4.5 Article

Design of neo-glycoconjugates that target the mannose receptor and enhance TLR-independent cross-presentation and Th1 polarization

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 916-925

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/eji.201040762

关键词

Antigen presentation; Cross-presentation; DC targeting; Glycans; MR

资金

  1. NWO Mozaiek from the Dutch Scientific Research program [017.001.136]
  2. AICR [07-0163]
  3. SenterNovem [SII071030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cross-presentation is an important mechanism by which DCs present exogenous antigens on MHC-Imolecules, and activate CD8(+) T cells, cells that are crucial for the elimination of tumors. We investigated the feasibility of exploiting the capacity of the mannose receptor (MR) to improve both cross-presentation of tumor antigens and Th polarization, processes that are 4pivotal for the anti-tumor potency of cytotoxic T cells. To this end, we selected two glycan ligands of the MR, 3-sulfo-Lewis(A) and tri-GlcNAc (N-acetylglucosamine), to conjugate to the model antigen OVA and assessed in vitro the effect on antigen presentation and Th differentiation. Our results demonstrate that conjugation of either 3-sulfo-Lewis(A) or tri-GlcNAc specifically directs antigen to the MR. Both neo-glycoconjugates showed, even at low doses, improved uptake as compared with native OVA, resulting in enhanced cross-presentation. Using MR-/- and MyD88-TRIFF-/- bone marrow-derived DCs (BMDCs), we show that the cross-presentation of the neo-glycoconjugates is dependent on MR and independent of TLR-mediated signaling. Whereas proliferation of antigen-specific CD4(+) T cells was unchanged, stimulation with neo-glycoconjugate-loaded DCs enhanced the generation of IFN-gamma-producing T cells. We conclude that modification of antigen with either 3-sulfo-Lewis(A) or tri-GlcNAc enhances cross-presentation and permits Th1 skewing, through specific targeting of the MR, which may be beneficial for DC-based vaccination strategies to treat cancer.

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

4.5
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