Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15292504›Full record

ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2004

DNA vaccines to attack cancer.

Freda K Stevenson, Christian H Ottensmeier, Peter Johnson, Delin Zhu, Sarah L Buchan, Katy J McCann, Joanne S Roddick, Andrew T King, Feargal McNicholl, Natalia Savelyeva and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Targeting Head and Neck Cancer by Vaccination.Frontiers in immunology · 2018
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. DNA fusion vaccines enter the clinic.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2011
    Review
  19. DNA vaccines: developing new strategies against cancer.Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology · 2010
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Freda K StevensonMolecular Immunology Group, Tenovus Laboratory, Cancer Sciences Division, Southampton University Hospitals Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. fs@soton.ac.uk
Christian H Ottensmeier
Peter Johnson
Delin Zhu
Sarah L Buchan
Katy J McCann
Joanne S Roddick
Andrew T King
Feargal McNicholl
Natalia Savelyeva
Jason Rice

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delivery of antigens by injection of the encoding DNA allows access to multiple antigen-presenting pathways. Knowledge of immunological processes can therefore be used to modify construct design to induce selected effector functions. Expression can be directed to specific intracellular sites, and additional genes can be fused or codelivered to amplify responses. Therapeutic vaccination against cancer adds a requirement to overcome tolerance and to activate a weakened immune repertoire. Induction of CD4(+) T helper cells is critical for both antibody and T cell effector responses. To activate immunity against tumor antigens, we fused the tumor-derived sequences to genes encoding microbial proteins. This strategy engages T helper cells from the large antimicrobial repertoire for linked help for inducing antibody against cell-surface tumor antigens. The principle of linked T cell help also holds for induction of epitope-specific antitumor CD8(+) T cells, but the microbial sequence has to be minimized to avoid competition with tumor antigens. Epitope-specific DNA vaccination leads to powerful antitumor attack and can activate immunity from a profoundly tolerized repertoire. Vaccine designs validated in preclinical models are now in clinical trial with immune responses detected against both tumor antigens and fused microbial antigens. DNA priming is highly efficient, but boosting may benefit from increased antigen expression. Physical methods including electroporation provide increased expression without introducing additional competing antigens. A wide range of cancers can be targeted, and objective assays of response will determine efficacy.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigens, NeoplasmArtificial Gene FusionB-LymphocytesCancer VaccinesGenetic EngineeringHumansNeoplasmsT-Lymphocytes, Helper-InducerVaccines, DNAAntigens, NeoplasmCancer VaccinesVaccines, DNA

Identifiers

PMID15292504
PMCPMC521995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.