4.6 Article

Hypoxia-sensing CAR T cells provide safety and efficacy in treating solid tumors

期刊

CELL REPORTS MEDICINE
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100227

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [335326]
  2. King's Commercialisation Institute
  3. UK Medical Research Council [MR/N013700/1]
  4. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologi'a (CONACyT)
  5. Cancer Research UK King's Health Partners Centre and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre at King's College London
  6. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London
  7. European Research Council (ERC) [335326] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a new CAR T cell system utilizing hypoxia-sensing technology for selective expression of pan-ErbB targeted CAR within solid tumors was presented. The approach demonstrated anti-tumor efficacy without off-tumor toxicity, showing potential for expansion of CAR T cell target repertoire for treating solid malignancies.
Utilizing T cells expressing chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) to identify and attack solid tumors has proven challenging, in large part because of the lack of tumor-specific targets to direct CAR binding. Tumor selectivity is crucial because on-target, off-tumor activation of CAR T cells can result in potentially lethal toxicities. This study presents a stringent hypoxia-sensing CAR T cell system that achieves selective expression of a pan-ErbB-targeted CAR within a solid tumor, a microenvironment characterized by inadequate oxygen sup- ply. Using murine xenograft models, we demonstrate that, despite widespread expression of ErbB receptors in healthy organs, the approach provides anti-tumor efficacy without off-tumor toxicity. This dynamic on/off oxygen-sensing safety switch has the potential to facilitate unlimited expansion of the CAR T cell target repertoire for treating solid malignancies.

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