4.6 Article

Vaccination of stage III/IV melanoma patients with long NY-ESO-1 peptide and CpG-B elicits robust CD8(+) and CD4(+) T-cell responses with multiple specificities including a novel DR7-restricted epitope

期刊

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1216290

关键词

CpG-B; HLA-DR7; long synthetic peptide; malignant melanoma; NY-ESO-1

资金

  1. Cancer Research Institute (USA)
  2. Ludwig Cancer Research (USA)
  3. Cancer Vaccine Collaborative (USA)
  4. Atlantic Philanthropies (USA)
  5. Wilhelm Sander-Foundation (Germany)
  6. Swiss Cancer Research [3507-08-2014]
  7. Swiss National Science Foundation [CRSII3_160708, 320030_152856, 31003A_163204, 310030-130812]
  8. SwissTransMed [KIP 18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long synthetic peptides and CpG-containing oligodeoxynucleotides are promising components for cancer vaccines. In this phase I trial, 19 patients received a mean of 8 (range 1-12) monthly vaccines s.c. composed of the long synthetic NY-ESO-1(79-108) peptide and CpG-B (PF-3512676), emulsified in Montanide ISA-51. In 18/18 evaluable patients, vaccination induced antigen-specific CD8(+) and CD4(+) T-cell and antibody responses, starting early after initiation of immunotherapy and lasting at least one year. The T-cells responded antigen-specifically, with strong secretion of IFN and TNF, irrespective of patients' HLAs. The most immunogenic regions of the vaccine peptide were NY-ESO-1(89-102) for CD8(+) and NY-ESO-1(83-99) for CD4(+) T-cells. We discovered a novel and highly immunogenic epitope (HLA-DR7/NY-ESO-1(87-99)); 7/7 HLA-DR7(+) patients generated strong CD4(+) T-cell responses, as detected directly ex vivo with fluorescent multimers. Thus, vaccination with the long synthetic NY-ESO-1(79-108) peptide combined with the strong immune adjuvant CpG-B induced integrated, robust and functional CD8(+) and CD4(+) T-cell responses in melanoma patients, supporting the further development of this immunotherapeutic approach.

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

4.6
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