Comparative analysis of TCR and CAR signaling informs CAR designs with superior antigen sensitivity and in vivo function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T cell therapy is effective in treating lymphomas, leukemias, and multiple myeloma in which the tumor cells express high amounts of target antigen. However, achieving durable remission for these hematological malignancies and extending CAR T cell therapy to patients with solid tumors will require receptors that can recognize and eliminate tumor cells with a low density of target antigen. Although CARs were designed to mimic T cell receptor (TCR) signaling, TCRs are at least 100-fold more sensitive to antigen. To design a CAR with improved antigen sensitivity, we directly compared TCR and CAR signaling in primary human T cells. Global phosphoproteomic analysis revealed that key T cell signaling proteins-such as CD3δ, CD3ε, and CD3γ, which comprise a portion of the T cell co-receptor, as well as the TCR adaptor protein LAT-were either not phosphorylated or were only weakly phosphorylated by CAR stimulation. Modifying a commonplace 4-1BB/CD3ζ CAR sequence to better engage CD3ε and LAT using embedded CD3ε or GRB2 domains resulted in enhanced T cell activation in vitro in settings of a low density of antigen, and improved efficacy in in vivo models of lymphoma, leukemia, and breast cancer. These CARs represent examples of alterations in receptor design that were guided by in-depth interrogation of T cell signaling.
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".