Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41196374›Full record

SynthesisCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2025

A meta-analysis of experimentally validated neo-epitopes: patterns, biases, and opportunities.

Alessandro Sette, Ibel Carri, Daniel Marrama, Angela Frentzen, Jarjapu Mahita, Nina Blazeska, Randi Vita, Morten Nielsen, Yat-Tsai Richie Wan, Hannah Carter and 3 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

13 authors.

Alessandro SetteCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Ibel CarriCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Daniel MarramaCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Angela FrentzenCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jarjapu MahitaCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Nina BlazeskaCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Randi VitaCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Morten NielsenDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Yat-Tsai Richie WanDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Hannah CarterDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Stephen SchoenbergerLaboratory of Cellular Immunology, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Bjoern PetersCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.
Zeynep Koşaloğlu-YalçınCenter for Vaccine Innovation, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA. zeynep@lji.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer cells harbor somatic mutations that generate novel amino acid sequences that are absent in the self-proteome. These mutation-derived cancer-specific peptides are defined as "neo-peptides". Neo-peptides eliciting immune responses, i.e. immunogenic neo-peptides, are defined as "neo-epitopes". Given their relevance to cancer immunotherapy, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine how experimental evidence informs our understanding of neo-epitopes. Our study is the largest reported to date. Using the cancer epitope database and analysis resource (CEDAR), we analyzed over 16,000 neo-peptides tested in more than 20,000 T cell assays across 180 studies. We found that validated neo-epitope frequencies varied across cancer types, with the highest rates in skin and lung and the lowest in colorectal cancer. Neo-epitopes were enriched in driver genes such as TP53 and KRAS. However, testing frequency correlated with mutation prevalence, revealing bias toward recurrent mutations. Despite the high sequence similarity among RAS family members, validated neo-epitope overlap was minimal, challenging pan-RAS strategies. Shared neo-epitopes across cancer types are rare, with only 16 validated in more than one cancer type. While most assays involved HLA class I, class II alleles presented a higher proportion of validated neo-epitopes. Specific alleles, including HLA-B*40:01 and HLA-DRB1*11:01, were enriched for neo-epitopes, whereas others, like HLA-A*02:01, were enriched for non-immunogenic neo-peptides. Finally, amino acid substitutions that altered hydrophobicity or charge were more common in neo-epitopes. Together, these findings define key features of neo-epitopes, expose methodological and biological biases in the literature, and highlight opportunities to improve the selection and prioritization of neo-epitopes for cancer immunotherapy.

Indexed as

Antigens, NeoplasmEpitopesEpitopes, T-LymphocyteNeoplasmsHumansImmunotherapyMutationAntigens, NeoplasmEpitopesEpitopes, T-LymphocyteImmunotherapyMeta-analysisNeoantigensNeoepitopes

Identifiers

PMID41196374
PMCPMC12592574

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.