ArticleCells2021
Evaluation of Production Protocols for the Generation of NY-ESO-1-Specific T Cells.
Article in Cells, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineering resilient CAR T cells for immunosuppressive environment.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025Review
- HDAC Inhibition for Optimized Cellular Immunotherapy of NY-ESO-1-Positive Soft Tissue Sarcoma.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- CAR-T Cell Performance: How to Improve Their Persistence?Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
NY-ESO-1-specific T cells have shown promising activity in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). However, standardized protocols for their generation are limited. Particularly, cost-effectiveness considerations of cell production protocols are of importance for conducting clinical studies. In this study, two different NY-ESO-1-specific T cell production protocols were compared. Major differences between protocols 1 and 2 include culture medium, interleukin-2 and retronectin concentrations, T cell activation strategy, and the transduction process. NY-ESO-1-specific T cells generated according to the two protocols were investigated for differences in cell viability, transduction efficiency, T cell expansion, immunophenotype as well as functionality. NY-ESO-1-specific T cells showed similar viability and transduction efficiency between both protocols. Protocol 1 generated higher absolute numbers of NY-ESO-1-specific T cells. However, there was no difference in absolute numbers of NY-ESO-1-specific T cell subsets with less-differentiated phenotypes accounting for efficient in vivo expansion and engraftment. Furthermore, cells generated according to protocol 1 displayed higher capacity of TNF-α generation, but lower cytotoxic capacities. Overall, both protocols provided functional NY-ESO-1-specific T cells. However, compared to protocol 1, protocol 2 is advantageous in terms of cost-effectiveness. Cell production protocols should be designed diligently to achieve a cost-effective cellular product for further clinical evaluation.
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.