Intracellular sorting and transcytosis of the rat transferrin receptor antibody OX26 across the blood–brain barrier <i>in vitro</i> is dependent on its binding affinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The blood–brain barrier (BBB) is a formidable obstacle to the delivery of therapeutics to the brain. Antibodies that bind transferrin receptor (TfR), which is enriched in brain endothelial cells, have been shown to cross the BBB and are being developed as fusion proteins to deliver therapeutic cargos to brain targets. Various antibodies have been developed for this purpose and their in vivo evaluation demonstrated that either low affinity or monovalent receptor binding re‐directs their transcellular trafficking away from lysosomal degradation and toward improved exocytosis on the abluminal side of the BBB. However, these studies have been performed with antibodies that recognize different TfR epitopes and have different binding characteristics, preventing inter‐study comparisons. In this study, the efficiency of transcytosis in vitro and intracellular trafficking in endosomal compartments were evaluated in an in vitro BBB model for affinity variants ( K d from 5 to174 nM) of the rat TfR‐binding antibody, OX26. Distribution in subcellular fractions of the rat brain endothelial cells was determined using both targeted quantitative proteomics‐selected reaction monitoring and fluorescent imaging with markers of early‐ and late endosomes. The OX26 variants with affinities of 76 and 108 nM showed improved trancytosis (P app values) across the in vitro BBB model compared with a 5 nM OX26. Although ~40% of the 5 nM OX26 and ~35% of TfR co‐localized with late‐endosome/lysosome compartment, 76 and 108 nM affinity variants showed lower amounts in lysosomes and a predominant co‐localization with early endosome markers. The study links bivalent TfR antibody affinity to mechanisms of sorting and trafficking away from late endosomes and lysosomes, resulting in improvement in their transcytosis efficiency. Open Science Badges This article has received a badge for *Open Materials* because it provided all relevant information to reproduce the study in the manuscript. The complete Open Science Disclosure form for this article can be found at the end of the article. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at https://cos.io/our-services/open-science-badges/ . image Cover Image for this issue: doi: 10.1111/jnc.14193 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".