4.7 Article

Lack of specific γ-retroviral vector long terminal repeat promoter silencing in patients receiving genetically engineered lymphocytes and activation upon lymphocyte restimulation

期刊

BLOOD
卷 114, 期 14, 页码 2888-2899

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-01-199216

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Retroviral transduction of tumor antigen-specific T-cell receptor (TCR) genes into lymphocytes redirects T cells to lyse tumors. Furthermore, adoptive transfer of these lymphocytes has mediated objective responses in patients with metastatic cancer. From 2004 to 2006, more than 40 patients were treated with autologous gene-modified lymphocytes expressing a melanoma antigen-specific TCR at the National Cancer Institute. Eighteen such patients were analyzed for persistence and gene expression in vivo. In addition, the impact of epigenetic silencing and of lymphocyte restimulation was studied. Although gene-modified lymphocytes persisted in vivo, the shutdown of TCR transgene expression was observed. Bisulfite sequencing analysis and ex vivo DNA methyltransferase inhibition demonstrated that the decrease in gene expression did not result from DNA methylation. Surprisingly, down-regulation of vector-driven transgene transcriptional activity was not vector specific but mimicked that of endogenous genes. The decrease in TCR transgene expression, however, was reversed upon lymphocyte stimulation. These data demonstrate a lack of gamma-retroviral promoter-specific gene silencing in adoptively transferred human lymphocytes and support that transgene expression is largely affected by global cellular mechanisms. The use of immunomodulatory adjuvants, eg, vaccination or cytokine therapy, for in vivo T-cell activation may help overcome this metabolic quiescence and thus augment cellular immunotherapy-based cancer therapy. (Blood. 2009; 114: 2888-2899)

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