ArticlePlant cell reports2025
An engineered PD1-Fc fusion produced in N. benthamiana plants efficiently blocks PD1/PDL1 interaction.
Article in Plant cell reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant-Based Systems for Producing Therapeutic Proteins: Current Status and Future Prospects.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Review
- Strategies to target PD-1/PD-L1 in the tumor microenvironment.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Beyond monoclonal antibodies: constraints and the case for alternative PD-1/PD-L1-targeting formats.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Advances and challenges in plant N-glycoengineering: when fucosylation matters.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
key messagePlant-made PD1-Fc fusions engineered for optimized glycosylation and Fc-receptor engagement are highly efficient in blocking PD1/PDL1 interactions and can be cost-effective alternatives to antibody-based immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are antibodies to receptors that have pivotal roles during T-cell activation processes. The programmed cell death 1 (PD1) can be regarded as the primary immune checkpoint and antibodies targeting PD1 or its ligand PDL1 have revolutionized immunotherapy of cancer. However, the majority of patients fail to respond, and treatment resistance as well as immune-related adverse events are commonly associated with this therapy. Alternatives to antibody-based ICIs targeting the PD1 pathway may bear the potential to overcome some of these shortcomings. Here, we have used a plant expression platform based on the tobacco relative Nicotiana benthamiana to generate immunoglobulin fusion proteins harboring the wild type or an affinity-enhanced PD1 ectodomain. We have exploited the versatility of our system to generate variants that differed regarding their glycosylation profile as well as their capability to engage Fc-receptors. Unlike its wild-type counterpart, the affinity-enhanced versions showed strongly augmented capabilities to engage PDL1 in both protein- and cell-based assays. Moreover, in contrast with clinical antibodies, their binding is not affected by the glycosylation status of PDL1. Importantly, we could demonstrate that the plant-made PD1 fusion proteins are highly efficient in blocking inhibitory PD1 signaling in a T cell reporter assay. Taken together, our study highlights the utility of our plant-based protein expression platform to generate biologics with therapeutic potential. Targeting PDL1 with plant derived affinity-enhanced PD1 immunoglobulin fusion proteins may reduce overstimulation associated with antibody-based therapies while retaining favorable features of ICIs such as long serum half-life.
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.