Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(with CLBP) or links (with TSCP or TSRP) within cellular
networks, and leveraging the highly selective molecular
targeting offered by SCP, there is the theoretical potential
to impact network frameworks in an almost surgical way.
Moreover, more distant scenarios envision the administra-
tion of SCP in combination to simultaneously target more
than one node or link, generate new cellular bridges, and
thereby functionally tune or even rewire whole cellular
networks, in ways that often might not be achievable through
the use of simpler, single function agents. SCP, by virtue of
their two binding element constitution, can, paradoxically,
provide for higher order cellular selectivity in effecting such
network modulation.
These systems are not static. The cellular landscape in vivo
is in flux, in terms of composition and location, as are the cell
surface protein displays, conformations, and topologies of
component cells. This dynamism of cells and proteins adds
yet another layer of complexity to SCP mechanisms and
therapeutic design. Looking into the future, one can imagine
next-level interactome analyses, whether dealingwith cellular
webs or cell surface protein fingerprints, that more compre-
hensively capture repertoires of networked cellular interac-
tions, as they are instantiated within specific tissue
architectures and cellular trafficking flows. Scanning these
dynamic cell and protein systems, advanced SCP designers
might one day sift through and identify in an informed way
those cells and proteins that are most targetable.
SCP can be viewed as part of a vanguard of next-
generation, molecularly tailored medicines. In its earliest
iteration, personalized medicine keyed in on singular molec-
ular targets. In the realm of personalized onco-medicine, for
example, those targets were predominantly kinases or iso-
lated cell surface molecules. By contrast, next-generation
individualized therapeutics could start to embrace cellular
and molecular complexity. SCP provide one kind of thera-
peutic tool for such an embrace, as systems biology and
fusion protein therapeutics are brought together in compel-
ling new ways. Multifunctional SCP, when weaved into
dynamic cellular and molecular networks, create a rich
tapestry of therapeutic possibility.
5. Smith DM, Bluestone JA, Jeyarajah DR, Newberg MH,
Engelhard VH, Thistlethwaite JR, et al. (1994) Inhibition
of T cell activation by a monoclonal antibody reactive against
the alpha3 domain of human MHC class I molecules.
J. Immunol. 153, 1054-1067.
6. Hambor JE, Tykocinski ML, Kaplan DR. (1988) Functional
consequences of anti-sense RNA-mediated inhibition of CD8
surface expression in a human T cell clone. J. Exp. Med. 168,
1237-45.
7. Kaplan DR, Hambor JE, Tykocinski ML. (1989) An immu-
noregulatory function for the CD8 molecule. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 86, 8512-8515.
8. Hambor JE, Kaplan DR, Tykocinski ML. (1990) CD8 func-
tions as an inhibitory ligand in mediating the immuno-
regulatory activity of CD8 þ cells. J. Immunol. 145, 1646-
1652.
9. Tykocinski ML, Kaplan DR. (1992) A multifunctional
perspective of the CD8 molecule. In: Herberman RB,
Lotzova E (Eds), NK Cell Mediated Cytotoxicity. Recep-
tors, Signaling and Mechanisms. CRC Press, Ann Arbor,
pp. 393-408.
10. Sambhara SR, Miller RG. (1991) Programmed cell death of
T cells signaled by the T cell receptor and the alpha3 domain
of class I MHC. Science 252, 1424-1427.
11. Sambhara SR, Miller RG. (1994) Reduction of CTL antipep-
tide response mediated by CD8 þ cells whose class I MHC can
bind the peptide. J. Immunol. 152, 1103-1109.
12. Qi Y, Berg R, Singleton MA, Debrick JE, Staerz UD. (1996)
Hybrid antibody mediated veto of cytotoxic T lymphocyte
responses. J. Exp. Med. 183, 1973-1980.
13. Matsue H, Matsue K, Walters M, Okumura K, Yagita H,
Takashima A. (1999) Induction of antigen-specific immuno-
suppression by CD95L cDNA-transfected 'killer' dendritic
cells. Nature Med. 5, 930-937.
14. Min WP, Gorczynski R, Huang XY, Kushida M, Kim P,
Obataki M, et al. (2000) Dendritic cells genetically engi-
neered to express Fas ligand induce donor-specific hypores-
ponsiveness and prolong allograft survival. J. Immunol. 164,
161-167.
15. Reich-Zeliger S, Zhao Y, Krauthgamer R, Bachar-Lustig E,
Reisner Y. (2000) Anti-third party CD8 þ CTLs as potent veto
cells: Coexpression of CD8 and FasL is a prerequisite.
Immunity 13, 507-515.
16. Wu B, Wu JM, Miagkov A, Adams RN, Levitsky HI,
Drachman DB. (2001) Specific immunotherapy by geneti-
cally engineered APCs: the “guided missile” strategy.
J. Immunol. 166, 4773-4779.
17. Krueger A, Fas SC, Baumann S, Krammer PH. (2003) The
role of CD95 in the regulation of peripheral T-cell apoptosis.
Immunol. Rev. 193, 58-69.
18. Suss G, Shortman K. (1996) A subclass of dendritic cells kills
CD4 T cells via Fas/Fas-ligand-induced apoptosis. J. Exp.
Med. 183, 1789-1796.
19. Chen A, Zheng G, Tykocinski ML. (2003) Quantitative
interplay between activating and pro-apoptotic signals dic-
tates T cell responses. Cell. Immunol. 221, 128-137.
REFERENCES
1. Fink PJ, Shimenkovitz RP, Bevan MJ. (1988) Veto cells.
Annu. Rev. Immunol. 6, 115-137.
2. Rammensee H. (1989) Veto function in vitro and in vivo.
Intern. Rev. Immunol. 4, 175-191.
3. Tykocinski ML, Kaplan DR. (1993) Prospects for anti-
rejection therapies based upon CD8-dependent
immuno-
regulation. Kidney Int. Suppl. 39, S120-3.
4. Tykocinski ML, Kaplan DR, Medof ME. (1996) Antigen-
presenting cell engineering. The molecular toolbox. Am. J.
Pathol. 148, 1-16.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search