The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of anti-CD3 and anti-CD28-coated beads with soluble anti-CD3 for expanding human T cells: Differing impact on CD8 T cell phenotype and responsiveness to restimulation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to expand virus- or tumor-specific T cells without damaging their functional capabilities is critical for success adoptive transfer immunotherapy of patients with opportunistic infection or tumor. Careful comparisons can help identify expansion methods better suited for particular clinical settings and identify recurrent deficiencies requiring new innovation. METHODS: We compared the efficacy of magnetic beads coated with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 (anti-CD3/CD28 beads), and soluble anti-CD3 plus mixed mononuclear cells (designated a rapid expansion protocol or REP) in expanding normal human T cells. RESULTS: Both anti-CD3/CD28 beads and soluble anti-CD3 promoted extensive expansion. Beads stimulated greater CD4 cell growth (geometric mean of 56- versus 27-fold (p < 0.01) at day 21) but both stimulated similar CD8 expansion (189- versus 186-fold). Phenotypically, bead-treated CD4 and CD8 T cells and anti-CD3-treated CD4 cells typically assumed an effector/effector memory phenotype by day 14. By comparison, a subset of anti-CD3-treated CD8 cells, derived from naïve cells, retained much greater expression of CD45RA, CD27 and CCR7, than matched bead-treated cells despite comparable expansion. These cells were clearly distinguishable from CD45RA+ terminally differentiated effector cells by the presence of CD27, the absence of CD57 and their inability to produce cytokines after stimulation. When used to expand previously stimulated cells, anti-CD3 plus autologous MNCs produced much less antigen-induced cell death of CD8 cells and significantly more CD8 expansion than beads. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-CD3/CD28 beads are highly effective for expanding CD4 cells, but soluble anti-CD3 has significant potential advantages for expanding CD8 T cells, particularly where preservation of phenotypically "young" CD8 cells would be desirable, or where the T cells of interest have been antigen-stimulated in vitro or in vivo in the recent past.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Two subsets of memory T lymphocytes with distinct homing potentials and effector functions
Sallusto, F., Lenig, D., Förster, R., Lipp, M., & Lanzavecchia, A. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/44385 · Cited by 5,846 · cited 4×
“Consistent with most [22,30,31], but not all [32] prior studies of in vitro stimulated T cells bead and soluble anti-CD3 treated CD4 cells and bead-treated CD8 cells assume predominantly an effector or effector memory phenotype, markedly downregulating CD45RA and CCR7 by day14 post stimulation.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialCentral Memory and Effector Memory T Cell Subsets: Function, Generation, and Maintenance
Sallusto, F., Geginat, J., & Lanzavecchia, A. (2004) · Annual Review of Immunology · doi:10.1146/annurev.immunol.22.012703.104702 · Cited by 3,067
Four functionally distinct populations of human effector-memory CD8+ T lymphocytes
Romero, P., Zippelius, A., Kurth, I., Pittet, M. J., Touvrey, C., Iancu, E. M., Corthesy, P., Devevre, E., Speiser, D. E., & Rufer, N. (2007) · The Journal of Immunology · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.178.7.4112 · Cited by 405
Human CD8+ T-cell differentiation in response to viruses
van Lier, R. A. W., ten Berge, I. J. M., & Gamadia, L. E. (2003) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri1254 · Cited by 297
Suhoski, M. M., Golovina, T. N., Aqui, N. A., Tai, V. C., Varela-Rohena, A., Milone, M. C., Carroll, R. G., Riley, J. L., & June, C. H. (2007) · Molecular Therapy · doi:10.1038/mt.sj.6300134 · Cited by 266
Rufer, N., Zippelius, A., Batard, P., Pittet, M. J., Kurth, I., Corthesy, P., Cerottini, J.-C., Leyvraz, S., Roosnek, E., Nabholz, M., et al. (2003) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2003-02-0420 · Cited by 182
Cited by
Scalable Manufacturing of CAR T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy
Abou-el-Enein, M., Elsallab, M., Feldman, S. A., Fesnak, A. D., Heslop, H. E., Marks, P., Till, B. G., Bauer, G., & Savoldo, B. (2021) · Blood Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2643-3230.bcd-21-0084 · Cited by 321
Engineering better chimeric antigen receptor T cells
Zhang, H., Zhao, P., & Huang, H. (2020) · Experimental Hematology & Oncology · doi:10.1186/s40164-020-00190-2 · Cited by 93
Promises and challenges of a decentralized CAR T-cell manufacturing model
Shah, M., Krull, A., Odonnell, L., de Lima, M. J., & Bezerra, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Transplantation · doi:10.3389/frtra.2023.1238535 · Cited by 77
Automated production of gene-modified chimeric antigen receptor T cells using the Cocoon Platform
Trainor, N., Purpura, K. A., Middleton, K., Fargo, K., Hails, L., Vicentini-Hogan, M., McRobie, C., Daniels, R., Densham, P., Gardin, P., et al. (2023) · Cytotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.07.012 · Cited by 44
A 3D pancreatic tumor model to study T cell infiltration
Mollica, H., Teo, Y. J., Tan, A. S. M., Tan, D. Z. M., Decuzzi, P., Pavesi, A., & Adriani, G. (2021) · Biomaterials Science · doi:10.1039/d1bm00210d · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, Y., & Kurlander, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Translational Medicine
- Published
- 2010-10-26
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 104-104
- ISSN
- 1479-5876 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013622508
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 0.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Comparison of anti-CD3 and anti-CD28-coated beads with soluble anti-CD3 for expanding human T cells: Differing impact on CD8 T cell phenotype and responsiveness to restimulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1479-5876-8-104
- The paper
- Li, Y., & Kurlander, R. J. (2010). Comparison of anti-CD3 and anti-CD28-coated beads with soluble anti-CD3 for expanding human T cells: Differing impact on CD8 T cell phenotype and responsiveness to restimulation. Journal of Translational Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-8-104
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.