4.7 Article

Structural and In Vitro Functional Analyses of Novel Plant-Produced Anti-Human PD1 Antibody

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51656-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) [P-18-50128]
  2. Chulalongkorn Academic Advancement into Its Second Century (CUAASC) Project
  3. Ratchadaphiseksomphot Fund, Chulalongkorn University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising and effective treatment for cancer. The frequently used immunotherapy agents are immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as antibodies specific to PD1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4. However, these drugs are highly expensive, and most people in the world cannot access the treatment. The development of recombinant protein production platforms that are cost-effective, scalable, and safe is needed. Plant platforms are attractive because of their low production cost, speed, scalability, lack of human and animal pathogens, and post-translational modifications that enable them to produce effective monoclonal antibodies. In this study, an anti-PD1 IgG4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) was transiently produced in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. The plant-produced anti-PD1 mAb was compared to the commercial nivolumab produced in CHO cells. Our results showed that both antibodies have similar protein structures, and the N-glycans on the plant-produced antibody lacks plant-specific structures. The PD1 binding affinity of the plant-produced and commercial nivolumab, determined by two different techniques, that is, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and surface plasmon resonance (SPR), are also comparable. Plant-produced nivolumab binds to human PD1 protein with high affinity and specificity, blocks the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, and enhances T cell function, comparable to commercial nivolumab. These results confirmed that plant-produced anti-PD1 antibody has the potential to be effective agent for cancer immunotherapy.

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