T cell optimization for graft-versus-leukemia responses

Protection from relapse after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is partly due to donor T cell–mediated graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) immune responses. Relapse remains common in HCT recipients, but strategies to augment GVL could significantly improve outcomes after HCT. Donor T cells with αβ T cell receptors (TCRs) mediate GVL through recognition of minor histocompatibility antigens and alloantigens in HLA-matched and -mismatched HCT, respectively. αβ T cells specific for other leukemia-associated antigens, including nonpolymorphic antigens and neoantigens, may also deliver an antileukemic effect. γδ T cells may contribute to GVL, although their biology and specificity are less well understood. Vaccination or adoptive transfer of donor-derived T cells with natural or transgenic receptors are strategies with potential to selectively enhance αβ and γδ T cell GVL effects.

T cells with αβ TCRs represent the majority of mature postthymic human CD3⁺ T cells, recognize peptide antigens presented in association with HLA class I or II molecules, and serve a number of functions, including production of cytokines and cytolytic granules in response to virus-infected and malignant cells. αβ T cells can be divided into CD8⁺CD3⁺ and CD4⁺CD3⁺ subsets, each of which is composed of phenotypically, functionally, epigenetically, and metabolically diverse T cell pools (Table 1), including antigen-inexperienced Tn cells, antigen-experienced memory T cells (Tm) (26), and others such as Tregs, T follicular helper cells, and tissue-resident memory T cells (27–29). Because minor H antigens are the molecular target of GVHD-initiating donor T cells in MHC-matched HCT, Tn cells should have greater potential to cause GVHD than Tm, a hypothesis supported by studies performed in murine GVHD models by the Shlomchik group and others (25, 30–36). In vitro studies of human cells confirmed a higher frequency of minor H antigen–specific T cells among Tn than Tm (37). Moreover, single-arm clinical trials of Tn-depleted peripheral blood stem cell HLA-matched HCT demonstrated substantially lower rates of chronic GVHD than concurrent controls (9% versus 50%) and a trend toward lower rates of severe acute GVHD (38).

Table 1

Key T cell subsets in GVL and GVHD and their characteristics

Minor H antigens and GVL

Minor H antigen–specific T cells within the Tn population have potent GVL activity. Most minor H antigens are ubiquitously expressed, including on epithelial tissues, and thereby also trigger GVHD. However, some minor H antigens are expressed predominantly or exclusively on hematopoietic cells. As the hematopoietic system in an HCT recipient is primarily of donor origin and donor hematopoietic cells do not present recipient minor H antigens, donor T cells specific for hematopoietically restricted recipient minor H antigens can mediate GVL without GVHD or damage to the normal donor–derived hematopoietic system after HCT (39). Conventional unmanipulated HCT involves the transfer of donor T cells that target both hematopoietically restricted minor H antigens (selective GVL) and ubiquitously expressed minor H antigens (GVL and GVHD). In Tn-depleted HCT, the transfer of donor minor H antigen–targeting T cells is substantially reduced. However, a recent study in murine HCT models demonstrated that newly generated CD8⁺ T cells specific for hematopoietically restricted minor H antigens can evade full thymic deletion, and deletion-escapee T cells can mediate GVL in recipients of hematopoietically restricted minor H antigen–mismatched HCT (40). This finding may explain why relapse does not appear to be increased and GVL can be separated from serious GVHD in Tn-depleted HCT.

We and others are investigating whether administration of additional hematopoietically restricted minor H antigen–specific T cells with or after HCT can further augment GVL (41–43). We developed T cell immunotherapy employing donor Tm transduced with a lentiviral vector encoding a TCR specific for the hematopoietically restricted minor H antigen HA-1 (41) (Figure 3A), and are currently evaluating this approach in a phase I clinical trial for the treatment of post-HCT MRD or relapse (NCT03326921). Other approaches to augmenting HCT grafts for antileukemic activity include isolation of T cells targeting HA-1 and other LAAs using Streptamer technology to infuse very small numbers of unmanipulated antigen-specific T cells (44, 45), or infusion of minor H antigen–specific T cell lines or clones (NCT03091933) (46, 47) (Figure 3B). Previously, Warren and colleagues infused T cell clones specific for minor H antigens into recipients of HLA-matched sibling donor HCT who developed post-HCT relapse (46) and observed complete remissions (CRs) in 5 of 7 patients. However, the CRs were transient, probably due to limited persistence of minor H antigen–specific T cell clones that were cultured in vitro for many weeks. Greater success is expected for strategies that target well-characterized hematopoietically restricted minor H antigens and use contemporary methods to rapidly produce genetically modified T cells targeting the antigen of interest (41). While current clinical trials targeting minor H antigens are evaluating minor H antigen–specific T cells as treatment for post-HCT leukemia recurrence to establish the T cell product safety profile, a longer-term goal is to deliver hematopoietically restricted minor H antigen–specific T cells with or soon after the HCT graft (Figure 3A) to augment GVL and prevent relapse.

Figure 3

Strategies to augment donor LAA– and/or minor H antigen–specific T cell immunity. (A) Generation of transgenic antigen-specific T cells. Donor leukocytes are collected, enriched for Tm by CD45RA depletion or selection of virus-specific cells, transduced to express a transgenic TCR specific for a defined minor H antigen or LAA, purified, expanded, and infused into the recipient at the time of HCT or subsequently. The box depicts a schematic of transgenic TCR development (left to right): a T cell clone with a well-characterized high-affinity hematopoietically restricted minor H antigen– or LAA-specific TCR is identified and the α and β chains of the TCR are sequenced, and then cloned into a viral vector for transfer. (B) Primary in vitro stimulation of antigen-specific T cells. Donor leukocytes are stimulated with antigen-presenting cells (APCs) pulsed with peptides for one or multiple LAAs and/or minor H antigens to produce a T cell product with an expanded population of LAA- and/or minor H antigen–specific effector T cells for infusion into the recipient with or without additional enrichment. (C) In vivo expansion of antigen-specific T cells using vaccination. Donors are vaccinated against one or multiple LAAs and/or minor H antigens several months before HCT, using peptide- or cell-based vaccines, to allow formation of Tcm responses against the antigens. Antigen-specific Tcm are then transferred either with the PBSC graft at the time of HCT, or as DLI after HCT, with or without additional manipulation (e.g., further enrichment of Tcm or depletion of CD45RA⁺ cells) to reduce the risk of GVHD. Illustrated by Rachel Davidowitz.

An alternative approach to amplify the number of minor H antigen–specific T cells delivered to the patient would be to vaccinate the HCT donor against minor H antigens to generate a Tm response, and then infuse Tm, including minor H antigen–specific Tm, at the time of or after HCT (Figure 3C). Using a murine model, the Shlomchik group demonstrated that vaccination of donors with recipient minor H antigens and subsequent infusion of donor Tm transferred leukemia- and pathogen-specific immunity to murine bone marrow transplantation (BMT) recipients (48). The transferred Tm expanded markedly after BMT and augmented GVL. The effect required expression of the antigen on the leukemic cells but induced little GVHD, even when antigen was ubiquitously expressed in the recipient. However, GVL was diminished when the targeted minor H antigen was ubiquitous. Ultimately, donor vaccination and transfer of donor Tm, including hematopoietically restricted minor H antigen–specific Tm, may be a relatively simple and inexpensive alternative to adding back genetically modified or selected and cultured minor H antigen–specific T cells. One caveat is that donors must be vaccinated months before the intended infusion to allow the generation of Tcm. Clinical trials of vaccination of HCT recipients against minor H antigens have been completed without excess toxicity, providing reassurance of probable safety in HCT donors, although the observed efficacy of vaccinating HCT recipients was limited (49, 50). Small studies have shown that vaccinating HCT donors against neoantigens and other tumor antigens before HCT for patients with multiple myeloma is safe and potentially efficacious, setting a precedent for this type of strategy (51).

One challenge common to strategies targeting minor H antigens to augment GVL is the need to identify adequate numbers of hematopoietically restricted minor H antigens presented by diverse HLA types. Over 100 HLA class I– or II–restricted human minor H antigens have been identified and at least partially characterized. Of these, less than 10 appear to be highly hematopoietically restricted. However, many more suitable minor H antigens are likely yet to be discovered, given the large number of total nonsynonymous SNPs with a variant allele frequency between 0.1 and 0.9 across the human genome, a significant minority of which are encoded by genes with predominantly hematopoietically restricted expression. For example, Lansford et al. performed an in silico analysis to predict minor H antigens in a cohort of 101 HLA-matched HCT recipient donor pairs and identified 102 peptides with desirable properties for public, leukemia-associated minor H antigens, specifically (a) predicted high binding affinity to a common HLA molecule; (b) RNA expression in AML, but not in GVHD target organs; and (c) optimal allele frequencies to allow minor mismatches to be common (52). A proportion of these candidates would be expected to be naturally processed and presented on HLA molecules in leukemic cells and to elicit a T cell response. Of note, the Falkenburg group demonstrated that, in addition to tissue specificity, the magnitude and diversity of the immune response influence the balance between GVHD and GVL (53). Specifically, the investigators characterized alloreactive CD8⁺ T cell responses in recipients of pan-TCD HLA-matched HCT who achieved CR and/or full donor chimerism after donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI). The frequency and diversity of minor H antigen–specific CD8⁺ T cells were lower in patients with selective GVL compared with those with GVHD. Moreover, although activated and alloreactive T cells in patients with selective GVL were more likely to recognize minor H antigens that were presented only on hematopoietic tissue and not on a representative nonhematopoietic tissue, there were exceptions. These results imply that, from a safety perspective, minor H antigens targeted with T cells to augment GVL may not need to be absolutely hematopoietically restricted, particularly if T cell infusion occurs after the proinflammatory period immediately after HCT.

Class II–restricted, fairly ubiquitously expressed minor H antigens may be worth investigating for their potential to elicit selective GVL, given that HLA class II molecules are generally expressed at relatively low levels on nonhematopoietic cells under noninflammatory conditions; a recent publication suggests this approach has merit (54). Specifically, the authors observed that CD4⁺ DLI from HLA-identical sibling donors could induce conversion from mixed to full donor chimerism in 4 HCT recipients, with GVL reactivity but without GVHD, by targeting HLA class II–restricted minor H antigens, some of which were associated with genes expressed in nonhematopoietic cells. However, T cells specific for ubiquitously expressed minor H antigens may be more prone to activation-induced cell death and/or T cell exhaustion after adoptive transfer compared with those specific for hematopoietically restricted minor H antigens and were less effective at mediating GVL in murine studies (48, 55). Moreover, HLA class II gene expression is often downregulated on leukemic cells after HCT, which could limit the utility of targeting HLA class II–restricted minor H antigens to augment GVL (56, 57).

Alloantigens and GVL

In HLA-mismatched HCT, alloreactive donor T cells directly or indirectly recognize discrepant recipient HLA molecules or complexes of peptide and discrepant recipient HLA, thereby mediating both GVHD and GVL. Alloreactive T cells contribute substantially to GVL in HLA-mismatched HCT, as evidenced by the dominant immune escape mechanism of uniparental disomy that contributes to relapse in mismatched HCT (58). HLA class II–restricted alloantigens have been examined for their potential to elicit selective GVL, because these molecules are expressed at relatively low levels in nonhematopoietic tissue under noninflammatory conditions (59–62). Although HLA class II–mismatched HCT is associated with GVHD and there are certainly HLA-DR–, HLA-DQ–, and HLA-DP–specific T cells that recognize both hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic tissues, the HLA-DP–restricted T cell repertoire also contains CD4⁺ T cells with a restricted tissue recognition pattern, including HLA-DP–restricted T cells that respond to primary AML but not to other cell types (59). Thus, some HLA-DP–specific T cells may contribute to GVL without GVHD. As for class II–restricted minor H antigens, a possible barrier to effectively targeting mismatched DP molecules is downregulation of class II gene expression after HCT, which occurs in approximately 50% of post-HCT relapses (56, 57). Although downregulated HLA class II expression on leukemic cells can be reversed by IFN-γ treatment, IFN-γ also increases HLA on normal nonhematopoietic tissue. Thus, the therapeutic window for augmenting GVL by targeting a select set of class II alloantigens is narrow.

Nonpolymorphic antigens and neoantigens

Donor-derived αβ T cells have the potential to respond to other classes of LAAs, including self-antigens overexpressed on hematopoietic cells, cancer-testis antigens (CTAs), and neoantigens. Although there are documented examples of donor-derived T cell responses to certain overexpressed antigens and CTA after HCT, little is known about the prevalence and repertoire of donor-derived T cell responses to these classes of LAAs or the contribution of neoantigen-specific T cells in HCT.

Overexpressed antigens derive from wild-type proteins with relatively abundant expression in malignant cells. Wilm’s tumor 1 (WT1) is a well-studied example that is highly expressed in acute leukemias (63) but limited in normal CD34⁺ HSCs and other tissues. Donor-derived WT1-specific T cells have been observed in vivo after HCT and DLI (64–69). Adoptive transfer of donor-derived in vitro–stimulated (70) or TCR-transduced (71) CD8⁺ T cells specific for an HLA-A*02:01–restricted WT1 epitope reduced post-HCT AML relapse in phase I studies. PR1 is an immunogenic HLA-A*02:01–restricted epitope produced from elastase and proteinase-3, which are abundantly expressed in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) (72). Circulating donor-derived PR1-specific CD8⁺ T cells were detected in CML patients achieving CR after HCT (73) and in an AML patient after HCT and DLI (69). PR1-specific T cells engineered with a synthetic receptor that binds the peptide-HLA complex are in development (74). Immune responses against other overexpressed antigens CML28 (75), CML66/NUDCD1 (76–78), NuSAP1 (79), survivin (69), and others (80) arising after HCT and DLI suggest additional potential therapeutic targets.

CTAs are normally expressed only in germline tissues but are aberrantly expressed by malignant cells. Donor-derived responses to an HLA-A*02:01–restricted epitope of the CTA preferentially expressed antigen of melanoma (PRAME) have been identified after HCT (81) and DLI (69, 82). The use of in vitro–stimulated HCT donor T cells against PRAME and other LAAs (WT1, NY-ESO-1, and survivin) for prevention or treatment of relapse after HCT is under investigation (NCT02494167, NCT02203903, and NCT02475707).

Compared with solid tumors, leukemias have relatively few protein-coding mutations and gene fusions (83), corresponding with few potential neoantigens. However, neoantigens could still play a critical role in effective GVL responses, as donor T cell responses directed against an epitope derived from a single driver mutation or fusion essential for the malignant phenotype could eradicate the founding clone (84). CD8⁺ T cell responses to neoantigens derived from patient-specific mutations were detected after HCT in 2 patients who achieved durable remissions from chronic lymphocytic leukemia in one study (85). In another case report, T cells binding nucleophosmin (NPM1) mutation–associated peptide/HLA tetramers were detected in a patient after DLI and HSC boosts for molecular recurrence of NPM1⁺ AML (86). These cases suggest that further investigation into post-HCT neoantigen responses is warranted. Recently, normal donor T cells specific for a neoantigen derived from mutations in NPM1 were discovered (87), and the corresponding TCRs are being employed to develop TCR T cell immunotherapy, which could be delivered before or after HCT to prevent relapse (Figure 3A). Phosphoantigens (pAgs), peptides derived from HLA-binding cancer phosphoproteins, are a type of neoantigen with potential broad applicability in hematologic malignancies, as some are expressed in acute leukemias but not normal tissues (88). Cobbold and colleagues demonstrated responses to pAgs in normal donors and HCT recipients but generally not in patients with AML prior to HCT, suggesting that pAg-specific T cell responses may contribute to GVL, with potential for augmentation.

Using donor-derived T cells may facilitate targeting neoantigens in acute leukemias, especially AML, where recipient T cells may be tolerized or suppressed (87). Infusion of donor-derived T cells targeting neoantigens to HCT is starting to be explored clinically. For example, Comoli and colleagues transferred in vitro–stimulated ^p190BCR-ABL1–specific donor CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells to 2 patients with Ph⁺-ALL and molecular MRD or morphological relapse following HCT, administration of DLI, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors; ^p190BCR-ABL1–specific T cell transfer showed possible antileukemic activity (89). As next-generation sequencing technology decreases in cost and whole-exome sequencing or targeted mutation screening becomes a standard of care for acute leukemia, more personalized or semipersonalized T cell immunotherapies targeting HCT recipient neoantigens with donor T cells are likely to be evaluated in clinical trials.

αβ T cells modified to express CARs

Immunotherapy employing T cells genetically modified to express a CD19-targeting CAR has demonstrated efficacy in ALL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (90–92). CAR T cells targeting other cell surface molecules show promise for treating hematological malignancies in preclinical studies and early clinical trials (92). In the context of HCT, donor-originated T cells can be obtained by apheresis from HCT recipients or directly from the HCT donor, and then modified with CAR, with or without additional strategies to mitigate GVHD risk (93–100). Although CAR T cells are currently being investigated to treat disease relapse, they could also be infused prophylactically at the time of HCT to augment an antileukemic effect. Some groups are piloting this approach in the context of pan-TCD HCT. Incorporating CAR-modified T cells or transgenic TCRs in HCT grafts could deliver a potent antileukemic effect and be particularly advantageous for patients undergoing HCT with refractory or relapsed disease. However, avoiding toxicity while preserving the advantages of the polyclonal, multispecific T cell response inherent to HCT will be a challenge. Specifically, CAR T cells delivered with T cell–replete HCT could promote GVHD. For example, inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 are elevated in patients with CAR T cell–associated cytokine-release syndrome (101, 102), and IL-6 contributes to the acute GVHD pathogenesis (102–104). If single-specificity CAR T cells are delivered in the context of pan-TCD HCT, opportunistic infections and leukemia escape by downregulation of the target molecule would be predicted. Ultimately, development of a multispecific hematopoietic cell graft incorporating CAR and/or TCR T cells will require sophisticated graft engineering.

Failure of GVL delivered by αβ T cells

HCT recipients may sustain remissions that last years after HCT but then relapse, consistent with the existence but ultimate failure of GVL activity. A growing body of literature reports several mechanisms of GVL failure, including adaptations of residual leukemic cells to evade T cell control and T cell changes consistent with increasing functional impairment over time in some HCT recipients (105–107). Understanding the mechanisms of GVL failure should enable the development of strategies to promote durable GVL.

Loss or repression of HLA genes. As αβ T cells recognize peptide antigens presented in association with HLA molecules, genomic HLA loss or downregulation of HLA expression after HCT are potential mechanisms of leukemia escape from donor T cell control. Genomic loss of mismatched HLA can occur through copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity, also known as uniparental disomy, in the context of HLA-mismatched HCT, such that mismatched HLA molecules are lost without decreasing the overall levels of HLA class I expression. Acquired uniparental disomy occurs in leukemic cells in approximately 30% of patients who relapse after haploidentical HCT (58). Genomic HLA loss has also been reported after HLA-matched HCT in some studies (108–110). The potential for genomic HLA loss after HLA-mismatched HCT should be considered in designing strategies to augment GVL. For example, employing T cells that target an epitope presented on an HLA allele that is shared between a donor and recipient is likely to be more advantageous than targeting an epitope on the nonshared HLA that has a high probability of being deleted and replaced.

Downregulation of HLA class II expression on leukemic cells is another mechanism of escape after HLA-matched and mismatched HCT (56). Using RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq), Christopher and colleagues observed that most HCT recipients who relapsed demonstrated a 3- to 12-fold reduction in HLA class II gene expression. At the protein level, class II downregulation was apparent by flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry in 17 of 34 HCT recipients. IFN-γ exposure could reverse class II downregulation, suggesting epigenetic regulation of class II molecules as an escape mechanism. Interestingly, there was no significant downregulation of HLA class I expression. Similarly, Toffalori and colleagues found that transcripts for HLA class II and the class II regulator CIITA were downregulated in AML blasts at post-HCT relapse and confirmed loss of HLA-DR and HLA-DP surface expression in 7 of 33 relapses, without HLA class I downregulation (57). Collectively, these studies imply that CD4⁺ T cells specific for class II–restricted minor H antigens and possibly other LAAs play a major role in GVL, as the downregulation of class II molecules represents an adaptive response to immune pressure. We can also infer that employing T cells targeting class I–restricted LAAs to augment GVL may avoid this mechanism of escape. Additionally, IFN-γ is well known to upregulate HLA expression on cells, and two groups (56, 57) confirmed that IFN-γ exposure could restore class II expression on post-HCT leukemic cells in vitro, suggesting systemic IFN-γ administration may help maintain GVL. However, adjunctive IFN-γ therapy would carry a significant risk of GVHD induction, especially early after HCT (102, 111). Moreover, because IFN-γ also upregulates the expression of the inhibitory ligand PD-L1 on leukemic cells, it could also actually facilitate escape from GVL (111).

Upregulation of T cell inhibitory molecules. Alteration of cell surface molecules relevant to GVL on leukemic or T cells in patients experiencing post-HCT relapse has been described. Toffalori and colleagues examined transcriptional changes in AML blasts following HCT using genome-wide microarrays and observed downregulation of multiple activating ligand and adhesion molecules, such as LFA-1 (57). Upregulation of most inhibitory molecules in the AML blasts was not detected by microarrays, although a slightly higher proportion of cells expressed PD-L1. Interestingly, PD-L1 tended to be upregulated on AML blasts without downregulation of HLA class II molecules. Toffalori et al. also noted that PD-1 expression on T cells was increased in patients with post-HCT relapse compared with post-HCT patients in remission. All post-HCT groups had higher PD-1 expression on T cells than healthy volunteers. Similarly, Noviello and colleagues reported that, in patients who developed post-HCT AML relapse, more marrow-infiltrating Tcm and Tscm cells expressed PD-1 and other inhibitory receptors compared with those from patients in remission (112).

Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) administration to block T cell inhibitory receptors or their ligands has been evaluated extensively for patients with solid tumors and to a lesser extent for hematological malignancies in the non-HCT setting. Relatively little clinical data exists about CPI in the context of HCT (113–118), due to concerns about the risk of inducing severe GVHD. In one prospective study of the CTLA4 inhibitor ipilimumab in patients with relapsed hematological malignancies after HCT, 32% of patients achieved CR (23%) or partial response (9%), immune-related adverse events occurred in 21%, and GVHD, precluding further administration of ipilimumab, occurred in 14% (115). The median time from HCT to initial ipilimumab treatment was 675 days (range 198 to 1830) (115), so the risk of GVHD and immune-related adverse events may be higher in patients treated with CPI earlier after HCT. Additional clinical trials evaluating CPI in patients with leukemia, including those 6–12 weeks or more after HCT are ongoing (NCT02890329, NCT03600155). Combination strategies of CPI and hypomethylating agents are being evaluated in the clinic (119) and could represent a useful combination after HCT, as CPI may counter the upregulation of inhibitory molecules (e.g., PD-1, PL-L1) induced by hypomethylating agents (120), and hypomethylating agents may mitigate CPI-associated GVHD risk (121, 122).

γδ TCR–expressing T cells represent 1%–5% of all postthymic CD3⁺ T cells and participate in both innate and adaptive immunity (123). γδ T cells are similar to cytotoxic CD8⁺ T cells and NK cells, producing large amounts of IFN-γ and TNF-α, and can exert cytotoxic effects on microbial pathogens and malignant cells. Indeed, in single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) studies, γδ T cells cluster between CD8⁺ T cells and NK cells, reflecting a similar transcriptional profile (124). γδ T cells express CD16 and can induce antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). In addition, they can function as antigen-presenting cells (APCs), induce proliferation and IFN-γ production in αβ T cells, stimulate NK cell cytotoxicity, and induce MHC class I expression on tumor cells (125). In human tumors, a greater abundance of γδ T cells correlates with a favorable prognosis, and numerous studies demonstrate antileukemic activity by γδ T cells (126).

γδ T cells express somatically rearranged TCRs and can also be activated via NK cell receptors (NKRs), such as DNAM1 and NKG2D (127, 128). Although understanding of how γδ T cells recognize ligands is incomplete, γδ TCRs are known to bind soluble or membrane proteins and can bind CD1d on APCs presenting glycolipid and microbial lipids (128). Although some γδ T cells appear to recognize MHC peptide complexes (129, 130), their recognition of antigen is generally MHC independent such that HLA deletion or downregulation should not inhibit γδ T cell–mediated GVL. γδ T cells are divided into subsets (Vδ1, Vδ2, Vδ3, and Vδ5) based on the δ chain, (131), and further classified on the basis of γ chain expression. scRNA-seq shows that the two major γδ T cells subsets, Vδ1 and Vδ2, form close but distinct clusters, reflecting expression of shared and distinct genes, and are closely related to NK and CD8⁺ T cell subsets, respectively (124).

Vγ9δ2 T cells comprise the major γδ T cell subset in the peripheral blood (132) and are activated by nonpeptidic pyrophosphate pAgs, such as isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP), which is produced in the mevalonate pathway (133). In neoplastic cells, mevalonate dysregulation leads to overproduction and Vγ9δ2 T cell activation (127). The mevalonate pathway can be manipulated pharmacologically to activate Vγ9δ2 T cells using bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid (ZOL) (127). Recognition of pAg by γδ T cells depends on butyrophilin (BTN) family member A1 (BTN3A1, also known as CD277) and RhoB (134–136). Vγ9 receptor chains have restricted CDR3 sequences and many public clonotypes exist; Vδ2 is more diverse but requires specific hydrophobic amino acids at position 97 for pAg recognition (128).

Vδ1 T cells are the predominant γδ T cell type in epithelial tissues, where they recognize antigens from virus-infected and cancer cells (137). Like Vγ9δ2, Vδ1 T cells can be activated by their TCR or by NKR. Vδ1 T cells do not recognize pAgs and their TCR ligands remain largely unknown, although Vδ1 T cells can be activated through their TCR by members of the CD1 family (138). Interestingly, Vδ1 T cells that recognize the HLA-A*02:01–restricted MART1 antigen via their TCR have recently been described (129). Vδ1 T cells can also recognize tumor antigens via natural cytotoxicity receptors NKG2D (139), NKp30, and NKp44 (140). CMV-stimulated Vδ1 T cells also have antitumor reactivity (141, 142).

γδ T cells in HCT

After HCT, γδ T cells reconstitute within 30 to 60 days with a repertoire that remains quantitatively similar to normal adult γδ T cell repertoires but differs from the recipient’s pre-HCT repertoire and from the donor repertoire, indicating de novo generation in the recipient’s thymus (143). The γδ T cell repertoire remains stable after initial reconstitution, except in cases of CMV reactivation, during which some γδ T cell clones, mostly Vδ2^–Vγ9^– (Vδ1, Vδ3), undergo proliferation (143). In one study of 153 partially TCD HCT recipients with acute leukemia, an increased number of γδ T cells at day 60 or greater associated with improved 5-year DFS and OS, although relapse and GVHD did not differ significantly (144). In another report of 102 HCT recipients with leukemia, increased γδ T cell numbers associated with fewer infections and improved long-term event-free survival (145). γδ T cells may facilitate GVL but are unlikely to cause GVHD in humans, as the γδ T cell repertoire is not known to include alloantigen-specific T cells. Moreover, γδ T cells are generally not MHC restricted, do not proliferate in mixed lymphocyte cultures, and do not cause GVHD in murine HCT models, although they may participate in established GVHD (146–148).

γδ T cells in αβ-TCD HCT

One strategy to remove alloreactive T cells from the donor stem cell graft is αβ-TCD (Figure 2C), often coupled with depletion of CD19⁺ B cells, to avoid EBV posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. This approach retains γδ T cells and NK cells, which both have the potential to protect against opportunistic pathogens and deliver an antileukemic effect (149–155). The outcomes of patients who received haploidentical αβ-TCD grafts have been encouraging, with 3-year DFS, relapse, severe acute (grade III–IV), and extensive chronic GVHD rates of 62%, 29%, 0%, and 1%, respectively, in a retrospective analysis of 98 pediatric patients with leukemia (155). Immune reconstitution studies in patients receiving αβ-TCD grafts found that γδ T cells represent the predominant T cell subset in the first 3 months after HCT and have demonstrable antileukemic activity in vitro (153). Vδ2 is the predominant subtype, and naive Vδ2 T cells increase between day 20 and 90, reflecting generation from HSCs. Vδ1 cells expanded in vivo in response to CMV reactivation, and antileukemic activity was greater in Vδ1 T cells from patients with CMV reactivation (153). The same group studied administration of ZOL every 28 days to αβ-TCD graft recipients with leukemia. ZOL treatment associated with increased cytotoxicity of both Vδ1 and Vδ2 cells against primary leukemia blasts, and patients given more than 3 ZOL infusions had improved OS compared with those given 1–2 infusions, although without a reported effect on relapse (156).

Augmenting grafts for γδ T cells

As γδ T cells can be expanded in vivo and ex vivo from HSC donors and recipients, strategies to deliver more γδ T cells have been published (157–162) and are being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials (NCT04008381, NCT03533816, NCT03790072, and NCT03885076). γδ T cells can be transduced with CAR or αβ TCRs of known specificity to deliver enhanced antileukemic activity and avoid potential GVHD associated with allogeneic αβ TCR T cells (163, 164). Alternatively, pAg-reactive Vγ9δ2 TCR can be transduced into αβ TCR T cells to transfer antitumor reactivity. Engineered γδ TCR–expressing αβ T cells are designed to overcome the challenges of working with polyclonal Vγ9δ2 T cells that have variably avid TCRs and express multiple innate receptors, including inhibitory receptors (165–167). The transduced γδ TCR is reported to compete successfully with the endogenous αβ TCR for CD3, thus suppressing αβ TCR expression and mitigating the risk of alloreactivity without the need for αβ chain knockout. Novel bispecific nanobody–based constructs targeting both Vγ9Vδ2 T cells and tumor antigens are also being explored in preclinical studies and can induce potent Vγ9Vδ2 T cell activation (168).

Some potential concerns about using γδ T cells to augment GVL should be considered. γδ T cells have functional plasticity, including the ability to change their cytokine profile to secrete IL-17, which can directly promote tumor growth (127) and contribute to GVHD pathogenesis (125). γδ T cells have also been reported to transdifferentiate extrathymically into αβ T cells, and it is unclear whether transdifferentiated cells are free of GVHD-causing potential (169). Last, the small minority of γδ T cells that do recognize HLA-restricted peptide antigens could contribute to GVHD if they recognize alloantigens.

Since GVL was initially described in the 1970s, T cells have been identified as a driving force of this phenomenon. Much remains to be learned about T cell subsets and target antigens that underlie effective GVL responses, as well as the mechanisms by which leukemia can escape. The key question is, what is the most potent way to augment and sustain GVL without inducing detrimental GVHD? New tools to identify T cell antigens (170, 171) from TCR sequences in an unbiased manner could reveal new GVL targets and facilitate assessment of an antigen’s potential to induce toxicity. The results of clinical trials of graft engineering, vaccination, and adoptively transferred antigen-specific T cells will inform the therapeutic potential of specific antigens and classes of antigens. Advances in graft and T cell engineering will facilitate clinical translation of donor grafts and/or cell products that have undergone depletion or enrichment of cell populations, expansion of antigen-specific T cells, or engineering to induce expression of one or more specific receptors. New technology capable of advanced graft engineering including efficient enrichment of grafts with lymphocytes with antileukemic activity is under development (172). A clear definition of the mechanisms of immune escape and relapse after HCT will facilitate the successful implementation of therapeutic strategies to augment GVL, including the rational use of CPI. Ultimately, the ability to provide complete protection from post-HCT relapse and other causes of HCT failure will require development of a cohesive strategy that combines graft engineering to carefully craft the content of the donor product(s) administered during HCT and administration of other agents that can sustain the efficacy of beneficial T cells.

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI CA018029-42), Hyundai Hope on Wheels (TE 6705), and by a Stand Up To Cancer Innovative Research Grant (grant number SU2C-AACR-IRG 14-17). Stand Up To Cancer is a division of the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Research grants are administered by the American Association for Cancer Research, the scientific partner of SU2C. MAB received additional support from a National Cancer Institute Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology (5 K12 CA076930-18) and from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer.

Conflict of interest: M Bleakley is a Founder and Scientific Advisory Board member of HighPassBio, a Scientific Advisory Board member of Orca Bio, and has also received compensation from Miltenyi Biotec for presentations at conferences and corporate symposia.

Copyright: © 2020, American Society for Clinical Investigation.

Reference information: JCI Insight. 2020;5(9):e134939.https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.134939.

1. Kassim AA, Savani BN. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: A review. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017;10(4):245–251.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
2. DeFilipp Z, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation in the treatment of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: updated 2019 evidence-based review from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(11):2113–2123.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
3. Cornelissen JJ, et al. Results of a HOVON/SAKK donor versus no-donor analysis of myeloablative HLA-identical sibling stem cell transplantation in first remission acute myeloid leukemia in young and middle-aged adults: benefits for whom? Blood. 2007;109(9):3658–3666.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
4. Cornelissen JJ, et al. Myeloablative allogeneic versus autologous stem cell transplantation in adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission: a prospective sibling donor versus no-donor comparison. Blood. 2009;113(6):1375–1382.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
5. Buccisano F, Walter RB. Should patients with acute myeloid leukemia and measurable residual disease be transplanted in first complete remission? Curr Opin Hematol. 2017;24(2):132–138.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
6. Shouval R, et al. Outcomes of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation from HLA-matched and alternative donors: a European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry retrospective analysis. Lancet Haematol. 2019;6(11):e573–e584.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
7. Inamoto Y, et al. Influence of immunosuppressive treatment on risk of recurrent malignancy after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2011;118(2):456–463.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
8. Scott BL, et al. Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(11):1154–1161.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
9. Horowitz MM, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia reactions after bone marrow transplantation. Blood. 1990;75(3):555–562.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
10. Marmont AM, et al. T-cell depletion of HLA-identical transplants in leukemia. Blood. 1991;78(8):2120–2130.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
11. Weiden PL, et al. Antileukemic effect of graft-versus-host disease in human recipients of allogeneic-marrow grafts. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(19):1068–1073.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
12. Bleakley M, Riddell SR. Molecules and mechanisms of the graft-versus-leukaemia effect. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(5):371–380.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
13. Felix NJ, Allen PM. Specificity of T-cell alloreactivity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7(12):942–953.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
14. Geneugelijk K, Spierings E. Matching donor and recipient based on predicted indirectly recognizable human leucocyte antigen epitopes. Int J Immunogenet. 2018;45(2):41–53.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
15. Araki D, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: time to move toward a minimal residual disease-based definition of complete remission? J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(4):329–336.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
16. Bar M, et al. Impact of minimal residual disease, detected by flow cytometry, on outcome of myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leuk Res Treatment. 2014;2014:421723.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
17. Mielcarek M, Storer BE, Flowers ME, Storb R, Sandmaier BM, Martin PJ. Outcomes among patients with recurrent high-risk hematologic malignancies after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13(10):1160–1168.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
18. Bejanyan N, et al. Survival of patients with acute myeloid leukemia relapsing after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a center for international blood and marrow transplant research study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(3):454–459.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
19. Shah NN, et al. Feasibility of treating post-transplantation minimal residual disease in children with acute leukemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(7):1000–1007.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
20. de Jong G, et al. Survival of early posthematopoietic stem cell transplantation relapse of myeloid malignancies. Eur J Haematol. 2019;103(5):491–499.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
21. Craddock C, Hoelzer D, Komanduri KV. Current status and future clinical directions in the prevention and treatment of relapse following hematopoietic transplantation for acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54(1):6–16.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
22. Locatelli F, Pende D, Falco M, Della Chiesa M, Moretta A, Moretta L. NK cells mediate a crucial graft-versus-leukemia effect in haploidentical-HSCT to cure high-risk acute leukemia. Trends Immunol. 2018;39(7):577–590.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
23. Mavers M, Maas-Bauer K, Negrin RS. Invariant natural killer T cells as suppressors of graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Front Immunol. 2017;8:900.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
24. Handgretinger R, Schilbach K. The potential role of γδ T cells after allogeneic HCT for leukemia. Blood. 2018;131(10):1063–1072.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
25. Anderson BE, et al. Memory T cells in GVHD and GVL. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(1 Suppl 1):19–20.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
26. Farber DL, Yudanin NA, Restifo NP. Human memory T cells: generation, compartmentalization and homeostasis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14(1):24–35.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
27. Wing JB, Tanaka A, Sakaguchi S. Human FOXP3⁺ regulatory T cell heterogeneity and function in autoimmunity and cancer. Immunity. 2019;50(2):302–316.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
28. Crotty S. T Follicular helper cell biology: a decade of discovery and diseases. Immunity. 2019;50(5):1132–1148.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
29. Park SL, Gebhardt T, Mackay LK. Tissue-resident memory T cells in cancer immunosurveillance. Trends Immunol. 2019;40(8):735–747.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
30. Anderson BE, et al. Memory CD4⁺ T cells do not induce graft-versus-host disease. J Clin Invest. 2003;112(1):101–108.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
31. Zhang Y, et al. Dendritic cell-activated CD44^hiCD8⁺ T cells are defective in mediating acute graft-versus-host disease but retain graft-versus-leukemia activity. Blood. 2004;103(10):3970–3978.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
32. Chen BJ, Cui X, Sempowski GD, Liu C, Chao NJ. Transfer of allogeneic CD62L^- memory T cells without graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2004;103(4):1534–1541.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
33. Dutt S, et al. Naive and memory T cells induce different types of graft-versus-host disease. J Immunol. 2007;179(10):6547–6554.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
34. Chen BJ, et al. Inability of memory T cells to induce graft-versus-host disease is a result of an abortive alloresponse. Blood. 2007;109(7):3115–3123.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
35. Zheng H, et al. Effector memory CD4⁺ T cells mediate graft-versus-leukemia without inducing graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2008;111(4):2476–2484.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
36. Zheng H, Matte-Martone C, Jain D, McNiff J, Shlomchik WD. Central memory CD8⁺ T cells induce graft-versus-host disease and mediate graft-versus-leukemia. J Immunol. 2009;182(10):5938–5948.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
37. Bleakley M, et al. Leukemia-associated minor histocompatibility antigen discovery using T-cell clones isolated by in vitro stimulation of naive CD8⁺ T cells. Blood. 2010;115(23):4923–4933.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
38. Bleakley M, et al. Outcomes of acute leukemia patients transplanted with naive T cell-depleted stem cell grafts. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(7):2677–2689.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
39. Bleakley M, Riddell SR. Exploiting T cells specific for human minor histocompatibility antigens for therapy of leukemia. Immunol Cell Biol. 2011;89(3):396–407.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
40. Ju JM, et al. Escape from thymic deletion and anti-leukemic effects of T cells specific for hematopoietic cell-restricted antigen. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):225.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
41. Dossa RG, et al. Development of T-cell immunotherapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients at risk of leukemia relapse. Blood. 2018;131(1):108–120.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
42. van Loenen MM, de Boer R, Hagedoorn RS, van Egmond EH, Falkenburg JH, Heemskerk MH. Optimization of the HA-1-specific T-cell receptor for gene therapy of hematologic malignancies. Haematologica. 2011;96(3):477–481.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
43. van Loenen MM, et al. A Good Manufacturing Practice procedure to engineer donor virus-specific T cells into potent anti-leukemic effector cells. Haematologica. 2014;99(4):759–768.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
44. Roex MCJ, et al. The simultaneous isolation of multiple high and low frequent T-cell populations from donor peripheral blood mononuclear cells using the major histocompatibility complex I-Streptamer isolation technology. Cytotherapy. 2018;20(4):543–555.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
45. Roex MCJ, et al. Generation and infusion of multi-antigen-specific T cells to prevent complications early after T-cell depleted allogeneic stem cell transplantation-a phase I/II study. Leukemia. 2020;34(3):831–844.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
46. Warren EH, et al. Therapy of relapsed leukemia after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with T cells specific for minor histocompatibility antigens. Blood. 2010;115(19):3869–3878.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
47. Meij P, et al. Generation and administration of HA-1-specific T-cell lines for the treatment of patients with relapsed leukemia after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a pilot study. Haematologica. 2012;97(8):1205–1208.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
48. Li N, et al. Memory T cells from minor histocompatibility antigen-vaccinated and virus-immune donors improve GVL and immune reconstitution. Blood. 2011;118(22):5965–5976.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
49. Franssen LE, et al. A phase I/II minor histocompatibility antigen-loaded dendritic cell vaccination trial to safely improve the efficacy of donor lymphocyte infusions in myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52(10):1378–1383.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
50. Oostvogels R, et al. Efficacy of host-dendritic cell vaccinations with or without minor histocompatibility antigen loading, combined with donor lymphocyte infusion in multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52(2):228–237.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
51. Foglietta M, et al. Neoantigen and tumor antigen-specific immunity transferred from immunized donors is detectable early after allogeneic transplantation in myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(2):269–277.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
52. Lansford JL, et al. Computational modeling and confirmation of leukemia-associated minor histocompatibility antigens. Blood Adv. 2018;2(16):2052–2062.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
53. van Bergen CA, et al. Selective graft-versus-leukemia depends on magnitude and diversity of the alloreactive T cell response. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(2):517–529.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
54. van Balen P, et al. CD4 donor lymphocyte infusion can cause conversion of chimerism without GVHD by inducing immune responses targeting minor histocompatibility antigens in HLA class II. Front Immunol. 2018;9:3016.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
55. Meunier MC, Roy-Proulx G, Labrecque N, Perreault C. Tissue distribution of target antigen has a decisive influence on the outcome of adoptive cancer immunotherapy. Blood. 2003;101(2):766–770.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
56. Christopher MJ, et al. Immune Escape of relapsed AML cells after allogeneic transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2330–2341.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
57. Toffalori C, et al. Immune signature drives leukemia escape and relapse after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Nat Med. 2019;25(4):603–611.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
58. Vago L, et al. Loss of mismatched HLA in leukemia after stem-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(5):478–488.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
59. Laghmouchi A, Hoogstraten C, van Balen P, Falkenburg JHF, Jedema I. The allogeneic HLA-DP-restricted T-cell repertoire provoked by allogeneic dendritic cells contains T cells that show restricted recognition of hematopoietic cells including primary malignant cells. Haematologica. 2019;104(1):197–206.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
60. Rutten CE, et al. Patient HLA-DP-specific CD4⁺ T cells from HLA-DPB1-mismatched donor lymphocyte infusion can induce graft-versus-leukemia reactivity in the presence or absence of graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(1):40–48.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
61. Stevanovic S, et al. HLA class II upregulation during viral infection leads to HLA-DP-directed graft-versus-host disease after CD4⁺ donor lymphocyte infusion. Blood. 2013;122(11):1963–1973.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
62. van Balen P, et al. Mismatched HLA-DRB3 can induce a potent immune response after HLA 10/10 matched stem cell transplantation. Transplantation. 2017;101(12):2850–2854.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
63. Inoue K, et al. Aberrant overexpression of the Wilms tumor gene (WT1) in human leukemia. Blood. 1997;89(4):1405–1412.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
64. Rezvani K, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia effects associated with detectable Wilms tumor-1 specific T lymphocytes after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2007;110(6):1924–1932.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
65. Rezvani K, et al. Functional leukemia-associated antigen-specific memory CD8⁺ T cells exist in healthy individuals and in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia before and after stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2003;102(8):2892–2900.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
66. Ishikawa T, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia effect with a WT1-specific T-cell response induced by azacitidine and donor lymphocyte infusions after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cytotherapy. 2017;19(4):514–520.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
67. Tyler EM, Koehne G. The emergence of WT1-specific T-cell responses following allogeneic T cell-depleted hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and low-dose donor lymphocyte infusions is associated with a graft-vs.- myeloma effect. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2(7):e24963.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
68. Tyler EM, Jungbluth AA, O’Reilly RJ, Koehne G. WT1-specific T-cell responses in high-risk multiple myeloma patients undergoing allogeneic T cell-depleted hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and donor lymphocyte infusions. Blood. 2013;121(2):308–317.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
69. Hofmann S, et al. Donor lymphocyte infusion induces polyspecific CD8(+) T-cell responses with concurrent molecular remission in acute myeloid leukemia with NPM1 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(3):e44–e47.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
70. Chapuis AG, et al. Transferred WT1-reactive CD8⁺ T cells can mediate antileukemic activity and persist in post-transplant patients. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(174):174ra27.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
71. Chapuis AG, et al. T cell receptor gene therapy targeting WT1 prevents acute myeloid leukemia relapse post-transplant. Nat Med. 2019;25(7):1064–1072.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
72. Yong AS, et al. High PR3 or ELA2 expression by CD34⁺ cells in advanced-phase chronic myeloid leukemia is associated with improved outcome following allogeneic stem cell transplantation and may improve PR1 peptide-driven graft-versus-leukemia effects. Blood. 2007;110(2):770–775.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
73. Molldrem JJ, et al. Evidence that specific T lymphocytes may participate in the elimination of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Nat Med. 2000;6(9):1018–1023.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
74. Ma Q, et al. A novel TCR-like CAR with specificity for PR1/HLA-A2 effectively targets myeloid leukemia in vitro when expressed in human adult peripheral blood and cord blood T cells. Cytotherapy. 2016;18(8):985–994.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
75. Yang XF, et al. CML28 is a broadly immunogenic antigen, which is overexpressed in tumor cells. Cancer Res. 2002;62(19):5517–5522.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
76. Biernacki MA, et al. Efficacious immune therapy in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) recognizes antigens that are expressed on CML progenitor cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70(3):906–915.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
77. Yang XF, et al. CML66, a broadly immunogenic tumor antigen, elicits a humoral immune response associated with remission of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(13):7492–7497.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
78. Zhang W, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia antigen CML66 elicits coordinated B-cell and T-cell immunity after donor lymphocyte infusion. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(10):2729–2739.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
79. Wadia PP, Coram M, Armstrong RJ, Mindrinos M, Butte AJ, Miklos DB. Antibodies specifically target AML antigen NuSAP1 after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood. 2010;115(10):2077–2087.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
80. Biernacki MA, et al. Novel myeloma-associated antigens revealed in the context of syngeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2012;119(13):3142–3150.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
81. Steger B, et al. CD4(+)and CD8(+)T-cell reactions against leukemia-associated- or minor-histocompatibility-antigens in AML-patients after allogeneic SCT. Immunobiology. 2014;219(4):247–260.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
82. Amir AL, et al. PRAME-specific Allo-HLA-restricted T cells with potent antitumor reactivity useful for therapeutic T-cell receptor gene transfer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(17):5615–5625.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
83. Lawrence MS, et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature. 2013;499(7457):214–218.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
84. Biernacki MA, Bleakley M. Neoantigens in Hematologic Malignancies. Front Immunol. 2020;11:121.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
85. Rajasagi M, et al. Systematic identification of personal tumor-specific neoantigens in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2014;124(3):453–462.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
86. Greiner J, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated nucleophosmin 1: an immunogenic acute myeloid leukemia subtype and potential candidate for immune checkpoint inhibition. Haematologica. 2017;102(12):e499–e501.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
87. van der Lee DI, et al. Mutated nucleophosmin 1 as immunotherapy target in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(2):774–785.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
88. Cobbold M, et al. MHC class I-associated phosphopeptides are the targets of memory-like immunity in leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(203):203ra125.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
89. Comoli P, et al. BCR-ABL-specific T-cell therapy in Ph+ ALL patients on tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Blood. 2017;129(5):582–586.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
90. Maude SL, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in children and young adults with B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(5):439–448.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
91. June CH, Sadelain M. Chimeric antigen receptor therapy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):64–73.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
92. Salter AI, Pont MJ, Riddell SR. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells: CD19 and the road beyond. Blood. 2018;131(24):2621–2629.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
93. Yang Y, Jacoby E, Fry TJ. Challenges and opportunities of allogeneic donor-derived CAR T cells. Curr Opin Hematol. 2015;22(6):509–515.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
94. Depil S, Duchateau P, Grupp SA, Mufti G, Poirot L. ‘Off-the-shelf’ allogeneic CAR T cells: development and challenges. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19(3):185–199.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
95. Qasim W. Allogeneic CAR T cell therapies for leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2019;94(S1):S50–S54.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
96. Minagawa K, Al-Obaidi M, Di Stasi A. Generation of suicide gene-modified chimeric antigen receptor-redirected T-cells for cancer immunotherapy. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1895:57–73.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
97. Chan WK, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor-redirected CD45RA-negative T cells have potent antileukemia and pathogen memory response without graft-versus-host activity. Leukemia. 2015;29(2):387–395.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
98. Kochenderfer JN, et al. Donor-derived CD19-targeted T cells cause regression of malignancy persisting after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2013;122(25):4129–4139.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
99. Ghosh A, et al. Donor CD19 CAR T cells exert potent graft-versus-lymphoma activity with diminished graft-versus-host activity. Nat Med. 2017;23(2):242–249.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
100. Brudno JN, et al. Allogeneic T cells that express an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor induce remissions of B-cell malignancies that progress after allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation without causing graft-versus-host disease. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1112–1121.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
101. Teachey DT, et al. Identification of predictive biomarkers for cytokine release syndrome after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(6):664–679.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
102. Hay KA, et al. Kinetics and biomarkers of severe cytokine release syndrome after CD19 chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell therapy. Blood. 2017;130(21):2295–2306.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
103. Henden AS, Hill GR. Cytokines in graft-versus-host disease. J Immunol. 2015;194(10):4604–4612.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
104. Kennedy GA, et al. Addition of interleukin-6 inhibition with tocilizumab to standard graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation: a phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(13):1451–1459.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
105. Falkenburg JHF, Jedema I. Graft versus tumor effects and why people relapse. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017;2017(1):693–698.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
106. Horowitz M, et al. Epidemiology and biology of relapse after stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(11):1379–1389.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
107. Zeiser R, Vago L. Mechanisms of immune escape after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2019;133(12):1290–1297.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
108. Jan M, et al. Recurrent genetic HLA loss in AML relapsed after matched unrelated allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood Adv. 2019;3(14):2199–2204.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
109. Stölzel F, et al. Clonal evolution including partial loss of human leukocyte antigen genes favoring extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia relapse after matched related allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transplantation. 2012;93(7):744–749.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
110. Hamdi A, et al. Are changes in HLA Ags responsible for leukemia relapse after HLA-matched allogeneic hematopoietic SCT? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(3):411–413.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
111. Choi J, et al. IFNγR signaling mediates alloreactive T-cell trafficking and GVHD. Blood. 2012;120(19):4093–4103.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
112. Noviello M, et al. Bone marrow central memory and memory stem T-cell exhaustion in AML patients relapsing after HSCT. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):1065.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
113. Haverkos BM, et al. PD-1 blockade for relapsed lymphoma post-allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant: high response rate but frequent GVHD. Blood. 2017;130(2):221–228.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
114. Ijaz A, et al. Significant risk of graft-versus-host disease with exposure to checkpoint inhibitors before and after allogeneic transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(1):94–99.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
115. Davids MS, et al. Ipilimumab for patients with relapse after allogeneic transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):143–153.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
116. Khouri IF, et al. Ipilimumab plus lenalidomide after allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with lymphoid malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(5):1011–1018.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
117. Herbaux C, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab after allogeneic transplantation for relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2017;129(18):2471–2478.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
118. Godfrey J, Bishop MR, Syed S, Hyjek E, Kline J. PD-1 blockade induces remissions in relapsed classical Hodgkin lymphoma following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Immunother Cancer. 2017;5:11.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
119. Daver N, et al. Efficacy, safety, and biomarkers of response to azacitidine and nivolumab in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase II study. Cancer Discov. 2019;9(3):370–383.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
120. Daver N, et al. Hypomethylating agents in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2018;32(5):1094–1105.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
121. Cooper ML, et al. Azacitidine mitigates graft-versus-host disease via differential effects on the proliferation of T effectors and natural regulatory T cells in vivo. J Immunol. 2017;198(9):3746–3754.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
122. Ehx G, et al. Azacytidine prevents experimental xenogeneic graft-versus-host disease without abrogating graft-versus-leukemia effects. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6(5):e1314425.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
123. Bonneville M, O’Brien RL, Born WK. Gammadelta T cell effector functions: a blend of innate programming and acquired plasticity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10(7):467–478.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
124. Pizzolato G, et al. Single-cell RNA sequencing unveils the shared and the distinct cytotoxic hallmarks of human TCRVδ1 and TCRVδ2 γδ T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(24):11906–11915.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
125. Silva-Santos B, Mensurado S, Coffelt SB. γδ T cells: pleiotropic immune effectors with therapeutic potential in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19(7):392–404.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
126. Gentles AJ, et al. The prognostic landscape of genes and infiltrating immune cells across human cancers. Nat Med. 2015;21(8):938–945.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
127. Pistoia V, et al. Human γδ T-cells: from surface receptors to the therapy of high-risk leukemias. Front Immunol. 2018;9:984.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
128. Willcox BE, Willcox CR. γδ TCR ligands: the quest to solve a 500-million-year-old mystery. Nat Immunol. 2019;20(2):121–128.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
129. Benveniste PM, et al. Generation and molecular recognition of melanoma-associated antigen-specific human γδ T cells. Sci Immunol. 2018;3(30):eaav4036.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
130. Kozbor D, et al. Human TCR-gamma⁺/delta⁺, CD8⁺ T lymphocytes recognize tetanus toxoid in an MHC-restricted fashion. J Exp Med. 1989;169(5):1847–1851.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
131. Bottino C, et al. Two subsets of human T lymphocytes expressing gamma/delta antigen receptor are identifiable by monoclonal antibodies directed to two distinct molecular forms of the receptor. J Exp Med. 1988;168(2):491–505.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
132. Willcox CR, Davey MS, Willcox BE. Development and selection of the human Vγ9Vδ2⁺ T-cell repertoire. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1501.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
133. Norell H, Moretta A, Silva-Santos B, Moretta L. At the Bench: Preclinical rationale for exploiting NK cells and γδ T lymphocytes for the treatment of high-risk leukemias. J Leukoc Biol. 2013;94(6):1123–1139.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
134. Harly C, et al. Key implication of CD277/butyrophilin-3 (BTN3A) in cellular stress sensing by a major human γδ T-cell subset. Blood. 2012;120(11):2269–2279.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
135. Vavassori S, et al. Butyrophilin 3A1 binds phosphorylated antigens and stimulates human γδ T cells. Nat Immunol. 2013;14(9):908–916.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
136. Sebestyen Z, et al. RhoB mediates phosphoantigen recognition by Vγ9Vδ2 T cell receptor. Cell Rep. 2016;15(9):1973–1985.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
137. Halary F, et al. Shared reactivity of V{delta}2(neg) {gamma}{delta} T cells against cytomegalovirus-infected cells and tumor intestinal epithelial cells. J Exp Med. 2005;201(10):1567–1578.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
138. Davey MS, et al. Clonal selection in the human Vδ1 T cell repertoire indicates γδ TCR-dependent adaptive immune surveillance. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14760.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
139. Catellani S, et al. Expansion of Vdelta1 T lymphocytes producing IL-4 in low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphomas expressing UL-16-binding proteins. Blood. 2007;109(5):2078–2085.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
140. Correia DV, Fogli M, Hudspeth K, da Silva MG, Mavilio D, Silva-Santos B. Differentiation of human peripheral blood Vδ1⁺ T cells expressing the natural cytotoxicity receptor NKp30 for recognition of lymphoid leukemia cells. Blood. 2011;118(4):992–1001.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
141. Knight A, et al. The role of Vδ2-negative γδ T cells during cytomegalovirus reactivation in recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2010;116(12):2164–2172.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
142. Scheper W, et al. γδT cells elicited by CMV reactivation after allo-SCT cross-recognize CMV and leukemia. Leukemia. 2013;27(6):1328–1338.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
143. Ravens S, et al. Human γδ T cells are quickly reconstituted after stem-cell transplantation and show adaptive clonal expansion in response to viral infection. Nat Immunol. 2017;18(4):393–401.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
144. Godder KT, et al. Long term disease-free survival in acute leukemia patients recovering with increased gammadelta T cells after partially mismatched related donor bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;39(12):751–757.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
145. Perko R, Kang G, Sunkara A, Leung W, Thomas PG, Dallas MH. Gamma delta T cell reconstitution is associated with fewer infections and improved event-free survival after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for pediatric leukemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(1):130–136.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
146. Drobyski WR, Majewski D, Hanson G. Graft-facilitating doses of ex vivo activated gammadelta T cells do not cause lethal murine graft-vs.-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 1999;5(4):222–230.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
147. Ellison CA, MacDonald GC, Rector ES, Gartner JG. Gamma delta T cells in the pathobiology of murine acute graft-versus-host disease. Evidence that gamma delta T cells mediate natural killer-like cytotoxicity in the host and that elimination of these cells from donors significantly reduces mortality. J Immunol. 1995;155(9):4189–4198.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
148. Lamb LS, et al. Human gammadelta(+) T lymphocytes have in vitro graft vs leukemia activity in the absence of an allogeneic response. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27(6):601–606.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
149. Chaleff S, et al. A large-scale method for the selective depletion of alphabeta T lymphocytes from PBSC for allogeneic transplantation. Cytotherapy. 2007;9(8):746–754.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
150. Schumm M, et al. Depletion of T-cell receptor alpha/beta and CD19 positive cells from apheresis products with the CliniMACS device. Cytotherapy. 2013;15(10):1253–1258.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
151. Bertaina A, et al. HLA-haploidentical stem cell transplantation after removal of αβ⁺ T and B cells in children with nonmalignant disorders. Blood. 2014;124(5):822–826.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
152. Lang P, et al. Improved immune recovery after transplantation of TCRαβ/CD19-depleted allografts from haploidentical donors in pediatric patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50 suppl 2:S6–10.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
153. Airoldi I, et al. γδ T-cell reconstitution after HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic transplantation depleted of TCR-αβ⁺/CD19⁺ lymphocytes. Blood. 2015;125(15):2349–2358.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
154. Locatelli F, et al. Outcome of children with acute leukemia given HLA-haploidentical HSCT after αβ T-cell and B-cell depletion. Blood. 2017;130(5):677–685.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
155. Bertaina A, et al. Unrelated donor vs HLA-haploidentical α/β T-cell- and B-cell-depleted HSCT in children with acute leukemia. Blood. 2018;132(24):2594–2607.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
156. Bertaina A, et al. Zoledronic acid boosts γδ T-cell activity in children receiving αβ⁺ T and CD19⁺ cell-depleted grafts from an HLA-haplo-identical donor. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6(2):e1216291.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
157. Wilhelm M, et al. Successful adoptive transfer and in vivo expansion of haploidentical γδ T cells. J Transl Med. 2014;12:45.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
158. Siegers GM, Lamb LS. Cytotoxic and regulatory properties of circulating Vδ1+ γδ T cells: a new player on the cell therapy field? Mol Ther. 2014;22(8):1416–1422.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
159. Deniger DC, et al. Activating and propagating polyclonal gamma delta T cells with broad specificity for malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(22):5708–5719.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
160. Van Acker HH, et al. Interleukin-15 enhances the proliferation, stimulatory phenotype, and antitumor effector functions of human gamma delta T cells. J Hematol Oncol. 2016;9(1):101.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
161. Zou C, Zhao P, Xiao Z, Han X, Fu F, Fu L. γδ T cells in cancer immunotherapy. Oncotarget. 2017;8(5):8900–8909.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
162. Lamb LS, Pillai S, Langford S, Bowersock J, Stasi AD, Saad A. Clinical-scale manufacturing of γδ T cells for protection against infection and disease recurrence following haploidentical peripheral blood stem cell transplantation and cyclophosphamide gvhd prophylaxis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(6):766–769.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
163. Du SH, et al. Co-expansion of cytokine-induced killer cells and Vγ9Vδ2 T cells for CAR T-cell therapy. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0161820.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
164. Deniger DC, et al. Bispecific T-cells expressing polyclonal repertoire of endogenous γδ T-cell receptors and introduced CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor. Mol Ther. 2013;21(3):638–647.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
165. Marcu-Malina V, et al. Redirecting αβ T cells against cancer cells by transfer of a broadly tumor-reactive γδT-cell receptor. Blood. 2011;118(1):50–59.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
166. Gründer C, et al. γ9 and δ2CDR3 domains regulate functional avidity of T cells harboring γ9δ2TCRs. Blood. 2012;120(26):5153–5162.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
167. Straetemans T, et al. GMP-grade manufacturing of T cells engineered to express a defined γδTCR. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1062.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
168. de Bruin RCG, et al. A bispecific nanobody approach to leverage the potent and widely applicable tumor cytolytic capacity of Vγ9Vδ2-T cells. Oncoimmunology. 2017;7(1):e1375641.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
169. Ziegler H, et al. Human peripheral CD4(+) Vδ1(+) γδT cells can develop into αβT cells. Front Immunol. 2014;5:645.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
170. Kula T, et al. T-Scan: A genome-wide method for the systematic discovery of T cell epitopes. Cell. 2019;178(4):1016–1028.e13.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
171. Hu Z, et al. A cloning and expression system to probe T-cell receptor specificity and assess functional avidity to neoantigens. Blood. 2018;132(18):1911–1921.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
172. Chen B, et al. High-throughput analysis and protein engineering using microcapillary arrays. Nat Chem Biol. 2016;12(2):76–81.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar