4.7 Article

A novel immunogenic mouse model of melanoma for the preclinical assessment of combination targeted and immune-based therapy

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37883-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHMRC of Australia [1100189]
  2. Pfizer Oncology
  3. Melbourne Research Scholarship (University of Melbourne) [58616]
  4. Cancer Therapeutics CRC (CTx) PhD Top Up Scholarship
  5. NHMRC Early Career Fellowship [1088703]
  6. National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF) Fellowship [PF-15-008]
  7. NHMRC New Investigator Grant [1140406]
  8. Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme [1120725]
  9. Cure Cancer Australia
  10. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Postgraduate Scholarship
  11. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1088703, 1100189, 1140406] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both targeted therapy and immunotherapy have been used successfully to treat melanoma, but the development of resistance and poor response rates to the individual therapies has limited their success. Designing rational combinations of targeted therapy and immunotherapy may overcome these obstacles, but requires assessment in preclinical models with the capacity to respond to both therapeutic classes. Herein, we describe the development and characterization of a novel, immunogenic variant of the Braf(V600E)Cdkn2a(-/-)Pten(-/-)YUMM1.1 tumor model that expresses the immunogen, ovalbumin (YOVAL1.1). We demonstrate that, unlike parental tumors, YOVAL1.1 tumors are immunogenic in vivo and can be controlled by immunotherapy. Importantly, YOVAL1.1 tumors are sensitive to targeted inhibitors of BRAF(V600E) and MEK, responding in a manner consistent with human BRAF(V600E) melanoma. The YOVAL1.1 melanoma model is transplantable, immunogenic and sensitive to clinical therapies, making it a valuable platform to guide strategic development of combined targeted therapy and immunotherapy approaches in BRAF(V600E) melanoma.

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