Therapeutic vaccination offers great promise as an intervention for a diversity of infectious and non‐infectious conditions. Given that most chronic health conditions are thought to have an immune component, vaccination can at least in principle be proposed as a therapeutic strategy. Understanding the nature of protective immunity is of vital importance, and the progress made in recent years in defining the nature of pathological and protective immunity for a range of diseases has provided an impetus to devise strategies to promote such responses in a targeted manner. However, in many cases, limited progress has been made in clinical adoption of such approaches. This in part results from a lack of safe and effective vaccine adjuvants that can be used to promote protective immunity and/or reduce deleterious immune responses. Although somewhat simplistic, it is possible to divide therapeutic vaccine approaches into those targeting conditions where antibody responses can mediate protection and those where the principal focus is the promotion of effector and memory cellular immunity or the reduction of damaging cellular immune responses as in the case of autoimmune diseases. Clearly, in all cases of antigen‐specific immunotherapy, the identification of protective antigens is a vital first step. There are many challenges to developing therapeutic vaccines beyond those associated with prophylactic diseases including the ongoing immune responses in patients, patient heterogeneity, and diversity in the type and stage of disease. If reproducible biomarkers can be defined, these could allow earlier diagnosis and intervention and likely increase therapeutic vaccine efficacy. Current immunomodulatory approaches related to adoptive cell transfers or passive antibody therapy are showing great promise, but these are outside the scope of this review which will focus on the potential for adjuvanted therapeutic active vaccination strategies.

Combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors significantly improves survival in BRAF mutated melanoma patients but is unable to prevent disease recurrence due to the emergence of drug resistance. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been involved in these long-term treatment failures. We previously reported in lung cancer that CSCs maintenance is due to altered lipid metabolism and dependent upon Stearoyl-CoA-desaturase (SCD1)-mediated upregulation of YAP and TAZ. On this ground, we investigated the role of SCD1 in melanoma CSCs. SCD1 gene expression data of melanoma patients were downloaded from TCGA and correlated with disease progression by bioinformatics analysis and confirmed on patient’s tissues by qRT-PCR and IHC analyses. The effects of combination of BRAF/MEKi and the SCD1 inhibitor MF-438 were monitored by spheroid-forming and proliferation assays on a panel of BRAF-mutated melanoma cell lines grown in 3D and 2D conditions, respectively. SCD1, YAP/TAZ and stemness markers were evaluated in melanoma cells and tissues by qRT-PCR, WB and Immunofluorescence. We first observed that SCD1 expression increases during melanoma progression. BRAF-mutated melanoma 3D cultures enriched for CSCs overexpressed SCD1 and were more resistant than 2D differentiated cultures to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. We next showed that exposure of BRAF-mutated melanoma cells to MAPK pathway inhibitors enhanced stemness features by upregulating the expression of YAP/TAZ and downstream genes but surprisingly not SCD1. However, SCD1 pharmacological inhibition was able to downregulate YAP/TAZ and to revert at the same time CSC enrichment and resistance to MAPK inhibitors. Our data underscore the role of SCD1 as prognostic marker in melanoma and promote the use of SCD1 inhibitors in combination with MAPK inhibitors for the control of drug resistance.

DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV are type IIa topoisomerases that are essential bacterial enzymes required to oversee the topological state of DNA during transcription and replication processes. Their ATPase domains, GyrB and ParE, respectively, are recognized as viable targets for small molecule inhibitors, however, no synthetic or natural product GyrB/ParE inhibitors have so far reached the clinic for use as novel antibacterial agents, except for novobiocin which was withdrawn from the market. In the present study, a series of substituted oxadiazoles have been designed and synthesized as potential DNA gyrase inhibitors. Structure-based optimization resulted in the identification of compound 35, displaying an IC50 of 1.2 μM for Escherichia coli DNA gyrase, while also exhibiting a balanced low micromolar inhibition of E. coli topoisomerase IV and of the respective Staphylococcus aureus homologues. The most promising inhibitors identified from each series were ultimately evaluated against selected Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial strains, of which compound 35 inhibited Enterococcus faecalis with a MIC90 of 75 μM. Our study thus provides further insight into the structural requirements of substituted oxadiazoles for dual inhibition of DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV.