Ethan J Bassin1, Jon D Piganelli2,3, Steven R Little4,5,6,7,8. 1. Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ejb77@pitt.edu. 2. Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. jdp51@pitt.edu. 3. Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, 4401 Penn Avenue, 6125 Rangos Research Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. jdp51@pitt.edu. 4. Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. srlittle@pitt.edu. 5. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 3700 O'Hara Street, 940 Benedum Hall, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. srlittle@pitt.edu. 6. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. srlittle@pitt.edu. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. srlittle@pitt.edu. 8. Department of Pharmaceutical Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. srlittle@pitt.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be managed by insulin replacement, but it is still associated with an increased risk of microvascular/cardiovascular complications. There is considerable interest in antigen-specific approaches for treating T1D due to their potential for a favorable risk-benefit ratio relative to non-specific immune-based treatments. Here we review recent antigen-specific tolerance approaches using auto-antigen and/or immunomodulatory agents in NOD mice and provide insight into seemingly contradictory findings. RECENT FINDINGS: Although delivery of auto-antigen alone can prevent T1D in NOD mice, this approach may be prone to inconsistent results and has not demonstrated an ability to reverse established T1D. Conversely, several approaches that promote presentation of auto-antigen in a tolerogenic context through cell/tissue targeting, delivery system properties, or the delivery of immunomodulatory agents have had success in reversing recent-onset T1D in NOD mice. While initial auto-antigen based approaches were unable to substantially influence T1D progression clinically, recent antigen-specific approaches have promising potential.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be managed by insulin replacement, but it is still associated with an increased risk of microvascular/cardiovascular complications. There is considerable interest in antigen-specific approaches for treating T1D due to their potential for a favorable risk-benefit ratio relative to non-specific immune-based treatments. Here we review recent antigen-specific tolerance approaches using auto-antigen and/or immunomodulatory agents in NOD mice and provide insight into seemingly contradictory findings. RECENT FINDINGS: Although delivery of auto-antigen alone can prevent T1D in NOD mice, this approach may be prone to inconsistent results and has not demonstrated an ability to reverse established T1D. Conversely, several approaches that promote presentation of auto-antigen in a tolerogenic context through cell/tissue targeting, delivery system properties, or the delivery of immunomodulatory agents have had success in reversing recent-onset T1D in NOD mice. While initial auto-antigen based approaches were unable to substantially influence T1D progression clinically, recent antigen-specific approaches have promising potential.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antigen-specific; Auto-antigen therapy; Non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice; Regulatory T cells (Tregs); Tolerance; Type 1 diabetes (T1D)
Authors: David A Ostrov; Aimon Alkanani; Kristen A McDaniel; Stephanie Case; Erin E Baschal; Laura Pyle; Sam Ellis; Bernadette Pöllinger; Katherine J Seidl; Viral N Shah; Satish K Garg; Mark A Atkinson; Peter A Gottlieb; Aaron W Michels Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Mark A Atkinson; Bart O Roep; Amanda Posgai; Daniel C S Wheeler; Mark Peakman Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Li Zhang; Frances Crawford; Liping Yu; Aaron Michels; Maki Nakayama; Howard W Davidson; John W Kappler; George S Eisenbarth Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 11.205