Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 189 of the 189 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Alternative tumour-specific antigens

Open access
Smith, Christof C., Selitsky, Sara R., Chai, Shengjie, Armistead, Paul M., Vincent, Benjamin G., Serody, Jonathan S.·2019·Nature Reviews Cancer
DOI 10.1038/s41568-019-0162-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The study of tumour-specific antigens (TSAs) as targets for antitumour therapies has accelerated within the past decade. The most commonly studied class of TSAs are those derived from non-synonymous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), or SNV neoantigens. However, to increase the repertoire of available therapeutic TSA targets, ‘alternative TSAs’, defined here as high-specificity tumour antigens arising from non-SNV genomic sources, have recently been evaluated. Among these alternative TSAs are antigens derived from mutational frameshifts, splice variants, gene fusions, endogenous retroelements and other processes. Unlike the patient-specific nature of SNV neoantigens, some alternative TSAs may have the advantage of being widely shared by multiple tumours, allowing for universal, off-the-shelf therapies. In this Opinion article, we will outline the biology, available computational tools, preclinical and/or clinical studies and relevant cancers for each alternative TSA class, as well as discuss both current challenges preventing the therapeutic application of alternative TSAs and potential solutions to aid in their clinical translation. To date, very few actionable tumour-specific antigens (TSAs) have been identified that have successfully translated into therapeutic cancer vaccines. This Opinion article provides both examples of TSAs alternative to the traditional single-nucleotide variant neoantigens and details about the novel computational tools used to identify them, with the view to broaden the number of targetable antigens that can be used for cancer vaccine development.

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/s41568-019-0162-4

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 189 references

Cited by

See all 351

Metadata

Authors
Smith, C. C., Selitsky, S. R., Chai, S., Armistead, P. M., Vincent, B. G., & Serody, J. S.
Venue
Nature Reviews Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-07-05
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
465-478
ISSN
  • 1474-175X (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1768
DOI
10.1038/s41568-019-0162-4
OpenAlex
W2954615294
Cited by
351
References
189
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alternative tumour-specific antigens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41568-019-0162-4
The paper
Smith, C. C., Selitsky, S. R., Chai, S., Armistead, P. M., Vincent, B. G., & Serody, J. S. (2019). Alternative tumour-specific antigens. Nature Reviews Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0162-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.