4.6 Article

Combined proteomics/miRNomics of dendritic cell immunotherapy-treated glioblastoma patients as a screening for survival-associated factors

期刊

NPJ VACCINES
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41541-019-0149-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ASHO Research Grant 2013)
  2. Activartis Biotech GmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glioblastoma is the most prevalent and aggressive brain cancer. With a median overall survival of similar to 15-20 months under standard therapy, novel treatment approaches are desperately needed. A recent phase II clinical trial with a personalized immunotherapy based on tumor lysate-charged dendritic cell (DC) vaccination, however, failed to prolong survival. Here, we investigated tumor tissue from trial patients to explore glioblastoma survival-related factors. We followed an innovative approach of combining mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics (n = 36) with microRNA sequencing plus RT-qPCR (n = 38). Protein quantification identified, e.g., huntingtin interacting protein 1 (HIP1), retinol-binding protein 1 (RBP1), ferritin heavy chain (FTH1) and focal adhesion kinase 2 (FAK2) as factor candidates correlated with a dismal prognosis. MicroRNA analysis identified miR-216b, miR-216a, miR-708 and let-7i as molecules potentially associated with favorable tissue characteristics as they were enriched in patients with a comparably longer survival. To illustrate the utility of integrated miRNomics and proteomics findings, focal adhesion was studied further as one example for a pathway of potential general interest. Taken together, we here mapped possible drivers of glioblastoma outcome under immunotherapy in one of the largest DC vaccination tissue analysis cohorts so far-demonstrating usefulness and feasibility of combined proteomics/miRNomics approaches. Future research should investigate agents that sensitize glioblastoma to (immuno)therapy-potentially building on insights generated here.

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

4.6
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