4.3 Review

Flow cytometry and receptor occupancy in immune-oncology

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON BIOLOGICAL THERAPY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 87-94

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14712598.2021.1944098

关键词

Flow cytometry; receptor occupancy; clinical trial; immuno-oncology

资金

  1. Champions Oncology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the importance of developing, optimizing, and validating a robust Receptor Occupancy Assay (ROA) to improve dose selection, pharmacology monitoring, and safety in clinical settings. The design of an ROA may be challenging and can lead to exaggerated pharmacology if not accurately developed, optimized, and validated. Improvements in understanding epitopes, binding, affinities, and pharmacological effects may lead to better antibody drug targeting and receptor evaluation.
Introduction: Immunotherapies are focused on strategies that alter immune responses, using antibodies that binds to receptors on different immune cell subsets and either activate or suppress their functions depending on the immune response being targeted. Hence, the necessity of developing assays that assess the functional and biological effect of a therapeutic on its target. When incorporated into high-parameter flow cytometry panels, receptor occupancy assay can simultaneously evaluate receptor expression and drug occupancy on defined cell subsets, which can provide information related to functional effects, and safety. Areas covered: This review focuses on the importance of developing, optimizing, and validating a robust Receptor Occupancy Assay (ROA) to improve dose selection, pharmacology monitoring and safety mainly in clinical settings. Expert opinion: The designing of an ROA can be challenging and can lead to exaggerated pharmacology if not accurately developed, optimized, and validated. However, improvements in our understanding of epitopes, binding, affinities, and pharmacological effects may lead to improved antibody drug targeting and receptor evaluation.

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

4.3
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