4.5 Article

Influence of aggregation on immunogenicity of recombinant human factor VIII in hemophilia A mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 358-371

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.20529

关键词

circular dichroism; fluorescence spectroscopy; hemophilia A; inhibitor development; protein aggregation; protein structure; recombinant human Factor VIII; immunogenicity; immunology

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL070227, R01 HL-70227, R01 HL070227-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recombinant human factor VIII (rFVIII), a multidomain glycoprotein is used in replacement therapy for treatment of hemophilia A. Unfortunately, 15%-30% of the treated patients develop inhibitory antibodies. The pathogenesis of antibody development is not completely understood. The presence of aggregated protein in formulations is generally believed to enhance the immune response. rFVIII has a tendency to aggregate but the effect of such aggregation on the immunogenicity of rFVIII is not known. We have, therefore, characterized aggregated rFVIII produced by thermal stress and evaluated its effect on the immunogenicity of rFVIII in hemophilia A mice. Aggregated rFVIII alone and mixtures of rFVIII with aggregated rFVIII were less immunogenic than native rFVIII. In vitro Th-cell proliferation studies and cytokine analyses conducted on splenocytes obtained from immunized animals suggest that aggregated rFVIII behaves as a unique antigen compared to native monomeric rFVIII. The antigenic properties of the aggregated and native rFVIII were compared using ELISAs (epitope availability) and cathepsin-B (an antigen processing enzyme) digestion. The data suggest significant differences in the antigenic properties of rFVIII and aggregated rFVIII. Overall it appears that aggregated rFVIII does not enhance the immunogenicity (inhibitor development) of rFVIII in hemophilia A mice but rather acts as a distinct antigen. (C) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association.

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