4.5 Article

Heparin chromatography as an in vitro predictor for antibody clearance rate through pinocytosis

期刊

MABS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19420862.2019.1683432

关键词

Pharmacokinetics; neonatal Fc receptor; FcRn; pinocytosis; clearance; prediction; heparin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of therapeutic antibodies directly affect efficacy, dose and dose intervals, application route and tissue penetration. In indications where health-care providers and patients can choose between several efficacious and safe therapeutic options, convenience (determined by dosing interval or route of application), which is mainly driven by PK properties, can affect drug selection. Therapeutic antibodies can have greatly different PK even if they have identical Fc domains and show no target-mediated drug disposition. Biophysical properties like surface charge or hydrophobicity, and binding to surrogates for high abundant off-targets (e.g., baculovirus particles, Chinese hamster ovary cell membrane proteins) were proposed to be responsible for these differences. Here, we used heparin chromatography to separate a polyclonal mix of endogenous human IgGs (IVIG) into fractions that differ in their PK properties. Heparin was chosen as a surrogate for highly negatively charged glycocalyx components on endothelial cells, which are among the main contributors to nonspecific clearance. By directly correlating heparin retention time with clearance, we identified heparin chromatography as a tool to assess differences in unspecific cell-surface interaction and the likelihood for increased pinocytotic uptake and degradation. Building on these results, we combined predictors for FcRn-mediated recycling and cell-surface interaction. The combination of heparin and FcRn chromatography allow identification of antibodies with abnormal PK by mimicking the major root causes for fast, non-target-mediated, clearance of therapeutic, Fc-containing proteins.

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