4.7 Article

Adjuvanticity of plasmid DNA encoding cytokines fused to immunoglobulin Fc domains

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 18, 页码 5511-5519

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0979

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32 CA01712, CA33049, T32 CA09207, CA59350, CA56821, T32 CA09501, T32 CA09512] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Plasmid DNAs encoding cytokines enhance immune responses to vaccination in models of infectious diseases and cancer. We compared DNA adjuvants for their ability to enhance immunity against a poorly immunogenic self-antigen expressed by cancer. Experimental Design: DNAs encoding cytokines that affect T cells [interleukin (IL) -2, IL-12, IL-15, IL-18, IL-21, and the chemokine CCL21] and antigen-presenting cells [granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)] were compared in mouse models as adjuvants to enhance CD8(+) T-cell responses and tumor immunity. A DNA vaccine against a self-antigen, gp100, expressed by melanoma was used in combination with DNA encoding cytokines and cytokines fused to the Fc domain of mouse IgG1 (Ig). Results: We found that (a) cytokine DNAs generally increased CD8(+) T-cell responses against gp100; (b) ligation to Fc domains further enhanced T-cell responses; (c) adjuvant effects were sensitive to timing of DNA injection; (d) the most efficacious individual adjuvants for improving tumor-free survival were IL-12/Ig, IL-15/Ig, IL-21/Ig, GM-CSF/Ig, and CCL21; and (e) combinations of IL-2/Ig + IL-12/Ig, IL-2/Ig + IL-15/Ig, IL-12/Ig + IL-15/Ig, and IL-12/Ig + IL-21/Ig were most active; and (f) increased adjuvanticity of cytokine/lg fusion DNAs was not related to higher tissue levels or greater stability. Conclusions: These observations support the potential of cytokine DNA adjuvants for immunization against self-antigens expressed by cancer, the importance of timing, and the enhancement of immune responses by Fc domains through mechanisms unrelated to increased half-life.

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