4.7 Article

Analyses of recombinant vaccinia and fowlpox vaccine vectors expressing transgenes for two human tumor antigens and three human costimulatory molecules

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 1597-1607

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1609

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The poor immunogenicity of tumor antigens and the antigenic heterogeneity of tumors call for vaccine strategies to enhance T-cell responses to multiple antigens. Two antigens expressed noncoordinately on most human carcinomas are carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and MUC-1. We report here the construction and characterization of two viral vector vaccines to address these issues. Experimental Design: The two viral vectors analyzed are the replication-competent recombinant vaccinia virus (rV-) and the avipox vector, fowlpox (rF-), which is replication incompetent in mammalian cells. Each vector encodes the transgenes for three human costimulatory molecules (B7-1, ICAM-1, and LFA-3, designated TRICOM) and the CEA and MUC-1 transgenes (which also contain agonist epitopes). The vectors are designated rV-CEA/MUC/ TRICOM and rF-CEA/MUC/TRICOM. Results: Each of the vectors is shown to be capable of faithfully expressing all five transgenes in human dendritic cells (DC). DCs infected with either vector are shown to activate both CEA- and MUC-1-specific T-cell lines to the same level as DCs infected with CEA-TRICOM or MUG 1-TRICOM vectors. Thus, no evidence of antigenic competition between CEA and MUC-1 was observed. Human DCs infected with rV-CEA/MUC/TRICOM or rF-CEA/MUC/TRICOM are also shown to be capable of generating both MUC-1- and CEA-specific T-cell lines; these T-cell lines are in turn shown to be capable of lysing targets pulsed with MUC-1 or CEA peptides as well as human tumor cells endogenously expressing MUC-1 and/or CEA. Conclusion: These studies provide the rationale for the clinical evaluation of these multigene vectors in patients with a range of carcinomas expressing MUC-1 and/or CEA.

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