Classic and evolving approaches to evaluating cross reactivity of mAb and mAb-like molecules – A survey of industry 2008–2019
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and mAb derivatives have become mainstay pharmaceutical modalites. A critical assessment is to ascertain the specificity of these molecules prior to human clinical trials. The primary technique for determining specificity has been the immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based “Ti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 2021-04, Vol.121, p.104872, Article 104872 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and mAb derivatives have become mainstay pharmaceutical modalites. A critical assessment is to ascertain the specificity of these molecules prior to human clinical trials. The primary technique for determining specificity has been the immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based “Tissue Cross-Reactivity” (TCR) assay, where the candidate molecule is applied to > 30 tissues to look for unexpected staining. In the last few years, however, non-IHC array-based platforms have emerged that allow for screening 75–80% of the human membrane proteome, indicating a viable alternative and/or addition to the IHC methods. The preclinical sciences subcommittee of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), “BioSafe”, conducted a survey of 26 BIO member companies to understand current sponsor experience with the IHC and array techniques. In the last ten years, respondents noted they have conducted more than 650 IHC TCR assays, largely on full length mAbs, with varying impacts on programs. Protein/cell arrays have been utilized by almost half of the companies and sponsors are gaining familiarity and comfort with the platform. Initial experience with recent versions of these arrays has been largely positive. While most sponsors are not prepared to eliminate the IHC TCR assay, growing experience with these alternatives allows them to confidently choose other approaches with or without TCR assays.
•The technologies available to assess mAb cross reactivity are evolving.•We conducted a survey assessing experience with IHC- and array-based methods.•The traditional IHC-based methods have been valuable for individual situations.•There are pros and cons to both IHC- and array-based methods.•Sponsors should be able to choose the methodological strategy most appropriate for them. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0273-2300 1096-0295 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104872 |