4.5 Article

Antibody Responses in Mice to Particles Formed from Adsorption of a Murine Monoclonal Antibody onto Glass Microparticles

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 78-89

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.23772

关键词

protein; aggregates; immunogenicity; microparticles; adsorption; adjuvant effect; anti-drug antibody (ADA); monoclonal antibody (mAb); ELISA assay; infrared spectroscopy

资金

  1. AbbVie GmbH & Company KG, Ludwigshafen, Germany
  2. AbbVie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunogenicity of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is a concern because of the effects of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) on therapeutic efficacy. Particulate matter has been suggested as a potential contributing factor to immunogenicity. In this study, we investigated ADA levels in mice in response to administration of a murine immunoglobulin G (IgG)2c/ mAb (mAb1) that was generated in C57BL/6J mice. Particles of mAb1 were formed by adsorbing the protein to glass microparticles. Formulations containing microparticles were administered subcutaneously to mice of either the syngeneic strain, C57Bl/6J, or the allogeneic strain, BALB/c. ADA levels were measured using an isotype-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. Whereas BALB/c mice showed strong IgG1 and IgG2b responses against both the particulate and native mAb1 samples, adsorption of mAb1 to particles rendered it slightly more immunogenic than its native, soluble form. In BALB/c mice, immunoglobulin M (IgM) was produced after the first week of injections and then faded gradually. In contrast, C57BL/6J mice showed moderate IgM, IgG1, IgG2b, and IgG3 responses to injections of glass particle-adsorbed mAb1. ADA responses were higher in the allogeneic BALB/c mice, which do not produce mAbs of the IgG2c/ isotype. Thus, the presence of both foreign epitopes and particles may be important in inducing ADA responses. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 103:78-89, 2014

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据