4.7 Article

Quantitative T-cell repertoire analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from lung cancer patients following long-term cancer peptide vaccination

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 67, 期 6, 页码 949-964

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-018-2152-x

关键词

Therapeutic vaccine; Cancer/testis antigen; CTL; TCR; Next-generation sequencing

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan [15K14410]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K14410] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Therapeutic cancer peptide vaccination is an immunotherapy designed to elicit cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses in patients. A number of therapeutic vaccination trials have been performed, nevertheless there are only a few reports that have analyzed the T-cell receptors (TCRs) expressed on tumor antigen-specific CTLs. Here, we use next-generation sequencing (NGS) to analyze TCRs of vaccine-induced CTL clones and the TCR repertoire of bulk T cells in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from two lung cancer patients over the course of long-term vaccine therapy. In both patients, vaccination with two epitope peptides derived from cancer/testis antigens (upregulated lung cancer 10 (URLC10) and cell division associated 1 (CDCA1)) induced specific CTLs expressing various TCRs. All URLC10-specific CTL clones tested showed Ca2+ influx, IFN-gamma production, and cytotoxicity when co-cultured with URLC10-pulsed tumor cells. Moreover, in CTL clones that were not stained with the URLC10/MHC-multimer, the CD3 zeta chain was not phosphorylated. NGS of the TCR repertoire of bulk PBMCs demonstrated that the frequency of vaccine peptide-specific CTL clones was near the minimum detectable threshold level. These results demonstrate that vaccination induces antigen-specific CTLs expressing various TCRs at different time points in cancer patients, and that some CTL clones are maintained in PBMCs during long-term treatment, including some with TCRs that do not bind peptide/MHC-multimer.

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

4.7
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