See the published version of this preprint at Scientific Reports.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Siqi Guo
Old Dominion University
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are byproducts of tumor cells treated with Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS). Recently, ROS have been suggested as a contributing factor in immunogenic cell death and T cell-mediated immunity. This research further investigated the role of NPS induced ROS in antitumor immunity. ROS production in 4T1-luc breast cancer cells was characterized using three detection reagents, namely, Amplex Red, MitoSox Red, and Dihydroethidium. The efficiency of ROS quenching was evaluated in the presence or absence of ROS scavengers and/or antioxidants. The immunogenicity of NPS treated tumor cells was assessed by ex vivo dendritic cell activation, in vivo vaccination assay and in situ vaccination with NPS tumor ablation. We found that NPS treatment enhanced the immunogenicity of 4T1-luc mouse mammary tumor, resulted in a potent in situ vaccination protection and induced long-term T cell immunity. ROS production derived from NPS treated breast cancer cells was an electric pulse dose-dependent phenomenon. Noticeably, the dynamic pattern of hydrogen peroxide production was different from that of superoxide production. Interestingly, regardless of NPS treatment, different ROS scavengers could either block or promote ROS production and stimulate or inhibit tumor cell growth. The activation of dendritic cells was not influenced by blocking ROS generation. The results from in vivo vaccination with NPS treated cancer cells suggests that ROS generation was not a prerequisite for immune protection.
Keywords
reactive oxygen species (ROS), Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS), immunity, cancer cells
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
No competing interests reported.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 1
Posted 06 Apr, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 13 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 22 Apr, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 06 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Apr, 2021
Editor assigned
On 06 Apr, 2021
Editor invited
On 06 Apr, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 05 Apr, 2021
First submitted
On 30 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Scientific Reports.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Siqi Guo
Old Dominion University
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 1
Posted 06 Apr, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 13 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 22 Apr, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 06 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Apr, 2021
Editor assigned
On 06 Apr, 2021
Editor invited
On 06 Apr, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 05 Apr, 2021
First submitted
On 30 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are byproducts of tumor cells treated with Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS). Recently, ROS have been suggested as a contributing factor in immunogenic cell death and T cell-mediated immunity. This research further investigated the role of NPS induced ROS in antitumor immunity. ROS production in 4T1-luc breast cancer cells was characterized using three detection reagents, namely, Amplex Red, MitoSox Red, and Dihydroethidium. The efficiency of ROS quenching was evaluated in the presence or absence of ROS scavengers and/or antioxidants. The immunogenicity of NPS treated tumor cells was assessed by ex vivo dendritic cell activation, in vivo vaccination assay and in situ vaccination with NPS tumor ablation. We found that NPS treatment enhanced the immunogenicity of 4T1-luc mouse mammary tumor, resulted in a potent in situ vaccination protection and induced long-term T cell immunity. ROS production derived from NPS treated breast cancer cells was an electric pulse dose-dependent phenomenon. Noticeably, the dynamic pattern of hydrogen peroxide production was different from that of superoxide production. Interestingly, regardless of NPS treatment, different ROS scavengers could either block or promote ROS production and stimulate or inhibit tumor cell growth. The activation of dendritic cells was not influenced by blocking ROS generation. The results from in vivo vaccination with NPS treated cancer cells suggests that ROS generation was not a prerequisite for immune protection.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
No competing interests reported.
Loading...