Combining Oncolytic HSV-1 with Immunogenic Cell Death-Inducing Drug Mitoxantrone Breaks Cancer Immune Tolerance and Improves Therapeutic Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although antitumor activity of herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) ICP0 null oncolytic vectors has been validated in murine breast cancer models, oncolytic virus treatment alone is insufficient to break immune tolerance. Thus, we investigated enhancing efficacy through combination therapy with the immunogenic cell death-inducing chemotherapeutic drug, mitoxantrone. Despite a lack of enhanced cytotoxicity in vitro, HSV-1 ICP0 null oncolytic virus KM100 with 5 μmol/L mitoxantrone provided significant survival benefit to BALB/c mice bearing Her2/neu TUBO-derived tumors. This protection was mediated by increased intratumoral infiltration of neutrophils and tumor antigen-specific CD8(+) T cells. Depletion studies verified that CD8-, CD4-, and Ly6G-expressing cells are essential for enhanced efficacy of the combination therapy. Moreover, the addition of mitoxantrone to KM100 oncolytic virus treatment broke immune tolerance in BALB-neuT mice bearing TUBO-derived tumors. This study suggests that oncolytic viruses in combination with immunogenic cell death-inducing chemotherapeutics enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor-associated antigens, breaking immunologic tolerance established toward these antigens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".