Factors that contribute to the immmunogenicity of therapeutic recombinant human proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of recombinant human proteins has revolutionized medicine by providing over 200 highly purified hormones and proteins that effectively treat many inherited and acquired peptide hormone and protein deficiencies. With the exception of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, these biological medicines are synthesized by cultured cells using DNA sequences that would yield proteins with identical amino acid sequences as endogenous human proteins. Therefore, there was the broad expectation that recombinant human biological medicines would be non-immunogenic in patients capable of synthesizing even sub-optimal levels of these therapeutic proteins to which they are innately tolerant. However, the widespread clinical use of recombinant human proteins has demonstrated that nearly all of them are immunogenic. This observation suggests that factors additional to differences in amino acid sequences of endogenous and biotherapeutic proteins contribute to the immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. The main aim of this review is to summarize some of the factors that are known to contribute to the immunogenicity of recombinant therapeutic proteins.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".