๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Reevaluation of the cellular immune response in breast cancer patients vaccinated with MUC1

โœ Scribed by Cristina Musselli; Govindaswami Ragupathi; Teresa Gilewski; Katherine S. Panageas; Yael Spinat; Philip O. Livingston


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2002
Tongue
French
Weight
114 KB
Volume
97
Category
Article
ISSN
0020-7136

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Abstract

Conjugation of antigens to a carrier protein like keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) has proven effective in clinical trials for inducing antibodies against selected tumor antigens. The impact of this approach on Tโ€cell immunity has not been previously tested. We utilized peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) obtained at leukapheresis from 6 breast cancer patients vaccinated 4 times each with a 106โ€amino acidโ€long MUC1 peptide conjugated with KLH plus immune adjuvant QSโ€21. Proliferation after 6 days of in vitro culture and an interferon gamma ELISPOT assay with and without 6 days of in vitro sensitization with the immunizing antigen were used. Parallel experiments employed the use of the cytokine IL2. Our results indicate that despite a high response to KLH in all patients with precursor frequencies as high as 1/120 peripheral blood lymphocytes and augmentation of proliferation in excess of 200โ€fold after vaccination, the Tโ€cell response against MUC1 peptide was minimal and inconsistent. The strength and consistency of the vaccineโ€induced Tโ€cell response against KLH in these patients excludes general immune incompetence and assay insensitivity or inconsistency as explanations for the weak and inconsistent response against MUC1. We conclude that for any report of augmented Tโ€cell responses against MUC1 to be convincing, one or more postimmunization blood samples will be needed to demonstrate augmented MUC1โ€specific immunity consistently on multiple occasions. Assuming this criteria, convincing induction of Tโ€cell immunity against MUC1 by vaccination has yet to be described. ยฉ 2001 Wileyโ€Liss, Inc.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


The importance of MUC1 cellular localiza
โœ Jennifer J. Rahn; Laith Dabbagh; Manijeh Pasdar; Judith C. Hugh ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2001 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 657 KB

## BACKGROUND. The MUC1 mucin is present on the apical surface of normal secretory epithelia. In breast carcinoma, MUC1 expression is variable in amount and cellular localization, the significance of which is controversial. The authors undertook a detailed analysis of staining pattern combined wit

The effect of methanol extraction residu
โœ Bartal, Arie ;Cohen, Yoram ;Mekori, Tamar ;Haasz, Robert ;Robinson, E. ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1979 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 480 KB

Twenty-one patients with malignant melanoma stage III and IV were treated by intradermal injections of MER--methanol extraction residue of Baccillus Calmette-Guรฉrin (BCG). Twelve of the patients, all with active disease, received chemotherapy in addition. Tests of skin reactivity to recall antigens