• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Chimeric Antigen Receptors and Regulatory T Cells: The Potential for HLA-Specific Immunosuppression in Transplantation

    2022-06-11 09:04:20SabrinaWrightConorHennessyJoannaHesterFadiIssa
    Engineering 2022年3期

    Sabrina Wright, Conor Hennessy, Joanna Hester, Fadi Issa*

    Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

    Keywords:Chimeric antigen receptors T cell Treg Alloimmunity Bioengineering Transplant Autoimmunity

    ABSTRACT Chimeric antigen receptors(CARs)are a breakthrough in genetic engineering that have revolutionized the field of adoptive cellular therapy(ACT).Cells expressing these receptors are rerouted to a predefined target by the inclusion of an antigen-specific binding region within the synthetic CAR construct.The advantage of cells with programmed specificity has been demonstrated clinically in the field of oncology,and it is clear that such cells have greater accuracy, potency, and reduced off-target therapeutic effects compared with their unmodified counterparts.In contrast to conventional T cells(Tconvs),regulatory T cells(Tregs) play a major role in suppressing immune activation and regulating the host immune response.CAR expression within Tregs has been proposed as a therapy for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases,graft-versus-host disease(GVHD),and organ transplant rejection.In the latter,they hold immense potential as mediators of immune tolerance for recipients of allotransplants. However, current research into CAR-Treg engineering is extremely limited, and there is uncertainty regarding optimal design for therapeutic use. This review examines the rationale behind the development of CAR-Tregs, their significance for human transplantation, potential designs, safety considerations, and comparisons of CAR-Tregs in transplantation models to date.

    1. Introduction

    Chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) are a breakthrough in the design and production of cells for adoptive cellular therapy(ACT).CAR-T cells expressing such receptors are rerouted to a predefined target by the inclusion of an antigen-specific binding region within a synthetic construct. The advantage of cells with programmed specificity has been demonstrated in numerous xenograft models, and it is clear that antigen-specific cells have greater accuracy, potency, and reduced off-target therapeutic effects compared with their unmodified counterparts. The induction of CAR expression within regulatory T cells (Tregs) has been put forward as a putative therapy for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and organ transplant rejection (Table 1) [1–5]. CAR-Tregs hold immense potential as mediators of tolerance in the recipients of allogeneic transplants and therefore deserve greater attention. A review at this stage is necessary to both highlight the need for, and encourage greater research effort in,this field and to identify areas of missing information that must be addressed before experimental research can progress to clinical applications.

    For the purpose of this review,Tregs are defined as CD4+CD25+-FOXP3+(CD: cluster of differentiation; FOXP3: forkhead box P3) T cells; conversely, the CD4+CD25–FOXP3–subset of T cells with proinflammatory properties are referred to herein as conventional T cells (Tconvs). When describing T cells that have been modified to express a CAR, modified Tregs are referred to as CAR-Tregs,whereas modified Tconvs are referred to as CAR-Tconvs.

    1.1. Mechanisms of Treg suppression

    In 1995,Tregs were formally recognized as a distinct subset of T cells by Sakaguchi et al.[6],who identified them by the marker signature CD4+CD25+. This landmark paper illustrated the ability of Tregs to suppress allogeneic responses and revealed that depletion of Tregs led to a heightened immune response and the spontaneous development of autoimmune disease. Later work identified the transcription factor FOXP3 as a defining regulator of the Treg phenotype [7]. Tregs are a naturally occurring subset of lymphocytes in the adaptive immune system that are responsible formaintaining immune homeostasis. In addition to mediating tolerance for self-antigens, they act under inflammatory conditions to limit the effector immune response in order to prevent excessive damage to an individual’s tissues. Tregs manipulate the immune environment through a variety of contact-dependent and soluble mechanisms. They are able to directly suppress other subsets of immune cells, including B cells and CD4+CD25–Tconvs, and act on dendritic cells(DCs)to prevent maturation and antigen presentation [8,9]. The following are major strategies employed by Tregs to moderate the immune system in response to antigen stimulation.

    Table 1 Summary of five current studies examining whether CAR-Tregs can modulate the alloimmune response.

    1.1.1. Cytolysis

    Cytolytic molecules such as granzyme B are released to instigate the direct killing of target proinflammatory cells. Granzyme B production by thymus-derived natural Tregs (nTregs) induces apoptosis in Tconvs and B cells [10,11]. The perforin/granzyme pathway mediates direct cytotoxicity, but the relationship between perforin and granzyme B has been somewhat controversial. Two in vitro studies have described a granzyme Bdependent, perforin-dependent suppression system by FOXP3+cells expressing granzyme B [12,13], whereas Gondek et al. [10]reported independence between the two systems.Using granzyme B-deficient mouse models, Cao et al. [14] reported that perforin and granzyme B are both important for the Treg-mediated apoptosis of natural killer(NK)and CD8+T cells,since the adoptive transfer of Tregs lacking the gene for either of these molecules failed to suppress tumor clearance.Similarly,perforin was found to be necessary for Treg-mediated removal of DCs in a perforin knockout model [15].

    1.1.2. Cytokine release

    Interleukin (IL)-10 and IL-35 are key regulatory cytokines responsible for suppressing proinflammatory responses [16]. IL-10 prevents the release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines by Tconvs,while inhibiting the expression of costimulatory molecules and class II major histocompatibility complexes(MHCs) on DCs and other professional antigen-presenting cells(APCs) [17–19]. IL-35 is a relatively recent addition to the known repertoire of Treg tools and has since been shown to directly inhibit the proliferation of Tconvs in mice [20]. Although IL-35 is not constitutively expressed in human Tregs, long-term activation of Tregs in humans leads to the upregulation of IL-35,thereby conferring an enhanced suppressive capacity [21,22].

    Interestingly, ex vivo-induced Tregs (iTregs) appear to rely on cytokine signaling rather than cytotoxicity for their function;several studies have reported that transforming growth factor β(TGF-β) signaling by iTregs is responsible for the suppression of B cells, T cells, and DCs [11,23]. However, thymic Tregs have been favored over iTregs in preclinical models to date(likely due to their greater stability in vivo), so an in-depth analysis of iTreg mechanisms is outside the scope of this review.

    1.1.3. Manipulation of DCs

    Tregs are able to weaken or abrogate activation signals from professional APCs to prevent the activation of na?ve T cells [24].The Treg molecule cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)engages with the costimulatory molecules CD80 and CD86 on the APC cell surface,triggering the release of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase(IDO),a tolerogenic enzyme that acts as a rate limiter for tryptophan catabolism in Tconvs and results in an increased concentration of tryptophan metabolites in the surrounding milieu,which have suppressive effects on Tconv cell cycle progression [24,25]. In addition, T cell receptor (TCR) binding stimulates the downregulation of CD80 and CD86 on DCs in a CTLA-4-dependent manner [24].

    1.1.4. Metabolic disruption and competition

    Metabolic disruption through competition for essential cytokines is a further potent mechanism of suppression. In particular,Tregs can deprive surrounding cells of IL-2 directly by consuming the external supply, thereby limiting the growth and survival of non-Tregs [26]. When aggregated in a single region, the high expression of CD25 (IL-2 receptor α) on Tregs may bind enough IL-2 to induce apoptosis among the surrounding cells [26].

    1.1.5. Infectious tolerance

    Finally,Tregs may induce a tolerogenic phenotype in inflammatory cells through a phenomenon known as infectious tolerance[27,28]. This requires membrane-bound TGF-β on the surface of Tregs,which induces the de novo generation of FOXP3+T cells from na?ve precursors in a contact-dependent manner [29]. IL-35 has the ability to convert target Tconvs into Tregs;thus,it may be considered an agent of infectious tolerance [22].

    1.2. Tregs as an emerging therapy

    The therapeutic strategy of adoptive cellular therapy(ACT)harnesses the intrinsic function of immune cells; in the case of Tregs,this is the promotion of a state of tolerance.Further characteristics of Tregs, including their ability to proliferate, interact with other cell types, and exert multiple suppressive mechanisms, support the superiority of Treg therapy over non-cellular approaches.

    It was realized soon after the discovery of Tregs that their suppressor function could be exploited to inhibit the immune response in autoimmune diseases and in the context of transplantation [30,31]. This notion was followed by in vivo studies on the effectiveness of Treg transfer therapy against various autoimmune diseases (including type 1 diabetes, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, and systemic lupus erythematosus), GVHD,and allogeneic transplantation [32–36]. It was shown that ex vivo expanded Tregs could prolong skin and islet allograft survival in humanized mouse models by reducing CD4+and CD8+T cell infiltration,generating optimism that these results could be replicated in human patients [37,38].

    The concept of using Tregs in transplantation has gained traction principally due to the toxic side effects of non-cellular immunosuppressive drugs, and it is hoped that cell-based therapy will mitigate the risk of toxicity[39,40].Higher incidents of cardiovascular disease and diabetes are observed in transplant recipients; although these conditions are greatly influenced by the comorbidities of the patient prior to transplantation, they are also directly affected by pharmacologic immunosuppressive agents[39,41]. Hypertension is commonly reported in renal transplant patients,chiefly as a result of treatment with calcineurin inhibitors,and its prevalence can reach as high as 82% in adult patients[39,42]. These factors in turn elevate the risk of cardiovascular morbidities such as myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and stroke [40]. Overall, organ toxicity severely impacts patient quality of life and remains a major cause of both graft loss and patient death in transplant recipients [40].

    Cell therapy may also be of greater practicality for patients who would otherwise follow a daily regimen of medication.Unmodified polyclonal Tregs may remain detectable in humans from two weeks up to one year,allowing for a far greater timespan between doses; this would be less burdensome for the patient and reduce the chance of allograft rejection resulting from non-adherence[1,43,44]. A question that remains to be answered is whether repetitive dosing of Tregs is necessary, or whether it is possible to establish a self-sustaining population of donor-specific Tregs from limited infusions.

    The first in-human clinical trials of Treg adoptive transfer gave evidence to support the use of expanded polyclonal Tregs for the prevention or treatment of GVHD and autoimmune diseases[45–47].In accordance with similar studies in mice[48],early Treg infusion in human patients was shown to prevent chronic GVHD in the absence of any concurrent immunosuppression;moreover,Treg therapy was associated with greater cellular immunity against opportunistic pathogens while preserving the graft-versusleukemia effect[49].However,the mortalities highlighted the need for improvement in terms of safety: Patients remained vulnerable to adenoviral infection,toxoplasmosis,bacterial infection,and fungal infection from a generically suppressed immune system.

    More recently, solid organ transplantation became the subject of a phase I dose escalation trial to assess the safety of infused Tregs in kidney transplant patients. In this trial by Mathew et al.[50], nine recipients of living-donor kidney allografts received ex vivo expanded autologous Tregs at two months posttransplantation, following lymphocyte depletion and in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and sirolimus maintenance therapy. It was of major interest that no serious adverse events were reported, and no evidence of opportunistic infections or other immunosuppression-related conditions was seen. The researchers reported 100% graft survival at two years post-transplantation [50]. Further research is ongoing to establish the potential of Treg treatment with minimal concurrent immunosuppression.The ONE Study is an international consortium that was assembled to evaluate different regulatory cell types in the context of living-donor renal transplantation, with Tregs featuring among these [51]. Patients were initially given triple therapy (prednisolone, MMF, and tacrolimus) and later infused with autologous polyclonal Tregs at five days post-transplantation [52]. Out of 38 patients receiving regulatory cells who completed the observation period,15 were successfully weaned onto tacrolimus monotherapy and exhibited fewer viral infections compared with patients on standard immunosuppressive therapy [51]. A follow-up phase II trial entitled the TWO Study was later announced, which aimed to assess the efficacy of Tregs in combination with sirolimus monotherapy in preventing renal transplant rejection [53].Although it is unclear at this stage whether Tregs could entirely replace conventional drugs,even the reduction of immunosuppression down to a monotherapy would have significant positive consequences for the outcome of the allograft and the patient.

    1.3. Antigen-specific Tregs

    Non-specific suppressors of the immune activation pathway,such as metabolic inhibitors,confer systemic suppression such that the entire body—and not merely the donor organ—is affected. In addition to cardiotoxicity and nephrotoxicity, heavy regimens of systemic immunosuppression are known to increase a patient’s risk of cancer—especially of squamous cell carcinoma and Kaposi sarcoma [54]. Reducing the patient’s ability to detect and respond to pathogens also renders them especially vulnerable to bacterial,fungal,viral,and mold infections[55].While cellular therapies circumvent many of the toxicities associated with pharmacologic drugs, the risk remains that Tregs bearing polyclonal specificity will still increase vulnerability to the development of infection and malignancies in transplant patients. To combat this issue,novel therapies are being designed to target antigens specific to the donor tissue, so that other organs expressing self-antigen are not affected.

    While designers of cancer-specific CAR-Tconvs face the difficulty of selecting a suitable target (there are few truly cancer-specific antigens),in the case of transplantation,there will be discrepancies between the expressed allelic repertoire of the human leukocyte antigens(HLAs)of the donor and the recipient.This makes it possible to target antigens that are unique to the donor organ and absent from the recipient,enabling high specificity for the allograft.

    Tregs represent less than 10% of the circulating CD4+T cell population, and only a small proportion of these will bear the correct TCR for an antigen of interest [56–58]. It is common to selectively expand antigen-specific Tregs in vitro by co-culturing bulk Tregs with allogeneic DCs, or with autologous DCs that have previously been pulsed with allopeptide [57,58]. Alternatively,genetic manipulation can be used to directly confer specificity to a polyclonal cell sample. Many preclinical studies have cloned recombinant TCRs of known specificity into host CD4+T cells for the purpose of creating a targeted cell therapy;this has been done in Tregs as well as in Tconvs [59–61], and promising results have been obtained from experimental models of multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes [60,61]. However, although MHC processing by TCRs allows for the recognition of intracellular (IC) peptides,there is also an argument that a major disadvantage of TCRs,whether endogenous or modified,is that they are restricted to peptides associated with an MHC,limiting the pool of target antigens.Moreover, evidence for the downregulating effects of calcineurin inhibitors on MHC expression in DCs suggests that the process may be compromised if the patient is receiving certain pharmacologic immunosuppression [62,63].

    In answer to these problems, the development of the first CAR was reported in 1989 by Gross et al. [64]. This receptor combined the constant and variable domains of an anti-2,4,6-trinitrophenyl antibody with a segment of an α or β TCR chain;the total construct was then transfected into a cytotoxic T cell hybridoma.The resulting transgenic cells were demonstrated to have antigen-specific,non-MHC-restricted effector functions, as well as the ability to induce cytokine production in their target cells. By using the variable fragment of an antibody as opposed to the MHC-restricted binding region of a TCR, the synthetic receptor could engage with extracellular (EC) peptides without the need for processing.Importantly for allogeneic transplantation, this meant that MHC molecules themselves could also be targeted.

    1.4. Development of CAR designs

    Following on from the revolutionary ‘‘first-generation” CAR of Gross et al.[64],many other researchers have expanded the design and application of CARs to generate improvements in longevity and functionality. CARs have been engineered into various cell types, including NK cells, CD8+T cells, Tconvs, and Tregs [65–69].

    CARs are an improvement on the TCR design in that they are modular, and individual segments of the CAR construct may be added or substituted(Fig.1).For example,a costimulatory domain may be formed from different domains of the TCR—with CD28 and 4-1BB (CD137) being the most commonly used—and each confers its own advantages or disadvantages on the functionality of the CAR. Additional components, such as a cytokine sequence, may also be incorporated to enhance their function.

    CAR therapy has shown remarkable efficacy in the treatment of relapsed or refractory cancer where previous lines of treatment have failed.Their profound success in preclinical models,and later in clinical trials, paved the way for the approval of two independent CAR-Tconv therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration(FDA)in 2017,followed by approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a year later [70]. One of these therapies, tisagenlecleucel (marketed as Kymriah?), achieved a 93% complete remission rate in an early phase I/IIa trial involving 75 patients [71].CAR-Tregs have similarly demonstrated efficacy in treating autoimmune and inflammatory diseases in experimental murine models, as well as in preventing GVHD in models of allogeneic stem cell transplantation,and have demonstrated superior efficacy in allogeneic models of solid organ transplantation compared with polyclonal Tregs [1,2,72–76] (Fig. 2).

    The production of CAR-Tregs has been a very recent milestone in the development of genetically engineered T cells. The first in vivo CAR-Treg study to investigate their relevance in allogeneic transplantation was published in 2016 by MacDonald et al. [1],who illustrated the ability of CAR-Tregs to confer antigen-specific suppression against an HLA; yet their potential as a prophylactic and treatment for transplant rejection remains highly underresearched. No human trials of CAR-Tregs have yet taken place and, consequently, there are no approved CAR-Treg therapies.Nevertheless, the recent approval of the anti-CD19 CAR-Tconvs Kymriah?and Yescarta?by the FDA and the EMA offers encouragement that CAR-Tregs may similarly gain consent for clinical applications in the near future [70].

    2. Designing an effective CAR for therapeutic Tregs

    The first designs to employ basic chimeric molecules with an antigen-specific binding region—which have since been labeled‘‘first-generation” CARs—showed very limited persistence in vivo[77]. Subsequent designs have improved upon the expansion and persistence of the archetype (Fig. 3). Second-generation CARs include a costimulatory domain between the transmembrane domain and the CD3ζ signaling domain to allow for full activation of the cell; this markedly improves the expansion and, consequently,the efficacy of both Tconvs and Tregs bearing the receptor[77–80]. Third- and fourth-generation CARs have also been developed to incorporate additional elements. All CARs, regardless of generation,contain a CD3ζ chain at the IC tail to propagate the activation signal, mimicking activation through the TCR. While excellent reviews have already been published on the design of CARs,the importance of each component in relation to CAR-Tregs specifically will be discussed here.

    2.1. Selecting an HLA target

    Fig. 1. Conventional Treg versus CAR-Treg design. CAR-Tregs retain the key components of Tregs: the CD25 and CD4 complexes. The TCR complex is replaced with the modular CAR-Treg design,which provides antigen specificity depending on the monoclonal antibody(mAb)from which the single-chain variable fragment(ScFv)is derived.This allows the production of Tregs with targeted anti-inflammatory effects,which may have applications in downregulating the alloresponse and preventing graft rejection in allogenic transplants. Hc: heavy chain; Lc: light chain.

    Fig.2. Proposed mechanism of CAR-Treg-mediated suppression of alloimmunity.Organ rejection following allotransplantation is traditionally thought to be mediated by T cell-mediated alloimmunity.APCs such as DCs present antigen from the donor tissue to host T cells,which are then activated by the recognition of‘‘non-self.”This ultimately leads to the production of cytotoxic T cells,which propagate tissue destruction and hence organ rejection.The proposed function of CAR-Tregs would potentially prevent this.The construction of a CAR that recognized an antigen on the donor organ(e.g.,HLA-A2)would result in Treg activation and proliferation.These CAR-Tregs could then directly inactivate APCs, acting via cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CLTA4)–CD80 and major histocompatibility complex class I (MHCI)–lymphocyte activation gene 3 products (LAG3) interactions, thus preventing the presentation of donor antigen to T cells. Furthermore, the CAR-Tregs could directly inhibit T cell activation via the production of inhibitory cytokines(TGF-β,IL-10,and IL-35).Finally,the activated CAR-Tregs could inhibit rejection by destroying cytotoxic T cells via the release of granzyme and perforin.

    Within the CAR, antigen specificity is typically determined by the inclusion of the light and variable chains of a single-chain variable fragment (scFv) derived from a monoclonal antibody (mAb).To date, all CAR-Treg allograft models have used the MHC class I HLA-A2 antigen as the therapeutic target, for the reason that it is commonly found across human populations and therefore a large number of patients can be treated with a single CAR design[1–3,5,81–90].This is preferable in order to reduce the labor,costs,and time required to produce and expand each clone; from a clinical perspective, CAR-Tregs could be taken ‘‘off the shelf” as required for delivery into patients. However, other common HLA antigens should be explored as potential targets for CAR-Treg therapy in order to cover the various haplotypes present throughout populations. Indeed, if CAR-Tregs are truly envisaged as a future therapeutic agent, then the variation of haplotype frequencies across geographical and ethnic groups requires an expanded panel of antigen targets [83–90].

    Preclinical models of CAR-Tregs have not specified to which subtypes of HLA-A2 the scFv can bind, out of over 800 that are currently known [81,82,91]. It would be convenient to produce CARs that can target multiple alleles to reduce the number of CAR designs required to cover all patient HLA haplotypes,although this scenario would need careful controlling to ascertain that no unwanted cross-reactivity takes place between donor and recipient (a safety concern that will be discussed further on).Evidence suggests that HLA-binding peptides can react with multiple different subtypes [92].

    2.2. Costimulatory domains

    CD28 and 4-1BB are most commonly used as the costimulatory element of the CAR construct[1–3,5,80,93].They each demonstrate different effects on the signaling kinetics and persistence of the CAR, and even on the suppressive function of the host cell [94].The IC signaling strength of CD28 is higher than that of 4-1BB;consequently,there is a greater cellular expansion rate,which renders the host cells more susceptible to exhaustion and is associated with poorer persistence[95,96].Conversely,4-1BB CARs have been demonstrated to survive in humans for over 600 days after a single infusion [71].

    The first study to directly compare the effects of CD28 versus 4-1BB on the phenotype and function of CAR-Tregs reported that CD28 is superior to 4-1BB at promoting cytokine secretion and overall suppressive capacity [94]. CAR-Tregs bearing the CD28 domain produced significantly more IL-10 than their 4-1BB counterparts;this was associated with a decreased suppressive capacity among 4-1BB CAR-Tregs when co-cultured with CD4+and CD8+Tconvs in vitro. Furthermore, the study reported that 4-1BB even decreased the suppressive function of CAR-Tregs, compared with first-generation CARs lacking any costimulatory domain.

    Other costimulatory domains that have been less extensively tested in CARs include inducible T-cell costimulator (ICOS,CD278), tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 4(OX40),CD27,and CD40 ligand(CD40L)[97,98].It would be useful to gain more data on the efficacy of these domains and their functional effects on the Treg subset specifically.CD27 is a particularly hopeful candidate for enhancing persistence; Song et al. [99]demonstrated that CARs bearing a CD27 domain possess increased longevity in vivo compared with CARs bearing CD28.

    Fig. 3. The modular structure of CARs. CAR structure can be modified depending on the target and function of interest. The ScFv offers antigen specificity and is usually derived from mAbs directed at the antigen of interest. Hinge domains are an optional component that can increase cytokine production, enhance proliferation, or facilitate transmigration. Transmembrane domains anchor the EC component to the IC component and may also play a role in signal transduction. Costimulatory domains can affect signal transduction, increase cellular expansion rate, and prevent T cell exhaustion. They can be used alone or in combinations, depending on the desired effect. Fourthgeneration CAR-T cells have introduced transgenes that produce cytokines that can aid in the suppressive or cytotoxic effector actions of the cell,depending on its purpose.IgG: immunoglobulin G; IgD: immunoglobulin D; OX40: tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 4; ICOS: CD278; CD40L: CD40 ligand; Mφ: macrophages;TLRs: Toll-like receptors.

    Improvements upon the second-generation design have been attempted in third-generation CARs by including an additional costimulatory domain. A study by Ramos et al. [100] (using Tconvs)found that the combination of CD28 and 4-1BB overcame the limitations of each individual domain, resulting in greater persistence and expansion compared with second-generation CARs with CD28 alone.Once again,this subject has been untested in the field of CAR-Tregs and deserves investigation for its potential.

    2.3. Cytokine domains

    Further enhancements of the CAR construct have resulted in fourth-generation CARs incorporating a cytokine domain—most commonly IL-12 or IL-15—to enhance the cytotoxic effects of CARs engineered for anti-tumor immunotherapy [101–103]. Taking inspiration from this design and applying it to CAR-Tregs, the incorporation of regulatory cytokines such as IL-10 or TGF-β within CARs could potentially modulate the immune environment within the allograft. It would be clinically relevant to discover to what extent their inclusion improves the success of CAR-Treg therapy,in terms of creating a tolerogenic environment and preventing graft damage with minimal support from pharmacologic agents.

    3. Gene-delivery systems

    Different genome-editing techniques are associated with different efficiencies, specificities, expression stabilities, and safety profiles of CAR-expressing cells,which ultimately affect the success of the final CAR-Treg product.In this section,established methods for the genetic delivery of CARs are evaluated for their suitability in the context of CAR-Treg therapy.

    3.1. Viral vectors

    Viral transduction is the most popular approach for genetic manipulation of T cells.This can be attributed to their high editing efficiency and the ultimate incorporation of their DNA cargo into the host cell genome, resulting in stable protein expression [104].

    Average CAR expression on retrovirally transduced Tregs ranges from 20%to 95%[3,76].While several CAR products manufactured via retroviral delivery have proceeded into clinical trials (notably,the FDA-approved Yescarta?)[105,106],there is evidence that such cells can express immunogenic vector-encoded epitopes, presenting a safety concern that viral vectors may increase the immunogenicity of therapeutic cells [107]. The risk of genotoxicity is enhanced through the semi-random integration pattern with bias toward transcription start sites [108,109]. Lentiviruses, a complex subfamily of the retrovirus, have gained popularity as a viral vector, and CARs engineered using this method have also progressed to clinical trials and beyond, including the FDA-approved Kymriah?[110–112]. CAR-Treg studies have reported differing ranges of lentiviral transduction efficiency, from 10%–15%(Fransson et al. [72]) to 30%–80% (Boardman et al. [2]). Lentiviral systems appear to be less genotoxic due to their tendency to favor active gene sites over transcription start sites, and are considered to pose a lower risk of insertional mutagenesis; therefore, they are more favorable in clinical applications [108,109,113].

    Although CAR-Tregs have not yet entered clinical trials, CARTconvs may provide insight into their persistence in humans after viral transduction.Data from the ZUMA-1 clinical trial of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta?) demonstrated that CARs may remain readily detectable in peripheral blood for 180 days, and even up to 24 months in some patients; in this case, a CD28 domain was used [114]. Even more impressively, tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah?),a CAR therapy incorporating the 4-1BB domain,has been reported to persist in the blood for a maximum of 617 days, with a median persistence value of 168 days [71]. This evidence would suggest that viral delivery has the potential to support CAR expression for extensive and clinically appropriate time periods.

    Paradoxically, CAR-Treg data from mouse models have not yet demonstrated such a lengthy duration of CAR expression using viral vectors.Data from mouse studies revealed CAR-Tregs surviving just two weeks after lentiviral transduction (MacDonald et al.[1]),over 40 days for retroviral transduction in an allotransplantation model(Noyan et al.[3]),and 17 weeks for retroviral transduction in a type 1 diabetes model by Tenspolde et al.[75].MacDonald et al.[1]hypothesized that persistence could be hindered by insufficient IL-2,insufficient antigen,or a combination of both;the first may certainly be a potential factor, as Tregs do not produce endogenous IL-2,instead relying on it being secreted by other cells.On the other hand,a comment by Noyan et al.[3]raised the point that mice were reconstituted with HLA-A2 peripheral blood mononuclear cells(PBMCs)in MacDonald’s study[1],meaning that broad activation of HLA-A2 CAR-Tregs would have taken place; in this case, the Tregs would experience greater exhaustion, leading to their rapid decline.Across these studies,the question of whether CAR-Tregs became exhausted due to the continuous presence of target antigen,or whether immunogenicity conferred by viral vectors was responsible for the decline of CAR-Treg populations,remains to be answered; these factors and their implications on the success of CAR-Treg therapy will be discussed later in this review.

    The aforementioned viral vectors can transport DNA cargo of up to 8 kilobases(kb),well above the size of the average CAR sequence[115].However,gene integration occurs in a semi-random manner;this can lead to heterogeneous CAR expression and,potentially,the integration of the DNA sequence into a proto-oncogenic site,prompting some researchers to explore alternatives.

    3.2. Transposons

    Transposons are a non-viral means of genetic modification offering long-term expression and higher DNA cargo limits,although the risk of integration near proto-oncogenic sites is similar to that of viral vectors [116]. A transposon element is typically delivered into the cell, along with a transposase, via two separate expression plasmids (the transposase may also be delivered as messenger RNA (mRNA)) [117,118]. The transposase excises the cargo DNA and ‘‘pastes” it into the host genome in a semi-random manner [116].

    The most important advantage of this method is the cargo capacity,which is a limiting factor in the efficiency of other methods; for example, the expression system PiggyBac can carry a cassette of up to 14.3 kb without compromising efficiency[117,119]. The expression efficiency of transposon systems is around 50% for human peripheral blood cells [120]. Transposonmediated CAR expression has previously been utilized in the clinical setting: as part of a phase I trial conducted by Kebriaei et al.[121], anti-CD19 CAR-Tconvs were generated ex vivo from patient-derived T cells using the hyperactive ‘‘sleeping beauty”(SB)system SB11 and were subsequently infused into 19 recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplants.The CAR transgene was detectable in peripheral blood for an average of 51 days and a maximum of 180 days. This example is an encouraging starting point in the pursuit of long-term CAR expression, and overall,the cargo capacity, expression efficiency, and persistence in vivo associated with transposon-based delivery are all advantageous for the manufacture of CAR-Tregs.

    3.3. CRISPR-Cas9

    The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats(CRISPR)-CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) system, abbreviated to CRISPR-Cas9, offers a highly precise method of genome editing.Because the target site for gene insertion can be defined by the sequence of the guide RNA, aberrant gene insertion is greatly reduced compared with non-specific vectors. CRISPR editing has a relatively low efficiency that can be problematic for large sequences such as CARs, although its extremely high specificity renders it an attractive method nonetheless.

    Targeting the CAR sequence to a defined region of the genome enables modification of a specific cell type; it is therefore logical during the production of CAR-Tregs to target delivery to a gene that is common or unique to Tregs.Targeting the T cell receptor α constant (TRAC) gene reportedly generates uniform CAR expression across transfected cells, reduces tonic signaling, and results in the internalization and re-expression of the CAR following antigen exposure to delay exhaustion and prolong cell survival[122];however, the issue arises that contamination with proinflammatory T cell subsets is likely to occur in the resulting CAR+cell product unless the CD4+CD25+FOXP3+population is successfully isolated from the bulk T cell population prior to gene editing. Other knock-in targets that are more exclusive to the Treg subset should be explored, such as FOXP3.

    There is concern that homology-directed repair (HDR)-mediated gene insertion is disruptive to the endogenous target gene.This problem has been addressed,however,by studies utilizing intron-targeting and homology-independent integration to preserve the endogenous sequence [123,124]. By using CRISPRCas9 technology to create double-stranded breaks in the donor plasmid and the target gene, which share the same single guide RNA (sgRNA) target, the donor template can be efficiently integrated in a non-homologous manner without disrupting expression of the endogenous target gene [124]. This offers a superior approach for CAR insertion and makes the targeting of truly Treg-specific genes, such as FOXP3, a feasible option [122,123].

    4. Source of cells

    4.1. Autologous

    Autologous Tregs express the MHC repertoire of the patient and are therefore not inherently immunogenic, making them a safer and more viable option for therapeutic use. Cells must be isolated several weeks ahead of infusion to allow time for genetic modification and expansion, and the generation of autologous CAR-T cells takes between 14 and 51 days [105]. It must be remembered that the objective of Treg therapy for transplantation is to circumvent the accumulative risk associated with long-term pharmacologic immunosuppression,and that short-term use of the standard triple therapy immediately following transplantation during the period of Treg expansion may not compromise the purpose of Treg therapy.Clinical trials of non-transgenic Tregs have performed delayed infusion after surgery, until which time the patient has been receiving medication that is gradually tapered after receiving the autologous cells [52,125].

    4.2. Allogeneic

    The use of third-party Tregs for CAR therapy possesses clear advantages and disadvantages.On the one hand,it has been envisaged that using cells from a third-party donor will allow for cell cultures to be expanded and banked,to be made available for multiple patients in a convenient ‘‘off-the-shelf” scenario when required. Furthermore, the cells can be extensively screened for quality prior to use [126]. Mouse models have indicated that the adoptive transfer of allogeneic Tregs into fully MHC-mismatched recipients can prevent the rejection of allografts bearing the same MHC profile as the Treg donor [127]. On the other hand, the immunogenic potential of allogeneic cells can have a detrimental effect on their long-term persistence.Kebriaei et al.[121]reported a significantly shorter detection period for infused allogenic CAR-T cells compared with autologous CAR-T cells bearing the same specificity (a maximum of 180 versus 360 days, respectively) in human hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients; this result highlights the complications arising from the immunogenic nature of such cells (the researchers attributed the decreased survival to their use of concomitant immunosuppression to control GVHD and to the lack of lymphodepletion in their protocol). To reduce immunogenicity, further cell modification could be employed to abolish the expression of MHC and thus avoid immune clearance[128].While this potential solution could allow for many transplant patients to be treated promptly with CARTregs of a single donor-derived origin, many different specificities would have to be generated to cover the vast array of MHC haplotypes across the population. With this in mind, it is likely that autologous cells will be the preferred source of Tregs for the immediate future of ACT.

    5. Adverse effects and safety issues

    Despite the clear therapeutic benefits of CAR therapy and its clinical approval for certain malignancies, the technology is still in its fledgling stage. There are many unanswered questions,theoretical risks, and side effects in the literature that must be addressed. Numerous safety issues present an obstacle to the application of CAR-Treg therapy to human transplant patients, especially where a vital organ is the target of immunosuppression. At this stage, the published literature on the behavior, efficacy, and safety of CAR-Tregs in vivo remains extremely limited.

    The following section lists important safety concerns highlighted in the current relevant literature and offers possible solutions.

    5.1. On-target cytotoxicity

    Granzyme B production has long been known as a mechanism of Treg-mediated suppression. This is problematic in the context of transplantation,as the donor organ becomes vulnerable to cytotoxic damage upon the delivery of tolerogenic cells [10,94]. The findings of Boroughs et al.[94]suggest that CAR-Tregs are capable of inducing apoptosis in cells expressing target antigen via the granzyme B/perforin pathway. Although cytotoxicity—measured by epithelial destruction and apoptosis—was minimal in their study, their results warrant investigation into how destructive mechanisms of CAR-Treg suppression may be mitigated. The researchers reported inhibition of granzyme B production when CAR-Tregs were treated with the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinasemammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K-mTOR) pathway inhibitor,rapamycin (sirolimus), during culture, which reflects previous findings on the effects of PI3K-mTOR pathway inhibitors on granzyme B [129]. The researchers alternatively suggested knocking out the GZMB gene;the effects of this genetic modification strategy would then persist in vivo without the need for the repeated administration of an mTOR inhibitor [94].

    Another straightforward approach for reducing cytotoxicity is to reduce the number of cells per infusion; however, this necessitates a proficient understanding of the minimum cell number required to mediate tolerance toward the allograft.At the moment,it is unknown what the optimum dosage is for antigen-specific CAR-Tregs in solid organ transplantation.

    On-target, off-organ binding is another concern after the adoptive transfer of cells. The expression of the target antigen on therapeutically irrelevant cells presents a substantial obstacle in the field of CAR-T cell therapy for malignancies [130]. Yet, unlike cancer immunotherapy, which often relies on the overexpression of tumor-associated antigens that are present to a lesser extent on healthy tissue,CARs in a transplantation setting can be targeted to a donor HLA allele that is not expressed by the recipient,reducing the risk of toxicity resulting from the erroneous binding of CARs.

    5.2. Cross-reactivity with other peptides

    Off-target toxicity is a theoretical risk with CAR-Tregs, principally due to the tendency for HLA-specific peptides to cross-react with other HLA subtypes [92]. Noyan et al. [3] performed a crossreactivity test for their HLA-A2-specific CAR-Tregs by exposing them to PBMCs of 20 different HLA haplotypes; while the CARs preferentially bound to HLA-A2, there was one recorded instance of cross-reactivity with HLA-A1-typed PBMCs. Furthermore, the CAR bound successfully to all represented subtypes of HLA-A2(the subtype specificity of the CAR itself was not stated),indicating that such a fine level of discrimination between donor and recipient haplotypes may not be achievable. MacDonald et al. [1]demonstrated that their HLA-A2-specific CAR-Tregs bound to HLA-A2 tetramers but not to control HLA-A24 tetramers;however,they did not test against individual subtypes of HLA-A2.In another CAR-Treg study, Boardman et al. [2] acknowledged that their choice of scFv against HLA-A2 was known to cross-react with HLA-A28 and HLA-68.

    A paper by Tanigaki et al. [92] also noted that A2-binding peptides could potentially cross-react with other subtypes of the HLAA family—A24,A26,A28,and A29.Their results were derived from in vitro binding assays and do not demonstrate that CAR-Tregs will necessarily activate and exert suppressor functions upon binding.Nevertheless, to answer this question and improve the safety of CAR therapy, control testing of antigen specificity should ideally be performed across a panel of HLA molecules.

    There is a positive role for cross-reactivity in the transplantation setting, however. As Boardman et al. [2] elucidated, crossreactivity allows for a number of different combinations of CAR specificity and the donor organ’s haplotype; therefore, this phenomenon can increase the number of patients who can benefit from receiving a particular CAR. Yet in order to exploit this possibility, knowledge of the full repertoire of each CAR’s binding targets is necessary to avoid detrimental binding to the recipient’s healthy tissue.

    5.3. Presence of endogenous TCR specificity

    Unless the TRAC gene is inhibited or knocked out,the CAR-Treg will retain its endogenous TCR with an independent specificity.This leads to early exhaustion if it comes into frequent contact with the TCR’s target antigen and may trigger the cell to act upon a nontarget tissue if aberrant binding occurs [122]. This concern has prompted efforts to replace endogenous TCRs with the aid of genome-editing technology such as CRISPR [131,132]. Eyquem et al. [122] experimented with a 2-in-1 approach of targeting a CAR to the TRAC locus itself in order to disrupt TCR expression in Tconvs, and reported an improvement in cell proliferation and effector function compared with control CARs with the TCR intact.Yet other studies suggest that functional dependency on the TCR varies between T cell subsets, and the findings of Eyquem et al.[122] may not be reproducible with CAR-Tregs. Tregs are reliant on TCR stimulation in order to maintain their suppressor function,and the expression of 25%of the activated Treg transcriptional signature is dependent on TCR signaling[133].This prompts the question of whether the signaling cascade induced by CAR activation can adequately mimic TCR-mediated activation in order to maintain the functionality of CAR-Tregs in the case of TCR ablation.Overall, there is insufficient data to recommend either inclusion or removal of endogenous TCRs.

    5.4. Immunogenicity

    Although autologous Tregs derived from the patient present no immunogenic concerns themselves, the presence of a transgenic CAR raises the potential for the detection of non-self proteins;this phenomenon has been previously recorded in a study of autologous Tconvs[134].Symptoms range from the formation of specific antibodies to acute side effects such as cytokine release syndrome(CRS).Therefore,reducing the immunogenicity of therapeutic cells is vital for reducing the risk to the patient, in addition to ensuring optimal survival and proliferation in vivo.

    mAbs,the source of the scFv region,are principally derived from murine animals; this means that the variable chains of the CAR have the potential to provoke an anti-murine antibody response.Other proteins of non-human origin are also risk factors.Sommermeyer et al.[135]have demonstrated that the scFv region can instead be obtained from a human antibody chain library to avoid this risk,and the fusion sites within the CAR can be modified to produce a fully human construct.

    5.5. CRS and neurotoxicity

    While the predominantly anti-inflammatory cytokine repertoire of Tregs contradicts the pathogenesis of CRS and neurotoxicity,the frequency of these adverse events in CAR trials necessitates a discussion of this subject. CRS occurs when the activation of infused cells, combined with the subsequent activation of the host’s immune response, causes a surge in cytokine production. CRS is potentially life-threatening, leading to fever, vascular leakage,multiple organ failure,and even death[101].It is important to note that some key players in CRS, particularly IL-6, are secreted by endogenous monocytes and macrophages rather than by the CAR-expressing cells themselves [136]. Therefore, CRS remains a possibility despite the anti-inflammatory phenotype of CAR-Tregs.With this in mind, targeting the cytokine production pathways of endogenous cells may be a necessary therapeutic strategy where the genetic modification of CAR-expressing cells is insufficient to reduce the risk of adverse effects. Examples of such a strategy include the provision of the granulocyte–macrophage colonystimulating factor (GM-CSF) inhibitor lenzilumab in combination with CAR delivery, administration of the anti-IL-6Rα mAb tocilizumab, or pharmacologic blockade of catecholamine—although these options unfortunately add to the patient’s medication burden[137–141].

    5.6. Phenotypic instability

    The risk of adverse events can be exacerbated by any instability of the Treg phenotype, yet the stability of Tregs in vivo remains a contentious issue. Loss of FOXP3 expression and conversion to a proinflammatory state is a known phenomenon; Tregs have been reported to switch to a T helper 17(Th17)phenotype under certain inflammatory conditions,particularly when there is a deficiency of TGF-β in the microenvironment[28,142].On the other hand,many experts argue that fully differentiated, FOXP3highthymic Tregs are phenotypically robust,attributing the reported incidents of FOXP3 downregulation to the presence of non-committed developmental‘‘intermediates”and contamination with CD4+D25–cells displaying transient, promiscuous expression of FOXP3 [143–146]. While the question of whether true Tregs(and CAR-Tregs)are phenotypically stable in vivo is unlikely to be resolved in the near future,it is generally agreed that lineages of FOXP3highCD25highCD45RA–cells represent the most reliable population in terms of generational stability [143].

    The epigenetic status of Tregs is a crucial factor for maintaining a stable lineage [143]. The conserved non-coding sequence 2(CNS2) within the FOXP3 locus must be demethylated in order for FOXP3 expression to be maintained after cell division, which is the case for thymic Tregs but not iTregs. Although it is possible to improve the functional stability of iTregs through ex vivo modification of their FOXP3 locus [147,148], instead, selecting thymic Treg populations through the processes of magnetic isolation or enrichment from cell samples has been the unanimous approach to CAR-Treg engineering for in vivo transplant studies to date, as well as in-human polyclonal Treg therapy [1–3,5,23,49,50].

    It is also interesting to note that Nowak et al. [149] identified CD137+CD154–as a reliable signature for stable Treg phenotype after in vitro culture and reported that selecting for this signature,followed by further expansion of the purified phenotype, may increase the stability of the Treg population.

    5.7. Tonic signaling

    Tonic signaling—defined as chronic signaling through a receptor—can result in poor functional performance, cell exhaustion,and reduced persistence in vivo [150]. It can occur in either a ligand-dependent or ligand-independent manner, and may be instigated by activation of either the CAR or the native TCR. CD28 CARs exhibit a constitutive basal level of phosphorylation of the CD3ζ chain in their resting state, which renders them prone to exhaustion[95].Somewhat reassuringly,Noyan et al.[3]explicitly reported no tonic signaling within their HLA-A2-specific CD28 CAR-Tregs in their allogeneic transplant model,which would have been detectable through cell proliferation and signalling through the nuclear factor of activated T cells (NFAT) pathway without antigen stimulation. Nevertheless, further research is needed to support this result.The inclusion of a 4-1BB costimulatory domain has previously been reported to attenuate tonic signaling and hence reduce exhaustion in CAR-T cells [151]. However, others have counteracted this by showing that retroviral transduction of T cells with a 4-1BB CAR can lead to tonic signaling, reduced expansion, and impaired functionality [152]. Tonic signaling has been reduced by targeting the CAR sequence to the TRAC locus rather than to CD4, leading to greater persistence in vivo (which may be attributable to a decrease in cell activation events)[122,153]. Yet, as emphasized earlier in this review, disruption or downregulation of the TCR has consequences for the functionality of the Treg subset, so the CAR must be carefully targeted to avoid the loss of TRAC gene functionality.

    5.8. Drug interactions

    Achieving a tolerogenic environment exclusively with CARTregs is the ideal scenario for cellular therapy. It is, however,unclear at present whether an allogeneic response can be fully prevented without the aid of low-dose immunosuppressants.Consequently,it is important to identify the impacts of any pharmacologic drugs on the activity of the CAR-Tregs. Several categories of immunosuppressive agents act by targeting the IL-2 signaling pathway; these include basiliximab and calcineurin inhibitors[154–156]. Tregs are dependent on EC sources of IL-2 for survival and expansion,since(unlike Tconvs)they are incapable of producing IL-2 themselves, and there has been understandable concern over certain drugs potentially interfering with the Treg population in transplant recipients. Interestingly, multiple studies have reported that the short-term use of basiliximab, as per its role as an induction therapy, does not prevent the long-term persistence or the functionality of CD4+CD25+FOXP3+Tregs[155,157].

    6. Considerations for commercial CAR-Treg production

    6.1. Safety switches

    The autonomy of therapeutic cells can lead to serious side effects that are difficult to control inside the patient. Given the largely undetermined dynamics of CAR-Tregs in vivo, it is important to include a safety mechanism by which these cells can be selectively deactivated or destroyed in the case of an adverse event during clinical trials and beyond.Published CAR-Treg studies have focused on immunosuppressive potential and have not yet explored safety strategies; however, these require careful consideration before the transition to in-human use.To allow for the external manipulation of infused CAR-Tregs,safety switches or suicide genes could be included either as part of the CAR or as a co-expressed molecule.The most extensively developed systems are based on genedirected enzyme prodrug therapy(GDEPT),inducible dimerization,and mAb depletion [158]. While the aforementioned methods are highly valuable in situations of serious adverse events, their effectiveness results in the irretrievable loss of therapeutic cells. This represents a loss not only of therapeutic benefit to the patient,but also of the time and costs associated with generating these cells.Alternatively, a reversible safety switch could provide a means of deactivating CAR-Tregs without destroying them. Research efforts are increasingly focusing on safety systems that do not result in instantaneous cell death, leading to innovations such as UniCAR technology and similar systems [159–161]. This is a better option in situations where destruction of the CAR+cells is not desirable.By stopping administration of the activating drug, CAR expression will be temporarily inactivated until re-administration.

    From a transplantation perspective, one critique of these‘‘on-switch” systems is that they are disadvantageous for their dependency on the repeated administration of small-molecule drugs to maintain CAR activation. While this is acceptable for applications in which only short-term therapy is envisaged (e.g.,anti-cancer therapy), it is less suitable for transplant recipients requiring lifelong intervention of the immune system. This is also a reason why pharmacologic drugs are losing favor; the risk of non-adherence becomes more likely,and the costs associated with lifelong medication pose a heavy financial burden. An answer to this problem may lie in the tetracycline-responsive transcription(Tet-Off) system, whereby the gene of interest is expressed constitutively under the control of a tetracycline-controlled transactivator and tet operator sequences[162,163].Upon delivery of either tetracycline or doxycycline, the transactivator cannot bind to the operator sequences,and gene transcription is inhibited in a reversible manner [163]. Placing the CAR sequence under the control of a Tet-Off system would satisfy the need for a safety system while sparing the cells from irreversible destruction, and would present less of a burden to transplant patients.

    6.2. Financial cost

    At their current price range, the widespread application of CAR therapies could generate a financial strain on healthcare systems and might deter health insurance providers from covering the cost of infusion in countries without universal healthcare[164].At present, approved CAR therapies are offered only to a highly specific subset of patients suffering from relapsed or refractory disease,who have not responded to other treatments and who fulfil the age criteria [70]. In the context of transplantation, it is difficult to envisage how the cost will be managed if CAR-Tregs are approved as an immunosuppressive therapy.The‘‘last-resort”status of antitumor CAR-Tconvs is not applicable to transplantation, where it is hoped that Treg-mediated suppression will replace or partially substitute for pharmacologic drugs. While the benefits of HLAspecific, cell-based therapy are clear enough to envision that they will one day fulfil this role, the financial sustainability of lifelong immunosuppression is an important consideration.It is not certain how frequently CAR-Tregs will need to be administered. Largescale manufacturing of CAR products—autologous or allogeneic—may bring down the cost per infusion.

    6.3. Optimizing dosage

    One of the remaining questions regarding therapeutic application of CAR-Tregs is the quantity of cells required to achieve tolerance. Dosage varies greatly between studies and, at this point, the optimum number of cells per infusion remains debatable. It has been estimated from mouse models that a ratio of Tregs:Tconvs of at least 1:2 (33% Tregs out of the total CD4+T cells) is needed to prevent acute rejection of solid organ transplants [165]. This percentage of Tregs in the allograft cannot be maintained indefinitely,but having such a high proportion at the time of transplantation can establish a tolerogenic environment for a longer period through the mechanisms of bystander suppression and infectious tolerance [165]. Based on the assumption that an individual has 5 × 109CD4+T cells in the peripheral blood, with an average of 5%(2.5×108)of these being Tregs,an infusion of 4.9×1010Tregs would be required to achieve this ratio without lymphodepletion of Tconvs [165]. This would be a difficult number to achieve even with ex vivo expansion, so it can be argued that a combination of lymphodepletion and Treg infusion is the favorable strategy. With thymoglobulin lymphodepletion treatment,the Treg dose could be reduced to as low as 3 × 109–5 × 109cells [165].

    However, the elevated potency of Tregs with predefined specificity may reduce the number of cells needed for infusion. CARTregs are capable of localizing preferentially to the allograft due to their scFv-derived binding site;therefore,the number of tolerogenic cells that infiltrate the graft will be increased. Further research is required to investigate this possibility, as well as the optimal frequency of CAR-Treg doses.

    7. Summary and future perspectives

    CARs are rapidly taking over the field of immunotherapy as their value as a potential tool for immune modulation gains recognition. The efficacy of CAR-Tregs in early murine studies—where they were shown to prevent symptoms of solid organ rejection to a greater extent than their polyclonal counterparts—is a strong argument that this technology is deserving of intense research efforts.Existing studies describing the generation of CAR-Tregs for the purpose of transplant tolerance have established the tolerogenic activity of CAR-Tregs and the antigen preference of the scFv, and have provided some information on persistence in vivo; nevertheless,other questions remain for long-term CAR-Treg therapy.

    There is a fundamental need to expand the longevity of CARTregs in vivo. Data indicate that CARs bearing the commonly used CD28 costimulatory domain have sufficient suppressive capacity to prevent allograft rejection in vivo but exhibit reduced persistence,which may be attributed to a basal level of activation leading to earlier exhaustion, as previously discussed. It is necessary to explore combinations of other costimulatory domains and establish their effects on activation, proliferation, and tonic signaling in Tregs. Longer persistence means a greater timespan between infusions, which reduces the patient’s medication burden and the manufacturing costs associated with generating fresh batches of CAR-Tregs.

    The major barrier that remains to be overcome is the unknown safety profile of HLA-specific CAR-Tregs in vivo. Despite the approval of two CAR-based therapies for cancer therapy by the FDA and the EMA, the outcomes of clinical trials have demonstrated several issues regarding the safety of CAR therapy.Although no clinical trials have taken place so far that could provide a report on the adverse effects of CAR-Tregs in humans,observations made through conventional CAR-T cell therapy may be used to create a repertoire of the potential side effects to be expected. Yet the unique functions of the Treg subset may pose a novel array of issues in the context of transplantation that have not yet been identified; for example, bystander suppression and the creation of a tolerant milieu may facilitate the survival of pathogens and malignant cells, causing long-term effects similar to those experienced under conventional immunosuppressive agents. A thorough examination of potential adverse effects, optimum dosage, and timing for adoptive transfer is therefore crucial before this field can progress beyond preclinical studies. If safety issues can be mitigated, and if further research is completed to improve our understanding of the behavior and dynamics of CAR-Tregs in vivo, then the therapeutic benefits of HLA-specific CARs are a reason for great optimism for their application in transplantation.

    Acknowledgments

    Fadi Issa is a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development(CRCD)Fellow.Work relevant to this review is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (RESHAPE, 825392) to Joanna Hester and Fadi Issa.Sabrina Wright is supported by the Restore Research Trust.

    Compliance with ethics guidelines

    Sabrina Wright, Conor Hennessy, Joanna Hester, and Fadi Issa declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial conflicts to disclose.

    日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 青春草国产在线视频| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 色哟哟·www| 草草在线视频免费看| 日本av免费视频播放| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 亚洲成色77777| 国产在线免费精品| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 成人二区视频| 99九九在线精品视频| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 蜜桃在线观看..| 91精品国产九色| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久久久精品94久久精品| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 97超碰精品成人国产| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 中国国产av一级| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 一区二区av电影网| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 国产在线免费精品| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 久久久久久久久久成人| av在线播放精品| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 男女免费视频国产| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 搡老乐熟女国产| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 成人免费观看视频高清| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产av精品麻豆| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产一级毛片在线| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 性色avwww在线观看| 天堂8中文在线网| 一级a做视频免费观看| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 | 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产男女内射视频| 七月丁香在线播放| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 国产成人freesex在线| 午夜免费观看性视频| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 久久久久久久国产电影| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 色94色欧美一区二区| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 如何舔出高潮| 99热6这里只有精品| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 天堂8中文在线网| 在线观看国产h片| 国产片内射在线| 午夜久久久在线观看| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 91国产中文字幕| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 少妇高潮的动态图| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 成人手机av| 男女边摸边吃奶| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 亚洲中文av在线| 久久av网站| 亚洲精品一二三| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 精品视频人人做人人爽| av在线老鸭窝| 日日啪夜夜爽| 亚洲不卡免费看| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 久久久精品区二区三区| a级毛色黄片| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 简卡轻食公司| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 在线 av 中文字幕| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 22中文网久久字幕| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 一本一本综合久久| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 亚洲四区av| 久久久久精品性色| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲精品第二区| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 丝袜喷水一区| 大香蕉久久网| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 国产在视频线精品| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 国产 精品1| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 超碰97精品在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 97在线人人人人妻| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 美女中出高潮动态图| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 最近手机中文字幕大全| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 91精品国产九色| 91精品国产九色| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 久久久久久久国产电影| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 全区人妻精品视频| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| kizo精华| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 九九在线视频观看精品| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 日本免费在线观看一区| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 国产成人精品无人区| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 男人操女人黄网站| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 久久青草综合色| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲国产精品999| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 满18在线观看网站| 黑人高潮一二区| 精品久久久久久电影网| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡 | 日本欧美国产在线视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 久久婷婷青草| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产综合精华液| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 亚洲在久久综合| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 久久av网站| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 亚州av有码| 中国国产av一级| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产成人一区二区在线| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 欧美性感艳星| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 亚洲综合色网址| av卡一久久| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| av视频免费观看在线观看| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 熟女av电影| 国产精品一国产av| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 精品少妇内射三级| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 飞空精品影院首页| tube8黄色片| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 99热网站在线观看| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 秋霞伦理黄片| 91久久精品电影网| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 亚洲国产av新网站| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 免费av中文字幕在线| 亚洲综合精品二区| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 久久av网站| kizo精华| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看 | 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 国产精品 国内视频| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国产成人freesex在线| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 老女人水多毛片| 五月开心婷婷网| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产成人精品在线电影| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 一级片'在线观看视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 97超碰精品成人国产| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 成年av动漫网址| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 色哟哟·www| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 国产毛片在线视频| 91国产中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 国产亚洲最大av| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 22中文网久久字幕| 99九九在线精品视频| 久久av网站| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 精品少妇内射三级| av专区在线播放| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 日本91视频免费播放| 免费观看av网站的网址| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 一级片'在线观看视频| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精 国产伦在线观看视频一区 | 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 国产探花极品一区二区| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 天天影视国产精品| 91久久精品电影网| 国产综合精华液| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产片内射在线| 国产一级毛片在线| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| av免费在线看不卡| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 91精品三级在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 一级毛片我不卡| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 午夜福利,免费看| 亚洲av.av天堂| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 国产片内射在线| 飞空精品影院首页| av有码第一页| 成人国语在线视频| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 精品久久久精品久久久| 久热这里只有精品99| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 视频区图区小说| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 黄色配什么色好看| 久久久国产一区二区| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 黄片播放在线免费| 丝袜喷水一区| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 97超视频在线观看视频| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 黄片播放在线免费| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 99久久综合免费| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 22中文网久久字幕| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 色94色欧美一区二区| 夫妻午夜视频| 自线自在国产av| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 韩国av在线不卡| 老司机影院毛片| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产一级毛片在线| 日本黄大片高清| 国产综合精华液| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 日本与韩国留学比较| 国产在视频线精品| 亚洲性久久影院| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 性色av一级| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 久久97久久精品| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产成人av激情在线播放 | 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 桃花免费在线播放| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 久久免费观看电影| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 日韩强制内射视频| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 亚洲国产色片| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| av在线老鸭窝| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 久久久欧美国产精品| 久久久国产一区二区| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 日本与韩国留学比较| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 日本黄色片子视频| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 欧美性感艳星| 精品久久久噜噜| 精品久久久久久电影网| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 免费观看性生交大片5| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 99热6这里只有精品| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 午夜激情av网站| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 五月开心婷婷网| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| kizo精华| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 久久狼人影院| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 美女国产视频在线观看| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| av福利片在线| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 成人二区视频| 日本av免费视频播放| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 永久网站在线| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 国产极品天堂在线| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 一区二区av电影网| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 在线观看三级黄色| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 人人澡人人妻人| 国产探花极品一区二区| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产在线免费精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 人人澡人人妻人| 免费看光身美女| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 久久影院123| 亚洲无线观看免费| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 一级毛片我不卡| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲四区av| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 国产成人aa在线观看| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 国产精品一国产av| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 久久久久久久久大av| 丁香六月天网| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产 精品1| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 |