Peptide-Based Vaccination Therapy for Rheumatic Diseases

Wang, Bin; Chen, Shiju; Zheng, Qing; Liu, Yuan; Shi, Guixiu

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8060375

Journal of Immunology Research

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Peptide-Based Immunotherapeutics and Vaccines 2019

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 8060375 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8060375

Peptide-Based Vaccination Therapy for Rheumatic Diseases

Bin Wang,¹Shiju Chen,¹Qing Zheng,¹Yuan Liu,¹and Guixiu Shi¹

Guest Editor: Masha Fridkis-Hareli

Received31 Oct 2019

Accepted28 Feb 2020

Published18 Mar 2020

Abstract

Rheumatic diseases are extremely heterogeneous diseases with substantial risks of morbidity and mortality, and there is a pressing need in developing more safe and cost-effective treatment strategies. Peptide-based vaccination is a highly desirable strategy in treating noninfection diseases, such as cancer and autoimmune diseases, and has gained increasing attentions. This review is aimed at providing a brief overview of the recent advances in peptide-based vaccination therapy for rheumatic diseases. Tremendous efforts have been made to develop effective peptide-based vaccinations against rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), while studies in other rheumatic diseases are still limited. Peptide-based active vaccination against pathogenic cytokines such as TNF-α and interferon-α (IFN-α) is shown to be promising in treating RA or SLE. Moreover, peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations also have encouraging results in treating RA or SLE. However, most studies available now have been mainly based on animal models, while evidence from clinical studies is still lacking. The translation of these advances from experimental studies into clinical therapy remains impeded by some obstacles such as species difference in immunity, disease heterogeneity, and lack of safe delivery carriers or adjuvants. Nevertheless, advances in high-throughput technology, bioinformatics, and nanotechnology may help overcome these impediments and facilitate the successful development of peptide-based vaccination therapy for rheumatic diseases.

1. Introduction

Rheumatic diseases consist of more than 100 heterogeneous autoimmune disorders and can result in substantial morbidity and mortality [1]. The pathogenic mechanisms of most rheumatic diseases have not been clearly defined. Apart from the physical impairment, rheumatic diseases also have caused a heavy socioeconomic burden [2, 3]. The treatment of rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and Sjögren’s syndrome (SjS) varies across patients with different clinical characteristics [4–6]. Current therapies for rheumatic diseases mainly include conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and newly developed biologic therapies [4, 7]. The introduction of biologic therapies has revolutionized the treatment of many rheumatic diseases such as RA and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in the past decade. However, a large part of patients with rheumatic diseases are still not well treated, which is possibly attributed to poor response to therapeutic agents, delayed diagnosis, or poor medication adherence [4, 7, 8]. Additionally, biologic therapies such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) antagonists (monoclonal antibodies or soluble receptors) can increase the risk of opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis [9]. Moreover, the clinical application of biological agents is still limited for their high costs especially in developing countries [10]. Therefore, there is a pressing need in the development of both more safe and cost-effective treatment strategies for rheumatic diseases.

As the greatest success in public health, the major goal of vaccination is to prevent infections such as influenza, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and malaria [11, 12]. Nevertheless, the roles of vaccinations in the treatment of noninfection diseases such as cancer and allergic diseases have gained increasing attentions in recent years [13–17]. Among those distinct approaches of therapeutic vaccines, peptide-based vaccination is a highly desirable strategy and has gained increasing attentions [18, 19]. Peptide-based vaccines are aimed at precisely inducing immune response against antigens by key epitope peptides but not the entire antigen and thus have several advantages over traditional vaccines such as higher specificity, higher safety, lower costs, and less adverse events [19–21]. Studies in recent years have suggested that peptide-based vaccinations are promising in treating diseases such as cancer and allergic diseases, and some have shown impressive clinical benefits [22–24]. Besides, peptide-based vaccination has also been proposed as a promising immunotherapy for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and multiple sclerosis (MS) [25–27]. Some studies also have reported encouraging findings on peptide-based immunotherapeutic vaccinations in rheumatic diseases [28–32]. This review is aimed at providing a brief overview of recent advances in peptide-based vaccinations in rheumatic diseases such as RA, SLE, and SjS.

2. Types of Peptide-Based Vaccination Therapy

The pathologic hallmark of rheumatic diseases is the breakdown of immune homeostasis and the loss of immune tolerance to self-antigens, which can trigger the formation of autoreactive T cells and B cells recognizing epitopes on autoantigens [33]. Both autoreactive immune cells and their secreted cytokines can result in harmful autoreactive immune attacks towards host cells and tissues, and thus, they are the two main targets for immunotherapy in rheumatic diseases. Distinct forms of peptide-based vaccinations have been studied for therapeutic or preventive strategies for diseases such as cancer, rheumatic diseases, and allergic disorders [34–38]. According to the therapeutic targets, peptide-based vaccinations used for rheumatic diseases can be classified into two main subtypes including peptide-based active vaccination against pathogenic cytokines and peptide-based tolerogenic vaccination. The former mainly targets pathogenic cytokines, while the latter mainly targets autoimmune attacks against host cells or tissues and is aimed at inducing immune tolerance by inhibiting autoreactive lymphocytes (Table 1).

2.1. Peptide-Based Active Vaccination against Pathogenic Cytokines

Pathogenic cytokines such as TNF-α, interferon-α (IFN-α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) are critical mediators of autoimmune damages to host cells and tissues and have long been regarded as therapeutic targets for rheumatic diseases [39]. Passive immunization aimed at neutralizing the pathogenic cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-6 with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or soluble receptors has been proven to be an effective therapy strategy of rheumatic diseases such as RA and AS [5]. However, passive immunization with mAbs targeting cytokines has several drawbacks such as risk of infections, antidrug antibodies, high cost, and low treatment response, which suggests the need of an alternative therapeutic approach to target those cytokines [40, 41]. Therapeutic active vaccination against pathogenic cytokines has been proposed to be a promising treatment strategy in treating rheumatic diseases and has gained increasing concerns in recent years [42–44]. Compared with passive immunization therapy, therapeutic active vaccination has several possible advantages such as lower costs, lower risk of infections, and less frequent administrations.

Active vaccination with the entire molecule or key peptides derived from targeted cytokines can elicit the activation of B cells and trigger the production of neutralizing antibodies against pathogenic cytokines, thus inhibiting the pathogenic effects of those cytokines [45]. Distinct forms of engineered immunogens have been used such as entire inactive molecule, key epitope peptides, modified peptides, or engineered DNA vaccine encoding pathogenic molecules. Moreover, vaccines containing multiepitope peptides may also be considered, which may restore wider immune tolerance and achieve more benefits than a single peptide-based vaccination. Active immunization with entire pathogenic molecules or key peptides can both induce neutralizing antibodies against those pathogenic molecules, but the former have a higher risk of inducing nonneutralizing antibodies or cross-reactive antibodies against other host self-antigens. Therefore, peptide-based vaccinations are more promising to be used in clinical practice since they can induce peptide-specific antibodies and decrease the risk of cross-reactivity.

A widely studied therapeutic active vaccination is the active immunization against TNF-α, which has been proposed as a promising alternative strategy for TNF-α-targeting therapy. Previous studies have reported a successful vaccination therapy using a compound named kinoid of human TNF-α (TNF-K) in the treatment of RA [46, 47]. TNF-K contains the entire inactivated human TNF-α and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) as a carrier protein. Though TNF-K is not a peptide-based vaccine, it has been proven to be a successful active vaccination against the pathogenic TNF-α in RA in both preclinical studies and clinical trials and has thus provided some indications for future studies exploring the feasibility of peptide-based anti-TNF-α active vaccination in treating rheumatic diseases [48, 49]. Moreover, numerous studies have explored distinct forms of peptide-based active vaccinations against TNF-α and also have provided encouraging findings in experimental studies using animal disease models.

Anticytokine active vaccination needs to overcome the natural tolerance of the immune system to self-proteins and thus induce high titers of effective neutralizing antibodies. However, a major shortcoming for peptide-based vaccines is the low immunization response caused by minimal antigenic epitopes, which is a major limitation during the development of an effective anticytokine active vaccination for rheumatic diseases. To ensure the immunization response or the efficacy of peptide-based vaccines, adjuvant or other molecules with adjuvant potency is especially necessary. Most previous studies using animal models used traditional adjuvants, while other studies used some carrier molecules to increase the immunogenicity of peptides such as virus-like particles (VLPs) [50–52]. VLPs can induce potent B cell responses effectively even in the absence of adjuvants and thus can be used in the molecular assembly system to induce strong B cell responses against most antigens [50]. Currently, there is a lack of both effective and safe adjuvants to ensure the use of peptide-based vaccinations in clinical trials, which is also a major obstacle in limiting the clinical use of peptide-based anticytokine active vaccination in treating rheumatic diseases. Considering the autoimmune reaction risk caused by some adjuvants [53], adequate adjuvants or carrier molecules with both high capability of inducing immune response and high safety are urgently needed for the clinical use of peptide-based vaccines. Advances in vaccine design technology such as the promising nanoparticle-carried vaccines may help overcome this limit.

2.2. Peptide-Based Tolerogenic Vaccinations

Rheumatic diseases are characterized by the breakdown of immune homeostasis and loss of immune tolerance to self-antigens, which further triggers the formation of autoreactive lymphocytes and autoimmune attacks to host tissues [54, 55]. Therefore, rebalancing immune homeostasis by inducing immune tolerance is a critical strategy in treating rheumatic diseases [33, 56]. Compared with conventional immune suppression therapy and biologic agents, immune tolerance induction therapy has the potential to inhibit autoimmune attacks while at the same time maintaining the ability to cope with danger signals, leading to a safe and efficacious therapy for rheumatic diseases [56]. Several strategies of inducing immune tolerance have been proposed as candidate treatments for rheumatic diseases such as stem cell therapy, tolerogenic dendritic cells (DCs) therapy, expansion of T regulatory cells (Tregs) by low-dose IL-2, and tolerogenic vaccination therapy [57–59]. Among them, treating rheumatic diseases through peptide-based tolerogenic vaccination is of great interest and has gained increasing concerns in recent years [28, 60, 61].

It has been well defined that vaccination with an entire antigen or key tolerogenic peptides in the absence of adjuvant or costimulation signals has the potential to induce antigen-specific immune tolerance, which is a potentially effective approach in treating autoimmune diseases [62–64]. Therefore, modulation of the pathogenic immune response through antigen-specific tolerogenic vaccination has the potential to restore immune tolerance and ameliorate autoimmune attacks in rheumatic diseases [62, 65]. Most of those studies were based on animal models of autoimmune diseases, while relevant clinical studies are still limited. Several clinical trials had evaluated the safety and feasibility of peptide-based tolerogenic vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases such as T1DM, RA, and MS, and some of them showed encouraging findings [66, 67]. Unlike the vaccines against infections which contain non-self-antigens and are aimed at inducing active immunization, tolerogenic vaccines contain self-antigens or key peptides and are aimed at inducing antigen-specific immune tolerance [28, 56]. Moreover, contrary to the capability of peptide-based anticytokine active vaccination in eliciting a strong immune response and inducing the activation of autoimmune B cells, peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations are aimed at reestablishing immune tolerance to eliminate attacks.

The selection of epitope peptides for tolerogenic vaccinations is a critical essential step. Some antigen epitopes may mainly exert roles in the development of rheumatic diseases as immunogens to induce autoimmune response, while others may mainly act as tolerogens to induce immune tolerance [68–71]. Some antigens may have the capability of inducing either an immune response or immunologic tolerance under different exposure conditions and concomitant stimulators. Therefore, epitope peptides with the potential to induce immune tolerance under different exposure conditions are ideal targets for tolerogenic vaccinations. However, the ideal candidate epitope peptides for most rheumatic diseases are still largely elusive. Advances in vaccinomics and immunoinformatics may promote the identification of T and B cell epitopes by integrating useful information from multiple databases of different disciplines [72–75]. Moreover, both native and posttranslational modified epitopes have the possibility of exerting critical roles during the development of autoimmunity, both of which have the potential to be candidate therapeutic targets for tolerogenic vaccinations. Apart from epitope peptides from self-antigens, analog peptides of epitopes produced mainly by amino acid substitutions also have the potential to be candidate tolerogenic peptides [76]. There are also some tolerogenic peptides with therapeutic potential for rheumatic diseases, though they are not the peptides of certain antigens involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. hCDR1 is a tolerogenic peptide designed by the sequence of the heavy chain complementarity-determining region 1 (CDR1) of monoclonal anti-DNA antibodies and has been proven to be able to treat SLE by peptide-specific induction of Tregs [77–79].

Though the molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations in treating autoimmune diseases is still not clearly defined, their roles in mediating the anergy of autoactive T cell and promoting the expansion of Tregs have been considered to be major contributors [80, 81]. Tolerogenic peptides can be taken up by antigen-presenting cells (APCs) such as DCs, which further induce immune tolerance by inhibiting autoactive T cell or inducing Tregs. Recent studies reveal that central tolerance mediated by negative selection can prune but not completely eliminate autoreactive T cells, which leads to the incomplete negative selection and the existence of autoreactive T cells in the circulating system among healthy individuals [82–85]. The findings above further suggest the importance of peripheral tolerance in fighting against autoimmunity such as Treg-mediated suppression and the necessity of reestablishing immune tolerance by tolerogenic vaccinations in treating autoimmune diseases.

DCs are key immune cells which not only present antigens to adaptive immune cells such as T cells but also have a critical role in regulating immune tolerance [86]. Inadequate activation of DCs can cause autoimmunity by inducing the activation and differentiation of autoreactive T cells or B cells. However, the induction of tolerogenic DCs (tolDCs) with tolerogenic features and the ability of ameliorating autoimmunity have emerged as a promising therapy for autoimmune diseases [87]. tolDCs can produce anti-inflammatory cytokines and deviate T cells to regulatory or immunosuppressive phenotypes, thus inhibiting autoreactive T cells [88]. Currently, an alternative approach to induce antigen-specific immune tolerance is the induction of tolDCs towards self-antigens [33, 89]. tolDCs may present antigens to T cells but not give strong costimulatory signals owing to the low expression levels of costimulators, which can lead to the deletion or anergy of autoreactive T cells and induce Tregs. Antigen-boosted tolDCs have been proposed as a promising approach in treating autoimmune diseases [90]. Some clinical studies have been done to evaluate the safety and efficacy of autologous tolDCs loaded with autoantigens or key peptides in treating rheumatic diseases. Nevertheless, the adequate selection of epitope peptides from autoantigens for the induction of tolDCs is also critical for the efficacy of this intervention strategy [91].

With the rapid advances in nanotechnology, nanoparticle-carried vaccines have emerged as novel approaches to vaccine design, and their use in peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations has gained increasing concerns in recent years [19, 92]. Nanoparticles coated with tolerogenic antigen peptides is a novel and promising strategy for inducing antigen-specific immune tolerance, which may promote the application of peptide-based vaccination in rheumatic diseases. Those nanoparticles can be taken up by APCs such as DCs, which further induce immune tolerance by mediating the anergy of autoactive T cell and promoting the expansion of Tregs. Several recent studies have revealed that vaccinations with nanoparticles carrying peptides can induce antigen-specific immune tolerance and represent a potential approach for the treatment of autoimmune diseases [93–95]. For instance, a recent study by Clemente-Casares et al. reported that a systemic therapy with nanoparticles coated with disease-specific peptides could trigger immunosuppressive immune cells, such as antigen-specific regulatory T cell type 1- (TR1-) like cells and regulatory B cells, and suppress autoantigen-loaded APCs in mouse models of T1DM, MS, and RA, which was a potential treatment for autoimmune diseases [94].

Apart from peptides from self-antigens, those from T-cell receptor (TCR) also have been explored as therapeutic vaccines to treat autoimmune diseases including rheumatic diseases, which may be mediated by their roles in modulating autoreactive T cells or activating Tregs [96–99]. Some studies have provided encouraging findings regarding the safety and the efficacy of TCR peptide-based therapeutic vaccines in patients with rheumatic diseases [96]. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying the therapeutic roles of TCR peptide-based vaccines are still not clearly defined and further studies are needed on this aspect. The advances in the technologies to assess TCR repertoire have provided much help in precisely identifying dominant TCR repertoire involving the development of rheumatic diseases, which may further facilitate the development of TCR peptide-based therapeutic vaccines for those diseases [100, 101].

3. Peptide-Based Vaccinations for Rheumatic Diseases

Numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate the feasibility of peptide-based vaccinations in treating rheumatic diseases, but most of them are related to RA and SLE and several studies focus on SjS. Therefore, the advances of peptide-based vaccinations in RA, SLE, and SjS are reviewed in detail in the following part, and the other rheumatic diseases are not referred owing to the lack of relevant studies.

3.1. RA

RA is a common rheumatic disease affecting joints which is characterized by inflammatory synovitis, progressive bone erosion, and joint destruction [102]. Improved understanding of RA pathogenesis has led to the development of several effective targeted biological treatments. Although conventional and biological antirheumatic drugs can substantially reduce disease activity and inflammation, many RA patients are still inadequately managed and suffer from unfavorable treatment outcomes [7, 102]. Therefore, to further improve the treatment outcomes of RA patients, more new therapeutic strategies are urgently needed. Peptide-based vaccination has been suggested to be a promising treatment strategy for RA.

Several key pathogenic molecules involved in the pathogenesis of RA have been identified, and targeting those molecules with passive immunotherapy have been proven to be effective in RA, such as TNF-α and IL-6. As a proinflammatory cytokine, TNF-α has an essential role in the pathogenic process of RA and is a well-validated target. Studies on therapeutic active vaccinations against pathogenic cytokines also have mainly aimed at targeting TNF-α [103–105]. Some experimental studies have explored whether active immunization with peptide-based vaccines against TNF-α could ameliorate autoimmune arthritis in animal models of RA. Capini et al. reported that active immunization with TNF-α peptides could generate endogenous autoantibodies against TNF-α [106]. Chackerian et al. revealed that vaccination of mice with conjugated particles containing VLPs and TNF-α peptides could generate autoantibodies against TNF-α and inhibit the development of collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) [107]. Another study by Spohn et al. found that VLP-based TNF-α peptide vaccine could trigger specific antibodies and ameliorate arthritis signs without inducing reactivation of latent tuberculosis [108]. Zhang et al. designed a TNF-α epitope-scaffold immunogen using the transmembrane domain of diphtheria toxin, which could induce sustained neutralizing antibodies against TNF-α and alleviate CIA in mice [109]. Another study reported that a dual-targeting vaccine using two segments of the TNF-like domain of activator of the NF-kB ligand (RANKL) linked to the peptide EWEFVNTPPLV could induce neutralizing antibodies against TNF-α and RANKL and thus could ameliorate both bone destruction and inflammation severity by simultaneously inhibiting TNF-α and RANKL [110].

Interleukin-1β (IL-1β), IL-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and IL-23 are crucial cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of RA. Bertin-Maghit et al. reported that synthetic IL-1β peptides could lead to autoantibodies against IL-1β, thus inhibiting the inflammation and articular destruction in CIA mice [111]. Moreover, vaccination with IL-6 analogs could induce autoantibodies to IL-6 and protect against CIA [112]. Semerano et al. found that a peptide derived from VEGF linked to the KLH carrier protein could ameliorate inflammation and joint destruction in experimental arthritis by inducing neutralizing anti-VEGF Abs [113]. Ratsimandresy et al. found that a murine IL-23p19 peptide predicted by bioinformatics could trigger anti-IL-23 antibodies and induce protection against joint destruction and inflammation in CIA mice [114].

Apart from peptide-based vaccination against pathogenic cytokines, peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations have been proven to be successful in the prevention and treatment of arthritis in animal models [29, 115]. Type II collagen (CII) is a well-defined autoantigen for RA and has been widely used to induce animal models of RA [116]. A study by Myers et al. revealed that an epitope peptide from CII cyanogen bromide 11 (CB11) fragment p122-147 could suppress autoimmune arthritis by inducing immune tolerance in a mouse model of CIA [117]. Another study by Ku et al. reported that vaccination with an immunodominant epitope peptide from CII CB11 p58-73 could prevent experimental arthritis in either neonatal or adult rats [118]. Several other studies further reported that administration of CII immunodominant peptides such as p184-198, p181-209, and p245-270 could suppress autoimmune response and ameliorate arthritis in CIA animal models by their tolerogenic effects [119–123]. Apart from the original CII peptides, various analog peptides of CII immunodominant peptides have also been shown to suppress autoimmune arthritis by inhibiting autoimmune T cell responses and inducing immune tolerance [124–129]. Some studies also had explored the use of vaccine delivery systems in the CII peptide-based therapeutic vaccinations for RA. Zimmerman et al. found that a Ligand Epitope Antigen Presentation System (LEAPS) therapeutic vaccine containing a human CII peptide could modulate autoimmune response and reduce disease progression in the CIA mice [130]. Mikecz et al. reported that the proteoglycan (PG) immunodominant peptide PG70 attached to either DerG (DerG-PG70) or J immune cell-binding peptide (J-PG70) through LEAPS could suppress arthritis through reducing pathogenic T cell responses and promoting immunosuppressive T cells in two mouse models of RA [30].

Heat-shock proteins (HSPs) are a possible source of autoantigens from stressed cells or inflamed tissues in autoimmune diseases, and several peptides from HSPs such as HSP60, HSP65, or HSP70 have been proven to ameliorate autoimmunity in animal models of RA [131–135]. Prakken et al. reported that vaccination with HSP60 peptide containing a T cell epitope could suppress avridine-induced arthritis in rats [134]. Studies by Zonneveld-Huijssoon et al. revealed that microbial HSP60 peptide vaccine could prevent experimental arthritis by enhancing Tregs [135, 136]. A HSP70 epitope peptide B29 was found to be able to induce the protective Tregs and suppress arthritis in mice [133, 137, 138], while autologous tolDCs loaded with HSP70 B29 peptide may be a candidate therapy for RA [70]. Studies by Moudgil et al. found that pretreatment with peptides comprising mycobacterial heat-shock protein 65 (BHSP65) carboxy-terminal determinants but not the amino-terminal determinants could suppress the development of arthritis in Lewis rats [139–141]. In RA patients, a peptide derived from a heat-shock protein of bacteria (dnaJP1) administered orally significantly increased the percentage of T cells producing IL-4 and IL-10 and reduced TNF-α [131]. Several other studies also have found that some peptides derived from HSPs could inhibit autoimmune arthritis [142–144].

Antibodies against citrullinated proteins such as filaggrin, vimentin, and collagen type II have crucial roles in the pathogenesis of RA [145, 146]. Prophylactic administration of a citrullinated filaggrin peptide could reduce disease severity and incidence of arthritis in a CIA animal model [145]. Another study by Gertel et al. reported that vaccination with multiepitope peptides derived from citrullinated autoantigens could induce immune tolerance and attenuate arthritis manifestations by promoting Treg cells and inhibiting Th17 cells in an animal model of RA [147]. A further study by Gertel et al. found that a multiepitope peptide derived from citrullinated autoantigens could modulate both the expressions of key cytokines and the frequencies of T cells in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from RA patients [148].

A promising immunotherapy aimed at restoring self-tolerance is the induction of antigen-specific tolerance by tolerogenic immune cells loaded with autoantigens or tolerogenic nanoparticles loaded with pathogenic peptides [149]. A phase 1 trial by Bell et al. revealed that intraarticular injection of autologous tolDCs loaded with autoantigens from autologous synovial fluid could be a safe and feasible therapy for RA patients [150]. Another phase 1 trial by Benham et al. revealed that intradermal injection of autologous modified DCs exposed to citrullinated peptides could increase the ratio of regulatory to effector T cells and reduce inflammatory cytokines in HLA risk genotype-positive RA patients [151].

Apart from peptides from autoantigens, TCR peptides also have been proposed as promising therapeutic vaccines for RA. Some studies using animal models of RA found that vaccination with TCR V beta chain peptides could prevent CIA by inhibiting pathogenic T cells [152]. Some clinical studies also have provided encouraging findings regarding the safety and the efficacy of TCR peptide-based therapeutic vaccines in RA patients [96, 153]. A placebo-controlled trial reported by Moreland et al. found that vaccination with a combination of Vbeta3, Vbeta14, and Vbeta17 TCR peptides was well tolerated and was effective in RA patients [153].

Previous studies on peptide-based vaccinations for RA have reported encouraging findings. However, most studies available now have been mainly based on animal models, while evidence from clinical studies is still limited. More studies are urgently needed to facilitate the development of an effective and safe peptide-based vaccination for RA patients. In addition, though immune tolerance induction with peptide-based vaccinations have been proven to be effective in treating RA, the underlying molecular mechanisms are still largely elusive and need to be elaborated in further studies.

3.2. SLE

SLE is a devastating and heterogeneous rheumatic disease affecting multiple organs such as the skin, hematopoietic system, and kidney [154]. Apart from those conventional drugs such as immunosuppressants and corticosteroids, the advances in targeted biological agents have substantially improved the prognosis of SLE patients [155]. However, adequate control of disease activity or achieving remission is still challenging for a large part of SLE patients, and those patients are at high risk of premature mortality [4]. Therefore, more innovative treatment strategies need to be developed to improve the prognosis of SLE patients. Some studies have explored peptide-based therapeutic vaccinations as potential therapies for SLE, some of which have uncovered promising outcomes.

Some studies have explored the feasibility of active vaccination against pathogenic cytokines such as IFN-α in the treatment of SLE. IFN-α has long proven to be a major pathogenic cytokine in the pathogenesis of SLE [156]. Anti-IFN-α drugs such as anifrolumab and sifalimumab have been shown to substantially reduce disease activity in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE [157–159]. Mathian et al. found that active immunization of human IFN-α transgenic mice with a human IFN-α kinoid (IFN-K) could induce polyclonal neutralizing antibodies against IFN-α, suggesting that IFN-K vaccination may be a promising therapy for SLE [160]. IFN-K vaccine could effectively ameliorate lupus manifestations by inducing neutralizing antibodies in both mouse lupus model and SLE patients [160–163]. Clinical trials showed that IFN-K was well tolerated and significantly reduced disease activity in SLE patients [163, 164]. Vaccination therapy by targeting pathogenic cytokines such as IL-17 has also been studied as potential treatments for SLE [161, 165, 166]. B cell-targeted therapy has been regarded a promising therapeutic approach for SLE, and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab have been proven to be effective in SLE patients. Active immunization with a CD20 mimotope peptide could induce B cell depletion and increase survival in a mouse SLE model, which offered an alternative approach for B cell depletion therapy [31].

Apart from peptide-based vaccination against pathogenic cytokines, peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations have also been studied as a candidate treatment for SLE. Many peptide autoepitopes have been proven to be involved in the pathogenesis of SLE [167–169]. Some histone peptides such as histone H4 autoepitope peptide 16-39 (H4_16-39) and autoepitope peptide 71-94 (H4_71-94) could induce an inflammatory response, whereas others such as H2A_34-48 could lead to an immunosuppressive response [167, 168]. Therefore, different peptides can lead to distinct immune response during the development of SLE. A study using human PBMC cultures found that a mixture of histone autoepitope peptides could block pathogenic autoimmune response and restore immune homeostasis in lupus [170]. Treatment with H4_16-39 could delay the onset of severe lupus nephritis possibly by the tolerogenic effect on autoimmune Th cells and autoimmune B cells in a mouse model of lupus [167]. Other studies found that treatment with H4_71-94 could suppress pathogenic lupus T cells by inducing regulatory T cells [171, 172]. Several other studies also had shown that peptides derived from histone proteins could suppress murine lupus by inducing immune tolerance [173–176]. Additionally, some peptides derived from other self-antigens have also been explored as candidate therapeutic vaccines for SLE. For instance, a phosphorylated spliceosomal epitope, the P140 peptide, could repress B cell differentiation and ameliorate lupus [169, 177, 178]. Subsequent clinical studies further showed that the P140 peptide could improve the clinical and immune status of SLE patients [179–181].

Peptides from other sources such as anti-DNA mAbs have also been explored as candidate therapeutic vaccines for SLE [182, 183]. Singh et al. found that a peptide from the variable regions of heavy chains of anti-DNA mAbs could delay the onset of autoimmunity in a lupus mouse model by inducing immune tolerance [182]. Waisman et al. reported that peptides from CDRs of pathogenic anti-DNA mAbs could prevent autoantibody production and downregulate autoreactive T cell responses, representing a potential treatment for SLE [184, 185]. Several other studies further revealed that a tolerogenic peptide derived from the CDR1 of a human anti-DNA autoantibody (hCDR1) could ameliorate lupus by inducing Tregs and suppressing the activation of autoreactive cells in lupus animal models [186, 187]. Several possible mechanisms have also been proposed to explain the therapeutic role of hCDR1 in SLE, such as TGF-β-mediated suppression of autoreactive T cells and downregulation of transcription factors responsible for negative regulation of T cell activation [188, 189]. Based on the encouraging findings from experimental studies, several clinical studies were done to assess the efficacy and safety of hCDR1 (Edratide) in SLE patients, which revealed favorable outcomes in SLE patients receiving hCDR1 treatment [190–192]. Another artificial peptide pConsensus (pCons) based on the immune determinants of anti-DNA IgG sequences has also been shown to be effective in delaying disease onset in the lupus mouse model by inducing immune tolerance and promoting Treg activity [193–197].

Though many studies had explored the possible roles of peptide-based vaccinations in treating SLE, most of them were experimental studies using animal models and few were clinical studies. The efficacy of safety of peptide-based vaccinations in SLE patients need to be explored by future clinical trials. In addition, though some pathogenic autoantibodies have been well characterized for SLE, the useful peptides for vaccination therapy of SLE are still not well defined. Future studies exploring candidate peptides for the effective vaccination therapy in SLE are recommended.

3.3. SjS

SjS is a complex and heterogeneous rheumatic disease characterized by exocrinopathy, severe fatigue, and various systemic manifestations [6]. The treatment options currently available for SjS patients are still limited especially for those with extraglandular diseases, and more studies are needed to expand the treatment options [198]. Some efforts have been made to explore the feasibility of peptide-based vaccinations for SjS in the past decade, and some have provided encouraging findings.

HSP60 and muscarinic acetylcholine 3 receptor (M3R) are important autoantigens involved in the pathogenesis of SjS [199–202]. A study by Delaleu et al. reported that vaccination with a HSP60-derived peptide (aa 437-460) could significantly reduce SjS-related histopathologic features and retain normal exocrine function in nonobese diabetic (NOD) mice [203]. Yang et al. found that a M3R peptide (aa 208-227) immunization could reduce cytokines, such as IL-17 and IFN-γ, and inhibit lymphocytic infiltration in mice [204]. An in vitro experiment by Sthoeger et al. revealed that the tolerogenic peptide hCDR1 could significantly reduce the expressions of IL-1β and TNF-α but increase the expressions of TGF-β and FOXP3 in the PBMCs of SjS patients, suggesting hCDR1 as a potential candidate treatment for SjS [205]. Another study by Li et al. found that the P140 peptide generated from a spliceosomal protein could rescue MRL/lpr mice from immune infiltration and autophagy defects in the salivary glands, suggesting a candidate therapy for SjS [206].

Currently, there is no study investigating the role of peptide-based vaccination against pathogenic cytokines in the treatment of SjS. Several pathogenic cytokines have been identified in the development of SjS such as IFN-α and IL-17, and further studies are recommended to evaluate the feasibility of peptide-based vaccination against these pathogenic cytokines in treating SjS [207–209]. Moreover, studies on peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations in the treatment of SjS are also limited, and more studies are recommend to explore them.

4. Conclusions and Perspectives

Current therapies for most rheumatic diseases are mainly aimed at ameliorating symptoms and control disease progression, and there is still a pressing need in developing more safe and cost-effective treatment strategies. Peptide-based vaccination therapy is a highly desirable and curative strategy in treating rheumatic diseases and has the potential to revolutionize the therapy of rheumatic diseases. Though tremendous efforts from previous studies have been made to develop effective peptide-based vaccinations against rheumatic diseases such as RA and SLE, most studies have been done using animal models while evidence from clinical studies is still limited. Additionally, the roles of peptide-based vaccinations in other rheumatic diseases such as AS are still largely elusive and thus need to be determined by more studies in the future.

Despite encouraging findings from studies using animal models, only a few clinical trials have been done to assess their clinical benefits, and some of them have failed to replicate the promising findings from experiment studies using animal disease models. A major obstacle is the differences between animals and humans in both immune response and immune tolerance, and findings from animal models are frequently not applicable to humans. A precise identification of those pathogenic antigens and key epitopes which exert roles in both animal models and humans may help to facilitate the studies of peptide-based vaccines. Additionally, disease heterogeneity is a well-defined characteristic of rheumatic diseases, and the immunodominant pathogenic epitopes are different across patients with distinct disease stages or clinical characteristics, which can limit the therapeutic efficacy of vaccinations targeting a small part of epitopes. Neoepitopes originating from epitope spreading or modified epitopes can further increase disease heterogeneity [65]. Therefore, personalized peptide vaccinations may be a more adequate approach for developing effective vaccination therapy against rheumatic diseases, in which peptides for targeted vaccinations are specifically selected for each individual patient. Finally, an unignored obstacle is the lack of both effective and safe adjuvants for the use of peptide-based vaccinations in clinical trials. Advances in vaccine design technology such as the promising nanoparticle-carried vaccines may help to overcome this limit [94, 210, 211].

The precise identification of immunodominant epitopes or neoepitopes from pathogenic cytokines or autoantigens is critically important for the successful development of peptide-based vaccinations in treating rheumatic diseases. Recent advances in high-throughput technology, vaccinomics, and bioinformatics have helped us in identifying key immunodominant epitopes from pathogenic cytokines and essential epitope peptides from autoantigens as promising targets for the peptide-based vaccinations [65, 212]. The proper implementation of computational prediction tools of bioinformatics may facilitate the development of more innovative and effective peptide-based vaccines for rheumatic disease and also may promote the translation from preclinical studies to clinical trials. Besides, the pathogeneses of most rheumatic diseases are still not clearly defined, and dominant self-antigens involved in disease development have not yet been identified. Further studies are still urgently needed to expand our understanding of the pathogeneses of rheumatic diseases, which may uncover new therapeutic targets or dominant antigens and pave new avenues for peptide-based vaccinations for the treatment of those diseases [213].

A careful screening of epitope peptides is a critical prerequisite for the efficacy and safety of peptide-based vaccination therapy in autoimmune diseases including rheumatic diseases [214, 215]. During the development of rheumatic diseases, epitope specificity exists in the pathogenic roles of antigens or cytokines, and different epitope peptides thus can exert obviously distinct roles in modulating immune response [216, 217]. Some epitope peptides can precipitate but not inhibit disease progression. For most rheumatic diseases, an antigen epitope able to induce immunologic tolerance is still largely elusive and it is a major challenge in developing peptide-based tolerogenic vaccinations for rheumatic diseases.

With the complex autoimmune networks, diverse autoantigens, and distinct autoreactive T cells usually exist in patients with rheumatic diseases such as SLE, SjS, and RA. Multiple autoantigens contribute to the pathogeneses of these rheumatic diseases and targeting those autoantigens separately may only have limited therapeutic potential. Therefore, treatment with a complex of epitope peptides from multiple autoantigens may increase the possibility of successful immune tolerance induction [147, 218]. Similarly, since multiple cytokines are coinstantaneously involved in the development or progression of autoimmunity, treatment with a complex of peptides from two or more different cytokines may have the potential to provide a more profound effect by concomitantly inhibiting those cytokines, which need to be evaluated in further studies.

Peptide-based vaccinations in rheumatic diseases are still at an early stage, and both the efficacy and safety of peptide-based vaccinations in patients with rheumatic diseases need to be validated in clinical trials. Besides, the optimal timing, dosing, and route of vaccinations also need be addressed before the initiation of its clinical use. Moreover, the role of prophylactic peptide-based vaccination in preventing or delaying the onset of rheumatic diseases among high-risk individuals is also of great interest and needs to be elucidated in future studies.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 81971536 and U1605223). We thank the authors of those references for their excellent work.

References

F. Goldblatt and S. G. O'Neill, “Clinical aspects of autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Lancet, vol. 382, no. 9894, pp. 797–808, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tran-Duy, M. Ghiti Moghadam, M. A. H. Oude Voshaar et al., “An economic evaluation of stopping versus continuing tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease remission or low disease activity: results from a pragmatic open-label trial,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 1557–1564, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. W. Barber and A. E. Clarke, “Socioeconomic consequences of systemic lupus erythematosus,” Current Opinion in Rheumatology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 480–485, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Durcan, T. O'Dwyer, and M. Petri, “Management strategies and future directions for systemic lupus erythematosus in adults,” Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10188, pp. 2332–2343, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Aletaha and J. S. Smolen, “Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis: a review,” JAMA, vol. 320, no. 13, pp. 1360–1372, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Mariette and L. A. Criswell, “Primary Sjögren’s syndrome,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 10, pp. 931–939, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. R. Burmester and J. E. Pope, “Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis,” Lancet, vol. 389, no. 10086, pp. 2338–2348, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Schmid and D. Neri, “Advances in antibody engineering for rheumatic diseases,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 197–207, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. I. Rutherford, E. Patarata, S. Subesinghe, K. L. Hyrich, and J. B. Galloway, “Opportunistic infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients exposed to biologic therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Rheumatology, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 997–1001, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Sarzi-Puttini, A. Ceribelli, D. Marotto, A. Batticciotto, and F. Atzeni, “Systemic rheumatic diseases: from biological agents to small molecules,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 583–592, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Rabinovich, P. McInnes, D. Klein, and B. Hall, “Vaccine technologies: view to the future,” Science, vol. 265, no. 5177, pp. 1401–1404, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. C. Koff, D. R. Burton, P. R. Johnson et al., “Accelerating next-generation vaccine development for global disease prevention,” Science, vol. 340, no. 6136, article 1232910, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. U. Patil and W. G. Shreffler, “Novel vaccines: technology and development,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 844–851, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Avigan and J. Rosenblatt, “Vaccine therapy in hematologic malignancies,” Blood, vol. 131, no. 24, pp. 2640–2650, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Hu, P. A. Ott, and C. J. Wu, “Towards personalized, tumour-specific, therapeutic vaccines for cancer,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 168–182, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. H. Butterfield, “Cancer vaccines,” BMJ, vol. 350, no. apr22 14, p. h988, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Alspach, D. M. Lussier, A. P. Miceli et al., “MHC-II neoantigens shape tumour immunity and response to immunotherapy,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7780, pp. 696–701, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Hos, E. Tondini, S. I. van Kasteren, and F. Ossendorp, “Approaches to improve chemically defined synthetic peptide vaccines,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 884, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Skwarczynski and I. Toth, “Peptide-based synthetic vaccines,” Chemical Science, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 842–854, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Calvo Tardon, M. Allard, V. Dutoit, P. Y. Dietrich, and P. R. Walker, “Peptides as cancer vaccines,” Current Opinion in Pharmacology, vol. 47, pp. 20–26, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Reche, D. R. Flower, M. Fridkis-Hareli, and Y. Hoshino, “Peptide-based immunotherapeutics and vaccines 2017,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2018, Article ID 4568239, 2 pages, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Khong and W. W. Overwijk, “Adjuvants for peptide-based cancer vaccines,” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Ott, Z. Hu, D. B. Keskin et al., “An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma,” Nature, vol. 547, no. 7662, pp. 217–221, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Sahin, E. Derhovanessian, M. Miller et al., “Personalized RNA mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer,” Nature, vol. 547, no. 7662, pp. 222–226, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. L. Smith and M. Peakman, “Peptide immunotherapy for type 1 diabetes-clinical advances,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 392, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. F. G. Zorzella-Pezavento, F. Chiuso-Minicucci, T. G. D. França et al., “pVAXhsp65 vaccination primes for high IL-10 production and decreases experimental encephalomyelitis severity,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2017, Article ID 6257958, 11 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
the Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group, C. A. Beam, C. MacCallum et al., “GAD vaccine reduces insulin loss in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes: findings from a Bayesian meta-analysis,” Diabetologia, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Schall, N. Page, C. Macri, O. Chaloin, J. P. Briand, and S. Muller, “Peptide-based approaches to treat lupus and other autoimmune diseases,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 143–153, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Rosenthal, K. Mikecz, H. L. Steiner III et al., “Rheumatoid arthritis vaccine therapies: perspectives and lessons from therapeutic ligand epitope antigen presentation system vaccines for models of rheumatoid arthritis,” Expert Rev Vaccines, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 891–908, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Mikecz, T. T. Glant, A. Markovics et al., “An epitope-specific DerG-PG70 LEAPS vaccine modulates T cell responses and suppresses arthritis progression in two related murine models of rheumatoid arthritis,” Vaccine, vol. 35, no. 32, pp. 4048–4056, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Favoino, M. Prete, A. Marzullo, E. Millo, Y. Shoenfeld, and F. Perosa, “CD20-mimotope peptide active immunotherapy in systemic lupus erythematosus and a reappraisal of vaccination strategies in rheumatic diseases,” Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 217–233, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. van Eden, “Vaccination against autoimmune diseases moves closer to the clinic,” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 228–232, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Horwitz, T. M. Fahmy, C. A. Piccirillo, and A. la Cava, “Rebalancing immune homeostasis to treat autoimmune diseases,” Trends in Immunology, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 888–908, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Valenta, R. Campana, M. Focke-Tejkl, and V. Niederberger, “Vaccine development for allergen-specific immunotherapy based on recombinant allergens and synthetic allergen peptides: lessons from the past and novel mechanisms of action for the future,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 351–357, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Hofmann, A. Mead, A. Malinovskis, N. R. Hardwick, and B. A. Guinn, “Analogue peptides for the immunotherapy of human acute myeloid leukemia,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 1357–1367, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Rahat, “Targeting angiogenesis with peptide vaccines,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 10, p. 1924, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kumai, A. Fan, Y. Harabuchi, and E. Celis, “Cancer immunotherapy: moving forward with peptide T cell vaccines,” Current Opinion in Immunology, vol. 47, pp. 57–63, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Klausen, S. Holmberg, M. O. Holmström et al., “Novel strategies for peptide-based vaccines in hematological malignancies,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 2264, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Zagury, H. Le Buanec, B. Bizzini, A. Burny, G. Lewis, and R. C. Gallo, “Active versus passive anti-cytokine antibody therapy against cytokine- associated chronic diseases,” Cytokine and Growth Factor Reviews, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 123–137, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. M. Bartelds, C. L. Krieckaert, M. T. Nurmohamed et al., “Development of antidrug antibodies against adalimumab and association with disease activity and treatment failure during long-term follow-up,” JAMA, vol. 305, no. 14, pp. 1460–1468, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Atzeni, P. Sarzi-Puttini, M. Sebastiani et al., “Rate of serious infections in spondyloarthropathy patients treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs: a survey from the Italian registry GISEA,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 649–655, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Foerster and M. Bachman, “Beyond passive immunization: toward a nanoparticle-based IL-17 vaccine as first in class of future immune treatments,” Nanomedicine, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1361–1369, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Semerano, E. Assier, and M. C. Boissier, “Anti-cytokine vaccination: a new biotherapy of autoimmunity?” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 785-786, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Zagury, A. Burny, and R. C. Gallo, “Toward a new generation of vaccines: the anti-cytokine therapeutic vaccines,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 14, pp. 8024–8029, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Fettelschoss-Gabriel, V. Fettelschoss, F. Thoms et al., “Treating insect-bite hypersensitivity in horses with active vaccination against IL-5,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 142, no. 4, pp. 1194–1205.e3, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Assier, L. Semerano, E. Duvallet et al., “Modulation of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) antibody secretion in mice immunized with TNF-α kinoid,” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 699–703, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Jia, Y. Pan, J. Li, and L. Wang, “Strategies for active TNF-α vaccination in rheumatoid arthritis treatment,” Vaccine, vol. 31, no. 38, pp. 4063–4068, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Durez, P. Vandepapeliere, P. Miranda et al., “Therapeutic vaccination with TNF-Kinoid in TNF antagonist-resistant rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II randomized, controlled clinical trial,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 12, article e113465, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Belmellat, L. Semerano, N. Segueni et al., “Tumor necrosis factor-alpha targeting can protect against arthritis with low sensitization to infection,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 8, p. 1533, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Jegerlehner, A. Tissot, F. Lechner et al., “A molecular assembly system that renders antigens of choice highly repetitive for induction of protective B cell responses,” Vaccine, vol. 20, no. 25-26, pp. 3104–3112, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. F. Bachmann and G. T. Jennings, “Vaccine delivery: a matter of size, geometry, kinetics and molecular patterns,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 787–796, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bavoso, A. Ostuni, J. de Vendel et al., “Aldehyde modification and alum coadjuvancy enhance anti-TNF-α autovaccination and mitigate arthritis in rat,” Journal of Peptide Science, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 400–407, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. Ruiz, L. Lujan, M. Blank, and Y. Shoenfeld, “Adjuvants- and vaccines-induced autoimmunity: animal models,” Immunologic Research, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. S. Firestein and I. B. McInnes, “Immunopathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis,” Immunity, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 183–196, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Rosen and L. Casciola-Rosen, “Autoantigens as partners in initiation and propagation of autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 395–420, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Albani, E. C. Koffeman, and B. Prakken, “Induction of immune tolerance in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 272–281, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Delemarre, S. T. A. Roord, T. van den Broek et al., “Brief report: autologous stem cell transplantation restores immune tolerance in experimental arthritis by renewal and modulation of the Teff cell compartment,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 350–356, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. He, R. Zhang, M. Shao et al., “Efficacy and safety of low-dose IL-2 in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 141–149, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Spiering, B. Margry, C. Keijzer et al., “DEC205+ dendritic cell-targeted tolerogenic vaccination promotes immune tolerance in experimental autoimmune arthritis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 194, no. 10, pp. 4804–4813, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. van Eden, M. A. A. Jansen, I. Ludwig, P. van Kooten, R. van der Zee, and F. Broere, “The enigma of heat shock proteins in immune tolerance,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 8, p. 1599, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. van Eden, “Immune tolerance therapies for autoimmune diseases based on heat shock protein T-cell epitopes,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, vol. 373, no. 1738, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Larche, “Peptide immunotherapy,” Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 321–332, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Briner, M. C. Kuo, K. M. Keating, B. L. Rogers, and J. L. Greenstein, “Peripheral T-cell tolerance induced in naive and primed mice by subcutaneous injection of peptides from the major cat allergen Fel d I,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 90, no. 16, pp. 7608–7612, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Clayton, G. M. Gammon, D. G. Ando, D. H. Kono, L. Hood, and E. E. Sercarz, “Peptide-specific prevention of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis. Neonatal tolerance induced to the dominant T cell determinant of myelin basic protein,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 169, no. 5, pp. 1681–1691, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Pozsgay, Z. Szekanecz, and G. Sarmay, “Antigen-specific immunotherapies in rheumatic diseases,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 525–537, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Raz, D. Elias, A. Avron, M. Tamir, M. Metzger, and I. R. Cohen, “β-cell function in new-onset type 1 diabetes and immunomodulation with a heat- shock protein peptide (DiaPep277): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial,” Lancet, vol. 358, no. 9295, pp. 1749–1753, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Alhadj Ali, Y. F. Liu, S. Arif et al., “Metabolic and immune effects of immunotherapy with proinsulin peptide in human new-onset type 1 diabetes,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 9, no. 402, p. eaaf7779, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Lu, A. Kaliyaperumal, D. T. Boumpas, and S. K. Datta, “Major peptide autoepitopes for nucleosome-specific T cells of human lupus,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 345–355, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Rims, H. Uchtenhagen, M. J. Kaplan et al., “Citrullinated aggrecan epitopes as targets of autoreactive CD4+ T cells in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 518–528, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. van Eden, M. A. A. Jansen, I. S. Ludwig et al., “Heat shock proteins can be surrogate autoantigens for induction of antigen specific therapeutic tolerance in rheumatoid arthritis,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 10, p. 279, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Riemekasten, A. Kawald, C. Weiß et al., “Strong acceleration of murine lupus by injection of the SmD183-119 peptide,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 2435–2445, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Oany, T. Pervin, M. Mia et al., “Vaccinomics approach for designing potential peptide vaccine by targeting Shigella spp. serine protease autotransporter subfamily protein SigA,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2017, Article ID 6412353, 14 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Alonso-Padilla, E. M. Lafuente, and P. A. Reche, “Computer-aided design of an epitope-based vaccine against Epstein-Barr virus,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2017, Article ID 9363750, 15 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Sanchez-Trincado, M. Gomez-Perosanz, and P. A. Reche, “Fundamentals and methods for T- and B-cell epitope prediction,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2017, Article ID 2680160, 14 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. K. Adhikari, M. Tayebi, and M. M. Rahman, “Immunoinformatics approach for epitope-based peptide vaccine design and active site prediction against polyprotein of emerging Oropouche virus,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2018, Article ID 6718083, 22 pages, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Tang, J. Zhou, J. E. Park et al., “T cell receptor signaling induced by an analog peptide of type II collagen requires activation of Syk,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 145–153, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Mozes and A. Sharabi, “A novel tolerogenic peptide, hCDR1, for the specific treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 22–26, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Eilat, H. Zinger, A. Nyska, and E. Mozes, “Prevention of systemic lupus erythematosus-like disease in (NZBxNZW)F1 mice by treating with CDR1- and CDR3-based peptides of a pathogenic autoantibody,” Journal of Clinical Immunology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 268–278, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. M. Sthoeger, A. Sharabi, M. Dayan et al., “The tolerogenic peptide hCDR1 downregulates pathogenic cytokines and apoptosis and upregulates immunosuppressive molecules and regulatory T cells in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of lupus patients,” Human Immunology, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 139–145, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhao, R. Li, J. He, J. Shi, L. Long, and Z. Li, “Mucosal administration of an altered CII263-272 peptide inhibits collagen-induced arthritis by suppression of Th1/Th17 cells and expansion of regulatory T cells,” Rheumatology International, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Kochetkova, T. Trunkle, G. Callis, and D. W. Pascual, “Vaccination without autoantigen protects against collagen II-induced arthritis via immune deviation and regulatory T cells,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 181, no. 4, pp. 2741–2752, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Ehlers, “Who let the dogs out? The ever-present threat of autoreactive T cells,” Science Immunology, vol. 3, no. 20, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Yu, N. Jiang, P. J. R. Ebert et al., “Clonal Deletion Prunes but Does Not Eliminate Self-Specific αβ CD8⁺ T Lymphocytes,” Immunity, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 929–941, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Culina, A. I. Lalanne, G. Afonso et al., “Islet-reactive CD8(+) T cell frequencies in the pancreas, but not in blood, distinguish type 1 diabetic patients from healthy donors,” Science Immunology, vol. 3, no. 20, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Scally, J. Petersen, S. C. Law et al., “A molecular basis for the association of the HLA-DRB1 locus, citrullination, and rheumatoid arthritis,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 210, no. 12, pp. 2569–2582, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Ohnmacht, A. Pullner, S. B. S. King et al., “Constitutive ablation of dendritic cells breaks self-tolerance of CD4 T cells and results in spontaneous fatal autoimmunity,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 206, no. 3, pp. 549–559, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Xia, S. Jiang, S. Weng, X. Lv, H. Cheng, and C. Fang, “Antigen-specific immature dendritic cell vaccine ameliorates anti-dsDNA antibody-induced renal damage in a mouse model,” Rheumatology, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2187–2196, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Harry, A. E. Anderson, J. D. Isaacs, and C. M. U. Hilkens, “Generation and characterisation of therapeutic tolerogenic dendritic cells for rheumatoid arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 2042–2050, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. van Eden, M. A. A. Jansen, A. C. M. de Wolf, I. S. Ludwig, P. Leufkens, and F. Broere, “The immunomodulatory potential of tolDCs loaded with heat shock proteins,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 8, p. 1690, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Giannoukakis, B. Phillips, D. Finegold, J. Harnaha, and M. Trucco, “Phase I (safety) study of autologous tolerogenic dendritic cells in type 1 diabetic patients,” Diabetes Care, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 2026–2032, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. P. Funda, J. Golias, T. Hudcovic, H. Kozakova, R. Spisek, and L. Palova-Jelinkova, “Antigen loading (e.g., glutamic acid decarboxylase 65) of tolerogenic DCs (tolDCs) reduces their capacity to prevent diabetes in the non-obese diabetes (NOD)-severe combined immunodeficiency model of adoptive cotransfer of diabetes as well as in NOD mice,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 290, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Negahdaripour, N. Golkar, N. Hajighahramani, S. Kianpour, N. Nezafat, and Y. Ghasemi, “Harnessing self-assembled peptide nanoparticles in epitope vaccine design,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 575–596, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Maldonado, R. A. LaMothe, J. D. Ferrari et al., “Polymeric synthetic nanoparticles for the induction of antigen-specific immunological tolerance,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. E156–E165, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Clemente-Casares, J. Blanco, P. Ambalavanan et al., “Expanding antigen-specific regulatory networks to treat autoimmunity,” Nature, vol. 530, no. 7591, pp. 434–440, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Getts, A. J. Martin, D. P. McCarthy et al., “Microparticles bearing encephalitogenic peptides induce T-cell tolerance and ameliorate experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1217–1224, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. W. Moreland, L. W. Heck, W. J. Koopman et al., “V?17 T-cell receptor peptide Vaccine,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 756, pp. 211–214, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Howell, S. Winters, T. Olee, H. Powell, D. Carlo, and S. Brostoff, “Vaccination against experimental allergic encephalomyelitis with T cell receptor peptides,” Science, vol. 246, no. 4930, pp. 668–670, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Vandenbark, G. Hashim, and H. Offner, “Immunization with a synthetic T-cell receptor V-region peptide protects against experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,” Nature, vol. 341, no. 6242, pp. 541–544, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Offner, G. Hashim, and A. Vandenbark, “T cell receptor peptide therapy triggers autoregulation of experimental encephalomyelitis,” Science, vol. 251, no. 4992, pp. 430–432, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liu, W. Zhang, M. Zhao et al., “T cell receptor β repertoires as novel diagnostic markers for systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 78, no. 8, pp. 1070–1078, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Thapa, R. Tonikian, C. Sun et al., “Longitudinal analysis of peripheral blood T cell receptor diversity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus by next-generation sequencing,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 17, no. 1, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Smolen, D. Aletaha, and I. B. McInnes, “Rheumatoid arthritis,” Lancet, vol. 388, no. 10055, pp. 2023–2038, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Dalum, D. M. Butler, M. R. Jensen et al., “Therapeutic antibodies elicited by immunization against TNF-α,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 666–669, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Le Buanec, L. Delavallee, N. Bessis et al., “TNFα kinoid vaccination-induced neutralizing antibodies to TNFα protect mice from autologous TNFα-driven chronic and acute inflammation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 51, pp. 19442–19447, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Delavallee, H. le Buanec, N. Bessis et al., “Early and long-lasting protection from arthritis in tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα) transgenic mice vaccinated against TNFα,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 1332–1338, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Capini, S. M. Bertin-Maghit, N. Bessis et al., “Active immunization against murine TNFα peptides in mice: generation of endogenous antibodies cross-reacting with the native cytokine and in vivo protection,” Vaccine, vol. 22, no. 23-24, pp. 3144–3153, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Chackerian, D. R. Lowy, and J. T. Schiller, “Conjugation of a self-antigen to papillomavirus-like particles allows for efficient induction of protective autoantibodies,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 415–423, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Spohn, R. Guler, P. Johansen et al., “A virus-like particle-based vaccine selectively targeting soluble TNF-α protects from arthritis without inducing reactivation of latent tuberculosis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 178, no. 11, pp. 7450–7457, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhang, J. Wang, A. Xu et al., “A rationally designed TNF-α epitope-scaffold immunogen induces sustained antibody response and alleviates collagen-induced arthritis in mice,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 9, article e0163080, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yuan, H. Qian, S. Liu et al., “Therapeutic role of a vaccine targeting RANKL and TNF-α on collagen-induced arthritis,” Biomaterials, vol. 33, no. 32, pp. 8177–8185, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Bertinmaghit, C. Capini, N. Bessis et al., “Improvement of collagen-induced arthritis by active immunization against murine IL-1β peptides designed by molecular modelling,” Vaccine, vol. 23, no. 33, pp. 4228–4235, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Galle, L. Jensen, C. Andersson et al., “Vaccination with IL-6 analogues induces autoantibodies to IL-6 and influences experimentally induced inflammation,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 7, no. 13, pp. 1704–1713, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Semerano, E. Duvallet, N. Belmellat et al., “Targeting VEGF-A with a vaccine decreases inflammation and joint destruction in experimental arthritis,” Angiogenesis, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Ratsimandresy, E. Duvallet, E. Assier et al., “Active immunization against IL-23p19 improves experimental arthritis,” Vaccine, vol. 29, no. 50, pp. 9329–9336, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Satpute, M. Durai, and K. D. Moudgil, “Antigen-specific tolerogenic and immunomodulatory strategies for the treatment of autoimmune arthritis,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 195–207, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Terato, K. A. Hasty, M. A. Cremer, J. M. Stuart, A. S. Townes, and A. H. Kang, “Collagen-induced arthritis in mice. Localization of an arthritogenic determinant to a fragment of the type II collagen molecule,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 162, no. 2, pp. 637–646, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Myers, J. M. Stuart, J. M. Seyer, and A. H. Kang, “Identification of an immunosuppressive epitope of type II collagen that confers protection against collagen-induced arthritis,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 170, no. 6, pp. 1999–2010, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Ku, M. Kronenberg, D. J. Peacock et al., “Prevention of experimental autoimmune arthritis with a peptide fragment of type II collagen,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 591–599, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Zhu, X. Y. Li, H. K. Wang et al., “Oral administration of type-II collagen peptide 250-270 suppresses specific cellular and humoral immune response in collagen-induced arthritis,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 75–84, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. A. Staines, N. Harper, F. J. Ward, V. Malmstrom, R. Holmdahl, and S. Bansal, “Mucosal tolerance and suppression of collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) induced by nasal inhalation of synthetic peptide 184-198 of bovine type II collagen (CII) expressing a dominant T cell epitope,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 368–375, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Myers, S. W. Cooper, K. Terato, J. M. Seyer, J. M. Stuart, and A. H. Kang, “Identification and Characterization of a Tolerogenic T Cell Determinant within Residues 181-209 of Chick Type II Collagen,” Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 33–38, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Honda, A. Ametani, T. Matsumoto et al., “Vaccination with an immunodominant peptide of bovine type II collagen induces an anti-TCR response, and modulates the onset and severity of collagen-induced arthritis,” International Immunology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 737–745, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hasselberg, K. Schon, A. Tarkowski, and N. Lycke, “Role of CTA1R7K-COL-DD as a novel therapeutic mucosal tolerance-inducing vector for treatment of collagen-induced arthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1672–1682, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Myers, Y. Sakurai, B. Tang et al., “Peptide-induced suppression of collagen-induced arthritis in HLA-DR1 transgenic mice,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 3369–3377, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Myers, B. Tang, D. D. Brand, E. F. Rosloniec, J. M. Stuart, and A. H. Kang, “Efficacy of modified recombinant type II collagen in modulating autoimmune arthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 3004–3011, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Myers, E. F. Rosloniec, J. M. Seyer, J. M. Stuart, and A. H. Kang, “A synthetic peptide analogue of a determinant of type II collagen prevents the onset of collagen-induced arthritis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 150, no. 10, pp. 4652–4658, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Q. Yao, R. Li, and Z. G. Li, “A triple altered collagen II peptide with consecutive substitutions of TCR contacting residues inhibits collagen-induced arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 423-424, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sakurai, D. D. Brand, B. Tang et al., “Analog peptides of type II collagen can suppress arthritis in HLA-DR4 (DRB10401) transgenic mice,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 8, no. 5, p. R150, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Myers, D. L. Cullins, D. D. Brand, S. Kleinau, J. M. Stuart, and >A. H. Kang, “T cells stimulated with an analog peptide of type II collagen require the Fc receptor γ-chain to secrete interleukin-4 and suppress autoimmune arthritis in mice,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 2661–2670, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. H. Zimmerman, P. Taylor, A. Bendele et al., “CEL-2000: A therapeutic vaccine for rheumatoid arthritis arrests disease development and alters serum cytokine/chemokine patterns in the bovine collagen type II induced arthritis in the DBA mouse model,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 412–421, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Prakken, R. Samodal, T. D. le et al., “Epitope-specific immunotherapy induces immune deviation of proinflammatory T cells in rheumatoid arthritis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 101, no. 12, pp. 4228–4233, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. C. Koffeman, M. Genovese, D. Amox et al., “Epitope-specific immunotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis: clinical responsiveness occurs with immune deviation and relies on the expression of a cluster of molecules associated with T cell tolerance in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot phase II trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3207–3216, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. C. van Herwijnen, L. Wieten, R. van der Zee et al., “Regulatory T cells that recognize a ubiquitous stress-inducible self-antigen are long-lived suppressors of autoimmune arthritis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 35, pp. 14134–14139, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Prakken, R. van der Zee, S. M. Anderton, P. J. S. van Kooten, W. Kuis, and W. van Eden, “Peptide-induced nasal tolerance for a mycobacterial heat shock protein 60 T cell epitope in rats suppresses both adjuvant arthritis and nonmicrobially induced experimental arthritis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 3284–3289, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Zonneveld-Huijssoon, F. van Wijk, S. Roord et al., “TLR9 agonist CpG enhances protective nasal HSP60 peptide vaccine efficacy in experimental autoimmune arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 1706–1715, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Zonneveld-Huijssoon, S. T. A. Roord, W. de Jager et al., “Bystander suppression of experimental arthritis by nasal administration of a heat shock protein peptide,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 2199–2206, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. de Wolf, R. van der Zee, I. den Braber et al., “An arthritis-suppressive and Treg cell-inducing CD4+ T cell epitope is functional in the context of HLA-restricted T cell responses,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 639–647, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. A. Jansen, M. J. C. van Herwijnen, P. J. S. van Kooten et al., “Generation of the first TCR transgenic mouse with CD4(+) T cells recognizing an anti-inflammatory regulatory T cell-inducing Hsp70 peptide,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 7, p. 90, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. D. Moudgil, T. T. Chang, H. Eradat et al., “Diversification of T cell responses to carboxy-terminal determinants within the 65-kD heat-shock protein is involved in regulation of autoimmune arthritis,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 185, no. 7, pp. 1307–1316, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Durai, M. N. Huang, and K. D. Moudgil, “Self heat-shock protein 65-mediated regulation of autoimmune arthritis,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 33, no. 3-4, pp. 208–213, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Durai, R. S. Gupta, and K. D. Moudgil, “The T cells specific for the carboxyl-terminal determinants of self (rat) heat-shock protein 65 escape tolerance induction and are involved in regulation of autoimmune arthritis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 172, no. 5, pp. 2795–2802, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Leavenworth, X. Tang, H. J. Kim, X. Wang, and H. Cantor, “Amelioration of arthritis through mobilization of peptide-specific CD8+ regulatory T cells,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 1382–1389, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. L. Shi, L. P. Wang, X. Feng et al., “Inhibition of adjuvant-induced arthritis by nasal administration of novel synthetic peptides from heat shock protein 65,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 15, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. C. van Herwijnen, R. van der Zee, W. van Eden, and F. Broere, “In vivo induction of functionally suppressive induced regulatory T cells from CD4+CD25- T cells using an Hsp70 peptide,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 6, article e0128373, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Kuhn, L. Kulik, B. Tomooka et al., “Antibodies against citrullinated proteins enhance tissue injury in experimental autoimmune arthritis,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 116, no. 4, pp. 961–973, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Trouw, E. M. Haisma, E. W. N. Levarht et al., “Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies from rheumatoid arthritis patients activate complement via both the classical and alternative pathways,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1923–1931, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gertel, G. Serre, Y. Shoenfeld, and H. Amital, “Immune tolerance induction with multiepitope peptide derived from citrullinated autoantigens attenuates arthritis manifestations in adjuvant arthritis rats,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 194, no. 12, pp. 5674–5680, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gertel, G. Karmon, S. Vainer et al., “Immunomodulation of RA Patients’ PBMC with a Multiepitope Peptide Derived from Citrullinated Autoantigens,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2017, Article ID 3916519, 9 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. B. McInnes and G. Schett, “Pathogenetic insights from the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Lancet, vol. 389, no. 10086, pp. 2328–2337, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. M. Bell, A. E. Anderson, J. Diboll et al., “Autologous tolerogenic dendritic cells for rheumatoid and inflammatory arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 227–234, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Benham, H. J. Nel, S. C. Law et al., “Citrullinated peptide dendritic cell immunotherapy in HLA risk genotype-positive rheumatoid arthritis patients,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 7, no. 290, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. Haqqi, X. M. Qu, D. Anthony, J. Ma, and M. S. Sy, “Immunization with T cell receptor V beta chain peptides deletes pathogenic T cells and prevents the induction of collagen-induced arthritis in mice,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 2849–2858, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. W. Moreland, E. E. Morgan, T. C. Adamson et al., “T cell receptor peptide vaccination in rheumatoid arthritis: A placebo‐controlled trial using a combination of V_β3, V_β14, and V_β17 Peptides,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1919–1929, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Dorner and R. Furie, “Novel paradigms in systemic lupus erythematosus,” Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10188, pp. 2344–2358, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Murphy, L. Lisnevskaia, and D. Isenberg, “Systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune rheumatic diseases: challenges to treatment,” Lancet, vol. 382, no. 9894, pp. 809–818, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. H. Chang, T. T. Li, J. J. Kim et al., “Interferon-α induces altered transitional B cell signaling and function in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 58, pp. 100–110, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Furie, M. Khamashta, J. T. Merrill et al., “Anifrolumab, an Anti-Interferon-α receptor monoclonal antibody, in moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 376–386, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Khamashta, J. T. Merrill, V. P. Werth et al., “Sifalimumab, an anti-interferon-α monoclonal antibody, in moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 1909–1916, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Kalunian, J. T. Merrill, R. Maciuca et al., “A Phase II study of the efficacy and safety of rontalizumab (rhuMAb interferon-α) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (ROSE),” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 196–202, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mathian, Z. Amoura, E. Adam et al., “Active immunisation of human interferon α transgenic mice with a human interferon α Kinoid induces antibodies that neutralise interferon α in sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 1138–1143, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Zagury, H. le Buanec, A. Mathian et al., “IFNalpha kinoid vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies prevent clinical manifestations in a lupus flare murine model,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 13, pp. 5294–5299, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ducreux, F. A. Houssiau, P. Vandepapelière et al., “Interferon α kinoid induces neutralizing anti-interferon α antibodies that decrease the expression of interferon-induced and B cell activation associated transcripts: analysis of extended follow-up data from the interferon α kinoid phase I/II study,” Rheumatology, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1901–1905, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Lauwerys, E. Hachulla, F. Spertini et al., “Down-regulation of interferon signature in systemic lupus erythematosus patients by active immunization with interferon α-kinoid,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 447–456, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Przylecki, “Uricase and its action: part I. Preparation,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1026–1034, 1928.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Handono, M. Z. Pratama, D. K. Sari et al., “Effect of active immunization with IL-17A on B cell function and infection risk in pristane-induced lupus model,” International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1277–1286, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Chasset and L. Arnaud, “Targeting interferons and their pathways in systemic lupus erythematosus,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 44–52, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kaliyaperumal, M. A. Michaels, and S. K. Datta, “Antigen-specific therapy of murine lupus nephritis using nucleosomal peptides: tolerance spreading impairs pathogenic function of autoimmune T and B cells,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 162, no. 10, pp. 5775–5783, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Riemekasten, C. Weiss, S. Schneider et al., “T cell reactivity against the SmD1(83-119) C terminal peptide in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 779–785, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Monneaux, J. . M. Lozano, M. . E. Patarroyo, J. P. Briand, and S. Muller, “T cell recognition and therapeutic effect of a phosphorylated synthetic peptide of the 70K snRNP protein administered in MR/lpr mice,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 287–296, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhang, A. M. Bertucci, R. Ramsey-Goldman, E. R. Harsha-Strong, R. K. Burt, and S. K. Datta, “Major pathogenic steps in human lupus can be effectively suppressed by nucleosomal histone peptide epitope-induced regulatory immunity,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 365–378, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. K. Kang, M. A. Michaels, B. R. Berner, and S. K. Datta, “Very low-dose tolerance with nucleosomal peptides controls lupus and induces potent regulatory T cell subsets,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 174, no. 6, pp. 3247–3255, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. K. Kang, M. Liu, and S. K. Datta, “Low-dose peptide tolerance therapy of lupus generates plasmacytoid dendritic cells that cause expansion of autoantigen-specific regulatory T cells and contraction of inflammatory Th17 cells,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 178, no. 12, pp. 7849–7858, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Y. Wu, F. J. Ward, and N. A. Staines, “Histone peptide-induced nasal tolerance: suppression of murine lupus,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 169, no. 2, pp. 1126–1134, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Y. Wu and N. A. Staines, “A deficiency of CD4+CD25+ T cells permits the development of spontaneous lupus-like disease in mice, and can be reversed by induction of mucosal tolerance to histone peptide autoantigen,” Lupus, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 192–200, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Shapira, E. Proscura, B. Brodsky, and U. Wormser, “Novel peptides as potential treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus,” Lupus, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 463–472, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. K. Kang, M. Y. Chiang, M. Liu, D. Ecklund, and S. K. Datta, “The histone peptide H4 71-94 alone is more effective than a cocktail of peptide epitopes in controlling lupus: immunoregulatory mechanisms,” Journal of Clinical Immunology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 379–394, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Wilhelm, F. Wang, N. Schall et al., “Lupus regulator peptide P140 represses B cell differentiation by reducing HLA class II molecule overexpression,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 1077–1088, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Page, F. Gros, N. Schall, J. P. Briand, and S. Muller, “A therapeutic peptide in lupus alters autophagic processes and stability of MHCII molecules in MRL/lpr B cells,” Autophagy, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 539-540, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Muller, F. Monneaux, N. Schall et al., “Spliceosomal peptide P140 for immunotherapy of systemic lupus erythematosus: results of an early phase II clinical trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 3873–3883, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Zimmer, H. R. Scherbarth, O. L. Rillo, J. J. Gomez-Reino, and S. Muller, “Lupuzor/P140 peptide in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb clinical trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 1830–1835, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Schall and S. Muller, “Resetting the autoreactive immune system with a therapeutic peptide in lupus,” Lupus, vol. 24, no. 4-5, pp. 412–418, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Singh, F. M. Ebling, E. E. Sercarz, and B. H. Hahn, “Immune tolerance to autoantibody-derived peptides delays development of autoimmunity in murine lupus,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 2990–2996, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. H. Hahn, R. R. Singh, W. K. Wong, B. P. Tsao, K. Bulpitt, and F. M. Ebling, “Treatment with a consensus peptide based on amino acid sequences in autoantibodies prevents T cell activation by autoantigens and delays disease onset in murine lupus,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 432–441, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Waisman, P. J. Ruiz, E. Israeli et al., “Modulation of murine systemic lupus erythematosus with peptides based on complementarity determining regions of a pathogenic anti-DNA monoclonal antibody,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 4620–4625, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. M. Sthoeger, M. Dayan, A. Tcherniack et al., “Modulation of autoreactive responses of peripheral blood lymphocytes of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus by peptides based on human and murine anti-DNA autoantibodies,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 385–392, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sharabi, H. Zinger, M. Zborowsky, Z. M. Sthoeger, and E. Mozes, “A peptide based on the complementarity-determining region 1 of an autoantibody ameliorates lupus by up-regulating CD4+CD25+ cells and TGF-beta,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 23, pp. 8810–8815, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Sthoeger, H. Zinger, A. Sharabi, I. Asher, and E. Mozes, “The tolerogenic peptide, hCDR1, down-regulates the expression of Interferon-α in murine and human systemic lupus erythematosus,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 3, article e60394, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Sela, N. Mauermann, R. Hershkoviz et al., “The inhibition of autoreactive T cell functions by a peptide based on the CDR1 of an anti-DNA autoantibody is via TGF-β-mediated suppression of LFA-1 and CD44 expression and function,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 175, no. 11, pp. 7255–7263, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Sela, M. Dayan, R. Hershkoviz, O. Lider, and E. Mozes, “A peptide that ameliorates lupus up-regulates the diminished expression of early growth response factors 2 and 3,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 180, no. 3, pp. 1584–1591, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. M. Sthoeger, A. Sharabi, Y. Molad et al., “Treatment of lupus patients with a tolerogenic peptide, hCDR1 (Edratide): immunomodulation of gene expression,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 77–82, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. B. Urowitz, D. A. Isenberg, and D. J. Wallace, “Safety and efficacy of hCDR1 (Edratide) in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: results of phase II study,” Lupus Science & Medicine, vol. 2, no. 1, article e000104, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lapter, A. Marom, A. Meshorer et al., “Amelioration of brain pathology and behavioral dysfunction in mice with lupus following treatment with a tolerogenic peptide,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 3744–3754, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. H. Hahn, R. P. Singh, A. La Cava, and F. M. Ebling, “Tolerogenic treatment of lupus mice with consensus peptide induces Foxp3-expressing, apoptosis-resistant, TGFβ-secreting CD8+ T cell suppressors,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 175, no. 11, pp. 7728–7737, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. P. Singh, A. La Cava, and B. H. Hahn, “pConsensus peptide induces tolerogenic CD8+ T cells in lupus-prone (NZB x NZW)F1 mice by differentially regulating Foxp3 and PD1 molecules,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 180, no. 4, pp. 2069–2080, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. P. Singh, A. La Cava, M. Wong, F. Ebling, and B. H. Hahn, “CD8+ T cell-mediated suppression of autoimmunity in a murine lupus model of peptide-induced immune tolerance depends on Foxp3 expression,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 178, no. 12, pp. 7649–7657, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. H. Hahn, M. Anderson, E. le, and A. L. Cava, “Anti-DNA Ig peptides promote Treg cell activity in systemic lupus erythematosus patients,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2488–2497, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Skaggs, E. V. Lourenco, and B. H. Hahn, “Oral administration of different forms of a tolerogenic peptide to define the preparations and doses that delay anti-DNA antibody production and nephritis and prolong survival in SLE-prone mice,” Lupus, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 912–920, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. I. Fox, C. M. Fox, J. E. Gottenberg, and T. Dorner, “Treatment of Sjögren’s syndrome: current therapy and future directions,” Rheumatology, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31034046.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Aragona, G. Magazzu, G. Macchia et al., “Presence of antibodies against Helicobacter pylori and its heat-shock protein 60 in the serum of patients with Sjogren's syndrome,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1306–1311, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
H. de Jong, W. de Jager, M. Wenting-van Wijk et al., “Increased immune reactivity towards human hsp60 in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome is associated with increased cytokine levels and glandular inflammation,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 594-595, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Namkoong, S. W. Lee, N. Kim, Y. Choi, and K. Park, “Effect of anti-muscarinic autoantibodies on leukocyte function in Sjogren's syndrome,” Molecular Immunology, vol. 90, pp. 136–142, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Iizuka, E. Wakamatsu, H. Tsuboi et al., “Pathogenic role of immune response to M3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor in Sjogren's syndrome-like sialoadenitis,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 383–389, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Delaleu, A. C. Madureira, H. Immervoll, and R. Jonsson, “Inhibition of experimental Sjögren's syndrome through immunization with HSP60 and its peptide amino acids 437-460,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2318–2328, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Yang, J. Ju, W. Zhang et al., “Effects of Muscarinic Acetylcholine 3 Receptor208-227 Peptide Immunization on Autoimmune Response in Nonobese Diabetic Mice,” Clinical and Developmental Immunology, vol. 2013, Article ID 485213, 10 pages, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Sthoeger, A. Sharabi, I. Asher et al., “The tolerogenic peptide hCDR1 immunomodulates cytokine and regulatory molecule gene expression in blood mononuclear cells of primary Sjogren's syndrome patients,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 192, pp. 85–91, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Li, F. Wang, N. Schall, and S. Muller, “Rescue of autophagy and lysosome defects in salivary glands of MRL/lpr mice by a therapeutic phosphopeptide,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 90, pp. 132–145, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Kimoto, J. Sawada, K. Shimoyama et al., “Activation of the interferon pathway in peripheral blood of patients with Sjogren's syndrome,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 310–316, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Roescher, P. P. Tak, and G. G. Illei, “Cytokines in Sjögren's syndrome: potential therapeutic targets,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 945–948, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sisto, L. Lorusso, R. Tamma, G. Ingravallo, D. Ribatti, and S. Lisi, “Interleukin-17 and -22 synergy linking inflammation and EMT-dependent fibrosis in Sjögren’s syndrome,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 198, no. 2, pp. 261–272, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Singha, K. Shao, K. K. Ellestad, Y. Yang, and P. Santamaria, “Nanoparticles for immune stimulation against infection, cancer, and autoimmunity,” ACS Nano, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 10621–10635, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. K. Kishimoto and R. A. Maldonado, “Nanoparticles for the induction of antigen-specific immunological tolerance,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 9, p. 230, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Verma, A. Sajid, Y. Singh, and P. Shukla, “Computational tools for modern vaccine development,” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, pp. 1–13, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31545127.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. T. Donlin, S. H. Park, E. Giannopoulou et al., “Insights into rheumatic diseases from next-generation sequencing,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 327–339, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Daniel, B. Weigmann, R. Bronson, and H. von Boehmer, “Prevention of type 1 diabetes in mice by tolerogenic vaccination with a strong agonist insulin mimetope,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 208, no. 7, pp. 1501–1510, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Bergman, T. Lopes-Carvalho, A. C. Martins, F. A. Grieco, D. L. Eizirik, and J. Demengeot, “Tolerogenic insulin peptide therapy precipitates type 1 diabetes,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 214, no. 7, pp. 2153–2156, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Moroncini, A. Grieco, G. Nacci et al., “Epitope specificity determines pathogenicity and detectability of anti-platelet-derived growth factor receptor α autoantibodies in systemic sclerosis,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1891–1903, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Roth, J. D. Ooi, J. J. Hess et al., “Epitope specificity determines pathogenicity and detectability in ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 1773–1783, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Smith and S. D. Miller, “Multi-peptide coupled-cell tolerance ameliorates ongoing relapsing EAE associated with multiple pathogenic autoreactivities,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 218–231, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Bin Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1762

Downloads

1256

Citations