Search

Alveolar macrophages (AM) perform a primary defense mechanism in the lung through phagocytosis of inhaled particles and microorganisms. AM are known to be relatively immunosuppressive consistent with the aim to limit alveolar inflammation and maintain effective gas exchange in the face of these constant challenges. How AM respond to T cell derived cytokine signals, which are critical to the defense against inhaled pathogens, is less well understood. For example, successful containment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) in lung macrophages is highly dependent on IFN-γ secreted by Th-1 lymphocytes, however, the proteomic IFN-γ response profile in AM remains mostly unknown. In this study, we measured IFN-γ induced protein abundance changes in human AM and autologous blood monocytes (MN). AM cells were activated by IFN-γ stimulation resulting in STAT1 phosphorylation and production of MIG/CXCL9 chemokine. However, the global proteomic response to IFN-γ in AM was dramatically limited in comparison to that of MN (9 AM vs 89 MN differentially abundant proteins). AM hypo-responsiveness was not explained by reduced JAK-STAT1 signaling nor increased SOCS1 expression. These findings suggest that AM have a tightly regulated response to IFN-γ which may prevent excessive pulmonary inflammation but may also provide a niche for the initial survival and growth of Mtb and other intracellular pathogens in the lung.

Introduction: In this study, we sought to further characterize ROS1 protein expression in solid tumors with the complete spectrum of ROS1 genomic alterations. Methods: ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the ROS1 (SP384) class I assay per manufacturer’s instructions on a variety of solid tumors (n = 32) with known ROS1 genomic alterations. Genomic alterations included fusions (n = 17), gene amplifications (n = 10), and short-variant mutations (n = 11). Results: Of the 32 cases with ROS1 IHC results, 100% (11 of 11) with canonical ROS1 fusions were positive for ROS1 IHC. Among noncanonical ROS1 fusions, only two (of five) cases with SQSTM1-ROS1 and RDX-ROS1 fusions were positive for ROS1 IHC whereas PTPRK-ROS1 (two) and TTC28-ROS1 fusions were negative for ROS1 IHC. One sample with a canonical ROS1 fusion and co-occurring ROS1 resistance mutation (6094G>A, p.G2032R) was positive for ROS1 IHC. A total of 10% (one of 10) of ROS1 amplified tumors were positive for ROS1 IHC. None of the cases (zero of five) with ROS1 short-variant mutations were positive for ROS1 protein expression. Conclusions: These findings suggest that if ROS1 IHC was used as a screening tool for ROS1 fusion, a subset of fusion-negative tumors will reveal positive IHC staining highlighting the value of reflexing to genomic profiling to confirm the presence of a targetable fusion-driver before the initiation of therapy. In addition, the ability of comprehensive genomic profiling to detect ROS1 resistance mutations will be important for clinical decision making.