4.4 Article

Robust expansion of viral antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells for adoptive T cell therapy using gene-modified activated T cells as antigen presenting cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 436-443

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.cji.0000211302.52503.93

关键词

cytomegalovirus; T cells; adoptive immunotherapy; antigen-presenting cells; gene transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after stem cell transplantation can be treated with CMV-specific T cells, but current in vitro techniques using dendritic cells as antigen-presenting cells are time-consuming and expensive. To simplify the production of clinical grade CMV-specific T cells, we evaluated gene-modified activated T cells [antigen presenting T cells (T-APCs)] as a reliable and easily produced source of APCs to boost CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell responses against the immunodominant CMV antigen pp65. T-APCs expressing the full-length immunodominant CMV pp65 gene were used to stimulate the expansion of autologous T cells. After 10 to 14 days, the T cell lines were tested for antigen specificity by using the flow cytometric intracellular detection of interferon-gamma after stimulation for 6 hours with a pp65 peptide library of 15-mers, overlapping by 11 amino acids. Under optimal conditions, this technique induced a median 766-fold and a 652-fold expansion of pp65-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) responder cells, respectively, in 15 T cell lines. In 13 of 15 T cell lines, over 10(6) antigen-specific CD4(+) plus CD8(+) T cells were generated starting with only 5 x 10(6) peripheral blood mononuclear cells, representing an over 3-log increase. These data indicate that T-APCs efficiently boost pp65-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell numbers to clinically useful levels. The approach has the advantage of using a single leukocyte collection from the donor to generate large numbers of CMV-specific T cells within a total 3-week culture period using only one stimulation of antigen.

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

4.4
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