Source Paper
Dominik Pfister, Nicolás Gonzalo Núñez, Roser Pinyol, Olivier Govaere, Matthias Pinter et al.
Nature • 2021
Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can have viral or non-viral causes 1–5. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an important driver of HCC. Immunotherapy has been approved for treating HCC, but biomarker-based stratification of patients for optimal response to therapy is an unmet need 6,7. Here we report the progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical models of NASH-induced HCC, therapeutic immunotherapy targeted at programmed death-1 (PD1) expanded activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells within tumours but did not lead to tumour regression, which indicates that tumour immune surveillance was impaired. When given prophylactically, anti-PD1 treatment led to an increase in the incidence of NASH–HCC and in the number and size of tumour nodules, which correlated with increased hepatic CD8 + PD1 + CXCR6 +, TOX +, and TNF + T cells. The increase in HCC triggered by anti-PD1 treatment was prevented by depletion of CD8 + T cells or TNF neutralization, suggesting that CD8 + T cells help to induce NASH–HCC, rather than invigorating or executing immune surveillance. We found similar phenotypic and functional profiles in hepatic CD8 + PD1 + T cells from humans with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomized phase III clinical trials that tested inhibitors of PDL1 (programmed death-ligand 1) or PD1 in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC revealed that immune therapy did not improve survival in patients with non-viral HCC. In two additional cohorts, patients with NASH-driven HCC who received anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 treatment showed reduced overall survival compared to patients with other aetiologies. Collectively, these data show that non-viral HCC, and particularly NASH–HCC, might be less responsive to immunotherapy, probably owing to NASH-related aberrant T cell activation causing tissue damage that leads to impaired immune surveillance. Our data provide a rationale for stratification of patients with HCC according to underlying aetiology in studies of immunotherapy as a primary or adjuvant treatment.
Objective: Assess glucose metabolism in mice through intraperitoneal glucose tolerance testing
This is a Glucose Tolerance Test protocol using mouse as the model organism. The procedure involves 2 procedural steps, 8 materials. Extracted from a 2021 paper published in Nature.
Model and subjects
mouse • Not specified in this excerpt • male • Not specified in this excerpt • Not specified in this excerpt
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test • Measurement of serum parameters
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Perform intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test to assess glucose metabolism
Note: Detailed protocol was described previously in reference 17 and is not fully detailed in this excerpt
“Intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test and measurement of serum parameters were as described previously”
Measure serum parameters related to glucose metabolism
Note: Detailed protocol was described previously in reference 17 and is not fully detailed in this excerpt
“Intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test and measurement of serum parameters were as described previously”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
Assess glucose metabolism in mice through intraperitoneal glucose tolerance testing
Objective
Assess glucose metabolism in mice through intraperitoneal glucose tolerance testing
Subjects
From papermouse • Not specified in this excerpt • male • Not specified in this excerpt • Not specified in this excerpt
Cohort notes
From paperMice housed at German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) under specific pathogen-free conditions with constant temperature of 20-24°C and 45-65% humidity with 12-h light-dark cycle
Intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test (Not specified in this excerpt)
Measurement of serum parameters (Not specified in this excerpt)
Glucose tolerance
From paperNot specified in this excerpt
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Serum parameters
From paperNot specified in this excerpt
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Glucose tolerance
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Serum parameters
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
Not specified in this excerpt
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Glucose tolerance; Serum parameters.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Glucose tolerance, Serum parameters.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
Dominik Pfister et al. (2021). NASH limits anti-tumour surveillance in immunotherapy-treated HCC. Nature
“”
“”
“”
“”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
Bioxcell • 2.43
Bioxcell • PK136
Bioxcell • 10F.9G2
Bioxcell • XT3.11
Bioxcell • GK1.5
Bioxcell • RMP1-14
Bioxcell • 2A3
Bioxcell • LTF-2
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Feb 28, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
2
Evidence Quotes
10
Protocol Items
8
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
2
Evidence
10
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work