4.7 Article

Personalized neoantigen-pulsed dendritic cell vaccines show superior immunogenicity to neoantigen-adjuvant vaccines in mouse tumor models

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 135-145

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-019-02448-z

关键词

Personalized neoantigens; Neoantigen-pulsed DC vaccines; Neoantigen-adjuvant vaccines; Immune response; Anti-tumor

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2016YFC1303502]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31570927]
  3. 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of personalized cancer vaccines based on neoantigens has become a new direction in cancer immunotherapy. Two forms of cancer vaccines have been widely studied: tumor-associated antigen (including proteins, peptides, or tumor lysates)-pulsed dendritic cell (DC) vaccines and protein- or peptide-adjuvant vaccines. However, different immune modalities may produce different therapeutic effects and immune responses when the same antigen is used. Therefore, it is necessary to choose a more effective neoantigen vaccination method. In this study, we compared the differences in immune and anti-tumor effects between neoantigen-pulsed DC vaccines and neoantigen-adjuvant vaccines using murine lung carcinoma (LL2) candidate neoantigens. The enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay showed that 4/6 of the neoantigen-adjuvant vaccines and 6/6 of the neoantigen-pulsed DC vaccines induced strong T-cell immune responses. Also, 2/6 of the neoantigen-adjuvant vaccines and 5/6 of the neoantigen-pulsed DC vaccines exhibited potent anti-tumor effects. The results indicated that the neoantigen-pulsed DC vaccines were superior to the neoantigen-adjuvant vaccines in both activating immune responses and inhibiting tumor growth. Our fundings provide an experimental basis for the selection of immune modalities for the use of neoantigens in individualized tumor immunotherapies.

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