4.4 Article

EpCAM-specific vaccine response by modified antigen and chimeric costimulatory molecule in cynomolgus monkeys

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 644-655

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181826d89

关键词

immunotherapy; cancer vaccine; tumor-associated antigen; CD80; costimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunization against tumor-associated antigens is a promising approach to cancer therapy and prevention, but it faces several challenges and limitations, such as tolerance mechanisms associated with self-antigens expressed by the tumor cells. Costimulatory molecules B7.1 (CD80) and B7.2 (CD86) have improved the efficacy of gene-based and cell-based vaccines in animal models and are under investigation in clinical trials. However, their efficacy as vaccine adjuvants is likely limited by the fact that they mediate both stimulatory and inhibitory signals to T cells via CD28 and CTLA-4, respectively. To overcome these limitations, we have generated a B7.1-like, chimeric costimulatory molecule with preferential binding to CD28, named CD28-binding protein (CD28BP), which we combined with a modified, nonself tumor antigen variant of epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), named TAg25. TAg25 induced a cross-reactive immune response against human wild-type EpCAM upon DNA vaccination in cynomolgus monkeys. However, TAg25 DNA immunization alone or in combination with human (h) B7.1 induced no detectable antigen-specific T cells in the peripheral blood of the animals. In contrast, TAg25 combined with CD28BP induced both CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells specific for EpCAM. Moreover, TAg25 combined with CD28BP induced significantly higher levels of EpCAM-specific antibodies than TAg25 plus hB7.1. These improved adjuvant properties of CD28BP, when compared with hB7.1, illustrate the importance of CD28 costimulation in vaccine responses in nonhuman primates and warrant further studies on the potential of CD28BP in improving the efficacy of cancer vaccines.

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

4.4
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