Dataset Information

Residue substitution enhances the immunogenicity of neoepitopes from gastric cancers

ABSTRACT:

Objective:

Neoantigens arising from gene mutations in tumors can induce specific immune responses, and neoantigen-based immunotherapies have been tested in clinical trials. Here, we characterized the efficacy of altered neoepitopes in improving immunogenicity against gastric cancer.

Methods:

Raw data of whole-exome sequencing derived from a patient with gastric cancer were analyzed using bioinformatics methods to identify neoepitopes. Neoepitopes were modified by P1Y (the first amino acid was replaced by tyrosine) and P2L (the second amino acid was replaced by leucine). T2 binding and stability assays were used to detect the affinities between the neoepitopes and the HLA molecules, as well as the stabilities of complexes. Dendritic cells (DCs) presented with neoepitopes stimulated naïve CD8+ T cells to induce specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes. ELISA and carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester were used to detect IFN-γ and TNF-α levels, and T cell proliferation. Perforin was detected by flow cytometry. The cytotoxicity of T cells was determined using the lactate dehydrogenase assay.

Results:

Bioinformatics analysis, T2 binding, and stability assays indicated that residue substitution increased the affinity between neoepitopes and HLA molecules, as well as the stabilities of complexes. DCs presented with altered neoepitopes stimulated CD8+T cells to release more IFN-γ and had a greater effect on promoting proliferation than wild-type neoepitopes. CD8+T cells stimulated with altered neoepitopes killed more wild-type neoepitope-pulsed T2 cells than those stimulated with wild-type neoepitopes, by secreting more IFN-γ, TNF-α, and perforin.

Conclusions:

Altered neoepitopes exhibited greater immunogenicity than wild-type neoepitopes. Residue substitution could be used as a new strategy for immunotherapy to target neoantigens.

SUBMITTER: Yu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8610152 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Tumor neoantigens are drivers of cancer immunotherapy response; however, current prediction tools produce many candidates requiring further prioritization. Additional filtration criteria and population-level understanding may assist with prioritization. Herein, we show neoepitope immunogenicity is related to measures of peptide novelty and report population-level behavior of these and other metrics. METHODS:We propose four peptide novelty metrics to refine predicted neoantigenicity: tumor vs. paired normal peptide binding affinity difference, tumor vs. paired normal peptide sequence similarity, tumor vs. closest human peptide sequence similarity, and tumor vs. closest microbial peptide sequence similarity. We apply these metrics to neoepitopes predicted from somatic missense mutations in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and a cohort of melanoma patients, and to a group of peptides with neoepitope-specific immune response data using an extension of pVAC-Seq (Hundal et al., pVAC-Seq: a genome-guided in silico approach to identifying tumor neoantigens. Genome Med 8:11, 2016). RESULTS:We show neoepitope burden varies across TCGA diseases and HLA alleles, with surprisingly low repetition of neoepitope sequences across patients or neoepitope preferences among sets of HLA alleles. Only 20.3% of predicted neoepitopes across TCGA patients displayed novel binding change based on our binding affinity difference criteria. Similarity of amino acid sequence was typically high between paired tumor-normal epitopes, but in 24.6% of cases, neoepitopes were more similar to other human peptides, or bacterial (56.8% of cases) or viral peptides (15.5% of cases), than their paired normal counterparts. Applied to peptides with neoepitope-specific immune response, a linear model incorporating neoepitope binding affinity, protein sequence similarity between neoepitopes and their closest viral peptides, and paired binding affinity difference was able to predict immunogenicity (AUROC?=?0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Our proposed prioritization criteria emphasize neoepitope novelty and refine patient neoepitope predictions for focus on biologically meaningful candidate neoantigens. We have demonstrated that neoepitopes should be considered not only with respect to their paired normal epitope, but to the entire human proteome, and bacterial and viral peptides, with potential implications for neoepitope immunogenicity and personalized vaccines for cancer treatment. We conclude that putative neoantigens are highly variable across individuals as a function of cancer genetics and personalized HLA repertoire, while the overall behavior of filtration criteria reflects predictable patterns.