Interesting article, but in the full paper their key figure (Fig 2) shows their treatment group of n=3 mice completely responded to the bacterial treatment, but their methods say they treated n=5 mice? Could be an honest mistake but that’s a little concerning for data manipulation.

Also agree that using a PD-L1 mab feels like it’s for show especially considering the cancer model they’re using (Colon-26) was shown to be substantially less responsive to PD-L1 inhibitors…

Not the world’s best paper imo

Still the idea is beautiful. Since tumors are oxygen-deficient and suppress the immune response, anaerobic bacteria would proliferate there, and wreak havoc, while in the healthy parts of the organism they would be rapidly eliminated. Additionally, since the bacteria accumulate in the tumor, and the immune system has just responded to their invasion, T-cells will flock to the tumor, destroying what remains of it in due course.

As they say, "the fame of a mathematician is measured by the number of poor papers", because pioneering works are often awkward, treading completely unknown ground. Maybe the same applies to biology sometimes?

Figures 2 and 3 seem to be different experiments, with n=3 and n=5, respectively. Both showed 100% survival. Obviously very small sample sizes, but still promising.

Yes in figure 2 it's 3 mice, next figure 3 they also have 5 (panel e)