In this article, ScienceDaily presents the development of a new type of chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) T cell – describing the implications it may have in the field of immunotherapy treatments for cancer. While CAR T-cell treatment has already been integrated into treatment approaches for various cancers, the leading research team has devised an approach that allows more control over the activation, and more importantly, the inactivation of these cells. More specifically, this research team – led by M. Irving and G. Coukos – has succeeded at constructing a CAR-T cell of two molecules that can be linked together to function normally or alternatively, can be maintained separately to directly control the activity of this system.
The author of this article actively presents what is known regarding the topic with a specific focus on how the CAR-T cell treatments function. Branching off from this, ScienceDaily clearly and concisely reports on the science behind, and mechanisms of, the newly developed CAR-T cells - which are coined the term “STOP CAR-T cells” - with a clear connectivity to past research. In doing so, there are no mistakes made in assuming correlation versus causation. It is important to mention that while this article contains some technical jargon, the author makes an active effort to mitigate this barrier and improve the accessibility of the research being presented for any audience with an appropriate baseline scientific knowledge.
In contrast, this article lacks in a few minor areas. For example, while the article accurately reports and utilises primary evidence given directly from lead researchers on this project, the author fails to include sources independent of the original publication. That is, all information presented within this body of text are derived directly from the publication creating issues for readers attempting to substantiate some of claims made. Notably, there are no credentials available for the author thus providing little opportunity to evaluate their credibility.
Overarchingly, there are very few minor shortcomings and ScienceDaily’s report Building a safer CAR-T therapy is an accurate and appropriate reflection of the scientific method.
Science Daily presents a promising novel chimeric antigen-receptor (CAR) t cell that can be used in immunotherapies for cancer. This study is built on the fact that CAR-T cells have been shown to be effective for the treatment of some blood cancers but include significant risks, namely, a cascading immune response against healthy tissues. Led by Melita Irving of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, a research team has built another approach, called “STOP-CAR-T”, where the system can work as well as the traditional designed CAR-T system but can be switched off and prevent the potentially harmful side effects. More specifically, two domains have been linked together with the ability to be disrupted by a small molecule administered systemically. For this system to be switched off, the researchers are working refining the STOP-CAR-T system to be controlled by approved drugs in various amounts.
The author of this article (unknown) adequately describes important background information to ensure the target audience understands the novel mechanism. Specifically, the purpose and mechanism of CAR-T cells are described in detail. The author remains neutral and gives precedence to this article as an exciting and novel therapy. While this article does contain some scientific jargon, the author does well to describe any terms and mechanisms appropriately.
Although this article describes the results of this study in detail, Science Daily fails to provide a publicly available copy. Additionally, all of the claims made in the article are derived solely from the original publication. These two factors represent barriers for the target audience to verify or substantiate any of the claims made in the article. It is important to note that there is no available name, email or social media of the author is missing.
The views expressed by the reviewers for this article are not endorsed or shared by SciFeye. The interpretation of the review of the news story using the SciFeye Index was done independently by two SciFeye reviewers. We encourage you to conduct your own evaluation of the accuracy and quality of the news story using the Index.