4.6 Article

Self-assembled peptide/polymer hybrid nanoplatform for cancer immunostimulating therapies

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13346-023-01410-y

关键词

Cancer vaccine; Self-assembling peptide; Nanovaccines; Hybrid nanoparticles; MAGE-A3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on integrating peptide epitopes into self-assembling materials to develop nanovaccines with high antigen density and improved efficacy. The researchers successfully designed and formulated peptide/polymer hybrid nanoparticles containing MAGE-A3/PADRE epitopes. These nanoparticles showed good compatibility with human cells and triggered immune responses, particularly activating CD8+ cells. In vivo results from vaccinated mice demonstrated specific responses mediated through cellular pathways. Therefore, this research highlights the potential of self-assembled peptide-polymer hybrid nanostructures in enhancing the immunogenicity of peptide epitope vaccines.
Integrating peptide epitopes in self-assembling materials is a successful strategy to obtain nanovaccines with high antigen density and improved efficacy. In this study, self-assembling peptides containing MAGE-A3/PADRE epitopes were designed to generate functional therapeutic nanovaccines. To achieve higher stability, peptide/polymer hybrid nanoparticles were formulated by controlled self-assembly of the engineered peptides. The nanoparticles showed good biocompatibility to both human red blood- and dendritic cells. Incubation of the nanoparticles with immature dendritic cells triggered immune effects that ultimately activated CD8 + cells. The antigen-specific and IgG antibody responses of healthy C57BL/6 mice vaccinated with the nanoparticles were analyzed. The in vivo results indicate a specific response to the nanovaccines, mainly mediated through a cellular pathway. This research indicates that the immunogenicity of peptide epitope vaccines can be effectively enhanced by developing self-assembled peptide-polymer hybrid nanostructures.

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