IntroductionThe cell line MC38 is a commonly used murine model for colorectal carcinoma. It has a high mutational burden, is sensitive to immune checkpoint immunotherapy and endogenous CD8+ T cell... Show moreIntroductionThe cell line MC38 is a commonly used murine model for colorectal carcinoma. It has a high mutational burden, is sensitive to immune checkpoint immunotherapy and endogenous CD8+ T cell responses against neoantigens have been reported. MethodsHere, we re-sequenced exomes and transcriptomes of MC38 cells from two different sources, namely Kerafast (originating from NCI/NIH, MC38-K) and the Leiden University Medical Center cell line collection (MC38-L), comparing the cell lines on the genomic and transcriptomic level and analyzing their recognition by CD8+ T cells with known neo-epitope specificity. ResultsThe data reveals a distinct structural composition of MC38-K and MC38-L cell line genomes and different ploidies. Further, the MC38-L cell line harbored about 1.3-fold more single nucleotide variations and small insertions and deletions than the MC38-K cell line. In addition, the observed mutational signatures differed; only 35.3% of the non-synonymous variants and 5.4% of the fusion gene events were shared. Transcript expression values of both cell lines correlated strongly (p = 0.919), but we found different pathways enriched in the genes that were differentially upregulated in the MC38-L or MC38-K cells, respectively. Our data show that previously described neoantigens in the MC38 model such as Rpl18(mut) and Adpgk(mut) were absent in the MC38-K cell line resulting that such neoantigen-specific CD8+ T cells recognizing and killing MC38-L cells did not recognize or kill MC38-K cells. ConclusionThis strongly indicates that at least two sub-cell lines of MC38 exist in the field and underlines the importance of meticulous tracking of investigated cell lines to obtain reproducible results, and for correct interpretation of the immunological data without artifacts. We present our analyses as a reference for researchers to select the appropriate sub-cell line for their own studies. Show less
No consensus has been reached on how to determine if an immune response has been detected based on raw data from an ELISPOT assay. The goal of this paper is to enable investigators to understand... Show moreNo consensus has been reached on how to determine if an immune response has been detected based on raw data from an ELISPOT assay. The goal of this paper is to enable investigators to understand and readily implement currently available methods for response determination. We describe empirical and statistical approaches, identifying the strengths and limitations of each approach to allow readers to rationally select and apply a scientifically sound method appropriate to their specific laboratory setting. Five representative approaches were applied to data sets from the CIMT Immunoguiding Program and the response detection and false positive rates were compared. Simulation studies were also performed to compare empirical and statistical approaches. Based on these, we recommend the use of a non-parametric statistical test. Further, we recommend that six medium control wells or four wells each for both medium control and experimental conditions be performed to increase the sensitivity in detecting a response, that replicates with large variation in spot counts be filtered out, and that positive responses arising from experimental spot counts below the estimated limit of detection be interpreted with caution. Moreover, a web-based user interface was developed to allow easy access to the recommended statistical methods. This interface allows the user to upload data from an ELISPOT assay and obtain an output file of the binary responses. Show less
