4.5 Article

A multifactorial screening strategy to identify anti-idiotypic reagents for bioanalytical support of antibody therapeutics

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 470, Issue -, Pages 52-60

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2014.10.007

Keywords

Anti-idiotypic; Antibody screening; Hybridoma; Bioanalysis; Reagent; Ligand binding assay

Funding

  1. Amgen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Antibodies are critical tools for protein bioanalysis; their quality and performance dictate the caliber and robustness of ligand binding assays. After immunization, polyclonal B cells generate a diverse antibody repertoire against constant and variable regions of the therapeutic antibody immunogen. Herein we describe a comprehensive and multifactorial screening strategy to eliminate undesirable constant region-specific antibodies and select for anti-idiotypic antibodies with specificity for the unique variable region. Application of this strategy is described for the therapeutic antibody Mab-A case study. Five different factors were evaluated to select a final antibody pair for the quantification of therapeutics in biological matrices: (i) matrix effect in preclinical and clinical matrices, (ii) assay sensitivity with lower limit of quantification goal of single-digit ng/ml (low pM) at a signal-to-background ratio greater than 5, (iii) epitope distinction or nonbridging antibody pair, (iv) competition with target and inhibitory capacity enabling measurement of free drug, and (v) neutralizing bioactivity using bioassay. The selected antibody pair demonstrated superior assay sensitivity with no or minimal matrix effect in common biological samples, recognized two distinct binding epitopes on the therapeutic antibody variable region, and featured inhibitory and neutralizing effects with respect to quantification of free drug levels. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available