CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 228CAR-T cell therapy researchImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematically optimized BCMA/CS1 bispecific CAR-T cells robustly control heterogeneous multiple myeloma

Open access
Zah, Eugenia, Nam, Eunwoo, Bhuvan, Vinya, Tran, Uyen, Ji, Brenda Y., Gosliner, Stanley B., Wang, Xiuli, Brown, Christine E., Chen, Yvonne Y.·2020·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-020-16160-5PMC PMC7210316

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has shown remarkable clinical efficacy against B-cell malignancies, yet marked vulnerability to antigen escape and tumor relapse exists. Here we report the rational design and optimization of bispecific CAR-T cells with robust activity against heterogeneous multiple myeloma (MM) that is resistant to conventional CAR-T cell therapy targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA). We demonstrate that BCMA/CS1 bispecific CAR-T cells exhibit superior CAR expression and function compared to T cells that co-express individual BCMA and CS1 CARs. Combination therapy with anti–PD-1 antibody further accelerates the rate of initial tumor clearance in vivo, while CAR-T cell treatment alone achieves durable tumor-free survival even upon tumor re-challenge. Taken together, the BCMA/CS1 bispecific CAR presents a promising treatment approach to prevent antigen escape in CAR-T cell therapy against MM, and the vertically integrated optimization process can be used to develop robust cell-based therapy against novel disease targets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-020-16160-5

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 High-throughput generation and screening of BCMA/CS1 OR-gate CARs. a A vertically integrated optimization process for CAR-T cell therapy development. b Schematic of a single-chain bispecific (OR-gate) CAR, which contains two ligand-binding domains connected in tandem. A panel of CAR variants was constructed from two CS1-binding scFvs and three BCMA-specific binding domains. Both murine and humanized versions of BCMA-binding scFvs (c11D5.3 and J22.9-xi) were evaluated. The CS1-binding huLuc63 and Luc90 scFvs were fixed at the membrane-distal and membrane-proximal positions, respectively, based on binding-epitope analysis. c Methodology for producing and screening bispecific CARs. CAR-T cells were generated in a 14-day cycle. Starting on day 9 post-stimulation, CAR-T cells were characterized for antitumor function in various assays, which could last up to 2 weeks.
Fig. 1 High-throughput generation and screening of BCMA/CS1 OR-gate CARs. a A vertically integrated optimization process for CAR-T cell therapy development. b Schematic of a single-chain bispecific (OR-gate) CAR, which contains two ligand-binding domains connected in tandem. A panel of CAR variants was constructed from two CS1-binding scFvs and three BCMA-specific binding domains. Both murine and humanized versions of BCMA-binding scFvs (c11D5.3 and J22.9-xi) were evaluated. The CS1-binding huLuc63 and Luc90 scFvs were fixed at the membrane-distal and membrane-proximal positions, respectively, based on binding-epitope analysis. c Methodology for producing and screening bispecific CARs. CAR-T cells were generated in a 14-day cycle. Starting on day 9 post-stimulation, CAR-T cells were characterized for antitumor function in various assays, which could last up to 2 weeks.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 OR-gate CAR panel exhibits range of efficacy against BCMA+ and CS1+ targets. a Cell-lysis activity of single-input and bispecific CD8+ CAR-T cells against K562 targets engineered to express either BCMA or CS1. Cells were seeded at an effector-to-target (E:T) ratio of 2:1, where effector-cell seeding was based on CAR+ T-cell count. The fraction of viable K562 cells left after a 20-h coincubation was quantified by fluorescence imaging of target cells using IncuCyte. All bispecific CARs in this panel contained a short extracellular spacer. b Proliferation of single-input and bispecific BCMA/CS1 CD8 + CAR-T cells upon antigen stimulation. CAR-T cells were stained with CellTrace Violet (CTV) dye. CTV median fluorescence intensity (MFI) was quantified by flow cytometry after a 5-day coincubation with parental (BCMA−/CS1−), BCMA+, or CS1+ K562 target cells at a 2:1 E:T ratio. CARs containing huLuc63 paired with dAPRIL, J22.9-xi, and huJ22.9-xi were subsequently eliminated from the panel based on poor cytotoxicity and/or T-cell proliferation. c Cytotoxicity of reduced bispecific CAR-T-cell panel upon repeated antigen challenge. CD8+ CAR-T cells were coincubated with K562 target cells at a 1:1 E:T ratio and rechallenged every 2 days with fresh target cells. Viable target-cell count was quantified by flow cytometry 2 days after each target-cell addition. ‘C#’ denotes the challenge number and ‘D#’ denotes the number of days post challenge. d Characterization of the remaining K562 target-cell populations after four challenges from c reveals differing antigen preference among the panel of bispecific CARs. Values shown are the means of technical triplicate samples, with error bars indicating +1 standard deviation (SD). P-values were calculated by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test; n.s. not statistically significant (p > 0.05); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons applied. P-values in c were calculated for the final time point for each construct, relative to the top-performing CAR, c11D5.3-Luc90. Source data are provided as a Source Data File. P-values in a and b can be referenced in the Source Data File.
Fig. 2 OR-gate CAR panel exhibits range of efficacy against BCMA+ and CS1+ targets. a Cell-lysis activity of single-input and bispecific CD8+ CAR-T cells against K562 targets engineered to express either BCMA or CS1. Cells were seeded at an effector-to-target (E:T) ratio of 2:1, where effector-cell seeding was based on CAR+ T-cell count. The fraction of viable K562 cells left after a 20-h coincubation was quantified by fluorescence imaging of target cells using IncuCyte. All bispecific CARs in this panel contained a short extracellular spacer. b Proliferation of single-input and bispecific BCMA/CS1 CD8 + CAR-T cells upon antigen stimulation. CAR-T cells were stained with CellTrace Violet (CTV) dye. CTV median fluorescence intensity (MFI) was quantified by flow cytometry after a 5-day coincubation with parental (BCMA−/CS1−), BCMA+, or CS1+ K562 target cells at a 2:1 E:T ratio. CARs containing huLuc63 paired with dAPRIL, J22.9-xi, and huJ22.9-xi were subsequently eliminated from the panel based on poor cytotoxicity and/or T-cell proliferation. c Cytotoxicity of reduced bispecific CAR-T-cell panel upon repeated antigen challenge. CD8+ CAR-T cells were coincubated with K562 target cells at a 1:1 E:T ratio and rechallenged every 2 days with fresh target cells. Viable target-cell count was quantified by flow cytometry 2 days after each target-cell addition. ‘C#’ denotes the challenge number and ‘D#’ denotes the number of days post challenge. d Characterization of the remaining K562 target-cell populations after four challenges from c reveals differing antigen preference among the panel of bispecific CARs. Values shown are the means of technical triplicate samples, with error bars indicating +1 standard deviation (SD). P-values were calculated by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test; n.s. not statistically significant (p > 0.05); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons applied. P-values in c were calculated for the final time point for each construct, relative to the top-performing CAR, c11D5.3-Luc90. Source data are provided as a Source Data File. P-values in a and b can be referenced in the Source Data File.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 OR-gate CAR-T-cells outperform T cells co-expressing two separate CARs. a Single-input and bispecific CARs were tagged with an N-terminal FLAG tag. In DualCAR constructs, the CS1 CAR was N-terminally tagged with a FLAG tag while the BCMA CAR was N-terminally tagged with a HA tag. b CAR surface expression levels were quantified by surface antibody staining of FLAG and HA tags followed by flow cytometry. Each single-input and single-chain bispecific CAR was tagged with an N-terminal FLAG. The first CAR in each DualCAR construct was tagged with the FLAG while the second CAR was tagged with HA. See Supplementary Fig. 4b for construct schematics. c Transduction efficiency as measured by % CAR+ (FLAG+, HA+, or FLAG+HA+) Data shown represent the mean value from three different donors, with error bars indicating +1 SD. d Median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of FLAG antibody staining for T cells expressing either OR-gate or DualCAR constructs. e NM CAR-T-cell proliferation following a 5-day coincubation with MM.1 S target cells. Values shown are the means of technical triplicate samples from the same donor, with error bars indicating +1 SD. Data shown are representative of results from two independent experiments performed with cells from two different healthy donors. P-values for all panels were calculated by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test; n.s. not statistically significant (p > 0.05); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons applied. P-values in c were calculated for the OR-gate CAR constructs, relative to their corresponding DualCAR constructs. Source data are provided as a Source Data File. P-values in e can be referenced in the Source Data File.
Fig. 3 OR-gate CAR-T-cells outperform T cells co-expressing two separate CARs. a Single-input and bispecific CARs were tagged with an N-terminal FLAG tag. In DualCAR constructs, the CS1 CAR was N-terminally tagged with a FLAG tag while the BCMA CAR was N-terminally tagged with a HA tag. b CAR surface expression levels were quantified by surface antibody staining of FLAG and HA tags followed by flow cytometry. Each single-input and single-chain bispecific CAR was tagged with an N-terminal FLAG. The first CAR in each DualCAR construct was tagged with the FLAG while the second CAR was tagged with HA. See Supplementary Fig. 4b for construct schematics. c Transduction efficiency as measured by % CAR+ (FLAG+, HA+, or FLAG+HA+) Data shown represent the mean value from three different donors, with error bars indicating +1 SD. d Median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of FLAG antibody staining for T cells expressing either OR-gate or DualCAR constructs. e NM CAR-T-cell proliferation following a 5-day coincubation with MM.1 S target cells. Values shown are the means of technical triplicate samples from the same donor, with error bars indicating +1 SD. Data shown are representative of results from two independent experiments performed with cells from two different healthy donors. P-values for all panels were calculated by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test; n.s. not statistically significant (p > 0.05); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons applied. P-values in c were calculated for the OR-gate CAR constructs, relative to their corresponding DualCAR constructs. Source data are provided as a Source Data File. P-values in e can be referenced in the Source Data File.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 BCMA/CS1 OR-gate CAR-T cells prevent antigen escape in vivo. a Evaluation of single-input and bispecific CAR-T cells in vivo. Mice were engrafted with a mixture of 1.5 × 106 MM.1 S cells containing a 1:1:1 ratio of BCMA+/CS1−, BCMA−/CS1+, and BCMA+/CS1+ cells. Tumor-bearing animals were treated with 1.5 × 106 EGFRt- or CAR-expressing T cells on day 5 (5 days after tumor injection) and day 13. Six mice were included in each initial treatment group but only five mice in the huLuc63-c11D5.3 group were redosed due to limited T-cell availability. Tumor progression was monitored by bioluminescence imaging. b Survival of mice shown in a. Statistical difference (depicted) between survival of huLuc63-c11D5.3-treatment group compared with other treatment groups was determined using log-rank analysis, applying a Chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom; n.s. not statistically significant (p > 0.05); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. P-values for the different treatment groups are as follows: Untreated, p = 0.024; EGFRt, p = 0.024; Luc90, p = 0.011; huLuc63, p = 0.015; c11D5.3, p = 0.008; huc11D5.3-Luc90, p = 0.114. c BCMA/CS1 antigen expression on tumors harvested from mice treated with CS1 single-input Luc90 Short, huLuc63 Long, or BCMA single-input c11D5.3 Long CAR-T cells. Values shown are the means of n = 4 technical replicates for cells stained prior to injection. Thirteen to 18 tumor samples were collected from different locations in the mice (six mice per test group) at the time of sacrifice, with error bars indicating +1 standard deviation (SD), and each sample corresponding to 100 or more events as detected by flow cytometry. d Antigen expression pattern on tumor cells recovered at the time of animal sacrifice. Each data point d corresponds to an individual tumor sample recovered that included more than 100 tumor cells as detected by flow cytometry; each mouse generally contained multiple tumors at the time of sacrifice. Source data are provided as a Source Data File.
Fig. 4 BCMA/CS1 OR-gate CAR-T cells prevent antigen escape in vivo. a Evaluation of single-input and bispecific CAR-T cells in vivo. Mice were engrafted with a mixture of 1.5 × 106 MM.1 S cells containing a 1:1:1 ratio of BCMA+/CS1−, BCMA−/CS1+, and BCMA+/CS1+ cells. Tumor-bearing animals were treated with 1.5 × 106 EGFRt- or CAR-expressing T cells on day 5 (5 days after tumor injection) and day 13. Six mice were included in each initial treatment group but only five mice in the huLuc63-c11D5.3 group were redosed due to limited T-cell availability. Tumor progression was monitored by bioluminescence imaging. b Survival of mice shown in a. Statistical difference (depicted) between survival of huLuc63-c11D5.3-treatment group compared with other treatment groups was determined using log-rank analysis, applying a Chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom; n.s. not statistically significant (p > 0.05); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. P-values for the different treatment groups are as follows: Untreated, p = 0.024; EGFRt, p = 0.024; Luc90, p = 0.011; huLuc63, p = 0.015; c11D5.3, p = 0.008; huc11D5.3-Luc90, p = 0.114. c BCMA/CS1 antigen expression on tumors harvested from mice treated with CS1 single-input Luc90 Short, huLuc63 Long, or BCMA single-input c11D5.3 Long CAR-T cells. Values shown are the means of n = 4 technical replicates for cells stained prior to injection. Thirteen to 18 tumor samples were collected from different locations in the mice (six mice per test group) at the time of sacrifice, with error bars indicating +1 standard deviation (SD), and each sample corresponding to 100 or more events as detected by flow cytometry. d Antigen expression pattern on tumor cells recovered at the time of animal sacrifice. Each data point d corresponds to an individual tumor sample recovered that included more than 100 tumor cells as detected by flow cytometry; each mouse generally contained multiple tumors at the time of sacrifice. Source data are provided as a Source Data File.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Combination therapy with anti-PD-1 increases initial antitumor efficacy but not durability of response in vivo. a Mice were engrafted with 1.5 × 106 WT MM.1 S cells. Tumor-bearing animals were treated with 1.5 × 106 EGFRt- or CAR-expressing T cells on day 8 (8 days after tumor injection) and day 16. Tumor progression was monitored by bioluminescence imaging and shown for individual animals in each test group (n = 6). On day 133, animals that had been tumor-free for at least 7 weeks (3 each in the huLuc63-c11D5.3 Short groups with and without anti-PD-1) were rechallenged with 1.5 × 106 WT MM.1 S cells. Black arrows indicate time of cell injections; red arrows indicate instances of CAR-T cells eradicating palpable tumor nodules. The endpoint for each animal is marked with an “X.” b CD38 and PD-1 expression on T cells persisting in mice at time of animal sacrifice. Each data point in b corresponds to an individual tumor mass, tissue (e.g., brain and spleen), or cardiac blood sample recovered. For PD-1 expression: 23 samples were collected from six mice in the group not treated with anti-PD-1, and 26 samples were collected from six mice in the group treated with anti-PD-1. For CD38 expression: seven samples were collected from two mice in the group not treated with anti-PD-1, and nine samples were collected from three mice in the group treated with anti-PD-1. Only samples that contained at least 10 human CD45+ cells as detected by flow cytometry were included for analysis. P-values were calculated by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test. Source data are provided as a Source Data File.
Fig. 5 Combination therapy with anti-PD-1 increases initial antitumor efficacy but not durability of response in vivo. a Mice were engrafted with 1.5 × 106 WT MM.1 S cells. Tumor-bearing animals were treated with 1.5 × 106 EGFRt- or CAR-expressing T cells on day 8 (8 days after tumor injection) and day 16. Tumor progression was monitored by bioluminescence imaging and shown for individual animals in each test group (n = 6). On day 133, animals that had been tumor-free for at least 7 weeks (3 each in the huLuc63-c11D5.3 Short groups with and without anti-PD-1) were rechallenged with 1.5 × 106 WT MM.1 S cells. Black arrows indicate time of cell injections; red arrows indicate instances of CAR-T cells eradicating palpable tumor nodules. The endpoint for each animal is marked with an “X.” b CD38 and PD-1 expression on T cells persisting in mice at time of animal sacrifice. Each data point in b corresponds to an individual tumor mass, tissue (e.g., brain and spleen), or cardiac blood sample recovered. For PD-1 expression: 23 samples were collected from six mice in the group not treated with anti-PD-1, and 26 samples were collected from six mice in the group treated with anti-PD-1. For CD38 expression: seven samples were collected from two mice in the group not treated with anti-PD-1, and nine samples were collected from three mice in the group treated with anti-PD-1. Only samples that contained at least 10 human CD45+ cells as detected by flow cytometry were included for analysis. P-values were calculated by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test. Source data are provided as a Source Data File.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–228 of 228

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zah, E., Nam, E., Bhuvan, V., Tran, U., Ji, B. Y., Gosliner, S. B., Wang, X., Brown, C. E., & Chen, Y. Y.
Affiliations
  • Amgen (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yvonne Y.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-05-08
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
2283-2283
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-020-16160-5
PMC
PMC7210316
OpenAlex
W3022509419
Cited by
222
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 14
FWCI
11.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
UC | University of California, Los Angeles
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › CAR-T cell therapy research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Keywords
bispecific CAR T cells, BCMA, CS1, multiple myeloma, chimeric antigen receptor, antigen escape, tumor recurrence, anti-PD-1 combination therapy, tumor rechallenge
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, Receptors, Chimeric Antigen, Antigens, Neoplasm, Cytotoxicity, Immunologic, Humans, Immunologic Memory, Multiple Myeloma, T-Lymphocytes, Immunotherapy, Adoptive, K562 Cells, B-Cell Maturation Antigen, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review