4.7 Review

Potential application of Leishmania tarentolae as an alternative platform for antibody expression

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 380-394

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07388551.2019.1566206

关键词

Leishmania tarentolae; protozoan; posttranslational modification; eukaryotic expression system; glycosylation; monoclonal antibodies

资金

  1. Universiti Sains Malaysia Research University Individual Grant Scheme [1001/CIPPM/812173]
  2. Malaysian Ministry of Education through the Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE) Grant [311/CIPPM/4401005]
  3. Graduate Assistant Scheme from Universiti Sains Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through the discovery of monoclonal antibody (mAb) technology, profound successes in medical treatment against a wide range of diseases have been achieved. This has led antibodies to emerge as a new class of biodrugs. As the rising star in the pharmaceutical market, extensive research and development in antibody production has been carried out in various expression systems including bacteria, insects, plants, yeasts, and mammalian cell lines. The major benefit of eukaryotic expression systems is the ability to carry out posttranslational modifications of the antibody. Glycosylation of therapeutic antibodies is one of these important modifications, due to its influence on antibody structure, stability, serum half-life, and complement recruitment. In recent years, the protozoan parasite Leishmania tarentolae has been introduced as a new eukaryotic expression system. L. tarentolae is rich in glycoproteins with oligosaccharide structures that are very similar to humans. Therefore, it is touted as a potential alternative to mammalian expression systems for therapeutic antibody production. Here, we present a comparative review on the features of the L. tarentolae expression system with other expression platforms such as bacteria, insect cells, yeasts, transgenic plants, and mammalian cells with a focus on mAb production.

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

4.7
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