For modulation of Th cell responses, peptides offere several advantages over intact Ags as immunogens or tolerogens (either as altered peptide ligands (APLs), competitors, or vaccines). First, peptides require less stringent degradative conditions than native Ags. Second, with a smaller determinant, there is less likelihood of cross-reactivity between the peptide and other self-proteins. And third, peptides offer exquisite specificity over native Ags. Despite these advantages, the use of peptides has remained fairly limited, because they are rapidly cleared from the circulation and poorly taken-up by APCs (by pinocytosis only) : effectiveness of taking up can be increased by coupling peptides to ligands (eg. transferrin (Tf)) specific for cell surface receptors found on APCs (eg. CD71 / TfR).
![]() |
Subscribe to Cancer Vaccines | |
| Email: |
|
|
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
|
|
epitopes presentable by MHC class I molecules of |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plasmid priming + AAV boosting | ||||
| BCL1 | anti-Id antibodies-dependent
(30-80%) |
anti-Id antibodies-dependent (30-100%) | ||||||||
| 38C13 (Href, Lref) | anti-Id antibodies-independent
(30%) |
no anti-idiotype antibodies induced (exception : )
(40%) |
no anti-Id antibodies induced
(80%) |
|||||||
| JLms (sIg-) | CD8+ T cell-dependent
(20%) |
CD8+ T cell-dependent
(50%) |
no anti-Id antibodies induced
CD8+ T cell-dependent |
|||||||
This effort should clearly be integrated with RAID's mission of developing
academically held immunotherapeutics using the BRB as a resource for coordination
of the production of these materials. Such an enterprise cannot be successful
unless its budget is at least doubled and its physical plant significantly
upgraded. These increases represent a tiny fraction of the total NCI budget
and would go a long way to fulfilling the stated mission: significant reduction
in cancer morbidity and mortality over the next decade. Resources might
also come through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, as this endeavor
is clearly aligned with the NIH's vision of creating translationally relevant
core technologies and making their outputs broadly available to the community.
The FDA must take responsibility for better educating itself and the oncology
community regarding the cutting-edge immunotherapeutics currently being
developed. This would be most efficiently accomplished by significantly
expanding the scope of BRMAC's composition and advisory role. In addition,
the FDA could develop an online database of immunotherapeutics that covers
mechanisms of action, potential and actual toxicities, contacts (within
academia, companies and the FDA) with expertise in a particular area and
regulatory points-to-consider for investigational new drug applications.
This would alleviate much of the confusion and misperceptions about regulatory
issues regarding specific classes of agents. As suggested above, the FDA
has great power to facilitate the development of combinations of experimental
biologic agents by promoting the message that combinatorial experimental
therapies with a sound scientific basis are encouraged rather than discouraged.
This message can only come with the confidence of a well-educated FDA that
communicates more effectively with both academia and industry. In the case
of cancer therapeutics, creation of separate centers for the evaluation
of therapeutics for acutely lethal diseases may facilitate a more accommodating
atmosphere for novel combinatorial immunotherapeutics by reorientation
of risk-benefit judgments. Only with concerted measures such as these will
the tremendous opportunities that immunologic science has provided over
the past decade be effectively tapped for the sake of the most effective
therapy for patients with cancer.
Thus far, the emphasis has been on the activation of one arm of the
immune system, in the majority of cases T-cell immunity, since T cells
are believed to be the major players in tumor control. The available experimental
evidence argues that activation of multiple arms of the immune system is
a must to enhance the ability of immunotherapy to control tumor growthref1,
ref2
Companies
manufacturing cancer immunotherapeutics
Web resources :
Approach to manufacturing and characterizing bulk populations of gene-modified autologous T cells for use in treating follicular lymphoma PBMC from healthy donors, obtained after informed consent, were stimulated in vitro with Ab to CD3e (OKT3) and rhuIL-2 and then electroporated with plasmid DNA containing a human CD19-specific chimeric Ag receptor (CAR) gene and HSV-1 thymidine kinase (TK) gene. Stably transfected cells were selected in cytocidal concentrations of hygromycin B over multiple 14-day stimulation culture cycles and then cryopreserved. Vials of cryopreserved/selected T cells were used to initiate T-cell expansion cultures to produce cell products for clinical infusion. These cultures were characterized for phenotype, function and suitability for use in adoptive immunotherapy studies. Bulk populations of gene-modified T cells derived from peripheral blood of healthy donors express CD19+ chimeric Ag receptor at low levels and can specifically lyse CD19+ target cells in vitro. These cells display a differentiated T-effector phenotype, are sensitive to gancilovir-mediated killing and display a non-transformed phenotype. TCR Vb usage indicated that all populations tested were polyclonal. Ex vivo cell expansion from cryopreserved cell banks is sufficient to produce doses of between 5x10(9) and 1x10(10) cells/run. One of three transductions resulted in a population of cells that was not suitable for infusion but was identified during release testing. No populations displayed any evidence of bacterial, fungal or mycoplasma contamination. Genetically modified T cells have been characterized by cell-surface marker phenotype, functional activity against CD19+ targets and requisite safety testing. These pre-clinical data confirm the feasibility of this approach to manufacturing T-cell productsref.
| Venoglobulin-S© (5%) | Veno-S© (10%) | Gammagard S/D© | Iveegam EN© | Polygam S/D© | Gamimune-N S/D© 10% | Gammar P.I.V.© | IVIg© (human) | |
| manufacturer | Alpha Therapeutic Corp. | Alpha Therapeutic Corp. | Baxter Corp./Hyland Immune Division | Immuno-U.S. Inc. | Baxter Corp./Hyland Immune Division; distrib. by American Red Cross (ARC) | Bayer | Aventis Behring | ZLB Bioplasma |
| method of preparation (including viral inactivation) | cold alcohol fractionation, PEG/bentonite fractionation, ion-exchange chromatography, solvent detergent treatment | Cohn-Oncley ultrafiltration, ion-exchange chromatography, solvent detergent treatment | cold ethanol, PEG, trypsin | Cohn-Oncley ultrafiltration, ion-exchange chromatography, solvent detergent treatment | Cohn-Oncley pH 4.25, solvent detergent treatment | Cohn-Oncley pasteurization, ultrafiltration | KistlerNitschmann; pH 4.0 + trace pepsin | |
| form | liquid | liquid | lyophilized | lyophilized | lyophilized | liquid | lyophilized | lyophilized |
| shelf-life | 24 months | 24 months | 27 months | 24 months | 27 months | 26 months | 24 months | 24 months |
| reconstitution time | liquid solution | liquid solution | < 5' at RT; > 20' if cold | < 10' at RT | < 5' at RT; > 20' if cold | liquid solution | < 20' | several minutes |
| recommended concentration | 5% | 10% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 10% | 5% | 3% |
| recommended infusion rate | 3 mL/kg/hr | 3 mL/kg/hr | 4 mL/kg/hr | 2 mL/min | 4 mL/kg/hr | 4.8 mL/kg/hr | 3.6 mL/kg/hr | 2.5 mL/min |
| time to infuse 70 g (1g/kg) | 7 hr | 3.5 hr | 5.3 hr | 12 hr | 5.3 hr | 2.3 hr | 5.8 hr | 16 hr |
| sugar content | 5% D-sorbitol | 5% D-sorbitol | 2% glucose | 5% glucose | 2% glucose | sugar-free (glycine) | 5% sucrose | 5% sucrose |
| sodium content (determines osmolality) | 1.3 mEq/L | < 1 mEq/L | 0.85% at 5% concentration | 0.3% | 0.85% at 5% concentration | trace | 0.5% | up to 0.9%, depending on diluent |
| osmolality | 300 mOsm/L | 300 mOsm/L | 5% 636 mOsm/L, 10% 1,250 mOsm/L | > 240 | 5% 636 mOsm/L, 10% 1,250 mOsm/L | 274 mOsm/L | 5% 309 mOsm/L, 10% 600 mOsm/L | in sterile water (mOsm/L); 3% 192, 6% 384, 12% 768; in normal saline (mOsm/L) : 3% 498, 6% 690, 12% 1074 |
| pH | 5.2-5.8 | 5.2-5.8 | 6.8 | 6.4-7.2 | 6.8 | 4.25 | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| IgA content | 15.1 mg/mL | 20-50 mg/mL | < 3.7 mg/mL | < 10 mg/mL | < 3.7 mg/mL | 270 mg/mL | < 25 mg/mL | 720 mg/mL |
|
|
|
|
|
| -cir- | -xi | -mab | abciximab |
| -lim- | -zu | -mab | daclizumab |