Fig. 4 | Scientific Reports

Fig. 4

From: Immune checkpoint inhibition increases antigen-specific T cell response in head and neck cancer

Fig. 4The alt text for this image may have been generated using AI.

IFNγ and GrB secretion in ELISPOT assays. Stimulation with LAG-3 and TIM-3 ± aPD-1 (n = 10 HD). (A) MAGE and NY-ESO-1 ± aPD-1 ± LAG-3 IFNγ (NoP vs. MAGE/aPD-1 p 0.0043; NoP vs. MAGE/aPD-1/aLAG-3 p 0.0062; NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 p 0.0338; NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1/aLAG-3 p 0.0164). (B) MAGE and NY-ESO-1 ± aPD-1 ± LAG-3 GrB (NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 p 0.0044; NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1/aLAG-3 p 0.0226). (C) MAGE and NY-ESO-1 ± aPD-1 ± TIM-3 IFNγ (NoP vs. MAGE/ aPD-1 p 0.0130; NoP vs. MAGE/aPD-1/aTIM-3 p 0.0001; NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1/aTIM-3 p 0.0127; MAGE vs. MAGE/aPD-1/aTIM-3 p 0.0368; MAGE/aPD-1 vs. MAGE/aTIM-3 p 0.0351; MAGE/aTIM-3 vs. MAGE/aPD-1/aTIM-3 p 0.0181; NY-ESO-1 vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 p 0.0030; NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 vs. NY-ESO-1/ aTIM-3 p 0.0023). (D) MAGE and NY-ESO-1 ± aPD-1 ± TIM-3 GrB. The fold change is shown in relation to no Peptide (NoP) (NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 p 0.0012; NoP vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1/aTIM-3 p 0.0132; NY-ESO-1 vs. NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 p 0.0231; NY-ESO-1/aPD-1 vs. NY-ESO-1/ aTIM-3 p 0.0170). Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.

Back to article page