Evaluates a SART3-targeted vaccine's immunogenicity and physicochemical properties, suggesting potential for cancer treatment.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Squamous cell carcinoma antigen recognized by T-cells 3 (SART3) has emerged as a promising target for cancer immunotherapy, given its overexpression in various malignancies and low or absent expression in non-tumorous tissues. This study aimed to design rationally and in silico evaluate a multi-epitope T cell vaccine targeting SART3, incorporating a TLR4 agonist adjuvant. The vaccine's predicted immunogenicity, physicochemical properties, structural stability, and interaction with TLR4 were comprehensively assessed. Additional assessments of cytokine-inducing potential, B-cell epitopes, and disulfide engineering opportunities were also executed. METHODS: Potential T-cell epitopes from SART3 were identified using IEDB and screened for antigenicity (VaxiJen), toxicity (ToxinPred), and MHC-I/II binding affinity. Cytokine-inducing epitopes were evaluated using IL4pred, IL-10Pred, and IFNepitope servers. B-cell epitopes were predicted using ElliPro. The vaccine underwent comprehensive physicochemical, structural (I-TASSER/GalaxyRefine), molecular docking (HDOCK), molecular dynamics simulations, and disulfide engineering (Disulfide by Design 2.0) analyses. RESULTS: The optimized 344-residue vaccine demonstrated non-allergenicity, high stability (instability index 17.16), antigenicity (Vaxijen 0.67), and solubility (SOLpro 0.96). HDOCK predicted favorable vaccine-TLR4 binding (ΔG = - 265.61 kcal/mol, confidence 91%). MD simulations confirmed complex stability. Cytokine analysis revealed the potential to induce IL-4 and IL-10. The Val80-Ala123 pair exhibited the lowest bond energy (1.16 kcal/mol), indicating the optimal geometry for disulfide bond formation. The in silico immune simulations demonstrated a robust immune response following vaccine administration. CONCLUSION: This rationally designed SART3-targeted multi-epitope vaccine exhibits promising in silico characteristics across immunogenicity, physicochemical, cytokine-inducing, B-cell epitope, structural, and disulfide engineering profiles, warranting experimental validation for cancer immunotherapy development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bayat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: