4.7 Article

Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells derived from defined CD8+ and CD4+ subsets confer superior antitumor reactivity in vivo

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 492-500

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2015.247

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA136551, CA18029, CA114536]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [SO1214/1-1, HU1668/1-1, HU1668/1-2]
  3. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS) [5520-11]
  4. German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V., Max Eder Program) [110313]
  5. University of Wurzburg (Interdisziplinares Zentrum fur Klinische Forschung, IZKF) [Z-4/109, D-244]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adoptive T-cell therapy with gene-modified T cells expressing a tumor-reactive T-cell receptor or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) is a rapidly growing field of translational medicine and has shown success in the treatment of B-cell malignancies and solid tumors. In all reported trials, patients have received T-cell products comprising random compositions of CD4(+) and CD8(+) naive and memory T cells, meaning that each patient received a different therapeutic agent. This variation may have influenced the efficacy of T-cell therapy, and complicates comparison of outcomes between different patients and across trials. We analyzed CD19 CAR-expressing effector T cells derived from different subsets (CD4(+)/CD8(+) naive, central memory, effector memory). T cells derived from each of the subsets were efficiently transduced and expanded, but showed clear differences in effector function and proliferation in vitro and in vivo. Combining the most potent CD4(+) and CD8(+) CAR-expressing subsets, resulted in synergistic antitumor effects in vivo. We show that CAR-T-cell products generated from defined T-cell subsets can provide uniform potency compared with products derived from unselected T cells that vary in phenotypic composition. These findings have important implications for the formulation of T-cell products for adoptive therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据