4.6 Article

Exosomes from GM-CSF expressing embryonic stem cells are an effective prophylactic vaccine for cancer prevention

Journal

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1561119

Keywords

Cancer; embryonic stem cells; exosomes; prophylactic vaccine

Funding

  1. Free To Breathe
  2. NIH National Cancer Institute [CA106599]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The antigenic similarity between embryos and tumors has raised the idea of using embryonic material as a preventative vaccine against neoplastic disease. Indeed, we have previously reported that a vaccine comprises allogeneic murine embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and murine fibroblasts expressing GM-CSF (to amplify immune responses) successfully blocks the outgrowth of an implantable cancer (Lewis lung carcinoma; LLC) and lung tumors generated in mice using a combination of a mutagen followed by chronic pulmonary inflammation. However, such a vaccine is obviously impractical for application to humans. The use of fibroblasts to generate GM-CSF is needlessly complicated, and intact whole ESCs carry the hazard of generating embryomas/teratomas. Here, we report the successful application of an alternative prophylactic vaccine comprises exosomes derived from murine ESCs engineered to produce GM-CSF. Vaccination of mice with these exosomes significantly slowed or blocked the outgrowth of implanted LLC while control exosomes lacking GM-CSF were ineffective. Examination of tumor-infiltrating immune cells from mice vaccinated with the GM-CSF-expressing exosomes showed robust tumor-reactive CD8(+) T effector responses, Th1 cytokine responses, and higher CD8(+) T effector/CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) T regulatory cell ratio in the tumors. We conclude that a similar vaccine derived from GM-CSF- expressing human ESCs can be employed as a preventative vaccine for humans with an increased risk of developing cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available