MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268068174

Bivalent binding properties of epidermal growth factor receptor targeted monoclonal antibodies: Factors contributing to differences in observed clinical profiles.

2008· article· en· W2268068174 on OpenAlexaff
Ilia Tikhomirov, Greta Garrido Hidalgo, Eric C. Yang, Igor A. Sherman, Rolando Pérez Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNimotuzumabCetuximabMonoclonal antibodyEpidermal growth factor receptorAntibodyChemistryPanitumumabCancer researchCell cultureMolecular biologyAntibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicityA431 cellsCell growthMonoclonalCellReceptorImmunologyCell cycleMedicineBiologyBiochemistryMolecular medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A36 Emerging evidence suggests that the ability of antibodies to bind bivalently (or with both antibody arms) is essential for maintaining prolonged residence in tumors and an important feature for inhibiting tumor cell proliferation (1-4). Formation of bivalent bonds is dependent on target density and antibody association and dissociation rates. Nimotuzumab is an EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated anti-tumor activity in preclinical and clinical trials in absence of side-effects commonly seen with other anti-EGFR antibodies, cetuximab and panitumumab. We investigated whether the differences in monovalent/bivalent binding profiles is one of the characteristics that distinguishes between the therapeutics.
 Cetuximab and nimotuzumab binding to EGFR-expressing cell lines including A431 (106 EGFR/cell), H125 (105 EGFR/cell) and MDA-MB231 (103 EGFR/cell) was analyzed by FACS. Cells were incubated with increasing concentrations of nimotuzumab, cetuximab, and monovalent fragments (Fab) of these antibodies. The binding patterns of nimotuzumab and cetuximab to cell lines with medium to high receptor expression (H125, A431) were remarkably similar at all dose levels. Cetuximab binding to the cell line with the low level of EGFR expression (MDA-MB23) was preserved and increased with escalating concentrations. In contrast, nimotuzumab binding was not detectable on MDA-MB23 regardless of concentration. Cetuximab Fab bound to all cell lines and the level of binding increased proportionately with dose. In contrast, nimotuzumab Fab binding to H125, MDA-MB23 was not detected, regardless of the Fab dose. Only marginal nimotuzumab Fab binding to A431 was detected at the highest doses.
 In-vitro binding kinetics of cetuximab, nimotuzumab and panitumumab are being investigated by SPR (Biacore 3000). The CM5 chip surface was coated with varying densities of EGFR, Fc-EGFR dimer and the antibodies via amine coupling. Nimotuzumab binding kinetics exhibited fast association and dissociation rates under monovalent binding conditions. Under conditions allowing bivalent attachment (Fc-EGFR dimer), nimotuzumab dissociation rate was significantly reduced. The effects of changing surface conditions (monovalent vs bivalent) on the binding kinetics of cetuximab and panitumumab were less significant. Nimotuzumab bound to Fc-EGFR dimer at a faster rate than cetuximab. These findings are consistent with the FACS data and support the preference for bivalent binding by nimotuzumab.
 Taken together, these observations suggest that, in contrast to other anti-EGFR antibodies, the intrinsic properties of nimotuzumab favor bivalent binding as the primary mode for attachment, which would lead to nimotuzumab attaching discriminately to cells that express moderate to high EGFR levels. This targeting property of the antibody may in part be responsible for sparing of healthy tissues by nimotuzumab observed in clinical studies and may have other important clinical implications that deserve further evaluation. Additional experimental data exploring these differences will be presented.
 References
 1. Bueren et al, PNAS 2008. 105:6109 - 14
 2. Yoshida et al, Int J Cancer 2008. 122:1530-8
 3. Perez-Torres et al, J Biol Chem 2006. 281:40183-92
 4. Fan et al, J Biol Chem 1994. 269:27595-02

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.665
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.130 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207