Tailoring CAR surface density and dynamics to improve CAR-T cell therapy

Abstract

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape for relapsed and/or refractory B-cell neoplasms, garnering Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency approval for six commercial products. Despite this success, challenges persist, including a relapse rate of 30–50% in hematologic tumors, limited clinical efficacy in solid tumors, and severe side effects. This review addresses the critical need for therapeutic enhancement by focusing on the often-overlooked strategy of modulating CAR protein density on the cell membrane. We delve into the key factors influencing CAR surface expression, such as CAR downmodulation following antigen encounter and antigen-related factors. The dynamics of CAR downmodulation remain underexplored; however, recent data point to its modification as a useful tool for improving functionality. Notably, transcriptional control of CAR expression and the incorporation of specific elements into the CAR design have emerged as interesting strategies to tailor CAR expression profiles. Therefore, controlling CAR dynamic density may represent an attractive strategy for achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes.

AH-B and CB-J are joint first authors.

PJ-L and FM are joint senior authors.

Introduction

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has demonstrated unprecedented success in treating relapsed and/or refractory B-cell neoplasms,¹ leading to the approval of seven commercial CAR-T-based medicinal products by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Despite its profound impact on immuno-oncology, CAR-T therapy still faces significant limitations in the treatment of hematologic tumors. Lack of persistence results in a relapse rate of approximately 30–50% in patients treated with CAR-T cells,² while hyperactivation of CAR-T cells triggers severe side effects (eg, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome).³ On the other hand, CAR-T cell therapies face substantial challenges against solid tumors, where responses remain limited due to antigen heterogeneity and immunosuppressive microenvironments.^{4 5} However, recent clinical trials have shown promising but modest efficacy in different solid tumors⁶ such as glioblastoma⁷ or sarcoma.⁸ In any case, challenges persist, highlighting the pressing need for advancements in terms of CAR-T cell efficacy and safety, and the relevance of a more in-depth understanding of the mechanism of action of the CAR molecule.

Various studies have highlighted the importance of regulating CAR expression levels on the surface of CAR-T cells to enhance therapeutic efficacy.^9–14 Nevertheless, the influence of CAR protein density on the membrane as a strategy to improve CAR-T cells has often been overlooked. In this context, the primary focus has been to investigate the mechanisms of action of various CAR configurations, cell types (T cells, natural killer (NK) cells, and macrophages), T-cell subpopulations, gene editing strategies, metabolic intervention, and combination therapy to address existing limitations, as revised elsewhere.^{15 16} However, these investigations frequently neglect a crucial factor that can affect the efficacy and safety of CAR-T cells: the density and kinetics of CAR molecules on the cell surface.

CAR levels on the surface of T cells depend on two main factors: the transcriptional regulation of CAR transgene expression, and the dynamics of internalization, degradation, and recycling of CAR proteins on T cells (ie, CAR kinetics). The mechanisms governing the kinetics of CAR expression on the cell membrane remain largely unexplored despite the consensus that CAR membrane expression is dynamic.^{12 17–19} The transcriptional control of CAR expression is better understood since it depends on the promoter and RNA structure. The decision on how to express the CAR can have important consequences on T-cell signaling, persistence and proinflammatory cytokine release, impacting the antitumor efficacy and safety of the final product.^{10 11 14 20} However, all approved CAR-T cell products, and the majority under evaluation in ongoing clinical trials, use autologous T cells transduced with ɣ-retroviral or lentiviral vectors expressing the CAR under strong constitutive promoters, such as the human elongation factor-1 alpha (EF1α), the murine stem cell virus (MSCV) long terminal repeat (LTR) or the myeloproliferative sarcoma virus MPSV enhancer (MND) promoters.

In this review, we outline the key factors that influence CAR density and expression kinetics in the T-cell membrane. We will explore the role of these factors in determining their efficacy and safety. Special emphasis will be placed on how the concentration of CAR molecules on the surface of T cells can impact CAR-T cell activity and how this can be modulated to attain optimal efficacy and safety. Highlighting the pivotal role of controlling CAR expression in CAR-T products, our aim is to raise concern about this overlooked matter to potentially develop CAR-T products that are not only safer but also more effective.

Factors influencing CAR surface expression profile

Internalization, recycling and degradation processes

While CAR expression kinetic is not fully explored and there’s limited data available, T-Cell Receptor (TCR) expression kinetic is well understood. Since CAR and TCR share structural features that are involved in the internalization process, we decided to use the knowledge of TCR kinetics to compare and depict what is known and which theoretical gaps could be investigated regarding CAR internalization, degradation and recycling (table 1). The presence of TCR and CAR in the membrane has been proven not to be static. The TCR follows different kinetics depending on whether the TCR is engaged or not, and its surface expression depends on the newly synthesized TCRs and processes such as internalization, recycling, or degradation (figure 1).^{21 22} On strong antigen recognition, the surface TCR is downmodulated, the engaged TCRs are ubiquitinated by two of the Casitas B-lineage lymphoma family of ubiquitin ligases, c-Cbl and Cbl-b,²³ internalized by a yet unknown clathrin-independent pathway, and undergo lysosomal degradation.^24–26 Activated TCRs can also be recycled to the immunological synapse through flotillins after clathrin-independent uptake.²⁷ Similarly, when CAR encounters the tumor antigen, it is quickly downmodulated.^{12 18 28 29} This occurs, at least in part, by the rapid ubiquitination of intracellular domains.²⁹ The CAR is also internalized and it can be degraded in lysosomes.^{12 29 30}

Figure 1. Kinetics of the TCR complex on the T-cell membrane during resting and activation states. Only the internalization and degradation routes after strong interaction with major histocompability complex (MHC) class II molecules (shown in red) have been reported for chimeric antigen receptor molecules. 12 29 30

Table 1

Detailed comparison of internalization, kinetics, fate, and regulation of CAR and TCR in T cells

Parameter	CAR	TCR
Internalization – absence of target antigen	Clathrin-independent. Intracellular domain dictates CAR distribution in T cells.37 Tumor microenvironment could affect CAR internalization.30	Constitutive internalization in resting T cells via clathrin-dependent endocytosis.26 31 32
Kinetics of antigen-induced downmodulation	Quickly downmodulated on encountering tumor antigen.12 18 28 29 Influenced by antigen density. Can be influenced by CAR affinity.17 Trogocytosis.19	Internalized by unknown clathrin-independent pathway.24–26 In the immunological synapse, activated TCRs are ejected from the cell membrane by ectocytosis.38 Bystander internalization of TCRs adjacent to engaged TCRs.34 Strong correlation between downmodulation and avidity.49 50
Fate of internalized protein complexes	Rapid ubiquitination of intracellular domains.29 Degraded in lysosomes.12 29 30 Highly influenced by the intracellular domains.37	Ubiquitinated by c-Cbl and Cbl-b.23 Lysosomal degradation or recycled to the immunological synapse through flotillins.27 The balance between recycling and lysosomal degradation depends on activation strength.34
Regulation of expression	Strong promoters: required in some contexts but generally lead to early CAR-T cell exhaustion and stronger CRS.11 12 28 65 Physiological/weak promoters: improved memory-like phenotype, lower exhaustion and reduced CRS9 Genome editing: improved memory-like phenotype, lower exhaustion and reduced CRS.12,69,70	Expression downregulation on antigen encounter.10 12

CAR, chimeric antigen receptor; TCR, T Cell Receptor.

In resting T cells, the TCR undergoes constitutive internalization.^{26 31 32} This internalization occurs through clathrin-dependent endocytosis, which directs the TCR to the endosomal recycling pathways instead of lysosomal degradation.^{33 34} This same clathrin-dependent route enables the bystander internalization of TCRs adjacent to engaged TCRs in activated T cells.³⁴ This bystander internalization allows these TCRs to be re-routed to the immunological synapse to maintain TCR signaling.^{35 36} Essentially, there seems to be a balance between recycling and lysosomal degradation that is dependent on the strength of TCR activation.³⁴ Mutating the clathrin adaptor AP2 internalization motifs in all TCR:CD3 complex chains, except CD3ζ, still resulted in 40% TCR internalization.³³ Thus, AP2 motifs in the CD3ζ chain of CARs may enable clathrin-dependent internalization and recycling, similar to TCR. However, CAR clathrin-dependent internalization and recycling have not been described in CAR-T cells, and the question remains of whether CAR activation strength influences the commitment to a recycling or degradation route, or whether non-CD3ζ TCR-related structures play a more decisive role in the recycling/degradation balance. A recent report by Wang et al³⁷ describe the ionic interactions between the intracellular domains of CARs and the endomembrane system as important contributors to CAR surface distribution.

In the TCR immunological synapse, activated TCRs are ejected from the cell membrane by ectocytosis instead of being internalized by endocytosis, which terminates their signaling.³⁸ However, this recent discovery has not yet been reported in CAR synapses. When considering immunological synapse formation, TCR and CAR molecules exhibit dissimilarities. In contrast to TCR, CAR molecules form a disorganized synapse^{39 40} forming clusters without recruiting TCR molecules to the CAR synapse.^{38 41} In brief, even if TCR and CAR kinetics present resemblances they also show differences in their internalization and synapse formation.

Recently, non-antigen-related downmodulation through internalization and lysosomal degradation has been reported. Li et al observed that acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells induced much higher CAR downmodulation than acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cells when assessing the same CARs and antigens at low effector-target ratios.³⁰ They discovered that Gal-1 produced by AML cells was able to induce CAR downmodulation, which was blocked by internalization and lysosomal activity inhibitors. Although the study has some limitations, it suggests that the tumor microenvironment could affect CAR internalization and degradation, which would then imply that not all CAR downmodulation is antigen-specific.

The importance of this downmodulation on activation and its experimental suppression in CAR-T cells has been reported in several studies. The blockage of ubiquitination by the mutation of intracellular lysine residues enhanced the recycling of internalized CAR, which resulted in more effective long-term tumor killing activity. In this model, internalization occurs, but the recovery rate is faster and higher. The increased effectiveness was much higher when the costimulatory domain 4-1BB was used rather than CD28. Although counterintuitive, CAR-T cells presented less surface CAR when intracellular lysines were mutated. Additionally, preventing CAR degradation increased 4-1BB signaling by endosomal CAR molecules, which enhanced mitochondrial oxidative function and promoted differentiation towards memory T cells. Notably, only 4-1BB signaled from the endosome, while the CD3ζ chain did not.²⁷ Although the authors do not believe the improvement was due to reduced tonic signaling, it could be a combined effect with the endosomal signaling of 4-1BB, as lower surface CAR levels would reduce tonic signaling. Consistent with these findings, mutating the intracellular lysines of an anti-CD33 CAR containing 4-1BB demonstrated benefits in vitro but not in vivo.³⁰ However, the study had limitations, and the in vivo experiments lacked statistical significance. Additionally, although initial CAR levels were lower in the mutated CAR-T cells, the AML model used a different substance that also caused downmodulation. This may have independently reduced CAR surface levels, potentially preventing the observation of effective cytotoxic activity in vivo.

Another strategy is to delete the member Casitas B-cell lymphoma-B (CBL-B) from the E3 ubiquitin ligase families that promotes ubiquitination of the CD3ζ chain,^{42 43} resulting in resulting in reduced expression of exhausting markers and increased tumor cell killing of a CAR against carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) with CD28 as a costimulatory domain.⁴⁴ Even so, this improvement could also be related to other CBL-B functions, such as its role in TGF-β signaling⁴⁵ or its possible role in the inhibitory programmed death-1 (PD-1) signaling pathway.⁴⁶ There are no data on CAR levels to confirm that it might have less surface expression and more cytosolic expression.

In a different approach, Zhou et al⁴⁷ fused cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) cytoplasmic tails (CTTs), which contain internalization motifs that interact with clathrin adaptor AP-2 to the C-terminal region of a third generation CAR containing 4-1BB and CD28. This resulted in accelerated CAR endocytosis, degradation, and recycling, together with a reduction in trogocytosis, activation, and proinflammatory cytokine secretion. In vivo, CAR-T cells containing one or two CTTs showed improved survival, persistence, and an increased T central memory phenotype, which resulted in enhanced antitumor functionality. The authors showed lower levels of inhibitory receptors and lower tonic signaling in CTT-CARs compared with standard CARs. Interestingly, the addition of CTTs also decreased the surface expression of CAR and increased cytosolic expression.⁴⁷ We believe that the evidence from these articles suggests that lowering CAR surface expression and increasing CAR cytosolic expression reduces tonic signaling while maintaining 4-1BB signaling. An alternative explanation could be that the 4-1BB endodomain sequesters the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) inhibitor A20 to the cell membrane. This prevents A20 from performing its cytoplasmic activities, leading to hyperactivation of the NF-κB pathway, which, in turn, increases CAR-T cell death and necroptosis.⁴⁸ The authors suggest that the internalization of the CAR would imply that A20 could carry out its function from the cytoplasm, improving the antitumor ability of the CAR-T cell. To confirm the mechanism by which the internalization in 41BB CARs improves cell efficacy, it would be interesting to analyze in depth both the effect of CAR downmodulation on CAR-derived tonic signaling and the possibility of A20 recovering its activity by the CAR internalization.

These studies indicate that modifying CAR downmodulation could be a strategy to control CAR surface expression, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of CAR-T therapy. However, it is crucial to conduct extensive in vitro and in vivo analysis of T-cell fitness in long-term cytotoxic assays to thoroughly assess the advantages and disadvantages of altering the downmodulation kinetics.

Antigen-related factors

As has been found for the TCR,^{49 50} antigen recognition is a pivotal factor influencing CAR downmodulation. When presenting CAR-T cells to the same tumor models lacking antigen expression, CARs are not equally downmodulated.^{18 29} Walker et al¹⁸ demonstrated that CAR T-cell function is limited by both CAR receptor density and target antigen density, and they showed that CAR downmodulation occurs on antigen encounter and persists on repeated exposure to antigen-positive tumors. In the same direction, Greenman et al²⁸ found that CAR downmodulation occurs rapidly following the encounter with target cells and is dependent on antigen density. The authors suggest that the proportion of downmodulated CARs is determined solely by antigen density, whereas the overall quantity of downmodulated CARs is influenced by both antigen density and the initial receptor count. Interestingly they did not find a clear effect of CAR affinity on receptor downmodulation. Conversely, Caruso et al¹⁷ showed that CAR affinity for its antigen does play a pivotal role in CAR downmodulation. In this work, CARs were generated based on cetuximab and nimotuzumab, which bind highly overlapping epitopes of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein with different on-rate binding kinetics. The authors showed that cetuximab-CAR, which has a higher affinity, exhibited significant downregulation from the T-cell surface after interaction with EGFR, while nimotuzumab-CAR, which has a lower affinity, did not show appreciable downregulation. This downregulation of cetuximab-CAR was observed to be a function of both affinity and antigen density, impacting the T-cell’s ability to respond to repeated challenges with EGFR.

The potency of CAR-T cells is related to antigen expression density on the tumor and insufficient reactivity against cells with low antigen density has emerged as a pivotal determinant of CAR-T cell therapy resistance.^{14 51–53} However, unlike canonical αβTCRs, there is consensus on the need for CARs to surpass a defined signaling threshold to exert an antitumor response.^54–57

As described throughout this manuscript, the spatiotemporal dynamics of CAR distribution on the cell membrane profoundly affect the physiological behavior and antitumor capacity of CAR-T cells. Indeed, Caruso et al also noticed that during a second antitumor response, the internalization of the high-affinity CAR hindered an effective response, a phenomenon not observed with the lower-affinity CAR, where internalization was not detected.¹⁷ Collectively, these studies suggest that the downmodulation of this receptor is a conserved process among different CAR constructs, driven by receptor internalization. This phenomenon can significantly affect signaling, and consequently, the potency of CAR-T cells.

The impact of the interplay between CAR and antigen densities on CAR signaling has not been fully explored, with the underlying mechanism yet to be formally elucidated. CAR signaling appears to be strongly influenced by both CAR and antigen densities.^{18 28} High-density CAR-T cells can benefit from downmodulation, which limits hyperactivation and exhaustion resulting from chronic antigenic stimulation. Conversely, low-density CAR-T cells may be effective for treating tumors with high antigen density, provided that the activation threshold for the T-cell response is effectively reached while minimizing cross-targeting to antigen-low positive healthy tissues. This approach can potentially achieve tumor elimination while significantly reducing the release of proinflammatory cytokines, thereby enhancing the safety profile of the therapy.⁵⁸ In this direction, Andreu-Saumell¹⁴ showed that CAR-T cells containing high CAR levels can overcome programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-mediated inhibition observed in low-affinity CARs, and this result is highly dependent on antigen density. The authors also demonstrated that PD-1 knockout (KO) provided an advantage to low-affinity CAR-T cells when human epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2) levels were high but not to high-affinity CAR-T cells. However, in co-culture with HER2-low cells, PD-1 KO conferred an advantage to high-affinity CAR-T cells.¹⁴ These reports indicate the importance of antigen and CAR densities on CAR-T cell activity and introduce CAR affinity as an important parameter.

Another antigen density-dependent phenomenon leading to CAR depletion from the T-cell membrane is trogocytosis. It has been well documented that CAR-T cells can accept targeted antigens from tumor cells, promoting tumor escape via trogocytosis and reducing CAR surface expression.¹⁹ However, it was recently demonstrated that CAR molecules can also be transferred to tumor cells, not only to dampen CAR-T cell killing but also to contribute to antigen-masking.⁵⁹ The extent of these phenomena is highly influenced by antigen density and CAR affinity.^59–61 In fact, trogocytosis itself also affects the antigen and CAR density, lowering antigen levels in the tumor cell and the CAR levels in the T cell. Interestingly, the addition of CTT tails to the CAR, which generates an increase in CAR kinetic speed, has been linked to a reduction in trogocytosis.⁴⁷ This highlights the importance of deciphering whether trogocytosis can be influenced not only by antigen levels but also by CAR density.

Transcriptional control of CAR expression

Previous research has identified critical factors influencing CAR-T cell response, including extrinsic factors such as the lymphodepletion regimen, blood lactate dehydrogenase levels, and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Additionally, intrinsic factors such as T-cell activation prior to viral transduction, the CD4/CD8 ratio, and the composition of different T-cell subpopulations in the final infusion product also play a key role.⁵³ Beyond these factors, the transcriptional control of CAR expression is another crucial determinant of CAR-T cell functionality. One of the main parameters directly influencing CAR expression is the chosen strategy for T-cell engineering. In this regard, the CAR transgene can be integrated into the chromosome of T cells semi-randomly⁶² (by classical viral and non-viral integrative vectors) or into a selected locus⁶³ (by genome editing) (figure 2). Moreover, transient CAR expression can also be achieved via electroporation of CAR messenger RNA (mRNA) into T cells.⁶⁴

Figure 2. Different transcriptional control methods used to drive CAR expression and their impact in the final CAR-T cell products. CAR, chimeric antigen receptor, CRS, cytokine release syndrome; ICANS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; PD-1, Programmed Death-1; TIM3, T-cell Immunoglobulin and Mucin-domain containing-3; TIGIT, T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains; TCR, T cell receptor; LAG3, lymphocyte activation gene-3.

For viral gene transfer, modulating CAR density is possible by altering viral titers aimed at achieving different vector copy numbers or the type of viral vector used for genetic modification.⁶⁵ For both viral and non-viral strategies, this can also be accomplished by using different promoters²⁰ or by arranging transgene configurations.¹¹ All CAR-T cell products approved by the FDA and the EMA are generated using ɣ-retroviral or lentiviral vectors with strong promoters (MSCV-LTR, MND or EF1α-based).^{66 67} However, high and sustained CAR concentrations on the surface of T cells and/or high antigen avidity may lead to spontaneous ligand-independent CAR aggregation. This can result in tonic signaling, potentially accelerating T-cell exhaustion and off-target toxicities, thereby causing side effects and relapses.^{11 12 28 65} However, as mentioned previously, these negative effects are highly dependent not only on the CAR density but also on the CAR design.¹⁴ Recently, Rodriguez-Marquez et al found that increased levels of sorted CAR high T cells within the infusion product were associated with decreased responses in different hematological malignancies.⁹ This study highlights the link between CAR density and CAR-T cell activity and its impact on clinical outcomes.

The possibility of expressing the CAR through weaker promoters has been explored with opposing results.^{10 18 20 68} Ho et al investigated the safety and efficacy of anti-CD19-CAR-T cells driven by the synthetic promoter MND (weaker than the EF1α promoter), which contains a myeloproliferative sarcoma virus enhancer.²⁰ They observed higher viral titers and a reduction in CAR expression driven by MND when compared with the EF1α promoter, but CAR-T cells retained a similar killing ability in vitro and in vivo, with reduced proinflammatory cytokine production. These results suggest that lower levels of CARs on the cell surface may also reduce CRS without compromising CAR-T cell cytotoxicity. The feasibility of this MND promoter is endorsed by Abecma, the first CAR-T product approved against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) for the treatment of multiple myeloma. In a different study, Guedan et al generated anti-mesothelin CAR-T cells carrying a 4-1BB costimulatory domain and observed a reduction in CAR expression levels when the EF1a promoter was replaced with pGK300, a truncated promoter from the phosphoglycerate kinase gene. Although pGK300-BBz T cells showed benefits in tonic signaling and exhaustion markers, when administered to mice bearing xenograft pancreatic tumors, they were unable to induce any antitumor effect compared with mice treated with untransduced cells. Thus, low CAR surface expression does not always guarantee improved antitumor responses, indicating the complexity of the CAR-antigen interaction, the heterogeneity based on the tumor model used when reaching a threshold that triggers the cytotoxic activity of T cells, as well as the difference in efficacy based on the components that make up the different domains of the CAR and their interaction.

Another strategy for controlling CAR density involves using transcriptional elements to drive a more physiological expression pattern.^{10 12 20} CAR expression can also be regulated by targeting a specific endogenous gene and inserting it via homologous recombination into its locus, controlled by its promoter. In 2017, Eyquem et al pioneered the generation of universal T-cell receptor alpha constant (TRAC)-CAR-T cells by inserting an anti-CD19-28z CAR complementary DNA into the TRAC locus using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. This approach made CAR expression dependent on the TCR endogenous promoter, driving a decrease in CAR expression after encountering the antigen. This physiological expression of CAR molecules resulted in reduced signaling in the absence of stimulation and a more memory-like and lower expression of exhaustion markers (PD-1, lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG3) and T-cell Immunoglobulin and Mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM3)) of CAR-T cell products. Consequently, this led to increased antitumor efficacy and decreased toxicity compared with high and uncontrolled levels of CAR generated by gamma retroviral transduction.¹² More recently, Kath et al used CRISPR-Cas9 editing to integrate truncated CD3ζ-deficient CARs in-frame into the CD3ζ locus,⁶⁹ thus causing TCR ablation and bringing the CAR under the transcriptional regulation of the CD3ζ gene. Compared with TRAC-edited CAR-T cells, CD3ζ-CAR-T cells exhibited comparable effectiveness in tumor killing in vitro but displayed reduced susceptibility to activation-induced cell death and cell differentiation. This was likely attributable to the lower CAR expression levels of this CAR fusion gene in these cells. In the same direction, Mansilla-Soto et al⁷⁰ went a step further introducing hybrid TCR-CAR receptors into the TRAC locus, which were expressed following the TCR expression kinetic. They form a complex that uses both the TCR alpha and beta chains fused with the immunoglobulin heavy and light chains, achieving human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-independent recognition and HLA-dependent signaling.

Additionally, another physiological control system was developed, targeting the CAR construct to the PDCD1 locus, which generates a feedback loop that links CAR expression to T-cell activation. This system, which produces temporary CAR expression, could aid in the disappearance of CAR-T cells after tumor control, while breaking the immunosuppressive axis interaction PD-1/PD-L1.⁷¹ This strategy improved the cytotoxic capacity both in vitro and in vivo.

Combining the previous approaches, Dharani et al generated universal dual inducible CAR-T cells by inserting an anti-fibroblast activation protein (FAP) CAR at the TRAC locus (for physiological expression) and an anti-mesothelin CAR at the PDCD1 locus (for inducible expression).⁷² When exposed to FAP, the two CARs exhibited nearly opposite kinetics due to the different expression pattern of TCR and PD-1 molecules on T-cell activation. Anti-FAP CAR interaction with its cognate ligand led to its internalization, while T-cell activation initiated the expression of anti-ML CAR through the PDCD1 locus. Within 3–4 days of FAP antigen exposure, anti-ML CAR expression was downregulated, and the anti-FAP CAR expression was restored. Still, it would be interesting to study the kinetics when both antigens are presented to better understand the kinetics of the anti-ML CAR when its antigen is also present

To ensure controlled and physiological expression of the CAR using lentiviral vectors, our laboratory designed a chimeric promoter based on the Wiskott-Aldrich promoter (WAS) to express ARI-0001 CAR in T cells.^{10 73–79} Previous studies demonstrated that WAS-promoter-based lentiviral vectors exhibit a moderate, physiological and hematopoietic-specific expression pattern.^68–74 In fact, CAR-T cells driven by the WAS chimeric promoter showed a TCR-like expression pattern of the CAR after T cell stimulation. Interestingly, WAS-promoter-driven CAR-T cells maintained a less differentiated phenotype, less tonic signaling, milder secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, and higher specific lysis rates than EF-1 alpha-driven CAR-T cells.¹⁰

Further consideration for promoter choice is possible silencing in vivo, which would lead to receptor extinction. Multiple epigenetic processes can cause an instantaneous or gradual decrease in gene expression after the differentiation or proliferation of cells transduced with integrating viral vectors, potentially leading to poor clinical responses.^{80 81}

CAR design for optimal expression

Even though one of the main ways to control CAR density is through its expression, changing CAR design can also modify CAR density and kinetics. As mentioned above, changing the intracellular lysines of the CAR increases recycling and improves CAR-T cell treatment.²⁹ In addition, modifications to the positively charged patches on the CAR single-chain variable fragment (scFv) have been demonstrated to modulate the formation of CAR clusters, varying CAR density on the membrane, and causing tonic signaling.⁸²

The addition of different elements to the CAR structure has also been shown to control CAR surface expression. Weber et al added a destabilizing domain to the CAR, allowing it to be expressed on the surface only when a drug was administered.⁸³ The temporary pause in CAR surface expression helped to reset the exhausted state of anti-GD2 CAR-T cells through epigenetic changes. In another study, the addition of CTLA-4 tails to the CAR accelerated the CAR kinetics, increasing internalization and recycling, which translated to a better overall T phenotype and antitumor activity.⁴⁷ CAR density in the membrane has also been optimized to target tumor cells with low antigen levels by fusing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) to the CAR structure, which leads to the formation of biomolecular condensates. The fusion of IDRs to CAR proteins against CD19, CD22 and HER2 increased membrane-proximal signaling of the CARs, which resulted in higher cytotoxicity against low antigen-expressing cancers in vitro and in vivo. Interestingly, no higher tonic signaling was observed.⁸⁴

Taken together, these studies suggest that modifying or incorporating elements within the CHead1AR structure design may be another interesting strategy for controlling optimal surface CAR levels.

Methodological approaches and timing for surface CAR analysis

Determining the most appropriate method for detecting CAR molecules is essential for studying CAR expression levels on the cell surface. However, CAR detection methods can operate at the genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic levels and have been reviewed elsewhere.⁸⁵ There are translation-influencing elements and kinetic-related factors (such as CAR biodistribution and turnover rate) which make detection at the proteomic level the most suitable choice to study CAR kinetics.

In most cases, to detect and quantify successfully transduced CAR-T cells, fluorescent proteins or truncated membrane receptors are incorporated into the vector sequence, typically downstream of the CAR construct, and both transgenes are expressed from a single promoter. Co-expression of various genes in one mRNA can be achieved by means of an internal ribosome entry site (IRES)⁸⁶ or 2A elements,⁸⁷ differing in the mechanisms involved in each approach. IRES are cis-acting RNA elements with the ability to recruit small ribosomal subunits and initiate translation in a 5’ cap-independent manner.⁸⁶ Although detection of reporter gene expression often correlates with CAR protein levels, it must be considered that the mechanism of 2A-mediated “self-cleavage” was determined not to be due to proteolytic cleavage, but ribosome skipping.⁸⁸ Thus, only successful skipping and recommencement of translation results in two “cleaved” proteins. Moreover, the efficiency of ribosomal skipping for each 2A peptide varies between organisms, and it also depends on the 2A position and number of linked coding sequences.⁸⁹ Ho et al²⁰quantified the absolute number of CAR molecules and found that these levels were inconsistent with truncated epidermal growth factor receptor (tEGFR) levels on the surface, with both transgenes separated by T2A. Another aspect to consider is the subcellular localization of the reporter protein. In the case of membrane receptors, turnover must also be considered, as each CAR protein and membrane receptor might differ. This suggests that CAR expression on the cell surface should be measured using CAR-specific detection methods, since the use of 2A elements may not always achieve equal amounts of co-expressed proteins.

Regarding the timing of CAR expression level measurements, we believe it would benefit the CAR-T therapy field to establish a consensus on when to measure the CAR molecules in the membrane. This would facilitate comparisons between studies and improve understanding of different CAR kinetics. It is important to ensure that enough time has passed to eliminate episomal expression of the CAR construct. Additionally, the time post-activation should be considered due to downmodulation kinetics

Concluding remarks

In this review, we highlight the importance of modulating CAR protein density on the cell membrane to enhance the efficacy and safety of CAR-T cell therapy. Despite the remarkable success of CAR-T cell therapy in the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory B-cell neoplasms, challenges persist, such as relapse rates, limited efficacy in solid tumors, and severe side effects. Focusing on controlling CAR protein density as a strategy to improve CAR-T cell products, we investigated key factors influencing CAR surface expression and kinetics.

The dynamic nature of CAR expression on T cells is influenced by internalization, recycling, and degradation processes, as well as antigen-related factors such as antigen density and affinity. Emerging strategies to modulate CAR density, including innovative CAR designs and transcriptional control of its expression, hold promise for optimizing CAR-T cell therapy. Specific modifications within the CAR structure have been shown to alter CAR kinetics and should be considered to control optimal surface levels. The generation of CAR-T cells with modulated CAR expression has also been achieved using engineering tools such as promoter-driven lentiviral vectors (LVs) or CRISPR-mediated targeted insertion into specific loci. These tools have upgraded CAR-T cell performance and opened a world of possibilities in the design of future CAR-T cell therapies.

Overall, this review emphasizes the importance of fine-tuning CAR density and dynamics on the T-cell surface. Understanding these factors will pave the way for future research in this area and will enable the development of CAR-T products that are not only safer but also more effective.

All illustrations were created using Biorender.com.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Footnote

Contributors AH-B, CB-J, MT-M, NM-P, PJ-L and FM wrote the manuscript. AH-B and CB-J were the review leaders; MH reviewed the article; PJ-L and FM managed the review.

Funding Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER): Research grants, PI21/00298 and PI24/00888 (FM). Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)–NextGenerationEU funds - actions of the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism: Red TerAv RD21/0017/0004 and TerAv+ RD24/0014/0005 (FM). Ministerio de Ciencia e innovación (MICIN). Plan de Recuperación, transformación y resilencia, Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) and European Union-Next Generation EU: Research grants 00123009/SNEO-20191072 (FM), PMPTA22/00060 (FM), DIN2018-010180 (PJ-L) and DIN2022-012828 (CB-J). Consejería de Salud y Familias (CSyF) -Junta de Andalucía - FEDER/European Cohesion Fund (FSE) for Andalucía: Grants: 2016000073332-TRA, CARTPI-0001-201, PECART-0031-2020 y PI-0236-2024 (FM). Ministerio de Ciencia e innovación (MICIN)–líneas estratégicas: Grant PLEC2021-008094 (FM).

Competing interests CB-J, MT-M and PJ-L are contractually associated with LentiStem Biotech S.L. All other authors declare they have no competing interests.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

References

¹ Wei G, Ding L, Wang J, et al. Advances of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in refractory/relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Exp Hematol Oncol 2017; 6: 10. doi:10.1186/s40164-017-0070-9

² Wang V, Gauthier M, Decot V, et al. Systematic Review on CAR-T Cell Clinical Trials Up to 2022: Academic Center Input. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15: 1003. doi:10.3390/cancers15041003

³ Sterner RC, Sterner RM. CAR-T cell therapy: current limitations and potential strategies. Blood Cancer J 2021; 11: 69. doi:10.1038/s41408-021-00459-7

⁴ Martinez M, Moon EK. CAR T Cells for Solid Tumors: New Strategies for Finding, Infiltrating, and Surviving in the Tumor Microenvironment. Front Immunol 2019; 10: 128. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.00128

⁵ Safarzadeh Kozani P, Safarzadeh Kozani P, Ahmadi Najafabadi M, et al. Recent Advances in Solid Tumor CAR-T Cell Therapy: Driving Tumor Cells From Hero to Zero? Front Immunol 2022; 13: 795164. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.795164

⁶ Khan SH, Choi Y, Veena M, et al. Advances in CAR T cell therapy: antigen selection, modifications, and current trials for solid tumors. Front Immunol 2024; 15: 1489827. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1489827

⁷ Bagley SJ, Logun M, Fraietta JA, et al. Intrathecal bivalent CAR T cells targeting EGFR and IL13Rα2 in recurrent glioblastoma: phase 1 trial interim results. Nat Med 2024; 30: 1320–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02893-z

⁸ Hegde M, Navai S, DeRenzo C, et al. Autologous HER2-specific CAR T cells after lymphodepletion for advanced sarcoma: a phase 1 trial. Nat Cancer 2024; 5: 880–94. doi:10.1038/s43018-024-00749-6

⁹ Rodriguez-Marquez P, Calleja-Cervantes ME, Serrano G, et al. CAR density influences antitumoral efficacy of BCMA CAR T cells and correlates with clinical outcome. Sci Adv 2022; 8: eabo0514. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo0514

¹⁰ Tristán-Manzano M, Maldonado-Pérez N, Justicia-Lirio P, et al. Physiological lentiviral vectors for the generation of improved CAR-T cells. Mol Ther Oncolytics 2022; 25: 335–49. doi:10.1016/j.omto.2022.05.003

¹¹ Gomes-Silva D, Mukherjee M, Srinivasan M, et al. Tonic 4-1BB Costimulation in Chimeric Antigen Receptors Impedes T Cell Survival and Is Vector-Dependent. Cell Rep 2017; 21: 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.09.015

¹² Eyquem J, Mansilla-Soto J, Giavridis T, et al. Targeting a CAR to the TRAC locus with CRISPR/Cas9 enhances tumour rejection. Nature New Biol 2017; 543: 113–7. doi:10.1038/nature21405

¹³ Frigault MJ, Lee J, Basil MC, et al. Identification of chimeric antigen receptors that mediate constitutive or inducible proliferation of T cells. Cancer Immunol Res 2015; 3: 356–67. doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0186

¹⁴ Andreu-Saumell I, Rodriguez-Garcia A, Mühlgrabner V, et al. CAR affinity modulates the sensitivity of CAR-T cells to PD-1/PD-L1-mediated inhibition. Nat Commun 2024; 15: 3552. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47799-z

¹⁵ Peng J-J, Wang L, Li Z, et al. Metabolic challenges and interventions in CAR T cell therapy. Sci Immunol 2023; 8: eabq3016. doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.abq3016

¹⁶ Singh N, Maus MV. Synthetic manipulation of the cancer-immunity cycle: CAR-T cell therapy. Immunity 2023; 56: 2296–310. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2023.09.010

¹⁷ Caruso HG, Hurton LV, Najjar A, et al. Tuning Sensitivity of CAR to EGFR Density Limits Recognition of Normal Tissue While Maintaining Potent Antitumor Activity. Cancer Res 2015; 75: 3505–18. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0139

¹⁸ Walker AJ, Majzner RG, Zhang L, et al. Tumor Antigen and Receptor Densities Regulate Efficacy of a Chimeric Antigen Receptor Targeting Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase. Mol Ther 2017; 25: 2189–201. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.06.008

¹⁹ Hamieh M, Dobrin A, Cabriolu A, et al. CAR T cell trogocytosis and cooperative killing regulate tumour antigen escape. Nature New Biol 2019; 568: 112–6. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1054-1

²⁰ Ho J-Y, Wang L, Liu Y, et al. Promoter usage regulating the surface density of CAR molecules may modulate the kinetics of CAR-T cells in vivo Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 2021; 21: 237–46. doi:10.1016/j.omtm.2021.03.007

²¹ von Essen M, Bonefeld CM, Siersma V, et al. Constitutive and Ligand-Induced TCR Degradation. J Immunol 2004; 173: 384–93. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.173.1.384

²² Dietrich J, Menné C, Lauritsen JPH, et al. Ligand-induced TCR down-regulation is not dependent on constitutive TCR cycling. J Immunol 2002; 168: 5434–40. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.168.11.5434

²³ Liu YC, Gu H. Cbl and Cbl-b in T-cell regulation. Trends Immunol 2002; 23: 140–3. doi:10.1016/s1471-4906(01)02157-3

²⁴ van der Donk LEH, Ates LS, van der Spek J, et al. Separate signaling events control TCR downregulation and T cell activation in primary human T cells. Immun Inflamm Dis 2021; 9: 223–38. doi:10.1002/iid3.383

²⁵ Wang H, Holst J, Woo S-R, et al. Tonic ubiquitylation controls T-cell receptor:CD3 complex expression during T-cell development. EMBO J 2010; 29: 1285–98. doi:10.1038/emboj.2010.10

²⁶ Liu H, Rhodes M, Wiest DL, et al. On the dynamics of TCR:CD3 complex cell surface expression and downmodulation. Immunity 2000; 13: 665–75. doi:10.1016/s1074-7613(00)00066-2

²⁷ Compeer EB, Kraus F, Ecker M, et al. A mobile endocytic network connects clathrin-independent receptor endocytosis to recycling and promotes T cell activation. Nat Commun 2018; 9: 1597. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04088-w

²⁸ Greenman R, Pizem Y, Haus-Cohen M, et al. Phenotypic Models of CAR T-Cell Activation Elucidate the Pivotal Regulatory Role of CAR Downmodulation. Mol Cancer Ther 2021; 20: 946–57. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-1110

²⁹ Li W, Qiu S, Chen J, et al. Chimeric Antigen Receptor Designed to Prevent Ubiquitination and Downregulation Showed Durable Antitumor Efficacy. Immunity 2020; 53: 456–70. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.07.011

³⁰ Li C, Zuo S, Shan L, et al. Myeloid leukemia-derived galectin-1 downregulates CAR expression to hinder cytotoxicity of CAR T cells. J Transl Med 2024; 22: 32. doi:10.1186/s12967-023-04832-x

³¹ Evnouchidou I, Caillens V, Koumantou D, et al. The role of endocytic trafficking in antigen T cell receptor activation. Biomed J 2022; 45: 310–20. doi:10.1016/j.bj.2021.09.004

³² Krangel MS. Endocytosis and recycling of the T3-T cell receptor complex. The role of T3 phosphorylation. J Exp Med 1987; 165: 1141–59. doi:10.1084/jem.165.4.1141

³³ Szymczak AL, Workman CJ, Gil D, et al. The CD3epsilon proline-rich sequence, and its interaction with Nck, is not required for T cell development and function. J Immunol 2005; 175: 270–5. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.175.1.270

³⁴ Monjas A, Alcover A, Alarcón B. Engaged and bystander T cell receptors are down-modulated by different endocytotic pathways. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 55376–84. doi:10.1074/jbc.M409342200

³⁵ Fernández-Arenas E, Calleja E, Martínez-Martín N, et al. β-Arrestin-1 mediates the TCR-triggered re-routing of distal receptors to the immunological synapse by a PKC-mediated mechanism. EMBO J 2014; 33: 559–77. doi:10.1002/embj.201386022

³⁶ Das V, Nal B, Dujeancourt A, et al. Activation-induced polarized recycling targets T cell antigen receptors to the immunological synapse; involvement of SNARE complexes. Immunity 2004; 20: 577–88. doi:10.1016/s1074-7613(04)00106-2

³⁷ Wang P, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor with novel intracellular modules improves antitumor performance of T cells. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2025; 10: 20. doi:10.1038/s41392-024-02096-5

³⁸ Stinchcombe JC, Asano Y, Kaufman CJG, et al. Ectocytosis renders T cell receptor signaling self-limiting at the immune synapse. Science 2023; 380: 818–23. doi:10.1126/science.abp8933

³⁹ Xiong W, Chen Y, Kang X, et al. Immunological Synapse Predicts Effectiveness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor Cells. Mol Ther 2021; 29: 1349–51. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.01.025

⁴⁰ Xiong Y, Libby KA, Su X. The physical landscape of CAR-T synapse. Biophys J 2024; 123: 2199–210. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2023.09.004

⁴¹ Barden M, Holzinger A, Velas L, et al. CAR and TCR form individual signaling synapses and do not cross-activate, however, can co-operate in T cell activation. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1110482. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1110482

⁴² Voisinne G, García-Blesa A, Chaoui K, et al. Co-recruitment analysis of the CBL and CBLB signalosomes in primary T cells identifies CD5 as a key regulator of TCR-induced ubiquitylation. Mol Syst Biol 2016; 12: 876. doi:10.15252/msb.20166837

⁴³ Wang HY, Altman Y, Fang D, et al. Cbl promotes ubiquitination of the T cell receptor zeta through an adaptor function of Zap-70. J Biol Chem 2001; 276: 26004–11. doi:10.1074/jbc.M010738200

⁴⁴ Kumar J, Kumar R, Kumar Singh A, et al. Deletion of Cbl-b inhibits CD8⁺ T-cell exhaustion and promotes CAR T-cell function. J Immunother Cancer 2021; 9: e001688. doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-001688

⁴⁵ Wohlfert EA, Gorelik L, Mittler R, et al. Cutting edge: deficiency in the E3 ubiquitin ligase Cbl-b results in a multifunctional defect in T cell TGF-beta sensitivity in vitro and in vivo. J Immunol 2006; 176: 1316–20. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.176.3.1316

⁴⁶ Peer S, Baier G, Gruber T. Cblb-deficient T cells are less susceptible to PD-L1-mediated inhibition. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 41841–53. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.18360

⁴⁷ Zhou X, Cao H, Fang S-Y, et al. CTLA-4 tail fusion enhances CAR-T antitumor immunity. Nat Immunol 2023; 24: 1499–510. doi:10.1038/s41590-023-01571-5

⁴⁸ Li D, Guo X, Yang K, et al. EpCAM-targeting CAR-T cell immunotherapy is safe and efficacious for epithelial tumors. Sci Adv 2023; 9: eadg9721. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg9721

⁴⁹ Gallegos AM, Xiong H, Leiner IM, et al. Control of T cell antigen reactivity via programmed TCR downregulation. Nat Immunol 2016; 17: 379–86. doi:10.1038/ni.3386

⁵⁰ Clutton GT, Weideman AMK, Mischell MA, et al. CD3 downregulation identifies high-avidity human CD8 T cells. Clin Exp Immunol 2024; 215: 279–90. doi:10.1093/cei/uxad124

⁵¹ Majzner RG, Rietberg SP, Sotillo E, et al. Tuning the Antigen Density Requirement for CAR T-cell Activity. Cancer Discov 2020; 10: 702–23. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0945

⁵² Guedan S, Delgado J. Immobilizing A Moving Target: CAR T Cells Hit CD22. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25: 5188–90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1649

⁵³ Zhang DKY, Adu-Berchie K, Iyer S, et al. Enhancing CAR-T cell functionality in a patient-specific manner. Nat Commun 2023; 14: 506. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36126-7

⁵⁴ Harris DT, Hager MV, Smith SN, et al. Comparison of T Cell Activities Mediated by Human TCRs and CARs That Use the Same Recognition Domains. J Immunol 2018; 200: 1088–100. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1700236

⁵⁵ Sykulev Y, Joo M, Vturina I, et al. Evidence that a single peptide-MHC complex on a target cell can elicit a cytolytic T cell response. Immunity 1996; 4: 565–71. doi:10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80483-5

⁵⁶ Ramakrishna S, Highfill SL, Walsh Z, et al. Modulation of Target Antigen Density Improves CAR T-cell Functionality and Persistence. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25: 5329–41. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3784

⁵⁷ Harrer DC, Li S-S, Kaljanac M, et al. Fine-tuning the antigen sensitivity of CAR T cells: emerging strategies and current challenges. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1321596. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1321596

⁵⁸ Hernandez-Lopez RA, Yu W, Cabral KA, et al. T cell circuits that sense antigen density with an ultrasensitive threshold. Science 2021; 371: 1166–71. doi:10.1126/science.abc1855

⁵⁹ Zhai Y, Du Y, Li G, et al. Trogocytosis of CAR molecule regulates CAR-T cell dysfunction and tumor antigen escape. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2023; 8: 457. doi:10.1038/s41392-023-01708-w

⁶⁰ Li G, Bethune MT, Wong S, et al. T cell antigen discovery via trogocytosis. Nat Methods 2019; 16: 183–90. doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0305-7

⁶¹ Heitzeneder S, Bosse KR, Zhu Z, et al. GPC2-CAR T cells tuned for low antigen density mediate potent activity against neuroblastoma without toxicity. Cancer Cell 2022; 40: 53–69. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2021.12.005

⁶² Franz K, Singh A, Weinberger LS. Lentiviral vectors to study stochastic noise in gene expression. Methods Enzymol 2011; 497: 603–22. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385075-1.00026-3

⁶³ Pavlovic K, Tristán-Manzano M, Maldonado-Pérez N, et al. Using Gene Editing Approaches to Fine-Tune the Immune System. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 570672. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.570672

⁶⁴ Harrer DC, Dörrie J, Schaft N. Chimeric Antigen Receptors in Different Cell Types: New Vehicles Join the Race. Hum Gene Ther 2018; 29: 547–58. doi:10.1089/hum.2017.236

⁶⁵ Ajina A, Maher J. Strategies to Address Chimeric Antigen Receptor Tonic Signaling. Mol Cancer Ther 2018; 17: 1795–815. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-1097

⁶⁶ Kochenderfer JN, Feldman SA, Zhao Y, et al. Construction and preclinical evaluation of an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor. J Immunother 2009; 32: 689–702. doi:10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181ac6138

⁶⁷ Milone MC, Fish JD, Carpenito C, et al. Chimeric receptors containing CD137 signal transduction domains mediate enhanced survival of T cells and increased antileukemic efficacy in vivo. Mol Ther 2009; 17: 1453–64. doi:10.1038/mt.2009.83

⁶⁸ Guedan S, Posey AD, Shaw C, et al. Enhancing CAR T cell persistence through ICOS and 4-1BB costimulation. JCI Insight 2018; 3: e96976. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.96976

⁶⁹ Kath J, Franke C, Drosdek V, et al. Integration of ζ-deficient CARs into the CD3ζ gene conveys potent cytotoxicity in T and NK cells. Blood 2024; 143: 2599–611. doi:10.1182/blood.2023020973

⁷⁰ Mansilla-Soto J, Eyquem J, Haubner S, et al. HLA-independent T cell receptors for targeting tumors with low antigen density. Nat Med 2022; 28: 345–52. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01621-1

⁷¹ Fraessle SP, Tschulik C, Effenberger M, et al. Activation-inducible CAR expression enables precise control over engineered CAR T cell function. Commun Biol 2023; 6: 604. doi:10.1038/s42003-023-04978-w

⁷² Dharani S, Cho H, Fernandez JP, et al. TALEN-edited allogeneic inducible dual CAR T cells enable effective targeting of solid tumors while mitigating off-tumor toxicity. Mol Ther 2024; 32: 3915–31. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2024.08.018

⁷³ Martín F, Toscano MG, Blundell M, et al. Lentiviral vectors transcriptionally targeted to hematopoietic cells by WASP gene proximal promoter sequences. Gene Ther 2005; 12: 715–23. doi:10.1038/sj.gt.3302457

⁷⁴ Frecha C, Toscano MG, Costa C, et al. Improved lentiviral vectors for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome gene therapy mimic endogenous expression profiles throughout haematopoiesis. Gene Ther 2008; 15: 930–41. doi:10.1038/gt.2008.20

⁷⁵ Toscano MG, Frecha C, Benabdellah K, et al. Hematopoietic-specific lentiviral vectors circumvent cellular toxicity due to ectopic expression of Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein. Hum Gene Ther 2008; 19: 179–97. doi:10.1089/hum.2007.098

⁷⁶ Toscano MG, Benabdellah K, Muñoz P, et al. Was cDNA sequences modulate transgene expression of was promoter-driven lentiviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther 2009; 20: 1279–90. doi:10.1089/hum.2009.118

⁷⁷ Muñoz P, Toscano MG, Real PJ, et al. Specific marking of hESCs-derived hematopoietic lineage by WAS-promoter driven lentiviral vectors. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e39091. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039091

⁷⁸ Maria Tristán A-G, Muñoz P, Thrasher AJ, et al. Preclinic studies for Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome gene therapy: expression levels in megakaryocytic lineage. Human Gene Therapy (ESGCT Meeting) 2017.

⁷⁹ Muñoz P, Tristán-Manzano M, Sánchez-Gilabert A, et al. WAS Promoter-Driven Lentiviral Vectors Mimic Closely the Lopsided WASP Expression during Megakaryocytic Differentiation. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 2020; 19: 220–35. doi:10.1016/j.omtm.2020.09.006

⁸⁰ Kong W, Dimitri A, Wang W, et al. BET bromodomain protein inhibition reverses chimeric antigen receptor extinction and reinvigorates exhausted T cells in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Invest 2021; 131: e145459. doi:10.1172/JCI145459

⁸¹ Mitsuyasu RT, Anton PA, Deeks SG, et al. Prolonged survival and tissue trafficking following adoptive transfer of CD4zeta gene-modified autologous CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects. Blood 2000; 96: 785–93.

⁸² Chen J, Hu J, Gu L, et al. Anti-mesothelin CAR-T immunotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2023; 72: 409–25. doi:10.1007/s00262-022-03238-w

⁸³ Weber EW, Parker KR, Sotillo E, et al. Transient rest restores functionality in exhausted CAR-T cells through epigenetic remodeling. Science 2021; 372: eaba1786. doi:10.1126/science.aba1786

⁸⁴ Zhang X, Xiao Q, Zeng L, et al. IDR-induced CAR condensation improves the cytotoxicity of CAR-Ts against low-antigen cancers. bioRxiv 2023.: 2023.10.02.560460. doi:10.1101/2023.10.02.560460

⁸⁵ Hu Y, Huang J. The Chimeric Antigen Receptor Detection Toolkit. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 1770. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01770

⁸⁶ Mizuguchi H, Xu Z, Ishii-Watabe A, et al. IRES-dependent second gene expression is significantly lower than cap-dependent first gene expression in a bicistronic vector. Mol Ther 2000; 1: 376–82. doi:10.1006/mthe.2000.0050

⁸⁷ de Felipe P, Martín V, Cortés ML, et al. Use of the 2A sequence from foot-and-mouth disease virus in the generation of retroviral vectors for gene therapy. Gene Ther 1999; 6: 198–208. doi:10.1038/sj.gt.3300811

⁸⁸ Donnelly DS, Krause DS. Hematopoietic Stem Cells Can Be CD34+ or CD34-. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2001; 40: 221–34. doi:10.3109/10428190109057921

⁸⁹ Liu Z, Chen O, Wall JBJ, et al. Systematic comparison of 2A peptides for cloning multi-genes in a polycistronic vector. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 2193. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02460-2