Engineering DNA Nanostructures to Manipulate Immune Receptor Signaling and Immune Cell Fates

2021 ◽  
pp. 2101844
Author(s):  
Chung Yi Tseng ◽  
Wendy Xueyi Wang ◽  
Travis R. Douglas ◽  
Leo Y.T. Chou
Nanomaterials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1413
Author(s):  
Sofia Ojasalo ◽  
Petteri Piskunen ◽  
Boxuan Shen ◽  
Mauri A. Kostiainen ◽  
Veikko Linko

Viruses are among the most intriguing nanostructures found in nature. Their atomically precise shapes and unique biological properties, especially in protecting and transferring genetic information, have enabled a plethora of biomedical applications. On the other hand, structural DNA nanotechnology has recently emerged as a highly useful tool to create programmable nanoscale structures. They can be extended to user defined devices to exhibit a wide range of static, as well as dynamic functions. In this review, we feature the recent development of virus-DNA hybrid materials. Such structures exhibit the best features of both worlds by combining the biological properties of viruses with the highly controlled assembly properties of DNA. We present how the DNA shapes can act as “structured” genomic material and direct the formation of virus capsid proteins or be encapsulated inside symmetrical capsids. Tobacco mosaic virus-DNA hybrids are discussed as the examples of dynamic systems and directed formation of conjugates. Finally, we highlight virus-mimicking approaches based on lipid- and protein-coated DNA structures that may elicit enhanced stability, immunocompatibility and delivery properties. This development also paves the way for DNA-based vaccines as the programmable nano-objects can be used for controlling immune cell activation.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfa Ng

The immune checkpoint plays an important role in keeping immune cells in check for protecting tissues and organs from attack by the body’s own immune system. Similar concepts also apply in how cancer cells managed to fool immune cells through the surface display of particular antigens that mimic those exhibited by normal body cells. Specifically, cancer cells display antigens that bind to receptors on immune cells that subsequently prevent an attack on the cancer cells. Such binding between cancer antigens and immune cell receptors can be prevented through the use of checkpoint inhibitors antibodies specific for particular receptors on immune cells; thereby, unleashing immune cells to mount an immune response against cancer cells. While demonstrating good remissions in many patients where tumours shrunk substantially after administration of checkpoint inhibitors, cases exist where an overactivated immune system cause harm to organs and tissues culminating in multiple organ failure. Analysis of such toxicity effects of checkpoint inhibitors revealed that generic nature of targeted immune receptor plays a pivotal role in determining extent of side effects. Specifically, if the target immune receptor participates in checkpoints that prevent immune cells from attacking host cells, unleashing such receptors in cancer therapy may have untoward effects on patient’s health. Hence, the goal should be the selection of immune cell receptor specific to cancer cell antigens and which does not bind antigens or ligands displayed by the body’s cells. Such receptors would provide ideal targets for the development of checkpoint inhibitor antibodies for unleashing immune cells against cancer cells. To search for non-generic receptors that bind cancer cell antigens only, a combined computational and experimental approach could be used where ensemble of surface antigens on cancer cells and available receptors on immune cells could be profiled by biochemical assays. Downstream purification of ligands and receptors would provide for both structural elucidation and amino acid sequencing useful for bioinformatic search of homologous sequences. Knowledge of the antigens’ and receptors’ structures and amino acid sequence would subsequently serve as inputs to computational algorithms that models molecular docking events between receptor and antigen. This paves the way for heterologous expression of putative ligand and receptor in cell lines cultured in co-culture format for assessing binding between ligand and receptor, and more importantly, its physiological effects. Ability of immune receptor to bind to ligands on normal cells could also be assessed. Similar co-culture studies could be conducted with cancer cells and different immune cell types to check for reproducibility of observed effect in cell lines. Finally, antibodies could be raised for candidate receptors whose inhibition would not result in systemic attack of immune cells on host cells.


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (368) ◽  
pp. ec64-ec64
Author(s):  
Kristen L. Mueller

Immunity ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 576-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chauncey J. Spooner ◽  
Jason X. Cheng ◽  
Elisabet Pujadas ◽  
Peter Laslo ◽  
Harinder Singh

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfa Ng

The immune checkpoint plays an important role in keeping immune cells in check for protecting tissues and organs from attack by the body’s own immune system. Similar concepts also apply in how cancer cells managed to fool immune cells through the surface display of particular antigens that mimic those exhibited by normal body cells. Specifically, cancer cells display antigens that bind to receptors on immune cells that subsequently prevent an attack on the cancer cells. Such binding between cancer antigens and immune cell receptors can be prevented through the use of checkpoint inhibitors antibodies specific for particular receptors on immune cells; thereby, unleashing immune cells to mount an immune response against cancer cells. While demonstrating good remissions in many patients where tumours shrunk substantially after administration of checkpoint inhibitors, cases exist where an overactivated immune system cause harm to organs and tissues culminating in multiple organ failure. Analysis of such toxicity effects of checkpoint inhibitors revealed that generic nature of targeted immune receptor plays a pivotal role in determining extent of side effects. Specifically, if the target immune receptor participates in checkpoints that prevent immune cells from attacking host cells, unleashing such receptors in cancer therapy may have untoward effects on patient’s health. Hence, the goal should be the selection of immune cell receptor specific to cancer cell antigens and which does not bind antigens or ligands displayed by the body’s cells. Such receptors would provide ideal targets for the development of checkpoint inhibitor antibodies for unleashing immune cells against cancer cells. To search for non-generic receptors that bind cancer cell antigens only, a combined computational and experimental approach could be used where ensemble of surface antigens on cancer cells and available receptors on immune cells could be profiled by biochemical assays. Downstream purification of ligands and receptors would provide for both structural elucidation and amino acid sequencing useful for bioinformatic search of homologous sequences. Knowledge of the antigens’ and receptors’ structures and amino acid sequence would subsequently serve as inputs to computational algorithms that models molecular docking events between receptor and antigen. This paves the way for heterologous expression of putative ligand and receptor in cell lines cultured in co-culture format for assessing binding between ligand and receptor, and more importantly, its physiological effects. Ability of immune receptor to bind to ligands on normal cells could also be assessed. Similar co-culture studies could be conducted with cancer cells and different immune cell types to check for reproducibility of observed effect in cell lines. Finally, antibodies could be raised for candidate receptors whose inhibition would not result in systemic attack of immune cells on host cells.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document