Parking CAR T Cells in Tumours: Oncolytic Viruses as Valets or Vandals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oncolytic viruses (OVs) and adoptive T cell therapy (ACT) each possess direct tumour cytolytic capabilities, and their combination potentially seems like a match made in heaven to complement the strengths and weakness of each modality. While providing strong innate immune stimulation that can mobilize adaptive responses, the magnitude of anti-tumour T cell priming induced by OVs is often modest. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) modified T cells bypass conventional T cell education through introduction of a synthetic receptor; however, realization of their full therapeutic properties can be stunted by the heavily immune-suppressive nature of the tumour microenvironment (TME). Oncolytic viruses have thus been seen as a natural ally to overcome immunosuppressive mechanisms in the TME which limit CAR T cell infiltration and functionality. Engineering has further endowed viruses with the ability to express transgenes in situ to relieve T cell tumour-intrinsic resistance mechanisms and decorate the tumour with antigen to overcome antigen heterogeneity or loss. Despite this helpful remodeling of the tumour microenvironment, it has simultaneously become clear that not all virus induced effects are favourable for CAR T, begging the question whether viruses act as valets ushering CAR T into their active site, or vandals which cause chaos leading to both tumour and T cell death. Herein, we summarize recent studies combining these two therapeutic modalities and seek to place them within the broader context of viral T cell immunology which will help to overcome the current limitations of effective CAR T therapy to make the most of combinatorial strategies.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".