4.4 Article

Pros and cons of different therapeutic antibody formats for recombinant antivenom development

期刊

TOXICON
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 151-175

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.03.004

关键词

Antivenom; Venom; Recombinant antivenom; Antibodies; Snakebite; Scorpion sting; Spider bite; Animal envenoming; Pharmacokinetics; Pharmacodynamics; Immunogenicity; Venom neutralization; Antibody expression; Antivenom design; Adverse reactions; Neglected tropical diseases; Biotechnology

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF16OC0019248, NNF13OC0005613]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnologia y Telecomunicaciones (MICITT) [PEM-066-2015-II]
  3. Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR) [OAICE-CAB-05-56-2016]
  4. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  5. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development [150749/2017-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antibody technologies are being increasingly applied in the field of toxinology. Fuelled by the many advances in immunology, synthetic biology, and antibody research, different approaches and antibody formats are being investigated for the ability to neutralize animal toxins. These different molecular formats each have their own therapeutic characteristics. In this review, we provide an overview of the advances made in the development of toxin-targeting antibodies, and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of different antibody formats in relation to their ability to neutralize toxins, pharmacokinetic features, propensity to cause adverse reactions, formulation, and expression for research and development (R&D) purposes and large-scale manufacturing. A research trend seems to be emerging towards the use of human antibody formats as well as camelid heavy-domain antibody fragments due to their compatibility with the human immune system, beneficial therapeutic properties, and the ability to manufacture these molecules cost-effectively. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.4
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