4.4 Article

Identification and characterization of a WT1 (Wilms tumor gene) protein-derived HLA-DRB1*0405-restricted 16-mer helper peptide that promotes the induction and activation of WT1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 282-293

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.cji.0000211337.91513.94

关键词

WT1; helper T cell; cancer vaccine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective tumor vaccine may be required to induce both cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) and CD4(+) helper T-cell responses against tumor-associated antigens. CD4(+) helper T cells that recognize HLA class II-restricted epitopes play a central role in the initiation and maintenance of antitumor immune responses. The Wilms tumor gene WT1 is overexpressed in both leukemias and solid tumors, and the WT1 protein was demonstrated to be an attractive target antigen for cancer immunotherapy. In this study, we identified a WT1 protein-derived 16-mer peptide, WT1(332) (KRYFKLSHLQMHSRKH), which was restricted with HLA-DRB1*0405, one of the most common HLA class 11 types in Japanese, as a helper epitope that could elicit WT1-specific CD4(+) T-cell responses. We established a WT1(332)-specific CD4+ helper T-cell clone (E04.1), which could respond to both HLA-DR131*0405-positive, WT1-expressing transformed hematopoietic cells and autologous dendritic cells pulsed with apoptosis-induced WT1-expressing cells, indicating that the WT1(332) was a naturally processed helper epitope. Stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with both the CTL epitope (WT1(235)) and the helper epitope (WT1332) in the presence of WT1332-specific TH1-type CD4(+) T cell clone strikingly enhanced the induction and the functional activity of WT1(235)-specific CTLs compared with that of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with the WT1235 alone. These results indicated that a helper epitope, WT1332 should be useful for dimprovement of the efficacy of CTL epitope-based cancer vaccine targeting WT1 in the clinical setting.

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