Immunogenic HSV-mediated Oncolysis Shapes the Antitumor Immune Response and Contributes to Therapeutic Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the oncolytic virus field, the extent of virus replication that is essential for immune stimulation to control tumor growth remains unresolved. Using infected cell protein 0 (ICP0)-defective oncolytic Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and HSV-2 viruses (dICP0 and dNLS) that show differences in their in vitro replication and cytotoxicity, we investigated the inherent features of oncolytic HSV viruses that are required for potent antitumor activity. In vitro, the HSV-2 vectors showed rapid cytotoxicity despite lower viral burst sizes compared to HSV-1 vectors. In vivo, although both of the dICP0 vectors initially replicated to a similar level, HSV-1 dICP0 was rapidly cleared from the tumors. In spite of this rapid clearance, HSV-1 dICP0 treatment conferred significant survival benefit. HSV-1 dICP0-treated tumors showed significantly higher levels of danger-associated molecular patterns that correlated with higher numbers of antigen-presenting cells within the tumor and increased antigen-specific CD8+ T-cell levels in the peripheral blood. This study suggests that, at least in the context of oncolytic HSV, the initial stages of immunogenic virus replication leading to activation of antitumor immunity are more important than persistence of a replicating virus within the tumor. This knowledge provides important insight for the design of therapeutically successful oncolytic viruses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".