of ‘DC phenotype and function’. Indeed, ample evidence cautioning against (or at best questioning) the use of DC ‘vaccination’ for HIV-1 infected patients are published and should encourage additional research and discussion. Cross-talk between DC and natural killer (NK) cells has been shown to influence the quality of adaptive immune responses [3,4]. This takes place through selection of immature DC (iDC) which may be killed by NK cells through interaction with NKp30 natural cytotoxicity receptors (NCR) and through optimal induction of DC maturation [5,6]. It has been known for some time that during HIV-1 infection NK cell function is depressed [7,8]. Mechanisms leading to this defect have been described over recent years and include reduced expression of NCR i.e., NKp30, NKp46 and NKp44 [9,10]. A very similar defect has been shown to occur in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML), where reduced expression of NKp30 and NKp46 is evident [11]. NK cells expressing a decreased number of NCR molecules are known to display a correlated decreased cytotoxic activity [12]. This decreased activity reflects also on iDC killing and induction of iDC maturation, in which the correct expression of NKp30 plays a pivotal role [3–6]. Finally, with particular regard to iDC ‘vaccination’ of patients with AML it has been shown recently that autologous iDC are not killed by the NK cells as they express decreased NKp30 molecules [13]. Because partial function of NK cells expressing low levels of NKp30, as in AML and HIV-1 infection, could lead to inappropriate survival of iDC with tolerogenic potential, use of antigen-DC stimulation in patients with HIV-1 infection should be viewed as potentially harmful. In fact the work by Newton et al.[1] addresses only T-cell proliferation, and not T-cell function (e.g., antigen-specific cytotoxicity, cytokine production). Should iDC in HIV-1 infected patients support proliferation of T cells with type 2 cytokine patterns, we would have a highly unwanted effect, as suggested by others with the induction of tolerogenic DCs and with lack of selection of optimally active mature DC [2,14]. In conclusion, the final comment by the authors [1] that ‘immunisation strategies that target DC may therefore offer significant advantages in the ability to stimulate HIV-specific protective immune responses’ could be dangerously misleading. We need to take into account also a correct editing of adaptive immune responses in the presence of normal NK cell function, in order to avoid embarking into costly programs that might prove to be flawed from the beginning, leading to a relevant waste of time, money and, more importantly, patient quality of life and health. Sponsorship: ADM is supported by grants awarded by Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Programma Nazionale AIDS #40B.67, Italian Concerted Action for AIDS vaccine (I.C.A.V.), Accordi di Collaborazione Scientifica n. 40D61 e 45D/1.13.
Read full abstract