We have previously

shown that NY-ESO-1–specific CD4+ T cells are detectable in cancer patients with spontaneous NY-ESO-1 serum Ab responses [17, 18]. In addition, NY-ESO-1–specific CD4+ T-cell precursors can expand and become detectable in healthy see more individuals after in vitro antigenic stimulation of peripheral CD4+ T cells, but only following depletion of CD4+CD25+ T cells [19, 20]. These results suggested that NY-ESO-1–specific CD4+ T-cell precursors are actually present at relatively high frequencies in healthy individuals, and that the activation/expansion of NY-ESO-1–specific naive CD4+ T cells is suppressed by CD4+CD25+ Treg cells. In healthy donors and in cancer patients with NY-ESO-1–expressing tumors but without spontaneous FK506 purchase anti-NY-ESO-1 Ab (seronegative), naturally arising NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses are susceptible to Treg-cell suppression and are exclusively detected from naive populations (CD4+CD25−CD45RA+). In contrast, most NY-ESO-1–specific CD4+ T cells in cancer patients with spontaneous anti-NY-ESO-1 Ab (seropositive) are derived from memory populations (CD4+CD25−CD45RO+) and are detectable even in the presence of CD4+CD25+ Treg cells [20, 21]. After vaccination with HLA-DPB1*0401/0402-restricted

NY-ESO-1157–170 peptide in incomplete Freund’s adjuvant, ovarian cancer patients develop NY-ESO-1–specific CD4+ T cells with only low avidity to antigen and low sensitivity to Treg cells, even though they

have an effector/memory phenotype (CD4+CD25−CD45RO+) [21]. Still, high-avidity naive NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell precursors are present in the peripheral blood of vaccinated patients, but they are subjected to continuous CD4+CD25+ Treg-cell suppression throughout vaccination [21]. Thus, a strategy to overcome Treg-cell suppression on preexisting high-avidity naive T-cell precursors is an essential component for effective cancer vaccines. Accumulating data shed light on recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns through TLRs to break the suppressive environment Methamphetamine in tumors [22]. It has been reported that TLR stimulants, such as lipopolysaccharide or CpG, block the suppressive activity of CD4+CD25+ Treg cells partially by an IL-6–dependent mechanism [23]. TLR2 signaling was reported to stimulate the proliferation of CD4+CD25+ Treg cells and to induce temporal loss of suppressive activity of CD4+CD25+ Treg cells [24]. TLR2 signaling has also been shown to increase IL-2 secretion by effector T cells, thereby rendering them resistant to CD4+CD25+ Treg-cell–mediated suppression [25].