Geoffrey M Lynn1,2, Christine Sedlik3,4, Faezzah Baharom5, Yaling Zhu6, Ramiro A Ramirez-Valdez5, Vincent L Coble6, Kennedy Tobin5, Sarah R Nichols6, Yaakov Itzkowitz6, Neeha Zaidi5, Joshua M Gammon7, Nicolas J Blobel5, Jordan Denizeau3,4, Philippe de la Rochere3,4, Brian J Francica8,9, Brennan Decker6, Mateusz Maciejewski6, Justin Cheung5, Hidehiro Yamane5, Margery G Smelkinson10, Joseph R Francica5, Richard Laga11, Joshua D Bernstock6,12, Leonard W Seymour13, Charles G Drake8,14, Christopher M Jewell7, Olivier Lantz3,4, Eliane Piaggio3,4, Andrew S Ishizuka5,6, Robert A Seder15. 1. Vaccine Research Center (VRC), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA. geoffrey.lynn@avideatechnologies.com. 2. Avidea Technologies, Inc, Baltimore, MD, USA. geoffrey.lynn@avideatechnologies.com. 3. Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France. 4. Centre d'Investigation Clinique Biothérapie, Institut Curie, Paris, France. 5. Vaccine Research Center (VRC), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA. 6. Avidea Technologies, Inc, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 8. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 9. Tempest Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA, USA. 10. Biological Imaging Section, Research Technologies Branch, NIAID, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 11. Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic. 12. Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. 13. Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 14. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 15. Vaccine Research Center (VRC), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA. rseder@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
Personalized cancer vaccines targeting patient-specific neoantigens are a promising cancer treatment modality; however, neoantigen physicochemical variability can present challenges to manufacturing personalized cancer vaccines in an optimal format for inducing anticancer T cells. Here, we developed a vaccine platform (SNP-7/8a) based on charge-modified peptide-TLR-7/8a conjugates that are chemically programmed to self-assemble into nanoparticles of uniform size (~20 nm) irrespective of the peptide antigen composition. This approach provided precise loading of diverse peptide neoantigens linked to TLR-7/8a (adjuvant) in nanoparticles, which increased uptake by and activation of antigen-presenting cells that promote T-cell immunity. Vaccination of mice with SNP-7/8a using predicted neoantigens (n = 179) from three tumor models induced CD8 T cells against ~50% of neoantigens with high predicted MHC-I binding affinity and led to enhanced tumor clearance. SNP-7/8a delivering in silico-designed mock neoantigens also induced CD8 T cells in nonhuman primates. Altogether, SNP-7/8a is a generalizable approach for codelivering peptide antigens and adjuvants in nanoparticles for inducing anticancer T-cell immunity.
Personalized cancer vaccines targeting patient-specific neoantigens are a promising cancer treatment modality; however, neoantigen physicochemical variability can present challenges to manufacturing personalized cancer vaccines in an optimal format for inducing anticancer T cells. Here, we developed a vaccine platform (SNP-7/8a) based on charge-modified peptide-TLR-7/8a conjugates that are chemically programmed to self-assemble into nanoparticles of uniform size (~20 nm) irrespective of the peptide antigen composition. This approach provided precise loading of diverse peptide neoantigens linked to TLR-7/8a (adjuvant) in nanoparticles, which increased uptake by and activation of antigen-presenting cells that promote T-cell immunity. Vaccination of mice with SNP-7/8a using predicted neoantigens (n = 179) from three tumor models induced CD8 T cells against ~50% of neoantigens with high predicted MHC-I binding affinity and led to enhanced tumor clearance. SNP-7/8a delivering in silico-designed mock neoantigens also induced CD8 T cells in nonhuman primates. Altogether, SNP-7/8a is a generalizable approach for codelivering peptide antigens and adjuvants in nanoparticles for inducing anticancer T-cell immunity.
T cells that recognize MHC-bound mutant peptides
(“neoantigens”)[1] are capable of mediating tumor-specific killing and have been
shown to promote durable tumor regression and prolonged survival of patients with
advanced cancers following adoptive cell therapy[2,3]. Additionally,
improved survival of patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), such as
anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4, correlates with tumor mutational load[4] and T cell infiltration into tumors[5]. Based on these findings,
personalized cancer vaccines (PCVs) that generate neoantigen-specific T cells are
being actively developed as cancer treatments[6,7].The feasibility of using peptide- and RNA-based PCVs has been demonstrated in
both mice[8,9] and humans[10,11]. While these
studies have established an important proof-of-concept, a major limitation of
current peptide- and RNA-based PCV approaches is their efficiency for generating
neoantigen-specific CD8 T cells in vivo. For example, less than 10%
of 184 predicted neoantigens derived from 3 mouse tumor lines included in either
peptide- or RNA-based PCVs induced detectable CD8 T cell responses in mice, even
though the putative neoantigens were selected on the basis of high predicted binding
affinity for MHC-I[9]. Moreover,
patients who received peptide neoantigens combined with the adjuvant polyICLC had
low to undetectable CD8 T responses when assessed directly ex vivo
from blood[10]. Based on current
cost and manufacturing constraints that restrict the number of predicted neoantigens
that can be included in PCVs[6], as
well as the limited number of neoantigens in patients with low mutational burden
tumors[12], more efficient
neoantigen prediction and vaccination approaches are likely needed.The focus of this study was to determine whether the magnitude and breadth of
CD8 T cell responses to neoantigens could be improved by optimization of a
peptide-based PCV formulation. While numerous formulation approaches have been
developed to enhance T cell immunity to peptide antigens[13,14],
the broad variability of neoantigen physicochemical properties that arise from amino
acid sequence variation may limit the translatability of such technologies for use
as PCVs[15]. Indeed, formulating
peptide antigens and adjuvants with particle technologies, including
poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)[16], liposomes[17],
lipid nanodiscs[18],
polymersomes[19] and
emulsions[20], is an
empirical process whereby peptide loading and other formulation characteristics may
be different for each antigen. An alternative approach is to use conjugate vaccines
based on peptide antigens linked to hydrophobic carriers (e.g.,
lipids[21], fatty
acids[22] and TLRa[23-25]) that can induce particle assembly or bind albumin for more
efficient delivery to lymph nodes[21,26]. Conjugate
vaccines offer the potential advantages that antigen loading is chemically defined
and that adjuvants can be covalently attached to ensure co-delivery of both
components to antigen presenting cells (APCs), which may be needed for optimal T
cell priming[27,28]. A major limitation of many current particle
and conjugate vaccine technologies, however, is that they do not fully account for
the broad range of neoantigen properties, which can lead to formulation variability,
including the propensity of hydrophobic peptides to form aggregates that complicate
manufacturing and form injection-site depots that can lead to sub-optimal CD8 T cell
immunity[29].To overcome these limitations, we developed a PCV platform based on
charge-modified peptide-TLR-7/8a conjugates that enable reproducible and precise
loading of diverse peptide neoantigens with TLR-7/8a in self-assembling
nanoparticles (SNP-7/8a) of a defined size (~20 nm, diameter). The data reported
here show that SNP-7/8a overcomes several manufacturing and formulation limitations
of current peptide-based PCVs and leads to expanded breadth and magnitude of
neoantigen-specific CD8 T cells as well as improved tumor clearance.
Results
Peptide physical form is a key determinant of CD8 T cell
immunogenicity
Synthetic long peptides (LPs) consisting of 20–40 amino acid
sequences, which often include an 8–11 amino acid minimal
(“Min”) CD8 T cell epitope, combined with various adjuvants have
been widely studied as cancer vaccines[30,31]. However, it
is not well understood how differences in the amino acid composition, which
determines the physical form (i.e. hydrodynamic
behavior)[32] of LPs,
affect immunogenicity.To determine how peptide physical form impacts induction of CD8 T cell
responses, the MHC-I epitope from ovalbumin (SIINFEKL) was used as a model
immunogen and synthesized as either a hydrophobic 30-amino acid LP that is
particulate (“LSP”) or a hydrophilic 30-amino acid LP that is
soluble (“LSS”) in aqueous buffer (Fig. 1a). The LPs were then administered to mice alone or in
combination with an imidazoquinoline-based TLR-7/8a as a source of adjuvant,
which was either covalently attached to the LPs or provided as a particle
(PP-7/8a)[33,34] admixed with the LPs (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 1a).
Fig. 1:
Peptide antigen physical form is a key determinant of CD8 T cell
immunogenicity.
(a) Schematic and brightfield micrographs of the CD8 T cell
epitope from Ovalbumin (SIINFEKL) contained within long peptides (LP) that are
either particulate (LSP and LSP-7/8a) or soluble (LSS and LSS-7/8a) in PBS.
(b) C57BL/6 mice (n = 5–25 per group)
were injected subcutaneously with the specified formulations on days 0 and 14,
and CD8 T cell responses were assessed by tetramer staining on day 28.
(c) C57BL/6 mice (n = 8 per group) were
injected subcutaneously with the specified formulations followed by intravenous
adoptive transfer of CFSE-labeled OT-I cells. On day 6, cell division of OT-I
cells was assessed by flow cytometry. (d,e) C57BL/6
mice (n = 5 per group per time point) were injected
subcutaneously with AF647-labeled LSS-7/8a or LSP-7/8a and at various timepoints
thereafter draining lymph nodes (dLN) were assessed for (d) total
tissue fluorescence and (e) vaccine uptake by CD11c+ DCs.
(f) Native and chimeric forms of Reps1 and Irgq LP neoantigens
were admixed with an adjuvant (either PP-7/8a, CpG or polyICLC) and administered
to C57BL/6 mice (n = 10–25 per group) at days 0 and 14.
CD8 T cell responses from blood were determined by dextramer staining on day 28;
responses compiled across all adjuvants are shown. (g) C57BL/6 mice
(n = 7 per group) were injected subcutaneously with MP-7/8a
containing the LP or Min form of the neoantigen Irgq at days 0 and 14 and CD8 T
cell responses were assessed by intracellular cytokine staining on day 28.
PP-7/8a is a particle-forming polymer-TLR-7/8a adjuvant. Data on log scale are
reported as geometric mean with 95% c.i.; data on linear scale are reported as
mean ± s.e.m. Statistical significance was determined using
Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s correction
(b,c,f,g) or two-way
ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (d,e).
Vaccination with the particle LPs (LSP mixed with PP-7/8a or LSP-7/8a)
led to ~20-fold higher CD8 T cell responses as compared with vaccination with
the soluble LPs (LSS mixed with PP-7/8a or LSS-7/8a; Fig. 1b). Moreover, the particle LP admixed with
PP-7/8a and other TLRa adjuvants known to induce CD8 T cell immunity[35], i.e. CpG
(TLR-9a) and polyICLC (TLR-3a), induced ~10-fold higher magnitude CD8 T cell
responses and improved survival following challenge with ovalbumin-expressing
B16 tumor cells (B16.OVA) as compared with LSS combined with the same adjuvants
(Supplementary Fig.
1b–d).As a possible mechanism to account for these findings, we observed that
antigen-specific CD8 T cells in mice that received the particle LP expanded for
up to 1 week after vaccination and underwent a greater number of cell divisions
as compared with CD8 T cells in mice immunized with the soluble LP (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Fig. 2).
Additionally, the particle LP was retained longer in draining lymph nodes and
had higher uptake by CD11c+ dendritic cells (DCs) compared with the soluble LP
(Fig. 1d,e). Together, these data suggest that particle LPs enhance CD8 T
cell responses through prolonged antigen presentation by lymph node DCs.To extend these findings to PCVs, we evaluated the relationship between
peptide physical form and immunogenicity using two neoantigens, Reps1 and Irgq,
which are both known to bind MHC-I, but were previously reported to be
immunogenic and “non-immunogenic,” respectively[8]. Here, we show that Reps1 LP is
particulate in aqueous solution and induces high magnitude CD8 T cell responses
when admixed with a variety of adjuvants (i.e. PP-7/8a, CpG or
polyICLC), whereas Irgq LP is water-soluble and induces low to undetectable CD8
T cell responses (Fig. 1f and Supplementary Fig. 3).
The physical form of each neoantigen was then altered by swapping the amino acid
residues flanking each minimal epitope to produce chimeric Reps1, which is
soluble, and chimeric Irgq, which is particulate. For each of the adjuvants
evaluated, the particulate Irgq chimer induced higher CD8 T cell responses than
the native soluble form, whereas the soluble Reps1 chimer did not induce
responses significantly above background (Fig.
1f and Supplementary Fig. 3).To more directly determine how peptide physical form impacts CD8 T cell
responses, we directly attached either the native LP (26-mer) or Min (9-mer)
Irgq sequence to a hydrophobic oligopeptide-TLR-7/8a to form conjugate vaccines
that assemble into microparticles (referred to as “MP-7/8a”) in
aqueous conditions and assessed their capacity to induce CD8 T cells in
vivo. While the water-soluble native Irgq LP admixed with adjuvants
was non-immunogenic (Fig. 1f), both the
native LP and Min Irgq sequences induced high magnitude CD8 T cell responses
when rendered particulate (Fig. 1g). These
data substantiate the finding that particulate delivery of peptide antigens,
including neoantigens, is critical for inducing CD8 T cell responses.
Self-assembling nanoparticles based on charged-modified peptide-TLR-7/8a
conjugates (SNP-7/8a)
To ensure consistent loading of both peptide neoantigens and adjuvants
in particles of a uniform, optimal size (~20 nm, diameter) for delivery to APCs
specialized for priming T cell immunity[36,37], we developed
a vaccine approach that accounts for peptide neoantigen physicochemical
variability.Our approach was to use a modular and chemically tunable vaccine
platform based on charge-modified (CM) conjugates comprising peptide antigens
linked to both a charge modifying group and a hydrophobic block through enzyme
degradable linkers at the N- and C- termini of the peptide, respectively (Fig. 2a). To ensure biocompatibility and
manufacturing scalability, biodegradable and chemically-defined compositions of
charged amino acids and hydrophobic oligopeptides were used as the
charged-modifying groups and hydrophobic blocks, respectively. Finally, to
ensure co-delivery of antigen and adjuvant, the oligopeptide-based hydrophobic
blocks were linked to a precise number of small molecule imidazoquinoline-based
TLR-7/8a, which were specifically selected as adjuvants based on their i)
permissibility to chemical conjugation[38,39]; ii)
hydrophobic properties that promote particle self-assembly[33,40]; and iii) ability to broadly activate human DC subsets to
produce key cytokines (i.e. IL-12 and Type-I IFNs) that promote
Th1 CD4 and CD8 T cell immunity[35,41].
Fig. 2:
Self-assembling nanoparticles (SNP-7/8a) based on charge-modified
peptide-TLR-7/8a conjugates.
(a) Schematic of modular components comprising
peptide-TLR-7/8a conjugate vaccines and charge-modified (CM) peptide-TLR-7/8a
conjugate vaccines that form microparticles/aggregates (MP-7/8a) and
self-assembling nanoparticle micelles (SNP-7/8a), respectively. (b)
Particle size distribution plot for representative SNP-7/8a and MP-7/8a.
(c) Particle sizes of CM conjugates (n = 35
unique conjugates) with various charge modifying groups appended to the same
peptide antigen sequence. (d) Particle sizes of different CM
conjugates (n = 746) with varying net charge (absolute value).
(e) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of a random
forest machine learning (ML) model for predicting SNP-7/8a hydrodynamic behavior
for any given CM conjugate composition; mean ROC is the average performance of
the models based on a 10-fold cross-validated binary classifier
(n = 10 runs) trained on data from d.
(f) The relative importance of different characteristics of CM
conjugates on the performance of the ML model, based on n = 10
cross-validations. (g) Particle size dependency on net charge of CM
conjugates containing various hydrophobic blocks. (h) Particle size
dependency on net charge of CM conjugates containing hydrophobic blocks based on
peptide oligomers linked to various pattern recognition receptor (PRR) agonists.
H block = hydrophobic block; C14 = myristic acid; chol = cholesterol. Data on
log scale are reported as geometric mean with 95% c.i.; data on linear scale are
reported as mean ± s.e.m.
Upon resuspension in aqueous solution, the hydrophobic block promotes
multimerization while the charge-modifying group provides a countervailing force
that induces formation of ~20 nm, diameter nanoparticle micelles
(“SNP-7/8a”) and prevents the formation of large microparticles or
aggregates (“MP-7/8a”) that can result from conjugates without
charge modification (Fig. 2b).
Net charge of CM conjugates determines SNP formation
It was unknown a priori what magnitude of charge would
be required to stabilize self-assembling nanoparticles (SNP) formed by CM
conjugates with different neoantigens. Therefore, we systematically investigated
how modulating the net charge of CM conjugates impacts particle size. Evaluation
of 35 CM conjugates with various charge-modifying groups appended to the
N-terminus of the same peptide neoantigen revealed an inverse relationship
between the magnitude of CM conjugate net charge and particle size (Fig. 2c). This inverse relationship between
magnitude of charge and particle size was confirmed with an additional 746
unique CM conjugates with a variety of antigen sequences, wherein ~90% of CM
conjugates having a net absolute charge > 5 assembled into ~20–50
nm nanoparticle micelles (Fig. 2d).Based on this data set, a random forest machine learning (ML)
model[42] was used to
predict how CM conjugate properties impact the hydrodynamic behavior of
SNP-7/8a. This approach used the underlying physical properties of each CM
conjugate to predict whether a given composition would form stable nanoparticles
(as measured by turbidity < 0.05) or unstable, larger particles
(turbidity > 0.05) with a mean ROC AUC of 0.90 (Fig. 2e). Analysis of the underlying ML model revealed
that CM conjugate net charge and hydropathy were relatively important features
determining nanoparticle formation, whereas peptide antigen length and
hydrophobic block composition were less important (Fig. 2f).To extend these findings, the impact of net charge on the size of
particles formed by CM conjugates comprising common hydrophobic carrier
molecules (fatty acids, cholesterol and lipids; Fig. 2g) and hydrophobic oligopeptides linked to agonists of other
pattern recognition receptors (TLR-2/6, TLR-4, TLR-7, NLR and STING; Fig 2h) was determined. Consistent with the
results using CM peptide-TLR-7/8a conjugates, CM conjugates comprising other
hydrophobic block compositions and adjuvants also showed an inverse relationship
between net charge and particle size, which was independent of the hydrophobic
block composition.
SNP-7/8a parameters that affect T cell induction
We next undertook in vivo structure-activity
relationship studies to evaluate how various other parameters of SNP-7/8a
– including linker composition (cathepsin[43] and proteasomal[44] processing sites), TLR-7/8a potency and
number, and type of charge (i.e. positive versus negative net
charge) – impact CD8 T cell responses. Cathepsin degradable linkers
placed between the peptide neoantigen and both the charge-modifying group and
hydrophobic block increased the efficiency of antigen presentation in
vitro and led to higher CD8 T cell responses in
vivo (Supplementary Fig. 4). The potency and number of TLR-7/8a linked to
each CM conjugate also impacted immunogenicity (Supplementary Fig. 5).
Additionally, CM conjugates with net positive charge were more potent in
vivo as compared with those bearing net negative charge (Supplementary Fig.
6a–c). Collectively, these data informed the selection of an optimal
SNP-7/8a formulation based on CM conjugates with net positive charge (≥
+8), cathepsin degradable linkers and 3 TLR-7/8a, which was found to efficiently
prime and boost CD8 T cell responses using a broad range of dosing intervals
(Supplementary Fig.
6d).
Manufacturing process for SNP-7/8a as a PCV
A manufacturing process was developed to enable rapid per-patient
synthesis of SNP-7/8a (Supplementary Fig. 7). A simple, copper-free “click
chemistry” reaction[45]
was used to link patient-specific, charge-modified peptide neoantigens produced
by automated solid-phase synthesis to a pre-built hydrophobic block (oligo-7/8a)
(Supplementary Fig.
7a,b). The
resulting CM conjugates are chemically defined single molecules, which allow for
simple release testing, and can be sterile filtered without material loss (Supplementary Fig. 7c).
Addition of aqueous buffer results in the CM conjugates immediately
self-assembling to nanoparticles that are stable at room temperature for over
100 hours (Supplementary Fig.
7d).
Generalizability of SNP-7/8a for neoantigens with extremes of charge and
hydropathy
To assess the ability of SNP-7/8a to ensure formulation consistency with
heterogeneous peptide neoantigens that may be included in PCVs, we first
computed the charge and hydropathy frequency distribution of all 25 amino acid
peptides (25-mers) that can be generated from each possible single missense
mutation in canonical transcripts from the human genome (n =
72.6M mutant 25-mers). About 98% of mutant 25-mers have a charge between
–6 to +6 (at pH 7.4) and a grand average of hydropathy (GRAVY) between
–2 and +2 (Fig. 3a,b), which is consistent with the range of properties
observed for mouse tumor cell line derived neoantigens (Supplementary Fig. 8a,b). To validate the
tolerance of SNP-7/8a for delivering neoantigens at the extremes of charge and
hydropathy, 9 different mouse neoantigens with a range of underlying charge
(–6 to +6) and GRAVY (–2 to +2) were produced as CM conjugates
with net positive charge (≥ +8) fixed by modulating the number of charged
amino acids comprising the charge-modifying group, and all formed stable
nanoparticles (Fig. 3c).
Fig. 3:
Genome-wide analysis of LP neoantigen charge and hydropathy frequency
distribution and formulation benchmarking studies validate the generalizability
of SNP-7/8a based on CM conjugates.
(a) Charge and (b) hydropathy (GRAVY)
frequency distribution of 25 amino acid LPs (n = 72.6M mutant
25-mers) derived from all possible non-synonymous single nucleotide variant
(SNV) missense mutations in canonical protein coding transcripts; inset shows
the cumulative proportion of mutant 25-mers with a given range of
characteristics (i.e. ~98% of possible neoantigen peptides have
charge between –6 to +6 and GRAVY between –2 and +2).
(c) Predicted neoantigens (mouse-derived) with the indicated
charge and GRAVY characteristics were synthesized as CM conjugates with net
charge ≥ +8; particle size (diameter, nm) and turbidity were assessed
following CM conjugate self-assembly to nanoparticles (SNP-7/8a) in PBS, pH 7.4.
Turbidity < 0.05 indicates the absence of aggregates. (d)
Different LP neoantigens were synthesized as SNP-7/8a or formulated within PLGA
or Liposomal particles and the percentage of peptide neoantigen encapsulated
within each was assessed (n = 3 per composition); N.D.
indicates that peptide loading was not determined. (e, f) C57BL/6
mice were injected subcutaneously on days 0 and 14 with LP Cpne1 neoantigen
using the indicated formulation and CD8 T cell responses were assessed from
whole blood on day 28 by either (e) intracellular cytokine staining
(n = 7 mice per group) or (f) tetramer
staining (n = 5 mice per group). (d) shows the
mean ± s.e.m; (e,f) shows the geometric mean with 95% c.i.;
statistical significance was determined using Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s
correction (e) or individual Mann-Whitney U-tests
(f).
As PCVs may require multiple predicted neoantigens to be formulated
together to maximize T cell breadth, we evaluated the tolerance of SNP-7/8a to
formulate multiple CM conjugates with a variety of underlying properties. The
SNP-7/8a platform provided consistent particle size, between ~20–30 nm,
when the formulation comprised between 5 to 20 different CM conjugates in each
particle (Supplementary Fig.
8c,d).
CM conjugates improve peptide antigen loading into particles
To determine whether SNP-7/8a could improve formulation consistency
compared with conventional particle delivery systems, we benchmarked peptide
neoantigen loading and particle size for SNP-7/8a as compared with PLGA and
liposomal particles delivering different neoantigens (Fig. 3d and Supplementary Fig. 8e). As
designed, the CM conjugates ensured full conversion (i.e. 100%
loading, Fig. 3d) of the peptide antigen
into uniformly sized nanoparticles (Supplementary Fig. 8e) with up to
56% peptide neoantigen content by particle mass. While formulations based on the
liposomal and PLGA particles resulted in relatively consistent sizes of
particles (Supplementary Fig.
8e), peptide loading was highly variable between the different
neoantigens, ranging from about 10–50% and about 4–60% for PLGA
and liposomes, respectively (Fig. 3d), and
resulted in typically low (< 1%) peptide neoantigen content by particle
mass.We next benchmarked the capacity of SNP-7/8a to induce CD8 T cell
immunity against a predicted LP neoantigen, Cpne1, as compared with several
commonly used particle vaccine formulations. Mice were immunized with the same
dose of the LP neoantigen, Cpne1, as either SNP-7/8a; PLGA or liposomal
nanoparticles carrying TLR-7/8a; or, a squalene-based oil-in-water emulsion
(AddaVax™) admixed with TLR-7/8a, which is representative of a
‘mix-and-shoot’ formulation (i.e. the peptide and
emulsion are mixed without any further work-up) that has been used
clinically[46]. SNP-7/8a
led to substantially (> 20-fold) higher magnitude CD8 T cell responses as
compared with the other particle formulations (Fig. 3e).
CM conjugates of STING, TLR-7/8 and TLR-9 agonists induce T cell
immunity
To assess the suitability of the CM conjugate design for accommodating
other classes and chemical compositions of immunostimulants, CM conjugates
incorporating agonists of STING (cyclic dinucleotides (CDN)), TLR-2/6 (Pam2Cys)
and TLR-9 (CpG) were synthesized and evaluated for the capacity to induce CD8 T
cell immunity in vivo.To assess immunogenicity of the different CM conjugate compositions,
mice were immunized with either the free agonist admixed with the LP neoantigen,
Cpne1, or with Cpne1 as SNP linked to agonist (i.e. SNP-STINGa,
SNP-TLR-2/6a, SNP-7/8a and SNP-TLR-9a). The SNPs carrying agonists of STING,
TLR-7/8 and TLR-9, but not TLR-2/6, all induced > 5-fold higher magnitude
neoantigen-specific CD8 T cell responses as compared with the naïve group
(Fig. 3f). These data are consistent
with the capacity of STINGa, TLR-7/8a and TLR-9a, but not TLR-2/6a, to induce
Type-I IFNs needed to promote cross-priming of exogenously delivered peptide
antigens for inducing CD8 T cell immunity[35].
SNP-7/8a improves peptide antigen formulation consistency and
immunogenicity
To further benchmark immune responses induced by SNP-7/8a against other
PCV formulations, 7 MC38-derived neoantigens known to bind MHC-I (Aatf, Adpgk,
Cpne1, Dpagt, Irgq, Med12 and Reps1)[8] were evaluated. Each of the neoantigens were formulated
either as native LPs admixed with adjuvant (i.e. polyICLC +
anti-CD40), which is representative of therapeutic cancer vaccines that have
been widely used in clinical studies[10]; as conjugate vaccines based on LPs linked to a
hydrophobic molecule that form microparticles/aggregates (MP-7/8a), which is
similar to current conjugate vaccine approaches that do not include a charge
modifying group[22-24]; or, as CM conjugates of the
LPs, which self-assemble into nanoparticles (SNP-7/8a).The native LPs showed formulation heterogeneity, with 3 out of 7 LPs
(Adpgk, Dpagt and Reps1) forming aggregates, and the remaining 4 occurring as
water soluble molecules (Fig. 4a). As
designed, all LP neoantigens as MP-7/8a and SNP-7/8a assembled into
microparticles/aggregates and nanoparticle micelles, respectively. Consistent
with the prior report[8], the
native LP formulations administered with polyICLC and anti-CD40 induced CD8 T
cell responses against 3 of the 7 neoantigens (Adpgk, Dpagt and Reps1; Fig 4b), each of which were particulate,
corroborating our findings that peptide physical form is a key determinant of
immunogenicity (Fig. 1b–g). Notably, all 7 neoantigens formulated as
SNP-7/8a induced high magnitude CD8 T cell responses (Fig. 4b), of which three were associated with delayed
tumor growth following challenge (Supplementary Fig. 9).
Fig. 4:
SNP-7/8a improves formulation consistency, immunogenicity and PK compared to
conventional PCV approaches.
(a,b) Seven MC38 neoantigens known to bind
MHC-I (Aatf, Adpgk, Cpne1, Dpagt, Irgq, Med12 and Reps1) were produced as either
native LPs; conjugates of oligo-7/8a that form microparticles/aggregates
(MP-7/8a); or charge-modified (CM) conjugates of oligo-7/8a that self-assemble
to nanoparticles (SNP-7/8a). (a) Turbidity of the LP formulations
(n = 3 per composition) at 0.5 mg/mL in PBS pH 7.4 was
assessed by measuring absorbance (optical density (OD), arbitrary units) at 490
nm; turbidity > 0.05 indicates aggregation. (b) C57BL/6 mice
(n = 12–15 per group) were injected subcutaneously
with native LPs admixed with polyICLC and anti-CD40 or SNP-7/8a on days 0 and
14, and CD8 T cell responses were assessed from blood by intracellular cytokine
staining on day 28. (c–f) C57BL/6 mice
(n = 5 per group per time point) were injected
subcutaneously with fluorophore (AF647)-labeled Cpne1 neoantigen as either a
native LP admixed with a particle adjuvant (polyICLC or PP-7/8a) or as a
self-assembling nanoparticle (SNP) admixed with polyICLC or co-delivering
TLR-7/8a (SNP-7/8a). Lymph nodes (n = 10 per group per time
point) draining the site of immunization were collected at serial time points
and assessed for (c) total tissue fluorescence (peptide quantity),
(d) total CD11c+ DC count and (e) the percentage
of total CD11+ DCs that had taken up vaccine (AF647+). (f) CD8 T
cell responses from blood were assessed by tetramer staining on day 7. Data on
log scale are reported as geometric mean with 95% c.i.; data on linear scale and
all line graphs are reported as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical significance
was determined using Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s correction
(b,f) or two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction
(c–e).
Though both conjugate vaccines provided increased breadth of CD8 T cell
responses as compared with native LPs admixed with adjuvant
(e.g., responses against Cpne1; Fig. 4b and Supplementary Fig. 10a), the
nanoparticle micelles (SNP-7/8a) based on CM conjugates induced higher magnitude
CD8 T cell responses compared with the microparticle/aggregate formulations
(MP-7/8a) based on conjugates without charge modification (Supplementary Fig. 10a,b).
Nanoparticles (SNP-7/8a) enhance CD8 T cell responses by increasing APC
uptake
We next investigated how the physical form of the peptide antigen
affects kinetics and APC uptake in the draining lymph node. The neoantigen
Cpne1, which is water-soluble as the native LP, was administered to mice as
either the native LP admixed with adjuvant (polyICLC or PP-7/8a) or as a
nanoparticle (SNP) admixed with polyICLC or incorporating TLR-7/8a (SNP-7/8a)
and then tracked in vivo.The water-soluble native LP was not detected at levels above background
in the draining lymph node (dLN), whereas the nanoparticle LP compositions (SNP
and SNP-7/8a) were measured at higher levels at each of the time points
evaluated (Fig. 4c). Though all vaccine
compositions led to substantial recruitment of total CD11c+ DCs (Fig. 4d), the physical form of the peptide had a major
influence on the proportion of those DCs carrying antigen (Fig. 4e). Specifically, whereas greater than 35% of
CD11c+ DCs in the dLN of mice vaccinated with nanoparticle LP (SNP or SNP-7/8a)
were vaccine+ at 7 days after vaccination, less than 1% were vaccine+ in mice
vaccinated with the native LP (Fig. 4e).
Moreover, the nanoparticle LP induced higher magnitude CD8 T cell responses as
compared with the native LP (Fig. 4f),
which did not induce responses above background likely due to insufficient
uptake by lymph node DCs.While both nanoparticle (SNP-7/8a) and microparticle (MP-7/8a)
formulations improved lymph node accumulation and uptake by APCs as compared
with soluble neoantigen, SNP-7/8a resulted in higher lymph node APC accumulation
and induced higher magnitude CD8 T cell responses as compared to MP-7/8a (Supplementary Fig.
10c–f).
SNP-7/8a induces comparable CD8 T cell responses with short and long
peptides
Immunization with LPs admixed with adjuvants has been shown to increase
the magnitude of CD8 T cell responses as compared with the use of Mins[47]. However, the influence of
peptide length on the efficiency for inducing CD8 T cell immunity when peptide
antigens are linked to particle carriers is less well established. Therefore, we
evaluated T cell responses induced by Min and LP versions of 7 neoantigens as
SNP-7/8a. Both Min and LP versions elicited comparable CD8 T cell responses that
were of high magnitude (Supplementary Fig. 11a). As expected, only the LPs elicited CD4 T
cell responses (Supplementary
Fig. 11b), likely because the Mins are too short to encode an MHC-II
epitope, which is contained within some LPs (e.g., Irgq). Of
note, the presence of CD4 help did not impact the kinetics, magnitude or
phenotype of memory CD8 T cells induced by SNP-7/8a (Supplementary Fig. 11c–e). The results show that
both Mins and LPs delivered on SNP-7/8a induce comparable CD8 T cell responses.
Nevertheless, LPs may be preferred over Mins based on their ability to also
elicit CD4 T cells.
Predicted or measured MHC-I binding affinity is considered an important
predictor of immunogenicity[48]
and is commonly used in the selection of neoantigens to include in
PCVs[6,49,50]. However, a clear correlation between predicted MHC-I
binding affinity and immunogenicity is not easily discerned from published data
using PCVs based on LP + adjuvant (i.e. polyIC) or RNA (Fig. 5a)[9]. In contrast, after controlling for the physical form of
179 peptide-based predicted neoantigens from 3 tumor cell lines – by
ensuring their delivery in particles co-delivering TLR-7/8a – we observed
CD8 T cell responses to approximately 50% of epitopes with high predicted
binding affinity (IEDB Consensus score < 0.5) (Fig. 5b), which is about a 5-fold improvement over
published rates (~10%) using PCVs based on LP + polyIC or RNA[9]. The improved efficiency for generating
CD8 T cells allowed for the identification of a robust correlation between
predicted MHC-I binding affinity and immunogenicity (P <
0.0001) (Fig. 5c) that is consistent with
recent reports that many neoantigen-specific CD8 T cells identified in patients
recognize epitopes with high predicted MHC-I binding affinity[6].
Fig. 5:
SNP-7/8a expands the breadth of neoantigen-specific CD8 T cell responses in
mice and primates.
(a,b) Induction of neoantigen-specific CD8 T
cell responses plotted against in silico predicted MHC-I
binding affinity using the immune epitope database (IEDB) consensus algorithm.
(a) CD8 T cell responses in mice vaccinated with predicted
neoantigens (n = 47) derived from the B16-F10 tumor cell line
as LP + polyIC or RNA, as described in ref. < Kreiter S, et al.
Nature (2015)>. (b) CD8 T cell responses in
mice for predicted neoantigens (n = 179) derived from the
B16-F10, MC38 and SB-3123 tumor cell lines as particles co-delivering TLR-7/8a.
C57BL/6 mice (n = 5 per group) were injected subcutaneously
with up to 4 predicted neoantigens on days 0 and 14, and CD8 T cell responses
were assessed from blood by intracellular cytokine staining on day 28. Predicted
neoantigens that resulted in CD8 T cell responses that were statistically
significantly above background in at least two independent experiments were
considered immunogenic. (c) Receiver operating characteristic curve
showing performance of different prediction algorithms for classifying
neoantigens as immunogenic or non-immunogenic on the basis of predicted MHC-I
binding affinity using antigens from b.
(d,e) Mamu-A*01-expressing rhesus macaques
(n = 4 per dose level) were injected subcutaneously on days
0 and 21 with the indicated doses (7.5 or 37.5 nmol per peptide) of SNP-7/8a
containing “mock” neoantigens. Animals were bled on days 0 and 35
(abbreviated d0 and d35) and (d) CD4 and (e) CD8 T
cell responses were measured directly from blood (i.e. without
a prior expansion step) by intracellular cytokine staining. (f)
Proportion of CD4 (left) and CD8 (right) T cells expressing various combinations
of IFN-γ, IL-2 and/or TNF-α are shown for the group that received
the 37.5 nmol dose at the d35 timepoint. ANN = artificial neural network; SMM =
stabilized matrix method. Data on linear scale are reported as mean ±
s.e.m. Statistical significance was determined using Kruskal-Wallis with
Dunn’s correction (d,e).
SNP-7/8a induces neoantigen-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses in
primates
We next assessed SNP-7/8a as a PCV in non-human primates (NHPs), which
share considerable similarities with the human immune system[51]. As there are currently no standardized
NHP tumor models, we applied an in silico process for
identifying “mock” neoantigens (see: Online Methods). Neoantigens with moderate or high
predicted binding affinity for the MHC-I allele Mamu-A*01, as determined by the
IEDB Consensus algorithm, were evaluated for immunogenicity as SNP-7/8a in
Mamu-A*01+ rhesus macaques.SNP-7/8a induced dose-dependent neoantigen-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell
responses that were directly measurable from the blood of primates following
prime and boost vaccinations (Fig. 5d,e). Moreover, the neoantigen-specific T cells
induced were relatively high quality as indicated by their polyfunctionality
(Fig. 5f). Assessment of the response
to each individual antigen revealed that the CD8 T cell response was directly
measurable against 5, 4, 5 and 2 unique antigens for the four primates assessed
(Supplementary Fig.
12), indicating that SNP-7/8a induced CD8 T cells to a wide breadth
of antigens.
Optimization of therapeutic regimen
Consistent with recent reports showing improved therapeutic efficacy of
vaccines in combination with checkpoint inhibitors (e.g.,
anti-PD-1/PDL-1 and anti-CTLA-4)[52], SNP-7/8a combined with anti-PD-L1 resulted in a modest
improvement in tumor control as compared with either treatment used alone (Supplementary Fig.
13a,b).
Thus, SNP-7/8a was used in combination with anti-PD-L1 for all subsequent
studies assessing vaccine efficacy in the therapeutic setting.As the impact of co-delivery (i.e. physical linkage) of
peptide antigen and adjuvant on immunogenicity following different routes of
vaccination has not been closely studied, we also evaluated CD8 T cell responses
in mice immunized with a neoantigen and TLR-7/8a either in separate particles
(“unlinked SNP”) or together in the same particle (“linked
SNP”), by the subcutaneous (SC) or IV route. For the SC route, mice that
received the linked SNP had ~3-fold higher, albeit not significantly different,
CD8 T cell responses as compared with mice that received unlinked SNP (Fig. 6a). In contrast, the differences in
responses were more striking by the IV route. Mice administered particles
co-delivering peptide antigen and adjuvant (i.e. linked SNP) by
the IV route had CD8 T cell responses that were ~20- or ~50-fold higher than the
responses in mice that received antigen and adjuvant in separate particles
(i.e. unlinked SNP) or as native LP admixed with particle
adjuvant, respectively (Fig. 6a).
Fig. 6:
IV administration of SNP-7/8a induces CD8 T cells that mediate tumor
regression.
(a) C57BL/6 mice (n = 5 per group) were
vaccinated with TLR-7/8a and the neoantigen Reps1 in separate particles
(“unlinked SNP”) or together in the same particle (“linked
SNP”) by either the subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) route on days 0
and 14. An additional group of mice received the native LP admixed with a
particulate TLR-7/8a adjuvant by the IV route. CD8 T cell responses were
assessed on day 21 by intracellular cytokine staining.
(b,c) C57BL/6 mice (n = 10 per
group) implanted subcutaneously with 1.0 × 105 B16-F10 tumor
cells were treated with either SNP-7/8a delivering the self-antigen Trp1 by the
SC or IV route, or vehicle control (DMSO/PBS) by the IV route, which were each
given along with anti-PD-L1 by the IP route on days 3, 10 and 17;
(b) CD8 T cell responses were assessed from blood by tetramer
staining on day 12 and (c) tumor growth was monitored at various
time points. (d,e) C57BL/6 mice (n =
10 per group) implanted subcutaneously with 1.0 × 105 TC-1
tumor cells were treated with either vehicle control (DMSO/PBS) by the IV route,
or SNP-7/8a delivering the virus-associated tumor antigen HPV E7 or an
irrelevant antigen (Adpgk neoantigen from MC38) as an inflammation control
(“control SNP-7/8a”) by the SC or IV route. Treatments were given
along with anti-PD-L1 delivered by the IP route on days 7 and 14.
(d) CD8 T cell responses were assessed from blood by
intracellular cytokine staining on day 17; (e) tumor growth was
monitored at various time points. (f) C57BL/6 mice
(n = 10 per group) implanted subcutaneously with 1.0
× 105 B16-F10 tumor cells were treated with either the M39
neoantigen as LP admixed with polyIC by the SC route, M39 as SNP-7/8a by the IV
route, an irrelevant neoantigen (Adpgk) as SNP-7/8a (“control
SNP-7/8a”) by the IV route or vehicle control (DMSO/PBS) by the IV route.
Treatments were given along with anti-PD-L1 delivered by the IP route on days
1,8 and 15. Tumor growth curves are shown. (g) C57BL/6 mice
(n = 10 per group) implanted subcutaneously with 1.0
× 105 TC-1 tumor cells were treated with either the
virus-associated tumor antigen HPV E6 as an LP admixed with polyICLC by the SC
route, E6 as SNP-7/8a by the IV route, an irrelevant neoantigen (Adpgk) as
SNP-7/8a by the IV route (“control SNP-7/8a”); or, vehicle control
(DMSO/PBS) by the IV route. Treatments were given along with anti-PD-L1
delivered by the IP route on days 7 and 14. Tumor growth was monitored at
various time points. Data on log scale are reported as geometric mean with 95%
c.i.; data on linear scale are reported as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical
significance was determined using Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s correction
(a), Mann Whitney U-test
(b,d), or two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction
(c,e–g).
While SNP-7/8a induced similar magnitude of T cells by both local (SC)
and systemic (IV) routes of vaccination (Fig.
6a,b,d), vaccination by the IV route provided a trend
toward higher efficacy (Fig. 6c and Supplementary Fig. 14a)
or significantly (P = 0.013) higher efficacy (Fig. 6e and Supplementary Fig. 14b) compared to
vaccination by the SC route.
Therapeutic vaccination with SNP-7/8a enhances tumor regression
After identifying a preferred therapeutic regimen, we sought to
determine if the improved efficiency of SNP-7/8a could lead to a greater breadth
of CD8 T cells that mediate tumor clearance in vivo. We first
screened the immunogenicity of 24 predicted neoantigens from the B16-F10 tumor
cell line as LPs delivered on SNP-7/8a (Supplementary Fig. 15a,b). Among the 24
predicted neoantigens screened, 10 induced CD8 T cell responses as SNP-7/8a
(Supplementary Fig.
15b and Supplementary Table 1), of which only 1 or 2 were previously
reported to induce CD8 T cells using LP + polyIC or RNA, respectively[9]. Though the 24 predicted
neoantigens screened were selected based on MHC-I binding, 10 were also found to
induce CD4 T cell responses as SNP-7/8a (Supplementary Table 2).We then assessed whether 4 of the previously reported non-immunogenic
neoantigens (i.e. M01, M07, M21 and M39) that induced a CD8 T
cell response but no significant CD4 T cell response as SNP-7/8a could limit
tumor growth when used as a therapeutic vaccine administered intravenously (IV).
Vaccination with SNP-7/8a delivering either of the neoantigens M07 or M21 led to
improved control of tumor growth as compared with untreated animals (Supplementary Fig. 15c).
Moreover, vaccination with SNP-7/8a delivering the neoantigen M39 also resulted
in improved tumor control that was CD8 T cell dependent (Supplementary Fig. 15d).Finally, we benchmarked anti-tumor efficacy with SNP-7/8a against other
peptide vaccines administered by their preferred route. In a first study, we
treated tumor-bearing animals with M39 neoantigen as SNP-7/8a by the IV route or
as LP + polyIC administered by the SC route. Consistent with the previously
reported lack of immunogenicity of M39 delivered as LP + polyIC, there was no
efficacy observed with LP + polyIC, whereas there was significant efficacy when
M39 was delivered as SNP-7/8a (Fig. 6f and
Supplementary Fig.
15e). In a second study, animals bearing TC-1 tumors treated with the
HPV E6 antigen as SNP-7/8a by the IV route had improved tumor control as
compared with animals treated with E6 as LP + polyICLC by the SC route (Fig. 6g and Supplementary Fig. 15f).Altogether, these results demonstrate the broad therapeutic potential of
SNP-7/8a as a vaccine platform for targeting diverse tumor antigens (including
self-antigens, neoantigens and viral antigens) and that improved T cell priming
efficiency with SNP-7/8a leads to a greater breadth of neoantigen-specific CD8 T
cells capable of mediating tumor control.
Discussion
Herein we report the rationale for and systematic development of
charge-modified (CM) conjugates as a generalizable vaccine platform for
co-delivering any peptide-based tumor antigen with molecularly-defined adjuvants
(e.g., TLR-7/8a, TLR-9a and STINGa) in self-assembling
nanoparticles that efficiently induce anticancer T cell immunity. The major findings
were that conjugate vaccines can be chemically programmed (via charge modification)
to account for peptide antigen physicochemical heterogeneity to provide consistent
formulations optimized for T cell priming.A broad variety of particle vaccine technologies (e.g.,
liposomes, PLGA particles, etc.) have been developed to enhance the immunogenicity
of peptide-based cancer vaccines; however, many such approaches rely on empirical
formulation processes that can lead to variability (e.g.,
inconsistent material loading) arising from differences in antigen properties. While
several emerging technologies have demonstrated promise for improving the
consistency of peptide neoantigen incorporation into particles[53,54],
these and many other particle vaccine technologies also face challenges during
sterile filtration using ≤0.2 μm pore membranes, which can be clogged
by particles that exceed the filter membrane pore size and result in significant
material loss[55]. These challenges
may limit the use of such technologies for personalized, on-demand therapies that
require consistent formulations with short production timelines. In contrast, the CM
conjugates described herein are chemically-defined single molecules that allow for
sterile filtration without material loss and ensure consistent formulations
(i.e. precise material loading in uniformly sized particles)
through a controlled nanoparticle self-assembly process.While other conjugate vaccine technologies have been shown to be effective
for inducing anticancer T cell immunity[21,22,26], a major limitation is their propensity to
form aggregates that complicate manufacturing and lead to injection-site depots that
can cause T cell exhaustion[29]. To
address this challenge, we introduced a charge-modifying group to the N-terminus of
peptide antigens that i) improves the solubility of hydrophobic peptide antigens
during synthesis and purification and ii) induces conjugates to self-assemble to
nanoparticle micelles of a small, optimal size (~20 nm) for targeting APCs that
promote T cell immunity[36,37]. Importantly, SNP-7/8a based on CM
conjugates enhanced uptake by APCs and led to superior CD8 T cell induction over
conjugates without charge modification.Consistent with recent studies showing that the route of administration can
impact efficacy of cancer vaccines in mouse models[56,57],
we observed improved efficacy with SNP-7/8a by the IV route as compared with the SC
route and are undertaking studies to understand the mechanistic basis for these
differences. Successful IV vaccination strategies will likely require the physical
association of antigen and adjuvant in particles to ensure that both components are
co-delivered to APCs for efficient T cell priming (e.g., see: Fig. 6a) and to prevent antigen presentation
without innate immune stimulation, which can lead to tolerance[47]. In addition, small, ~10–30 nm,
nanoparticles that can passively accumulate in tumors following IV administration
may provide additional benefit by enabling the adjuvant to access and alter the
tumor microenvironment[58].Finally, maximizing efficacy will also require identification of the optimal
combination with complementary immunotherapies[52], chemotherapeutics[59] and/or radiation treatment[60] to promote efficient tumor killing while
maintaining acceptable safety profiles. Peptide-based vaccine platforms such as
SNP-7/8a can be used to prime T cells that, at a minimum, should be combined with
checkpoint inhibitors. The pool of vaccine primed T cells may be expanded to higher
numbers in vivo using heterologous prime-boost immunization with
viral or RNA vaccines, or cytokines, such as IL-2, that promote T cell expansion.
Vaccine primed T cells may also be isolated and manipulated ex vivo
to increase their number and alter their quality for use in ACT or sequenced to
identify T cell receptors (TCRs) of interest. Indeed, vaccines that efficiently
prime anticancer T cells have the potential to play a central role in many promising
combination immunotherapies.In conclusion, the results presented herein show how a peptide-based PCV can
be systematically optimized to enhance the magnitude and breadth of
neoantigen-specific T cell responses while addressing manufacturing challenges of a
personalized therapy.
Online Methods
Animal protocols
Animal experiments were conducted at the Vaccine Research Center (VRC)
at the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD) and the Institut Curie
(Paris, France). Animal protocols underwent review and were approved by the
respective ACUCs prior to the start of experiments. Animal experiments complied
with the respective ethical guidelines as set by each ACUC.
Animals
Female C57BL/6 (B6) mice were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar
Harbor, ME) and maintained under specific-pathogen-free conditions. B6 mice were
8–12 weeks of age at the start of experiments. Animals were randomly
assigned to either control or experimental groups. Eight healthy female and male
rhesus macaques (“NHPs”) of Indian origin (Macaca
mulatta) with a mean (s.d.) age and weight of 3.0 (0.7) years and
4.3 (0.9) kg, respectively, were pair housed in animal biosafety level 2
facilities and were monitored throughout the study for physical health, food
consumption, body weight, and temperature. Study groups were balanced with
respect to age, weight, and gender. Sample size was based on prior NHP
immunogenicity studies and calculated using Prism (GraphPad) and JMP Design of
Experiment functionality (SAS).
Peptide antigens
Native peptide antigens and modified peptide antigens were custom
synthesized by Genscript (Piscataway, NJ) using standard solid phase peptide
synthesis and purified (> 90%) by HPLC.
TLR-7/8 agonists and hydrophobic blocks (e.g.,
oligo-7/8a)
Imidazoquinoline-based TLR-7/8 agonists were produced by Avidea
Technologies, Inc. (Baltimore, MD) as previously described[33]. Detailed chemical schematics and
descriptions of the methods used to synthesize and characterize the TLR-7/8a and
hydrophobic blocks is provided in the Supplementary Materials and
Methods.
Conjugate vaccine synthesis
Conjugate vaccines were produced by linking peptide antigens to
hydrophobic blocks (e.g., oligo-7/8a) using a copper-free
strain-promoted azide-alkyne cycloaddition click chemistry reaction. A detailed
description of the methods used to synthesize and characterize the conjugate
vaccines is provided in the Supplementary Materials and Methods.
Immunizations & treatment with checkpoint inhibitors
Vaccines were prepared in sterile, endotoxin-free (<0.05 EU/mL)
PBS (Gibco). For mice, vaccines were administered either subcutaneously in a
volume of 50 μL in each hind footpad or intravenously via the tail vein
in a volume of 200 μL. Adjuvants were either prepared in-house as
previously described[33] and
summarized in the Supplementary Materials and Methods or were acquired from commercial
sources: polyIC (InvivoGen, San Diego, CA), anti-CD40 agonist (clone FGK4.5,
BioXCell cat #BE0016–2, West Lebanon, NH), and CpG 1826 (InvivoGen).
PolyICLC (Hiltonol) was a kind gift of A. M. Salazar (Oncovir). Animals treated
with checkpoint inhibitor (CPI), anti-PD-L1 (clone 10F.9G2, BioXCell cat
#BE0101), received 200 μg administered by the IP route in 100 μL
PBS. For NHP, SNP-7/8a was formulated in 1 mL PBS for each of 4 SC sites (left
and right deltoid; left and right thigh). Immunizations and blood sampling
occurred with the NHP under anesthesia (10 mg per kg weight ketamine HCl).
Tumor cell lines
B16-F10 was acquired from ATCC (CRL-6475), MC38 was a kind gift from
Lélia Delamarre (Genentech), TC-1 was a kind gift from T.C. Wu (Johns
Hopkins University), and B16.OVA was a kind gift from H. Levitsky (Juno
Therapeutics). Working cell banks (passage 4) were generated immediately upon
receipt and used for tumor experiments. Cells were determined to be mycoplasma
free upon establishment of each working cell bank.
Tumor implantations
B16-F10, TC-1, and B16.OVA were cultured in RPMI-1640 media (GE Life
Sciences), and MC38 was cultured in DMEM media (Gibco), each supplemented with
10% v/v heat-inactivated FCS (Atlanta Biologicals), 100 U/mL penicillin, 100
μg/mL streptomycin (Gibco), 1× non-essential amino acids (GE Life
Sciences), and 1 mM sodium pyruvate (GE Life Sciences). B16.OVA media was
supplemented with 0.5 mg/mL G418. For each tumor cell implantation, a frozen
aliquot was thawed, passaged once, and harvested using trypsin EDTA (Gibco),
quenched with HI-FCS, washed in PBS, and implanted subcutaneously in sterile
PBS. Tumors were measured using digital calipers twice per week, and tumor
volume was estimated using the formula [tumor volume = short × short
× long / 2]. Animals were euthanized when tumors reached size criteria
(1000 mm3 or 2000 mm3).
CD8 depletion
Mice were depleted for CD8 T cells by intraperitoneal injection of 250
μg of anti-CD8 (clone 2.43, BioXCell cat #BE0061) in 100 μL PBS 1
d prior to tumor implantation, and 1 d and 7 d after tumor implantation. CD8 T
cell depletion in the blood was confirmed using flow cytometry methods as
described below.
Measurement of mouse T cell responses by intracellular cytokine
staining
Measurement of antigen-specific CD8 and CD4 T cell responses by
intracellular cytokine staining was performed as previously described[61]. Briefly, 200 μL
heparin-treated whole blood was lysed with ACK lysis buffer (Quality
Biologicals), filtered, and cultured in complete RPMI in 96-well plates with 2
μg/mL anti-CD28 (clone 37.51, BD cat #553294) in combination with 2
μg/mL of the native (unmodified) peptide antigen (Genscript). Brefeldin A
(BFA, BD) was added to a final concentration of 10 μg/mL 2 h after
purified peptides were added, and cells were incubated for an additional 4 h.
After washing with PBS, cells were stained with UV Blue Live-Dead Dye (Life
Technologies), washed, and blocked with anti-CD16/CD32 (clone 2.4G2, BD cat
#553142) for 10 minutes at room temperature. After blocking, cells were surface
stained for 30 minutes at room temperature with BUV805-anti-CD8 (clone
53–6.7, BD cat #564920) and BUV395-anti-CD4 (clone RM4–4, BD cat
#740209). Cells were then fixed and permeabilized using Fix / Perm solution (BD)
and incubated at 4°C for 30 minutes. Cells were washed and then suspended
in Perm / Wash buffer containing AlexaFluor700-anti-CD3 (clone 17A2, BioLegend
cat #100216), APC-anti-IFN-γ (clone XMG1.2, BD cat #554413), PE-anti-IL-2
(clone JES6–5H4, BD cat #554428) and BV650-anti-TNF-α (clone
MP6-XT22, BD cat #563943) at 4°C for 30 minutes. Cells were washed and
suspended in 0.5% paraformaldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences) in PBS and
then evaluated by flow cytometry.
Multimer (tetramer/dextramer) staining of CD8 T cells from whole
blood
Tetramer+ or dextramer+ CD8 T cell responses were characterized from
whole blood as previously described[62]. Briefly, 200 μL heparin-treated whole blood was
lysed with ACK lysis buffer, filtered, and plated in 96-well plates in PBS.
Cells were stained with the viability dye Live/Dead Fixable Orange (OrViD, Life
Technologies) for 10 minutes at room temperature. After washing, cells were
stained for 15 minutes at 4°C with multimers (PE-H2-Kb OVA
(SIINFEKL) tetramer (Beckman Coulter, Brea, California), PE-H2-Db
Reps1 (AQLANDVVL) or Irgq (AALLNSAVL) dextramers (Immudex, Copenhagen, Denmark),
or PE-H2-Db Cpne1 (SSPYSLHYL) or Trp1 (TAPDNLGYM) tetramers (kind
gift of John Finnigan and Nina Bhardwaj, Mt. Sinai Icahn School of Medicine).
Cells were then blocked with anti-CD16/CD32 (clone 2.4G2, BD cat #553142) for 10
minutes, followed by the addition of APC-Cy7-anti-CD8 (clone 53–6.7,
Biolegend cat #100714), PE-Cy7-anti-CD62L (clone MEL-14, Abcam cat #ab25569,
Cambridge, England), eFluor-660-anti-CD127 (clone A7R34, eBioscience cat
#50–1271-82) and FITC-anti-KLRG1 (clone 2F1, Southern Biotech cat
#1807–02, Birmingham, Alabama). After incubating for 20 minutes at room
temperature, cells were washed and then incubated with Fix / Perm solution (BD)
for 20 minutes at 4°C. After washing, cells were suspended in Perm / Wash
buffer containing PerCP-Cy5.5-anti-CD3 (clone 145–2C11, BD cat #551163)
and incubated at 4°C for 30 minutes. Cells were washed and suspended in
Perm / Wash buffer and then evaluated by flow cytometry.
Measurement of NHP T cell responses by intracellular cytokine
staining
Measurement of antigen-specific CD8 and CD4 T cell responses by
intracellular cytokine staining was performed as previously described[63], with modifications as noted
below. PBMCs were isolated by density-gradient centrifugation from
acid-citrate-dextrose–anti-coagulated whole blood. Without a prior
expansion step, PBMCs were stimulated with peptides corresponding to the native
(unmodified) neoantigens at 2 μg/mL for 2 hours followed by 10 hours in
the presence of BFA at 10 μg/mL. Antigen-specific responses are reported
after background subtraction of identical gates from the same sample incubated
with the control antigen stimulation (irrelevant neoantigens). The staining
protocol and staining panel were as previously described[63].
Characterization of innate immune cells and cytokines from lymph
nodes
The uptake of AlexaFluor647 (AF647)-labeled vaccines by antigen
presenting cells (APCs) in the vaccine-draining popliteal lymph nodes (dLN) were
evaluated as previously described[33]. Briefly, dLN of vaccinated mice were harvested at
specified time points and mechanically disrupted in BioMasher tubes (Nippi Inc,
Japan) containing PBS. Resulting cell suspensions were filtered through a 40
μm nylon mesh filter plate (EMD Millipore). Half of each dLN cell
suspension was incubated at 37°C in complete RPMI for 12 hours.
Supernatants were harvested and IL-12p40 concentration was determined by
quantitative ELISA (Peprotech). The other half of each dLN cell suspension was
transferred to V-bottom 96-well plates (Sigma Aldrich) for staining. Cells were
stained for 10 minutes at room temperature with Live/Dead Fixable Aqua (Life
Technologies), washed, and blocked with anti-CD16/CD32 (clone 2.4G2, BD cat
#553142) for 10 minutes at room temperature. After blocking, cells were surface
stained with BV510-anti-CD3 (clone 145–2C11, BD cat #563024),
BV421-anti-CD19 (clone 1D3, BD cat #562701), BV605-anti-Ly-6G (clone 1A8, BD cat
#563005), Cy7APC-anti-Ly-6C (clone HK1.4, BioLegend cat #128026),
BV711-anti-CD103 (clone 2E7, BioLegend cat #121435), BV786-anti-CD8 (clone
53–6.7, BD cat #563332), BV510-anti-NK-1.1 (clone PK136, BD cat #563096),
Cy7-PE-anti-B220 (clone RA3–6B2, BD cat #552772),
AlexaFluor488-anti-IA/I-E (clone M5/114.15.2, Biolegend cat #107616),
PE-anti-CD11c (clone HL3, BD cat #553802), AlexaFluor700-anti-CD11b (clone
M1/70, BioLegend cat #101222), Cy5-PE-anti-F4/80 (clone BM8, eBioscience cat
#15–4801-82), and CF594-PE-anti-CD80 (clone 16–10A1, BD cat
#562504). Cells were washed, fixed in 0.5% paraformaldehyde in PBS, and analyzed
by flow cytometry. The integrated median fluorescence intensity (iMFI) was
calculated by multiplying the total number of cells positive for the vaccine
(AF647+ cells) and the Median Fluorescence Intensity of the AF647+ cells.
Quantification of vaccine in draining lymph nodes by fluorescence
measurements
Single cell suspensions of lymph nodes were added to black-walled
96-well plates and quantified for AF647-labeled vaccines by performing
epifluorescence imaging (excitation = 650 nm; emission = 700 nm; 0.50 second
exposure) using a Bruker In Vivo Xtreme (Bruker, Billerica, MA); fluorescence
was determined by placing identically-sized regions of interest over each
well.
Evaluation of OT-I expansion in vivo
The duration of antigen presentation following vaccination was assessed
by measuring the expansion of OT-I cells adoptively transferred into vaccinated
mice. OT-I cells were prepared by isolating total CD8+ T cells from spleen and
lymph nodes of OT-I transgenic CD45.1 mice using Miltenyi beads (Bergisch
Gladbach, Germany). The OT-I CD8 T cells were then labeled with 5 μM CFSE
(carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester, Life Technologies) in PBS containing
0.1% BSA (Bovine Serum Albumin, Sigma-Aldrich) for 8 min at 37°C.
CFSE-labeled OT-I cells (1×106) were injected intravenously in
100 μL PBS 0.1% BSA at different time points (day 0, 3, or 7) after
C57BL/6 CD45.2 mice were injected subcutaneously with the indicated vaccines.
Analysis of the in vivo expansion was performed 6 days after
adoptive transfer by enumerating the number of CFSE-diluted CD8+ CD45.1+ OT-I
cells from draining lymph nodes of vaccinated mice.
Flow cytometry
Samples were acquired on a modified BD LSR Fortessa X-50 flow cytometer
running BD FACSDiva software v8.0.1. Results were analyzed using FlowJo v9.9.6
(TreeStar), Pestle v1.8, and SPICE v6.0 (ref.[64]).
Prediction of MHC-I binding affinity and immunogenicity screens
Mutations resulting from a single-nucleotide polymorphism that were also
transcribed in a mouse tumor were selected from MC38 (ref.[8]), B16-F10 (Nina Bhardwaj, personal
communication), and SB-3123 cell line (Nicholas Restifo, personal communication)
without confirmation of MHC-I binding. Binding affinity for each peptide was
predicted using Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) Consensus algorithm
v2013–02-22 (ref.[65]),
the ANN method[66], and the SMM
method[67]. Predictions
were made for both H2-Kb and H2-Db MHC-I alleles, and the
higher predicted binding affinity of the two alleles was selected for subsequent
regression analysis. Each epitope (n = 179) selected for
analysis was prepared as a peptide antigen linked to oligo-7/8a. Mice
(n = 5 per group) were vaccinated subcutaneously in two
sites with a pool of four antigens (1 nmol per antigen per site) on days 0 and
14. CD8 T cell responses were assessed 7 days after final vaccination for each
antigen individually by ICS as described above. If any antigen in a pool was
positive, each of the four antigens were then tested separately to confirm
immunogenicity.
Hydropathy and charge frequency distribution of human neoantigens
All available human protein sequences were downloaded from Ensembl 2017
(ref.[68]). Canonical
transcripts were identified as the longest sequence for each unique Ensembl
protein-coding gene identifier. All possible wild type 25-mer peptides
(n = 11.3M) were extracted from canonical protein sequences
using a bespoke Python script. All possible single nucleotide mutations
resulting in a missense substitution were identified using the database for
non-synonymous functional prediction (dbNSFP; ref.[69]). All possible 25-mer peptides
incorporating a single missense mutation were then extracted (n
= 72.6M). The net charge (K, R = +1; E, D = –1; all other amino acids =
0) and grand average of hydropathy (GRAVY)[70] were calculated for each wild type and mutant
peptide.
Selection of rhesus macaque antigens
Rhesus neoantigens were selected from ‘hotspot’ mutations
or ‘random’ mutations. Hotspot mutations were selected from the
most prevalent (n = 100) mutations in human cancers from the
COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer; ref.[71]) database. For the hotspot to be
selected, the reference rhesus genome had to have exact homology to the wildtype
human sequence where the mutation occurs. Random mutations were generated by
introducing random mutations in the rhesus exome in silico.
Non-synonymous mutations (n = 100) were selected. Neoantigens
with high predicted binding affinity for Mamu-A*01 (IEDB Consensus score
< 0.5) and moderate predicted binding affinity (IEDB Consensus score =
0.5 to 1.0) were selected for vaccination.
Machine learning model
A random forest machine learning model[42] was used to predict whether a given
conjugate vaccine would form nanoparticles (as assessed by turbidity <
0.05) or larger particles (turbidity > 0.05) based on measured and
derived properties of the underlying composition (net charge, hydropathy,
lengths of the constituent structural elements). 10-fold cross-validated models
were derived to avoid overfitting the data. In each of these cross-validations,
the random forest hyperparameters (the number of trees and the number of
variables considered at each split) were tuned via Gaussian process optimization
(scikit-optimize: Sequential model-based optimization,
GitHub, 2018). To avoid overfitting the hyperparameters, their tuning was
performed with 5-fold cross-validation, in 100 iterations (including 10 initial
steps where the hyperparameters were set randomly), controlled by the log-loss.
The resulting 10-fold cross-validated out-of-sample ROC curves and average ROC
were reported. The total decrease in node impurity weighted by the probability
of reaching that node (Gini Index) was calculated for each derived property of
the underlying compositions.
Statistics and graphs
Sample sizes for biological studies were chosen based on calculations
using JMP statistical analysis software (SAS, Cary, NC); standard deviations and
pre-specified differences in groups (“differences to detect”) were
based on historical data, and type I and type II error rates were set at 0.05
and 0.2, respectively. All relevant statistical tests were two-sided. Unless
stated otherwise, data on linear axes are reported as mean ± s.e.m. Data
on log scale are reported as geometric mean with 95% c.i. Statistical analyses
were carried out using Prism software (GraphPad) or JMP. Unless stated otherwise
within the figure legends, Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA with Dunn’s
post-test correction for multiple comparisons was used to calculate
P-values for comparisons between > 2 groups; two-way
ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was used to calculate P-values
for comparisons between groups over multiple time points; and log rank test was
used to compare survival differences for Kaplan-Meier plots.
Code availability
Scripts used to determine hydropathy and charge frequency distribution
of human neoantigens and to conduct machine learning analyses of charge-modified
conjugates are available from the corresponding authors upon request.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding authors upon request.
Authors: Sebastian Kreiter; Mathias Vormehr; Niels van de Roemer; Mustafa Diken; Martin Löwer; Jan Diekmann; Sebastian Boegel; Barbara Schrörs; Fulvia Vascotto; John C Castle; Arbel D Tadmor; Stephen P Schoenberger; Christoph Huber; Özlem Türeci; Ugur Sahin Journal: Nature Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Alexandra Snyder; Vladimir Makarov; Taha Merghoub; Jianda Yuan; Jedd D Wolchok; Timothy A Chan; Jesse M Zaretsky; Alexis Desrichard; Logan A Walsh; Michael A Postow; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Travis J Hollmann; Cameron Bruggeman; Kasthuri Kannan; Yanyun Li; Ceyhan Elipenahli; Cailian Liu; Christopher T Harbison; Lisu Wang; Antoni Ribas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Volker Lennerz; Martina Fatho; Chiara Gentilini; Roy A Frye; Alexander Lifke; Dorothea Ferel; Catherine Wölfel; Christoph Huber; Thomas Wölfel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-10-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mahesh Yadav; Suchit Jhunjhunwala; Qui T Phung; Patrick Lupardus; Joshua Tanguay; Stephanie Bumbaca; Christian Franci; Tommy K Cheung; Jens Fritsche; Toni Weinschenk; Zora Modrusan; Ira Mellman; Jennie R Lill; Lélia Delamarre Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Eric Tran; Simon Turcotte; Alena Gros; Paul F Robbins; Yong-Chen Lu; Mark E Dudley; John R Wunderlich; Robert P Somerville; Katherine Hogan; Christian S Hinrichs; Maria R Parkhurst; James C Yang; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: Science Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Eric Tran; Paul F Robbins; Yong-Chen Lu; Todd D Prickett; Jared J Gartner; Li Jia; Anna Pasetto; Zhili Zheng; Satyajit Ray; Eric M Groh; Isaac R Kriley; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patrick A Ott; Zhuting Hu; Derin B Keskin; Sachet A Shukla; Jing Sun; David J Bozym; Wandi Zhang; Adrienne Luoma; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Lauren Peter; Christina Chen; Oriol Olive; Todd A Carter; Shuqiang Li; David J Lieb; Thomas Eisenhaure; Evisa Gjini; Jonathan Stevens; William J Lane; Indu Javeri; Kaliappanadar Nellaiappan; Andres M Salazar; Heather Daley; Michael Seaman; Elizabeth I Buchbinder; Charles H Yoon; Maegan Harden; Niall Lennon; Stacey Gabriel; Scott J Rodig; Dan H Barouch; Jon C Aster; Gad Getz; Kai Wucherpfennig; Donna Neuberg; Jerome Ritz; Eric S Lander; Edward F Fritsch; Nir Hacohen; Catherine J Wu Journal: Nature Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bi Wang; Simon Van Herck; Yong Chen; Xiangyang Bai; Zifu Zhong; Kim Deswarte; Bart N Lambrecht; Niek N Sanders; Stefan Lienenklaus; Hans W Scheeren; Sunil A David; Fabian Kiessling; Twan Lammers; Bruno G De Geest; Yang Shi Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Daniel Shae; Jessalyn J Baljon; Mohamed Wehbe; Plamen P Christov; Kyle W Becker; Amrendra Kumar; Naveenchandra Suryadevara; Carcia S Carson; Christian R Palmer; Frances C Knight; Sebastian Joyce; John T Wilson Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Hua Zhang; Wei-Lun Tang; Azadeh Kheirolomoom; Brett Z Fite; Bo Wu; Kenneth Lau; Mo Baikoghli; Marina Nura Raie; Spencer K Tumbale; Josquin Foiret; Elizabeth S Ingham; Lisa M Mahakian; Sarah M Tam; R Holland Cheng; Alexander D Borowsky; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: J Control Release Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 9.776