On the Use of Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensing to Understand IgG-FcγR Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based optical biosensors offer real-time and label-free analysis of protein interactions, which has extensively contributed to the discovery and development of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As the biopharmaceutical market for these biologics and their biosimilars is rapidly growing, the role of SPR biosensors in drug discovery and quality assessment is becoming increasingly prominent. One of the critical quality attributes of mAbs is the N-glycosylation of their Fc region. Other than providing stability to the antibody, the Fc N-glycosylation influences immunoglobulin G (IgG) interactions with the Fcγ receptors (FcγRs), modulating the immune response. Over the past two decades, several studies have relied on SPR-based assays to characterize the influence of N-glycosylation upon the IgG-FcγR interactions. While these studies have unveiled key information, many conclusions are still debated in the literature. These discrepancies can be, in part, attributed to the design of the reported SPR-based assays as well as the methodology applied to SPR data analysis. In fact, the SPR biosensor best practices have evolved over the years, and several biases have been pointed out in the development of experimental SPR protocols. In parallel, newly developed algorithms and data analysis methods now allow taking into consideration complex biomolecular kinetics. In this review, we detail the use of different SPR biosensing approaches for characterizing the IgG-FcγR interactions, highlighting their merit and inherent experimental complexity. Furthermore, we review the latest SPR-derived conclusions on the influence of the N-glycosylation upon the IgG-FcγR interactions and underline the differences and similarities across the literature. Finally, we explore new avenues taking advantage of novel computational analysis of SPR results as well as the latest strategies to control the glycoprofile of mAbs during production, which could lead to a better understanding and modelling of the IgG-FcγRs interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".