4.8 Article

Shared Immunogenic Poly-Epitope Frameshift Mutations in Microsatellite Unstable Tumors

期刊

CELL
卷 183, 期 6, 页码 1634-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01AI081848, U01CA224175, R01CA240924, U01CA228963, R01CA201189, R01CA180913, R01AI08184]
  2. Tisch Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant
  3. Department of Defense
  4. Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy
  5. Melanoma Research Alliance
  6. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
  7. Pershing Square Sohn Foundation
  8. NYSTEM
  9. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center grant
  10. Stand Up To Cancer
  11. Entertainment Industry Foundation
  12. Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer
  13. Lustgarten Foundation
  14. V Foundation for Cancer Research
  15. Pershing Square Sohn Prize-Mark Foundation Fellowship - Mark Foundation For Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors are characterized by high tumor mutation burden and responsiveness to checkpoint blockade. We identified tumor-specific frameshifts encoding multiple epitopes that originated from indel mutations shared among patients with MSI-H endometrial, colorectal, and stomach cancers. Epitopes derived from these shared frameshifts have high population occurrence rates, wide presence in many tumor subclones, and are predicted to bind to the most frequent MHC alleles in MSI-H patient cohorts. Neoantigens arising from these mutations are distinctly unlike self and viral antigens, signifying novel groups of potentially highly immunogenic tumor antigens. We further confirmed the immunogenicity of frameshift peptides in T cell stimulation experiments using blood mononuclear cells isolated from both healthy donors and MSI-H cancer patients. Our study uncovers the widespread occurrence and strong immunogenicity of tumor-specific antigens derived from shared frameshift mutations in MSI-H cancer and Lynch syndrome patients, suitable for the design of common off-the-shelf 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

4.8
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