IL‐12 immunotherapy of murine leukaemia: comparison of systemic <i>versus</i> gene modified cell therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of IL-12 to initiate anti-leukaemia immune responses has been well established; however clinical outcomes fail to recapitulate the therapeutic benefits observed in the laboratory. To address this, we compared two systems of IL-12 therapy that elicit protective immune responses against the murine acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) cell line, 70Z/3. These systems differ in the method of IL-12 administration and ultimately result in leukaemia clearance by distinct mechanisms, emphasizing the importance of treatment vehicle. Injecting low-dose IL-12 was sufficient to elicit long-term protective immunity against an established leukaemia burden, mediated by both CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells. These findings agree with the standard model of IL-12 activity. We compared this protocol to a cell-based approach in which a novel lentiviral vector (LV) expressing murine IL-12 was created, 70Z/3 cells transduced, and clones selected that stably secrete different amounts of IL-12. We found that only a small proportion (1%) of IL-12 secreting cells were required for rejection but that the amount of IL-12 produced per cell was critical for successful therapy. Importantly, the levels of IL-12 required were found to be higher than the levels reported to date in the human clinical trial literature. We found that the cell-based approach led to protective immunity that was both long-term and specific but dependent primarily on a CD4(+) cellular subset alone. Our results highlight that the mode of IL-12 delivery has a distinct impact on the immune response initiated, leading to leukaemia clearance by disparate mechanisms. We also establish a new and critical parameter, IL-12 production/cell, which may have significant implications for future therapeutic design.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".