Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 507

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 306 of the 306 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tumor immunotherapies by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the pros and cons

Open access
Naimi, Adel, Mohammed, Rebar N., Raji, Ahmed, Chupradit, Supat, Yumashev, Alexei Valerievich, Suksatan, Wanich, Shalaby, Mohammed Nader, Thangavelu, Lakshmi, Kamrava, Siavash, Shomali, Navid, Sohrabi, Armin D., Adili, Ali, Noroozi-Aghideh, Ali, Razeghian, Ehsan·2022·Cell Communication and Signaling
DOI 10.1186/s12964-022-00854-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The main breakthrough in tumor immunotherapy was the discovery of immune checkpoint (IC) proteins, which act as a potent suppressor of the immune system by a myriad of mechanisms. After that, scientists focused on the immune checkpoint molecules mainly. Thereby, much effort was spent to progress novel strategies for suppressing these inhibitory axes, resulting in the evolution of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Then, ICIs have become a promising approach and shaped a paradigm shift in tumor immunotherapies. CTLA-4 plays an influential role in attenuation of the induction of naïve and memory T cells by engagement with its responding ligands like B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86). Besides, PD-1 is predominantly implicated in adjusting T cell function in peripheral tissues through its interaction with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2. Given their suppressive effects on anti-tumor immunity, it has firmly been documented that ICIs based therapies can be practical and rational therapeutic approaches to treat cancer patients. Nonetheless, tumor inherent or acquired resistance to ICI and some treatment-related toxicities restrict their application in the clinic. The current review will deliver a comprehensive overview of the ICI application to treat human tumors alone or in combination with other modalities to support more desired outcomes and lower toxicities in cancer patients.

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 · 10.1186/s12964-022-00854-y

Cites

306 of 306 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 306 references

Cited by

See all 507

Metadata

Authors
Naimi, A., Mohammed, R. N., Raji, A., Chupradit, S., Yumashev, A. V., Suksatan, W., Shalaby, M. N., Thangavelu, L., Kamrava, S., Shomali, N., Sohrabi, A. D., Adili, A., Noroozi-Aghideh, A., & Razeghian, E.
Venue
Cell Communication and Signaling
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-04-07
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
44-44
ISSN
1478-811X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12964-022-00854-y
OpenAlex
W4223422528
Cited by
507
References
306
FWCI
37.34
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: Tumor immunotherapies by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the pros and cons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12964-022-00854-y
The paper
Naimi, A., Mohammed, R. N., Raji, A., Chupradit, S., Yumashev, A. V., Suksatan, W., Shalaby, M. N., Thangavelu, L., Kamrava, S., Shomali, N., Sohrabi, A. D., Adili, A., Noroozi-Aghideh, A., & Razeghian, E. (2022). Tumor immunotherapies by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the pros and cons. Cell Communication and Signaling. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12964-022-00854-y

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.