Journal of Immunology Research

Journal of Immunology Research / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 2454907 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2454907

Lichen Zhu, Xiaomei Yang, Dani Zhong, Shenxia Xie, Wei Shi, Yangzi Li, Xiaoqiong Hou, HuaYao, Huihui Zhou, Minlong Zhao, Ziqiang Ding, Xinyue Zhao, Fengzhen Mo, Shihua Yin, Aiqun Liu, Xiaoling Lu, "Single-Domain Antibody-Based TCR-Like CAR-T: A Potential Cancer Therapy", Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2020, Article ID 2454907, 8 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2454907

Single-Domain Antibody-Based TCR-Like CAR-T: A Potential Cancer Therapy

Academic Editor: Nejat K. Egilmez
Received30 May 2020
Revised30 Jul 2020
Accepted14 Aug 2020
Published07 Sep 2020

Abstract

Retargeting the antigen-binding specificity of T cells to intracellular antigens that are degraded and presented on the tumor surface by engineering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR), also named TCR-like antibody CAR-T, remains limited. With the exception of the commercialized CD19 CAR-T for hematological malignancies and other CAR-T therapies aiming mostly at extracellular antigens achieving great success, the rareness and scarcity of TCR-like CAR-T therapies might be due to their current status and limitations. This review provides the probable optimized initiatives for improving TCR-like CAR-T reprogramming and discusses single-domain antibodies administered as an alternative to conventional scFvs and secreted by CAR-T cells, which might be of great value to the development of CAR-T immunotherapies for intracellular antigens.

1. Introduction

Cancer diseases, setting up barriers to human longevity worldwide, are estimated to be the top cause of death, based on the most recent GLOBOCAN data [1]. Scientists are working to control and even eliminate cancer through activating and enhancing immunity. From the initial unsuccessful trial of “Coley toxin” immunotherapy in 1893 to the top scientific breakthrough published in Science in 2013, a new era of immunooncology has arrived. Immunooncology has even been nominated for the first prize in 2016’s MIT top 10 Breakthrough Technologies [24]. With the increasing number of tumor antigens and autoimmune T cell receptors gradually being discovered and identified, associated immune checkpoint monoclonal antibodies including Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 mAb) and Pembrolizumab and Nivolumab (anti-PD-1 mAb) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [5]. Moreover, personalized tumor vaccine treatment and CAR-T cell immunotherapy, as novel strategies of adoptive cellular immunotherapy, have been developed rapidly in recent years. In particular, the achievements of CAR-T cell immunotherapy in hematological malignancies make the concept of immunooncology impressive [6, 7].

In the context of the numerous breakthroughs in immunooncology, more attention should be paid to the developing topics of research, such as intracellular antigens. The intracellular antigens, as the name implies, are generated intracellularly and then degraded by the proteasomes and presented in the context of the MHC-I signaling pathway as MHC/peptide complexes on the tumor surface. Intracellular antigens account for almost 95% of the tumor antigens [811]. The antibodies that have received FDA approvals and reached the market are almost all directed towards extracellular antigens, not intracellular ones. To target these antigens, a specific group of antibodies called T cell receptor- (TCR-) like/mimic antibodies has been developed in the preclinical process. They recognize the MHC/peptide complexes as well as the genuine TCRs and will hopefully broaden the spectrum of monoclonal antibodies applications and provide directions to future research [1217].

To improve the TCR-like antibodies with therapeutic potential, the TCR-like antibodies associated with CAR-T therapy were initially developed in 2001. They functioned to specifically recognize the MHC/peptide complexes and subsequently triggered T cell activation and proliferation under the potent costimulation signals [18, 19]. So far, the applications of CAR-T employed using TCR-like antibodies are uncommon (Table 1). The CAR designs depend on an extracellular antigen-binding domain, a hinge region, a transmembrane domain, and an intracellular domain that transmits the activation signals. These molecules are classified into three generations and varied in the quantity of costimulatory domains. As is well known, the first generation comprises CD3z only, the second generation adds one costimulatory domain such as 4-1BB (CD137), CD28, or OX40 (CD134) onto the backbone of the first generation, and more than one costimulatory domain was added in the third generation [20]. Any small modification in any moieties of the CAR construct may exert a significant influence. The same is true of the limited TCR-like antibody CAR-T therapies, varying from diverse antigen-binding modules derived from phage display or hybridoma to the various costimulatory domains, which may improve the therapeutic effect to some extent (Figure 1(a)) [21]. Therefore, there is much potential to be explored.


AntigenEpitope sequenceMHC alleleCloneGeneration strategyCAR sequenceHuman diseaseReference

MAGE-1EADPTGHSYHLA-A0101Fab-G8PhageFab-G8-CD4/γMelanoma[18]
EADPTGHSYHLA-A0101Fab-G8/Fab-Hyb3PhageFab-G8/γ
Fab-Hyb3/γ
Melanoma[22]
Proteinase 3VLQELNVTVHLA-A02018F4Hybridoma8F4-28ZAML[24]
WT1RMFPNAPYLHLA-A0201F2, F3PhageF2-28Z/F3-28ZLeukemia[26]
RMFPNAPYLHLA-A0201Clone 45PhageClone45-4-1BBZLeukemia[23]
HA-1HVLHHDLLEAHLA-A0201#131Phage#131-28ZLeukemia[19]
NY-ESO-1SLIMWITQCHLA-A0201T1PhageT1-28ZMelanoma[25]
AFPFMNKFIYETHLA-A0201ET1402L1PhageET1402L1-28ZLiver cancer[27]

Notes: published TCR-like antibody CAR-T targeting cancer antigens are summarized. MHC: major histocompatibility complex; CAR: chimeric antigen receptor.

In this perspective article, we elaborate on the current status and limitations of the small number of TCR-like CAR-T therapies for intracellular antigens and imagine the alternative improvements in CAR-T engineering, with special emphasis on the single-domain antibodies (nanobodies), and provide discussion of possible initiatives in the future.

2. Current Situations and Limitations with TCR-Like CAR Targeting

TCR-like CAR-modified T cells show several advantages over conventional CAR-T expressing extracellular antigens. CAR-T therapy for intracellular antigens (also named as the TCR-like antibody CAR-T therapy) extends the therapeutic field to most of the unexploited tumor antigens, the intracellular antigens. They have been shown to account for 90% of tumor antigens [10]. In spite of that fact, the quantity of the therapeutics targeting intracellular antigens remains lower than the conventional CAR-T therapy for the extracellular antigens. The therapeutic efficacy has been verified due to the specificity of the TCR-like antibody and successful CAR-T cell activation and tumor lysis [18, 19, 2227]. The TCR-like antibody CAR-T therapy circumvents the shortage of the specific biomarkers on the surface of tumor cells, achieving a few breakthroughs in solid tumors [28]. It has been reported that preserving the specificity of the TCR-like CAR to recognize the MHC/peptide complex is complicated; thus, any minimal binding to HLA may lose the CAR specificity owing to the high affinity of clustered CAR. Maus et al. have verified that the low-affinity DN-28z CAR, which is an attempt to maintain the specificity, was able to trigger T cell activation and cytotoxicity [25]. In general, besides the mutation in structure to maintain the specificity, TCR-like CAR-T shows superiority mainly in the broad target range to intracellular antigens and therapeutic potential for solid tumors.

At the same time, the reasons for the limitations of therapeutic efficacy in TCR-like CAR-T therapy might be multifaceted. The phage library-derived TCR-like antibody is converted into a CAR that is transduced into normal T cells, resulting in the construction of the TCR-like antibody CAR-T. The concerns and hurdles in improving the TCR-like antibody should be a focus when the therapy is being developed. The first concern is the coverage limitation of the targeted antigens, given the antibody is effective on certain MHC allele and certain peptides of tumor antigens, simultaneously and indispensably. Though HLA-A2 is the dominant allele in patients and, together with other HLA alleles, makes up the majority of the worldwide patients’ MHC alleles, the specific peptides of tumor antigens that are relevant to the MHC alleles themselves remain insufficient [10, 29, 30]. Another important hurdle is the low productivity deriving from phage display or hybridoma techniques, which have been verified to be tough and, at the same time, time-consuming and costly [3133]. In addition to all of this, the efficiency of tumor destruction mediated by the TCR-like antibody is not potent enough. An immune-suppressive environment could be one reason for that, and once the T cells gain access to the tumor cells, the tumor cells quickly hide themselves and secrete immune-suppressive cytokines that trigger the depletion or death of the natural T cells, monocytes, macrophages, or NK cells [34, 35]. The secreted cytokines include interleukin 10 (IL-10), which might promote T regulatory cell (Treg) suppressive activity or increase the expression of the immunosuppressive molecule like HLA-G. Meanwhile, the transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), which has a well-known immunosuppressive role, garners much attention in this field [3640].

In the end, tumor cells might evade immune surveillance because of absent or downregulated expression of MHC/peptide complexes on their surface. However, there is evidence suggesting that a few cytokines and chemicals can reverse the situation, activating the MHC signaling pathway and upregulating the MHC expression [4143]. To some extent, the aforementioned problems could be the explanation for the rareness of CAR-T therapy for intracellular antigens, and further initiatives are urgently needed.

3. Probable Optimized Initiatives in Improving TCR-Like CAR-T Engineering

3.1. Single-Domain Antibody Targeted TCR-Like CARs

In order to promote the therapeutic efficacy of a TCR-like antibody CAR-T with higher antigen-binding specificity and productivity and, at the same time, to seek a substitute for the time-consuming and costly conventional antibody, researchers are focusing their attention on the single-domain antibody. The concept of the camelid single-domain antibody (sdAb) or heavy chain variable domain (VHH), as we now know, refers to the nanobody. The nanobodies that were initially reported were derived from the heavy chain antibodies (HCAbs), which were found in the dromedary (Arabian camel) serum samples and were analyzed by Hamers-Casterman and his colleagues [44]. HCAbs are composed of two heavy chains, each with a variable domain (VHH) and a constant region lacking CH1, which are linked with a disulfide bond to form homodimers [45]. To some extent, the structural features of the VHH show superiority as the smallest antigen-binding domain of HCAbs, which include the longer complementarity determining region 3 (CDR3) extending out to bind to the concave epitopes that a conventional antibody cannot bind. Furthermore, hydrophobic amino acids are involved in the paratope of the CDR1 and CDR2 and even more residues react with the antigen in the framework region (FR) (Figure 2) [4648].

The primary superiority of nanobodies lies in its small size, having a molecular mass of 12-15 kDa, allowing for penetration of tumor-like compact tissues [49, 50]. The acquisition of nanobodies, usually described as the phage display technique, is associated with ease of production and low cost [5154]. Furthermore, high affinity and specificity should not be ignored based on the structural features mentioned above, dealing with the covert epitopes that common antibodies cannot reach [5557]. Other advantages of nanobodies lie in the low immunogenicity, good solubility, and high stability in the varied temperatures and pH [58]. As a result, nanobodies are involved in continual experimental and clinical trials, especially in the rising CAR-T therapy field [5968]. However, the limited nanobody-based CAR-T engineering is mostly directed to extracellular antigens, such as tumor-associated markers like MUC1 and CD38, rarely to the intracellular antigens.

It has been reported that the TCR-like nanobody GPA7, specifically recognizing gp100 209–217/HLA-A2, was engineered into GPA7-28z CAR and mediated the effective cytotoxicity against human melanoma cells together with HLA-A2 following GPA7-28z CAR transduction into T cells [69]. The possibility of this hypothesis was demonstrated, even if it is rare (Figure 1(b)). To conquer the outgrowth of antigen escape variants, a tandem of two nanobodies specific for HER2 and CD20 constitutes the bispecific CAR, inducing T cell activation and tumor lysis [67]. At the same time, nanobody-based CARs have targeted the tumor stroma markers such as PD-L1 and VEGFR2, which have a direct effect on the tumor microenvironment and delay tumor growth [60, 62]. The studies mentioned above inform the TCR-like nanobody CAR-T therapies with a tandem of two TCR-like nanobodies specific to a certain type of cancer or an addition of a nanobody targeting a certain type of immune checkpoint inhibitor, which provides an option for the improvements that could be made in the nanobody-based antigen-binding domain in TCR-like nanobody CAR.

3.2. Probable Single-Domain Antibody Secreted TCR-Like CARs

The inefficiency of tumor destruction mediated by TCR-like antibody CAR-T might be due to the immune-suppressive environment and tumor immune escape, which might also hamper the related studies. For instance, the incomplete duplication of the tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment in in vitro and in vivo models could be a challenge in the success of a solid tumor study [70]. To conquer this, the armored CAR-T with genetic modifications added to the second- or third-generation CAR sequences leads to secretion of cytokines and proinflammatory ligands into the tumor microenvironment and improves efficacy and persistence of CAR-T. IL-12, CD40L, and 4-1BBL are often considered as possible targets to augment the potency of dendritic cells (DCs) and macrophages or restrain the Treg inhibition in the tumor microenvironment [7176]. For example, Pegram et al. reported the enhanced tumor eradication in a syngeneic mouse model with armored anti-CD19-28ζ/IL-12 CAR-T cells. In the same study, it was demonstrated that the secreted IL-12 was involved in resistance to Tregs through IL-12 receptors on the CAR-T cells, which was in an autocrine mode [72]. It follows that moderate cytokine release might contribute to the improvement of the efficacy of TCR-like antibody CAR-T.

Apart from the cytokines and proinflammatory ligands secreted by CARs, single-domain antibodies (VHHs or nanobodies) can also be secreted by CAR-T, changing the intratumoral immune environment, thus contributing to good functions of CAR-T cells (Figure 1(c)). Yushu et al. demonstrated that the anti-CD47 VHH secreted by CAR-T stimulated the macrophage engulfment systematically and that anti-CD47 VHH-Fc fusions secreted locally enhanced safety compared to the systemic applications. At the same time, the secreted anti-PD-L1 or anti-CTL-4 VHH contributed to the persistence of CAR-T cells [77].

As the secretion of VHHs by CAR-T has been proved to be probable, this suggests the possibility of TCR-like CAR-T secreting VHHs that could specifically recognize the MHC/peptide complexes, weaken the impact of the tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment, and reinforce the innate immune system.

3.3. Selection of Tumor Antigens

To exploit the targeted intracellular antigens for TCR-like CAR-T therapies, researchers should focus on the promising antigens with the features listed below, which might provide potential targets for TCR-like CAR-T therapies.

Intracellular antigens account for more than 90% of tumor antigens which are classified into three groups according to various features: oncovirus antigens, neoantigens or tumor-specific antigens, and cancer-testis antigens or tumor-associated self-antigens [17]. The oncovirus antigens like latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1), LMP2 and Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen 1-3 (EBNA 1-3), originating from Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and hepatitis B virus X protein (HBX), derived from hepatitis virus (HBV), are localized to the cytoplasm, presented on the cell surface through the antigen presentation pathway, and are specialized in the oncoviruses with high tumor specificity [7880]. Neoantigens or tumor-specific antigens are generated when gene/chromosome mutations occur in tumor cells [8183]. The mutations, like the chromosomal translocation, duplication, or loss in every region of the genes, lead to neoantigens such as the alpha-actinin-4 K122N in lung cancer and beta-catenin S37F in melanoma [8486]. Cancer-testis antigens or tumor-associated self-antigens such as melanoma antigen-1 (MAGE-1), WT1, NY-ESO-1, and synovial sarcoma X (SSX) are not only expressed in tumor cells but also partly in normal tissues such as embryonic or germ cells [87, 88]. Among all the potential targeted antigens, cancer-testis antigens or tumor-associated self-antigens stand out in the existing experimental results [13, 89].

With the potential targeted antigens identified, it could be possible for them to be processed and presented in the form of peptides on the cell surface. From using T cell epitope cloning to identify human tumor antigen MAGE-1 in the 1990s for the first time to exploiting serological analysis of recombinant cDNA expression libraries (SEREX) to identify antigens with high immunogenicity like NY-ESO-1, scientists have focused mainly on the immunological methods [9092]. However, there is still a long way to go in the identification of the tumor antigens. Since then, other techniques such as chromatography and mass spectrometry, DNA microarray, and reverse immunology have been developed, and mass spectrometry shows superiority in identifying the tumor antigen peptides in a direct way [93].

3.4. Other Possible and Novel Approaches for CAR

To synchronously limit antigen escape and minimize toxicities, the switchable universal CAR comprising the target module (TM) of tumor-specific antibody and a UniCAR-T without specificity to the tumor but to the short peptide tagged on the TM has been introduced. It is the TM that provides the UniCAR with specificity, and once the tumor is not around, the UniCAR remains inactive. In the application of UniCAR to the bivalent epidermal growth factor receptor (α-EGFR-EGFR), the TM that retargeted UniCAR-T to the tumor cells with low-expressing EGFR has proved to be effective [94, 95]. A split, universal, and programmable (SUPRA) CAR system engineered as a potent tool against genetically unsteady or highly heterogeneous tumor types, comprises two parts: (1) a zipCAR that is almost identical to the conventional structure of CAR but with a leucine zipper in the extracellular domain and (2) a zipFv added externally with the ligand-binding domain and fused to a second leucine zipper on the zipCAR, playing a significant role in antigen-binding specificity [96, 97]. As a result, the efficiency of zipCAR could be varied due to the quantity and quality of input zipFvs, which broaden the spectrum of remediable malignancies. It has been observed that reducing the zipFv input or binding affinity of zipFv and zipCAR through the leucine zipper would decrease the interferon-γ (IFN-γ) production and tumor lysis [98100].

The extraordinary breakthroughs in bioengineering offer new thoughts to the progress of CAR-T, expanding the probable therapeutic possibilities for intracellular antigens.

4. Conclusion

The limited TCR-like antibody-based CAR-T cell therapies have not entered into clinical trials, and we highlight here a number of possible reasons for this. However, once these issues are resolved, the progress of CAR-T targeting intracellular antigens can be potentially improved. In particular, the high yields and ease of production of nanobodies might settle the production difficulties, and nanobodies engineered or secreted in CAR-T might augment the specificity to recognize the MHC/peptide complexes and improve the immune-suppressive environment. The clinical trial of CAR-T engineering with a CD19/CD20 bispecific nanobody was newly introduced, and whether a safer and preferable CAR-T could be brought still needs to be awaited, let alone the intracellular antigen-targeted TCR-like nanobody CAR-T therapies that remain in the bud [101]. A phase Ι study demonstrated that immunogenic responses could still occur when the TAS266 (a DR5 receptor-targeted agonistic tetravalent nanobody) is administrated [102]. Simultaneously, we are waiting for more intracellular antigens to be identified and other outstanding advances in biological engineering and synthetic biology as new strategies to apply to the CAR-T therapies for intracellular antigens.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Lichen Zhu, Xiaomei Yang, and Dani Zhong contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Programs for National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (grant number 81773254), Project for International Nanobody Research Center of Guangxi (grant number Guike-AD17195001), and Guangxi Bagui Honor Scholars.

References

  1. R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2018,” CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. B. Wiemann and C. O. Starnes, “Coley’s toxins, tumor necrosis factor and cancer research: a historical perspective,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 529–564, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Couzin-Frankel, “Cancer Immunotherapy,” Science, vol. 342, no. 6165, pp. 1432-1433, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. Haux, “Infection and cancer,” Lancet, vol. 358, no. 9276, pp. 155-156, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. “Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in resectable lung cancer; nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma; overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma; prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy; combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma; combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma; nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma; rapid eradication of a bulky melanoma mass with one dose of immunotherapy; genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade; genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma; nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma; safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma; hepatotoxicity with combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 22, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J. Zhou, A. V. Kroll, M. Holay, R. H. Fang, and L. Zhang, “Biomimetic nanotechnology toward personalized vaccines,” Advanced Materials, vol. 32, no. 13, article e1901255, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. T. R. Abreu, N. A. Fonseca, N. Goncalves, and J. N. Moreira, “Current challenges and emerging opportunities of CAR-T cell therapies,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 319, pp. 246–261, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. J. W. Yewdell, “Plumbing the sources of endogenous MHC class I peptide ligands,” Current Opinion in Immunology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. J. Neefjes, M. L. Jongsma, P. Paul, and O. Bakke, “Towards a systems understanding of MHC class I and MHC class II antigen presentation,” Nature Reviews. Immunology, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 823–836, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. L. Novellino, C. Castelli, and G. Parmiani, “A listing of human tumor antigens recognized by T cells: March 2004 update,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 187–207, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. D. B. Trentini, M. Pecoraro, S. Tiwary et al., “Role for ribosome-associated quality control in sampling proteins for MHC class I-mediated antigen presentation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 117, no. 8, pp. 4099–4108, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. Dahan and Y. Reiter, “T-cell-receptor-like antibodies - generation, function and applications,” Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine, vol. 14, article e6, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Y. Chang, R. S. Gejman, E. J. Brea et al., “Opportunities and challenges for TCR mimic antibodies in cancer therapy,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 979–987, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. J. E. Smith-Garvin, G. A. Koretzky, and M. S. Jordan, “T cell activation,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 591–619, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. L. Low, A. Goh, J. Koh, S. Lim, and C. I. Wang, “Targeting mutant p53-expressing tumours with a T cell receptor-like antibody specific for a wild-type antigen,” Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. S. A. Dass, M. N. Norazmi, A. Acosta, M. E. Sarmiento, and G. J. Tye, “TCR-like domain antibody against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) heat shock protein antigen presented by HLA-A11 and HLA-A24,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 155, pp. 305–314, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. Q. He, Z. Liu, Z. Liu, Y. Lai, X. Zhou, and J. Weng, “TCR-like antibodies in cancer immunotherapy,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. R. A. Willemsen, R. Debets, E. Hart, H. R. Hoogenboom, R. L. Bolhuis, and P. Chames, “A phage display selected fab fragment with MHC class I-restricted specificity for MAGE-A1 allows for retargeting of primary human T lymphocytes,” Gene Therapy, vol. 8, no. 21, pp. 1601–1608, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. Y. Inaguma, Y. Akahori, Y. Murayama et al., “Construction and molecular characterization of a T-cell receptor-like antibody and CAR-T cells specific for minor histocompatibility antigen HA-1H,” Gene Therapy, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 575–584, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. S. Guedan, H. Calderon, A. D. Posey Jr., and M. V. Maus, “Engineering and design of chimeric antigen receptors,” Molecular Therapy - Methods & Clinical Development, vol. 12, pp. 145–156, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. Y. Xu, G. T.’. Salazar, N. Zhang, and Z. An, “T-cell receptor mimic (TCRm) antibody therapeutics against intracellular proteins,” Antibody Therapeutics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. Chames, R. A. Willemsen, G. Rojas et al., “TCR-like human antibodies expressed on human CTLs mediate antibody affinity-dependent cytolytic activity,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 169, no. 2, pp. 1110–1118, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. Q. Zhao, M. Ahmed, D. V. Tassev et al., “Affinity maturation of T-cell receptor-like antibodies for Wilms tumor 1 peptide greatly enhances therapeutic potential,” Leukemia, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 2238–2247, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Q. Ma, H. R. Garber, S. Lu et al., “A novel TCR-like CAR with specificity for PR1/HLA-A2 effectively targets myeloid leukemia in vitro when expressed in human adult peripheral blood and cord blood T cells,” Cytotherapy, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 985–994, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. M. V. Maus, J. Plotkin, G. Jakka et al., “An MHC-restricted antibody-based chimeric antigen receptor requires TCR-like affinity to maintain antigen specificity,” Molecular Therapy - Oncolytics, vol. 3, pp. 16023–16029, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. R. Oren, M. Hod-Marco, M. Haus-Cohen et al., “Functional comparison of engineered T cells carrying a native TCR versus TCR-like antibody-based chimeric antigen receptors indicates affinity/avidity thresholds,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 193, no. 11, pp. 5733–5743, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. H. Liu, Y. Xu, J. Xiang et al., “Targeting alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-MHC complex with CAR T-cell therapy for liver cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 478–488, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. Li, W. Li, K. Huang, Y. Zhang, G. Kupfer, and Q. Zhao, “Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy for solid tumors: lessons learned and strategies for moving forward,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology, vol. 11, no. 1, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. F. F. González-Galarza, L. Y. Takeshita, E. J. Santos et al., “Allele frequency net 2015 update: new features for HLA epitopes, KIR and disease and HLA adverse drug reaction associations,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 43, no. D1, pp. D784–D788, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. M. Ellis, V. Henson, R. Slack, J. Ng, R. J. Hartzman, and C. Katovich Hurley, “Frequencies of HLA-A2 alleles in five U.S. population groups: Predominance of A02011 and identification of HLA-A0231,” Human Immunology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 334–340, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. R. Aharoni, D. Teftelbaum, R. Arnon, and J. Puri, “Immunomodulation of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis by antibodies to the antigen-Ia complex,” Nature, vol. 351, no. 6322, pp. 147–150, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. B. Uchanska-Ziegler, E. Nossner, A. Schenk, A. Ziegler, and D. J. Schendel, “Soluble T cell receptor-like properties of an HLA-B35-specific monoclonal antibody (TU165),” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 734–738, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. M. Krogsgaard, K. W. Wucherpfennig, B. Canella et al., “Visualization of myelin basic protein (MBP) T cell epitopes in multiple sclerosis lesions using a monoclonal antibody specific for the human histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR2-MBP 85-99 complex,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 191, no. 8, pp. 1395–1412, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. L. Stone, “CRPC-specific gene Therapy,” Nature Reviews. Urology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 206-207, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. M. Binnewies, E. W. Roberts, K. Kersten et al., “Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy,” Nature Medicine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 541–550, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. V. Agnihotri, A. Gupta, L. Kumar, and S. Dey, “Serum sHLA-G: significant diagnostic biomarker with respect to therapy and immunosuppressive mediators in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” Scientific Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. S. Field, F. Baixauli, R. L. Kyle et al., “Mitochondrial integrity regulated by lipid metabolism is a cell-intrinsic checkpoint for Treg suppressive function,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 422–437.e5, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. H. Lind, S. R. Gameiro, C. Jochems et al., “Dual targeting of TGF-β and PD-L1 via a bifunctional anti-PD-L1/TGF-βRII agent: status of preclinical and clinical advances,” Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, vol. 8, no. 1, article e000433, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. A. Metelli, B. X. Wu, B. Riesenberg et al., “Thrombin contributes to cancer immune evasion via proteolysis of platelet-bound GARP to activate LTGF-β,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 12, no. 525, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. F. Salazar-Onfray, “Interleukin-10: a cytokine used by tumors to escape immunosurveillance,” Medical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 86–94, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. F. Garrido, N. Aptsiauri, E. M. Doorduijn, A. M. Garcia Lora, and T. van Hall, “The urgent need to recover MHC class I in cancers for effective immunotherapy,” Current Opinion in Immunology, vol. 39, pp. 44–51, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. K. Lhotakova, A. Grzelak, I. Polakova, J. Vackova, and M. Smahel, “Establishment and characterization of a mouse tumor cell line with irreversible downregulation of MHC class I molecules,” Oncology Reports, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 2826–2835, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. F. Garrido, T. Cabrera, and N. Aptsiauri, ““Hard” and “soft” lesions underlying the HLA class I alterations in cancer cells: implications for immunotherapy,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 249–256, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. C. Hamers-Casterman, T. Atarhouch, S. Muyldermans et al., “Naturally occurring antibodies devoid of light chains,” Nature, vol. 363, no. 6428, pp. 446–448, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. K. B. Vu, M. A. Ghahroudi, L. Wyns, and S. Muyldermans, “Comparison of llama VH sequences from conventional and heavy chain antibodies,” Molecular Immunology, vol. 34, no. 16-17, pp. 1121–1131, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. K. A. Henry and C. R. MacKenzie, “Antigen recognition by single-domain antibodies: structural latitudes and constraints,” MAbs, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 815–826, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. E. De Genst, K. Silence, K. Decanniere et al., “Molecular basis for the preferential cleft recognition by dromedary heavy-chain antibodies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 12, pp. 4586–4591, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. U. Zavrtanik, J. Lukan, R. Loris, J. Lah, and S. Hadzi, “Structural basis of epitope recognition by heavy-chain camelid antibodies,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 430, no. 21, pp. 4369–4386, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. Chakravarty, S. Goel, and W. Cai, “Nanobody: the “magic bullet” for molecular imaging?” Theranostics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 386–398, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. J. P. Salvador, L. Vilaplana, and M. P. Marco, “Nanobody: outstanding features for diagnostic and therapeutic applications,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 411, no. 9, pp. 1703–1713, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. E. Pardon, T. Laeremans, S. Triest et al., “A general protocol for the generation of nanobodies for structural biology,” Nature Protocols, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 674–693, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. W. Liu, H. Song, Q. Chen et al., “Recent advances in the selection and identification of antigen-specific nanobodies,” Molecular Immunology, vol. 96, pp. 37–47, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. R. Janssens, S. Dekker, R. W. Hendriks et al., “Generation of heavy-chain-only antibodies in mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 41, pp. 15130–15135, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. T. Chanier and P. Chames, “Nanobody engineering: toward next generation immunotherapies and immunoimaging of cancer,” Antibodies, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. R. H. van der Linden, L. G. Frenken, B. de Geus et al., “Comparison of physical chemical properties of llama VHH antibody fragments and mouse monoclonal antibodies,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1431, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. W. Danquah, C. Meyer-Schwesinger, B. Rissiek et al., “Nanobodies that block gating of the P2X7 ion channel ameliorate inflammation,” Science translational medicine, vol. 8, no. 366, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. A. N. Cartwright, J. Griggs, and D. M. Davis, “The immune synapse clears and excludes molecules above a size threshold,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. M. E. Iezzi, L. Policastro, S. Werbajh, O. Podhajcer, and G. A. Canziani, “Single-domain antibodies and the promise of modular targeting in cancer imaging and treatment,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. Z. Sharifzadeh, F. Rahbarizadeh, M. A. Shokrgozar et al., “Genetically engineered T cells bearing chimeric nanoconstructed receptors harboring TAG-72-specific camelid single domain antibodies as targeting agents,” Cancer Letters, vol. 334, no. 2, pp. 237–244, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. F. Hajari Taheri, M. Hassani, Z. Sharifzadeh, M. Behdani, A. Arashkia, and M. Abolhassani, “T cell engineered with a novel nanobody-based chimeric antigen receptor against VEGFR2 as a candidate for tumor immunotherapy,” IUBMB Life, vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 1259–1267, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. M. Hassani, F. Hajari Taheri, Z. Sharifzadeh et al., “Construction of a chimeric antigen receptor bearing a nanobody against prostate a specific membrane antigen in prostate cancer,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 10787–10795, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. Y. J. Xie, M. Dougan, N. Jailkhani et al., “Nanobody-based CAR T cells that target the tumor microenvironment inhibit the growth of solid tumors in immunocompetent mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 116, no. 16, pp. 7624–7631, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. N. Pirooznia, S. Hasannia, M. Taghdir, F. Rahbarizadeh, and M. Eskandani, “The construction of chimeric T-cell receptor with spacer base of modeling study of VHH and MUC1 interaction,” Journal of Biomedicine & Biotechnology, vol. 2011, Article ID 578128, 11 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. F. J. Iri-Sofla, F. Rahbarizadeh, D. Ahmadvand, and M. J. Rasaee, “Nanobody-based chimeric receptor gene integration in Jurkat cells mediated by phiC31 integrase,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 317, no. 18, pp. 2630–2641, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. S. Khaleghi, F. Rahbarizadeh, D. Ahmadvand, M. J. Rasaee, and P. Pognonec, “A caspase 8-based suicide switch induces apoptosis in nanobody-directed chimeric receptor expressing T cells,” International Journal of Hematology, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 434–444, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. N. An, Y. N. Hou, Q. X. Zhang et al., “Anti-multiple myeloma activity of nanobody-based anti-CD38 chimeric antigen receptor T cells,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 4577–4588, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. S. De Munter, J. Ingels, G. Goetgeluk et al., “Nanobody based dual specific CARs,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 19, no. 2, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. F. R. Jamnani, F. Rahbarizadeh, M. A. Shokrgozar et al., “T cells expressing VHH-directed oligoclonal chimeric HER2 antigen receptors: towards tumor-directed oligoclonal T cell therapy,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1840, no. 1, pp. 378–386, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. G. Zhang, L. Wang, H. Cui et al., “Anti-melanoma activity of T cells redirected with a TCR-like chimeric antigen receptor,” Scientific Reports, vol. 4, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. O. O. Yeku and R. J. Brentjens, “Armored CAR T-cells: utilizing cytokines and pro-inflammatory ligands to enhance CAR T-cell anti-tumour efficacy,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 412–418, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. H. J. Pegram, E. L. Smith, S. Rafiq, and R. J. Brentjens, “CAR therapy for hematological cancers: can success seen in the treatment of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia be applied to other hematological malignancies?” Immunotherapy, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 545–561, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. H. J. Pegram, J. C. Lee, E. G. Hayman et al., “Tumor-targeted T cells modified to secrete IL-12 eradicate systemic tumors without need for prior conditioning,” Blood, vol. 119, no. 18, pp. 4133–4141, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. S. P. Kerkar, P. Muranski, A. Kaiser et al., “Tumor-specific CD8+ T cells expressing interleukin-12 eradicate established cancers in lymphodepleted hosts,” Cancer Research, vol. 70, no. 17, pp. 6725–6734, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. K. J. Curran, B. A. Seinstra, Y. Nikhamin et al., “Enhancing antitumor efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T cells through constitutive CD40L expression,” Molecular Therapy, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 769–778, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. M. T. Stephan, V. Ponomarev, R. J. Brentjens et al., “T cell-encoded CD80 and 4-1BBL induce auto- and transcostimulation, resulting in potent tumor rejection,” Nature Medicine, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1440–1449, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. Z. Zhao, M. Condomines, S. J. C. van der Stegen et al., “Structural design of engineered costimulation determines tumor rejection kinetics and persistence of CAR T cells,” Cancer Cell, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 415–428, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. Y. J. Xie, M. Dougan, J. R. Ingram et al., “Improved antitumor efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T cells that secrete single-domain antibody fragments,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 518–529, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. R. Nayersina, P. Fowler, S. Guilhot et al., “HLA A2 restricted cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to multiple hepatitis B surface antigen epitopes during hepatitis B virus infection,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 150, no. 10, pp. 4659–4671, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  79. E. Mizukoshi, J. Sidney, B. Livingston et al., “Cellular immune responses to the hepatitis B virus polymerase,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 173, no. 9, pp. 5863–5871, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. J. S. Blum, P. A. Wearsch, and P. Cresswell, “Pathways of antigen processing,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 443–473, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. M. M. Gubin, M. N. Artyomov, E. R. Mardis, and R. D. Schreiber, “Tumor neoantigens: building a framework for personalized cancer immunotherapy,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 125, no. 9, pp. 3413–3421, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. M. Yarchoan, B. A. Johnson 3rd, E. R. Lutz, D. A. Laheru, and E. M. Jaffee, “Targeting neoantigens to augment antitumour immunity,” Nature Reviews. Cancer, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 209–222, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. C. C. Smith, S. R. Selitsky, S. Chai, P. M. Armistead, B. G. Vincent, and J. S. Serody, “Alternative tumour-specific antigens,” Nature Reviews. Cancer, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 465–478, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. T. N. Schumacher, W. Scheper, and P. Kvistborg, “Cancer neoantigens,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 173–200, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. P. F. Robbins, M. El-Gamil, Y. F. Li et al., “A mutated beta-catenin gene encodes a melanoma-specific antigen recognized by tumor infiltrating lymphocytes,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 183, no. 3, pp. 1185–1192, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. H. Echchakir, F. Mami-Chouaib, I. Vergnon et al., “A Point Mutation in the α-Actinin-4 Gene Generates an Antigenic Peptide Recognized by Autologous Cytolytic T Lymphocytes on a Human Lung Carcinoma,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 4078–4083, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  87. D. K. Krishnadas, F. Bai, and K. G. Lucas, “Cancer testis antigen and immunotherapy,” ImmunoTargets and therapy, vol. 2, pp. 11–19, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. Z. Taherian-Esfahani and S. Dashti, “Cancer-testis antigens: an update on their roles in cancer immunotherapy,” Human Antibodies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 171–183, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. M. Bassani-Sternberg, S. Pletscher-Frankild, L. J. Jensen, and M. Mann, “Mass spectrometry of human leukocyte antigen class I peptidomes reveals strong effects of protein abundance and turnover on antigen presentation,” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 658–673, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. P. van der Bruggen, C. Traversari, P. Chomez et al., “A gene encoding an antigen recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma,” Science, vol. 254, no. 5038, pp. 1643–1647, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. P. Boel, C. Wildmann, M. L. Sensi et al., “BAGE: a new gene encoding an antigen recognized on human melanomas by cytolytic T lymphocytes,” Immunity, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 167–175, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. Y. T. Chen, M. J. Scanlan, U. Sahin et al., “A testicular antigen aberrantly expressed in human cancers detected by autologous antibody screening,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1914–1918, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. A. Admon, E. Barnea, and T. Ziv, “Tumor antigens and proteomics from the point of view of the major histocompatibility complex peptides,” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 388–398, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. K. Urbanska, E. Lanitis, M. Poussin et al., “A universal strategy for adoptive immunotherapy of cancer through use of a novel T-cell antigen receptor,” Cancer Research, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 1844–1852, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. D. T. Rodgers, M. Mazagova, E. N. Hampton et al., “Switch-mediated activation and retargeting of CAR-T cells for B-cell malignancies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. E459–E468, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. C. A. Klebanoff, S. A. Rosenberg, and N. P. Restifo, “Prospects for gene-engineered T cell immunotherapy for solid cancers,” Nature Medicine, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 26–36, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. D. Migliorini, P. Y. Dietrich, R. Stupp, G. P. Linette, A. D. Posey Jr., and C. H. June, “CAR T-cell therapies in glioblastoma: a first look,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 535–540, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. J. N. Brudno and J. N. Kochenderfer, “Toxicities of chimeric antigen receptor T cells: recognition and management,” Blood, vol. 127, no. 26, pp. 3321–3330, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. D. W. Lee, R. Gardner, D. L. Porter et al., “Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of cytokine release syndrome,” Blood, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 188–195, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. A. Shimabukuro-Vornhagen, P. Gödel, M. Subklewe et al., “Cytokine release syndrome,” Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, vol. 6, no. 1, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. F. Rahbarizadeh, D. Ahmadvand, and S. M. Moghimi, “CAR T-cell bioengineering: single variable domain of heavy chain antibody targeted CARs,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 141, pp. 41–46, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. K. P. Papadopoulos, R. Isaacs, S. Bilic et al., “Unexpected hepatotoxicity in a phase I study of TAS266, a novel tetravalent agonistic Nanobody® targeting the DR5 receptor,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 887–895, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Lichen Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views972
Downloads435
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.