| Literature DB >> 30875739 |
Mohamed-Reda Benmebarek1, Clara Helke Karches2, Bruno Loureiro Cadilha3, Stefanie Lesch4, Stefan Endres5, Sebastian Kobold6.
Abstract
Effective adoptive T cell therapy (ACT) comprises the killing of cancer cells through the therapeutic use of transferred T cells. One of the main ACT approaches is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy. CAR T cells mediate MHC-unrestricted tumor cell killing by enabling T cells to bind target cell surface antigens through a single-chain variable fragment (scFv) recognition domain. Upon engagement, CAR T cells form a non-classical immune synapse (IS), required for their effector function. These cells then mediate their anti-tumoral effects through the perforin and granzyme axis, the Fas and Fas ligand axis, as well as the release of cytokines to sensitize the tumor stroma. Their persistence in the host and functional outputs are tightly dependent on the receptor's individual components-scFv, spacer domain, and costimulatory domains-and how said component functions converge to augment CAR T cell performance. In this review, we bring forth the successes and limitations of CAR T cell therapy. We delve further into the current understanding of how CAR T cells are designed to function, survive, and ultimately mediate their anti-tumoral effects.Entities:
Keywords: adoptive T cell therapy; cancer immunotherapy; chimeric antigen receptor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30875739 PMCID: PMC6470706 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20061283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1A chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) is composed of several components, each of which contributes towards the proper activation, functionality, and persistence of CAR T cells. In addition to the CAR, T cell gene editing approaches can also augment functional potential.
Figure 2CAR vs T cell receptor (TCR) T cell functionality: Time interval between synapse formation and disengagement following lysis is shorter for CAR T cells compared to TCR T cells. Signal strength during engagement is stronger in CAR T cells compared to TCR T cells. Quantified granzyme and perforin release during engagement was also comparable, despite the difference kinetics. Units are depicted relative to fold change. Granzyme and perforin release depicted in blue. Signal strength depicted in red. (Adapted from [51]).
Figure 3CAR T cells mediate tumor killing via three axes: (1) Perforin and granzyme axis: Targeting antigen positive fraction. (2) Cytokine secretion: Stromal cell sensitization. (3) Fas and FasL axis: Targeting antigen-negative fraction.
Summary of the various approaches employed to regulate CAR T cell activity, and to enhance their selectivity and killing potential.
| Aim | Modulation | Approaches |
|---|---|---|
| Enhancing selectivity | Simultaneous targeting of multiple antigens | Tandem CAR [ |
| iCAR (inhibitory CAR) [ | ||
| scFv modulation | Fine-tune scFv affinities [ | |
| Inducible CARs | synNotch CAR [ | |
| Enhancing killing potential | Co-stimulatory domains | JAK-STAT CAR [ |
| 3rd generation ICOS CAR [ | ||
| Cytokine production | TRUCK system [ | |
| Checkpoint Blockade | Secretion of PD-1 scFv [ | |
| Targeted delivery of CAR cDNA to disrupt a locus | CRIPSR guided to Fas, endogenous TCR, PD-1, and LAG-3 [ | |
| TALEN-mediated multi-drug resistant CARs [ | ||
| Immune cell recruitment | 7 × 19 CAR (co-expressing IL-7 and CCL 19) [ | |
| Regulating activity | Suicide Gene | Inducible Caspase9 [ |
| Antibody-mediated depletion via marker antigen [ | ||
| Switchable CAR | Tumor targeting anti- or nanobody (UniCAR, SUPRA CAR) [ | |
| Dimerization through small molecules [ |
Figure 4CRISPR-based approaches for the genetic modification of CAR T cells. Gene disruption approaches have been shown to be effective for the silencing of inhibitory axis, and the development of universal CAR T cells. Red solid and dotted lines depict silencing or disruption of genes. Blue line depicts insertion of CAR.