Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32370785›Full record

ArticleBMC immunology2020

Comparison of personal and shared frameshift neoantigen vaccines in a mouse mammary cancer model.

Milene Peterson, Sierra Nicole Murphy, John Lainson, Jian Zhang, Luhui Shen, Chris W Diehnelt, Stephen Albert Johnston

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Milene PetersonCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA. mtavare1@asu.edu.
Sierra Nicole MurphyCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
John LainsonCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Jian ZhangCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Luhui ShenCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Chris W DiehneltCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Stephen Albert JohnstonCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Arizona State University · USCenter for Innovation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is widely hoped that personal cancer vaccines will extend the number of patients benefiting from checkpoint and other immunotherapies. However, it is clear creating such vaccines will be challenging. It requires obtaining and sequencing tumor DNA/RNA, predicting potentially immunogenic neoepitopes and manufacturing a one-use vaccine. This process takes time and considerable cost. Importantly, most mutations will not produce an immunogenic peptide and many patient's tumors do not contain enough DNA mutations to make a vaccine. We have discovered that frameshift peptides (FSP) created from errors in the production of RNA rather than from DNA mutations are potentially a rich source of neoantigens for cancer vaccines. These errors are predictable, enabling the production of a FSP microarray. Previously we found that these microarrays can identify both personal and shared neoantigens. Here, we compared the performance of personal cancer vaccines (PCVs) with that of a shared antigen vaccine, termed Frameshift Antigen Shared Therapeutic (FAST) vaccine, using the 4 T1 breast cancer model. Sera from 4 T1-tumor bearing mice were assayed on the peptide microarray containing 200 Fs neoantigens, for the PCV, the top 10 candidates were select and personal vaccines constructed and administrated to the respective mice. For the FAST, we selected the top 10 candidates with higher prevalence among all the mice challenged. Seven to 12 days challenged mice were immunized, combined or not with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) (αPD-L1 and αCTLA-4). Primary and secondary tumor clearance and growth were evaluated as well as cellular and humoral immune response against the vaccine targets by IFN-γ ELISPOT and ELISA. Lastly, we analyzed the immune response of the FAST-vaccinated mice by flow cytometry in comparison to the control group.

resultsWe found that PCVs and FAST vaccines both reduced primary tumor incidence and growth as well as lung metastases when delivered as monotherapies or in combination with ICI. Additionally, the FAST vaccine induces a robust and effective T-cell response.

conclusionsThese results suggest that FSPs produced from RNA-based errors are potent neoantigens that could enable production of off-the-shelf shared antigen vaccines for solid tumors with efficacy comparable to that of PCVs.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigens, NeoplasmBreast NeoplasmsCancer VaccinesDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansImmunity, CellularImmunity, HumoralImmunotherapyMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMutationPeptidesAntigens, NeoplasmCancer VaccinesPeptidesBreast cancerFrameshift peptidesImmunotherapyMouse modelPersonalized cancer vaccineShared-neoantigen vaccine

Identifiers

PMID32370785
PMCPMC7201681
OpenAlexW3021799767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.