4.5 Review

Engineered Autonomous Human Variable Domains

期刊

CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL DESIGN
卷 22, 期 43, 页码 6527-6537

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1381612822666160921143011

关键词

Human domain antibody; variable heavy domain; antibody engineering; synthetic antibodies; phage display; aggregation

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [637-2013-468]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01GM104130]
  3. National Science Foundation (CBET) [0954450, 1159943]
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-93725]
  5. Directorate For Engineering
  6. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1159943, 0954450] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The complex multi-chain architecture of antibodies has spurred interest in smaller derivatives that retain specificity but can be more easily produced in bacteria. Domain antibodies consisting of single variable domains are the smallest antibody fragments and have been shown to possess enhanced ability to target epitopes that are difficult to access using multidomain antibodies. However, in contrast to natural camelid antibody domains, human variable domains typically suffer from low stability and high propensity to aggregate. Methods: This review summarizes strategies to improve the biophysical properties of heavy chain variable domains from human antibodies with an emphasis on aggregation resistance. Several protein engineering approaches have targeted antibody frameworks and complementarity determining regions to stabilize the native state and prevent aggregation of the denatured state. Conclusion: Recent findings enable the construction of highly diverse libraries enriched in aggregation-resistant variants that are expected to provide binders to diverse antigens. Engineered domain antibodies possess unique advantages in expression, epitope preference and flexibility of formatting over conventional immunoreagents and are a promising class of antibody fragments for biomedical development.

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