4.7 Article

CD32a antibodies induce thrombocytopenia and type II hypersensitivity reactions in FCGR2A mice

期刊

BLOOD
卷 126, 期 19, 页码 2230-2238

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-04-638684

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CD32a immunoglobulin G (IgG) receptor (Fc gamma receptor IIa) is a potential therapeutic target for diseases in which IgG immune complexes (ICs) mediate inflammation, such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a promising strategy for treating such diseases. However, IV.3, perhaps the best characterized CD32a-blocking mAb, was recently shown to induce anaphylaxis in immunocompromised 3KO mice. This anaphylactic reaction required a human CD32a transgene because mice lack an equivalent of this gene. The finding that IV.3 induces anaphylaxis in CD32a-transgenic mice was surprising because IV.3 had long been thought to lack the intrinsic capacity to trigger cellular activation via CD32a. Such an anaphylactic reaction would also limit potential therapeutic applications of IV.3. In the present study, we examine the molecular mechanisms by which IV.3 induces anaphylaxis. We now report that IV.3 induces anaphylaxis in immunocompetent CD32a-transgenic FCGR2A mice, along with the novel finding that IV.3 and 2 other well-characterized CD32a-blocking mAbs, AT-10 and MDE-8, also induce severe thrombocytopenia in FCGR2A mice. Using recombinant variants of these same mAbs, we show that IgG Fc effector function is necessary for the induction of anaphylaxis and thrombocytopenia in FCGR2A mice. Variants of these mAbs lacking the capacity to activate mouse IgG receptors not only failed to induce anaphylaxis or thrombocytopenia, but also very potently protected FCGR2A mice from near lethal doses of IgG ICs. Our findings show that effector-deficient IV.3, AT-10, and MDE-8 are promising candidates for developing therapeutic mAbs to treat CD32a-mediated diseases.

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