ArticleEuropean journal of immunology2015
T-cell receptors: tugging on the anchor for a tighter hold on the tumor-associated peptide.
Article in European journal of immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- TCR Analyses of Two Vast and Shared Melanoma Antigen-Specific T Cell Repertoires: Common and Specific Features.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Trial
- Multi-disciplinary approaches paving the way for clinically effective peptide vaccines for cancer.NPJ vaccines · 2025Review
- HLA A*24:02-restricted T cell receptors cross-recognize bacterial and preproinsulin peptides in type 1 diabetes.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2024Article
- Identification and characterization of heteroclitic peptides in TCR-binding positions with improved HLA-binding efficacy.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
- MHC-Optimized Peptide Scaffold for Improved Antigen Presentation and Anti-Tumor Response.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- Selecting Target Antigens for Cancer Vaccine Development.Vaccines · 2020Review
- T-cell receptor affinity in the age of cancer immunotherapy.Molecular carcinogenesis · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although it has been shown that human tumor-associated, HLA anchor residue modified "heteroclitic" peptides may induce stronger immune responses than wild-type peptides in cancer vaccine trials, it has also been shown that some T cells primed with these heteroclitic peptides subsequently fail to recognize the natural, tumor-expressed peptide efficiently. This may provide a molecular reason for why clinical trials of these peptides have been thus far unsuccessful. In this issue of the European Journal of Immunology, Madura et al. [Eur. J. Immunol. 2015. 45: 584-591] highlight a novel twist on T-cell receptor (TCR) recognition of HLA-peptide complexes. Tumor-associated peptides often lack canonical anchor residues, which can be substituted for the optimal residue to improve their antigenicity. T-cell cross-reactivity between the natural and modified (heteroclitic) peptides is essential for this approach to work and depends on whether the anchor residue substitution influences peptide conformation. The Melan-A/MART-126-35 peptide epitope is an example where T cells can make this distinction, with the natural peptide stimulating higher affinity CD8(+) T cells than the heteroclitic peptide, despite the heteroclitic peptide's more stable association with HLA-A2. The molecular basis for peptide discrimination is identified through the structure of the TCR bound to the natural peptide; TCR engagement of the natural peptide "lifts" its amino-terminus partly away from the HLA peptide binding groove, forming a higher affinity interface with the TCR than is formed with the anchor residue "optimized" heteroclitic peptide, which cannot be "pulled" from the HLA groove.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.