4.6 Article

Anti-EGFR biparatopic-SEED antibody has enhanced combination-activity in a single molecule

期刊

ARCHIVES OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
卷 526, 期 2, 页码 219-225

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2012.03.005

关键词

Bispecific; Biparatopic; C225; hu425; Antibody combination; SEED antibody

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Certain combinations of non-competitive anti-EGFR antibodies have been reported to produce new effects on cells compared to either antibody used separately. New and enhanced combination-activity includes increased inhibition of signaling, increased receptor internalization and degradation, reduced proliferation of tumor cell lines and induction of complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) effector function. To test requirements and mechanisms to elicit enhanced combination-activity with different EGFR binding domains, we created an anti-EGFR biparatopic antibody. A biparatopic antibody interacts through two different antigen-binding sites to a single antigen. A heterodimeric antibody with one binding domain derived from the C225 antibody and one binding domain derived from the humanized 425 (hu425) antibody was built on the strand-exchange engineered domain (SEED) scaffold. This anti-EGFR biparatopic-SEED antibody was compared to parental antibodies used alone and in combination, and to the corresponding monovalent anti-EGFR-SEED antibodies used alone or in combination. We found that the anti-EGFR biparatopic-SEED had enhanced activity, similar to the combination of the two parental antibodies. Combinations of monovalent anti-EGFR-SEED antibodies did not produce enhanced effectiveness in cellular assays. Our results show that the anti-EGFR biparatopic antibody created using the SEED scaffold has enhanced combination-activity in a single molecule. Furthermore, these data suggest that the potential to cross-link the two different epitopes is an important requirement in the mechanism of enhanced combination-activity. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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