4.7 Review

Humanized Mice as an Effective Evaluation System for Peptide Vaccines and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20246337

Keywords

peptide vaccine; immune checkpoint inhibitor; humanized mouse; cancer antigen; immune suppression

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [22220007]
  2. Tokai University
  3. MEXT-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities (2012-2016)
  4. [17H03571]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22220007] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Peptide vaccination was developed for the prevention and therapy of acute and chronic infectious diseases and cancer. However, vaccine development is challenging, because the patient immune system requires the appropriate human leukocyte antigen (HLA) recognition with the peptide. Moreover, antigens sometimes induce a low response, even if the peptide is presented by antigen-presenting cells and T cells recognize it. This is because the patient immunity is dampened or restricted by environmental factors. Even if the immune system responds appropriately, newly-developed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which are used to increase the immune response against cancer, make the immune environment more complex. The ICIs may activate T cells, although the ratio of responsive patients is not high. However, the vaccine may induce some immune adverse effects in the presence of ICIs. Therefore, a system is needed to predict such risks. Humanized mouse systems possessing human immune cells have been developed to examine human immunity in vivo. One of the systems which uses transplanted human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) may become a new diagnosis strategy. Various humanized mouse systems are being developed and will become good tools for the prediction of antibody response and immune adverse effects.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available