Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35265089›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2022

Neo-Splicetopes in Tumor Therapy: A Lost Case?

Peter M Kloetzel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter M KloetzelCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Biochemistry, Berlin, Germany.
Freie Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteasome generates spliced peptides by ligating two distant cleavage products in a reverse proteolysis reaction. The observation that CD8+ T cells recognizing a spliced peptide induced T cell rejection in a melanoma patient following adoptive T cell transfer (ATT), raised some hopes with regard to the general therapeutic and immune relevance of spliced peptides. Concomitantly, the identification of spliced peptides was also the start of a controversy with respect to their frequency, abundancy and their therapeutic applicability. Here I review some of the recent evidence favoring or disfavoring an immune relevance of splicetopes and discuss from a theoretical point of view the potential usefulness of tumor specific splicetopes and why against all odds it still may seem worth trying to identify such tumor and patient-specific neosplicetopes for application in ATT.

Indexed as

CD8-Positive T-LymphocytesMelanomaHumansPeptidesProteasome Endopeptidase ComplexProteolysisPeptidesProteasome Endopeptidase Complexadoptive T cell transferantigen processingneosplicetopespeptide splicingprediction algorithmsproteasome

Identifiers

PMID35265089
PMCPMC8898901
OpenAlexW4213316687

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.