4.7 Article

Boost and loss of immune responses against tumor-associated antigens in the course of pregnancy as a model for allogeneic immunotherapy

期刊

BLOOD
卷 125, 期 2, 页码 261-272

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-09-601302

关键词

-

资金

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF) of the University of Wurzburg, Germany [D-150]
  2. Hilfe im Kampf gegen Krebs e.V., Wurzburg, Germany
  3. Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst e.V., Bonn, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Donor-derived immunity against tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) may exert selective antileukemic activity reprieving the allogeneic recipient from graft-versus-host disease. As TAAs are highly expressed in placental tissues we hypothesized that pregnancy could drive respective immunity in healthy individuals. Thus, we investigated the frequency and level of immune responses against clinically relevant TAAs in 114 blood donors and 44 women during their first pregnancy. Quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction was employed to detect low levels of interferon-gamma after primary peptide stimulation of CD8(+) T lymphocytes. In blood donors, primary immune responses of low and/or high avidity were found against WT1 (15%), MUC1 (14%), PRAM E (7%), and HER2/neu (5%) and exerted killing functions against leukemic cells. Men had higher responses than women, likely due to gonadal cancer-testis-antigen expression. Interestingly, a history of prior delivery was not associated with increased responses, whereasthe strongest responses during pregnancy were found in early trimesters to disappear after delivery. This boost and loss of TAA-specific immunity suggests that virtually every donor harbors the potential to mount antileukemic immune responses in a recipient. However, in the absence of the driving target and a permissive environment, they are short-lived and thus require supplemental strategies such as vaccination or immunomodulation to facilitate their persistence.

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