4.5 Article

ERAP2 supports TCR recognition of three immunotherapy targeted tumor epitopes

期刊

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 61-68

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2022.12.010

关键词

ER -resident aminopeptidases; Antigen processing; Antigen presentation; MHC class I; Adoptive T-cell therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The therapy of cancer by adoptive T cell transfer (ACT) requires T cell receptors (TCRs) with optimal affinity for HLA class I-bound peptides (pHLA-I). But not every patient responds to ACT. This study investigated the contribution of ERAP1 and ERAP2 to TCR recognition of cancer cells and found that ERAP2 plays a significant role in tumor epitope presentation and TCR recognition. These findings may have implications for future ACT design.
The therapy of cancer by adoptive T cell transfer (ACT) requires T cell receptors (TCRs) with optimal affinity for HLA class I-bound peptides (pHLA-I). But not every patient responds to ACT. Therefore, it is critical to under-stand the individual factors influencing the recognition of HLA class I-bound peptides (pHLA-I) by TCRs. Focusing on three immunotherapy-targeted human HLA-A* 02:01-presented T cell epitopes we investigated the contribution of the ER-resident aminopeptidases ERAP1 and ERAP2 to TCR recognition of cancer cells. We found that ERAP2 on its own, when expressed in ERAP-deficient cells, elicited a strong CTL response towards the Tyrosinase368-376 epitope. In vitro generated TAP-dependent N-terminally extended epitope precursor peptides were differently customized by ERAP1 and ERAP2 and thus may serve as potential source for the Tyrosinase368-376 epitope. ERAP2 also influenced recognition of the gp100209-217 tumor epitope and enhanced T cell recognition of the MART-126/27-35 epitope in the absence of ERAP1 expression. Our results underline the relevance of ERAP2 for tumor epitope presentation and TCR recognition and may need to be considered when designing ACT in the future.

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

4.5
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