4.5 Article

A minimal model of T cell avidity may identify subtherapeutic vaccine schedules

Journal

MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES
Volume 334, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mbs.2021.108556

Keywords

CTL avidity; Immunotherapy; Minimal model; Cancer vaccines

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. Australian Research Council Discovery Project [DP180101512]
  3. US Department of Defence Breast Cancer Research Program [W81XWH-11-10548]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

T cells play a crucial role in cancer immunity through their avidity, with high-avidity T cells being essential for durable anti-cancer responses. Optimizing vaccine schedules can help preferentially select high-avidity T cells, which may lead to more effective cancer immunotherapy strategies.
T cells protect the body from cancer by recognising tumour-associated antigens. Recognising these antigens depends on multiple factors, one of which is T cell avidity, i.e., the total interaction strength between a T cell and a cancer cell. While both high- and low-avidity T cells can kill cancer cells, durable anti-cancer immune responses require the selection of high-avidity T cells. Previous experimentation with anti-cancer vaccines, however, has shown that most vaccines elicit low-avidity T cells. Optimising vaccine schedules may remedy this by preferentially selecting high-avidity T cells. Here, we use mathematical modelling to develop a simple, phenomenological model of avidity selection that may identify vaccine schedules that disproportionately favour low-avidity T cells. We calibrate our model to our prior, more complex model, and then validate it against several experimental data sets. We find that the sensitivity of the model's parameters change with vaccine dosage, which allows us to use a patient's data and clinical history to screen for suitable vaccine strategies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available