Characteristics of TCR Repertoire Associated With Successful Immune Checkpoint Therapy Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment. In particular, immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) leads to durable responses in some patients with some cancers. However, the majority of treated patients do not respond. Understanding immune mechanisms that underlie responsiveness to ICT will help identify predictive biomarkers of response and develop treatments to convert non-responding patients to responding ones. ICT primarily acts at the level of adaptive immunity. The specificity of adaptive immune cells, such as T and B cells, is determined by antigen-specific receptors. T cell repertoires can be comprehensively profiled by high-throughput sequencing at the bulk and single-cell level. T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing allows for sensitive tracking of dynamic changes in antigen-specific T cells at the clonal level, giving unprecedented insight into the mechanisms by which ICT alters T cell responses. Here, we review how the repertoire influences response to ICT and conversely how ICT affects repertoire diversity. We will also explore how changes to the repertoire in different anatomical locations can better correlate and perhaps predict treatment outcome. We discuss the advantages and limitations of current metrics used to characterize and represent TCR repertoire diversity. Discovery of predictive biomarkers could lie in novel analysis approaches, such as network analysis of amino acids similarities between TCR sequences. Single-cell sequencing is a breakthrough technology that can link phenotype with specificity, identifying T cell clones that are crucial for successful ICT. The field of immuno-sequencing is rapidly developing and cross-disciplinary efforts are required to maximize the analysis, application, and validation of sequencing data. Unravelling the dynamic behavior of the TCR repertoire during ICT will be highly valuable for tracking and understanding anti-tumor immunity, biomarker discovery, and ultimately for the development of novel strategies to improve patient outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".