24 research outputs found
Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers
All cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed "kataegis," was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed
CD40 antibody evokes a cytotoxic T-cell response that eradicates lymphoma and bypasses T-cell help
CD40 is essential in enabling antigen-presenting cells to process and present antigen effectively to T cells. We demonstrate here that when antibody against CD40 is used to treat mice with syngeneic lymphoma, a rapid cytotoxic T-cell response independent of T-helper cells occurs, with tenfold expansion of CD8 + T cells over a period of 5 days. This response eradicates the lymphoma and provides protection against tumor rechallenge without further antibody treatment. Thus, it seems that by treating mice with monoclonal antibody against CD40, we are immunizing against syngeneic tumors. The phenomenon proved reproducible with two antibodies against CD40 (3/23 and FGK-45) in three CD40+ lymphomas (A20, A31 and BCL1) and gave partial protection in one of two CD40? lymphomas (EL4 and Ten1). Although the nature of the target antigens on these lymphomas is unknown, CD8+ T cells recovered from responding mice showed powerful cytotoxic activity against the target B-cell lymphoma in vitro
Development, validation and application of ELISAs for pharmacokinetic and HACA assessment of a chimeric anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody in human serum
As part of a Phase I chimeric anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody clinical trial, two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were developed for secondary endpoints: 1) for the pharmacokinetic (PK) monitoring of serum antibody levels and 2) for immunogenic screening of human anti-chimeric antibody (HACA) responses. The ELISA is a well established immunoassay, with clear guidelines for validation when used as a quantitative assay. However, these parameters may not always be relevant for a semi-quantitative assay used to assess whether a sample is positive or negative for a novel marker such as an antibody developed against a therapeutic antibody. We report here the development of a quantitative PK ELISA and a semi-quantitative HACA ELISA, and the different approaches of validation to prove each assay are ‘fit for purpose.’ The parameters of linearity (R2 > 0.99), accuracy (±30%), lowest level of detection (4 ?g/ml), intra-assay (coefficient of variation (CV) < 20%) and inter-assay (CV < 20%) variability were assessed for the quantitative PK assay. For the semi-quantitative HACA assay, parameters of linearity (R2 > 0.99), lowest level of detection, intra (CV < 10%) and inter-assay (CV < 30%) variability were assessed using a surrogate positive control. The validation outcome showed that each assay was robust, reliable and accurate to meet the requirements of the intended analytical application, that being to 1) quantitatively determine the concentration of antibody in the serum and 2) determine whether a sample is positive or negative for human anti-chimeric antibodies. Each assay has been successfully translated for use in a clinical trial with adequate quality controls and acceptance criteria set for monitoring consistency and performance.<br/
Development, validation and application of ELISAs for pharmacokinetic and HACA assessment of a chimeric anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody in human serum
As part of a Phase I chimeric anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody clinical trial, two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were developed for secondary endpoints: 1) for the pharmacokinetic (PK) monitoring of serum antibody levels and 2) for immunogenic screening of human anti-chimeric antibody (HACA) responses. The ELISA is a well established immunoassay, with clear guidelines for validation when used as a quantitative assay. However, these parameters may not always be relevant for a semi-quantitative assay used to assess whether a sample is positive or negative for a novel marker such as an antibody developed against a therapeutic antibody. We report here the development of a quantitative PK ELISA and a semi-quantitative HACA ELISA, and the different approaches of validation to prove each assay are ‘fit for purpose.’ The parameters of linearity (R2 > 0.99), accuracy (±30%), lowest level of detection (4 ?g/ml), intra-assay (coefficient of variation (CV) < 20%) and inter-assay (CV < 20%) variability were assessed for the quantitative PK assay. For the semi-quantitative HACA assay, parameters of linearity (R2 > 0.99), lowest level of detection, intra (CV < 10%) and inter-assay (CV < 30%) variability were assessed using a surrogate positive control. The validation outcome showed that each assay was robust, reliable and accurate to meet the requirements of the intended analytical application, that being to 1) quantitatively determine the concentration of antibody in the serum and 2) determine whether a sample is positive or negative for human anti-chimeric antibodies. Each assay has been successfully translated for use in a clinical trial with adequate quality controls and acceptance criteria set for monitoring consistency and performance.<br/
Enhanced Fc alpha RI-mediated neutrophil migration towards tumour colonies in the presence of endothelial cells
Development and characterisation of monoclonal antibodies specific for the murine inhibitory Fc gamma RIIB (CD32B)
Tumourgenetics and immunogenetic
Immunotherapy targeting inhibitory Fc? receptor IIB (CD32b) in the mouse is limited by monoclonal antibody consumption and receptor internalization
Genetic deficiency of the inhibitory Fc receptor, Fc?RIIB (CD32b), has been shown to augment the activity of activatory Fc?R and promote mAb immunotherapy. To investigate whether mAbs capable of blocking Fc?RIIB have similar capacity, we recently generated a panel of specific anti-mouse Fc?RIIB mAbs that do not cross-react with other FcRs, allowing us to study the potential of Fc?RIIB as a therapeutic target. Previous work revealed a number of these mAbs capable of eliciting programmed cell death of targets, and in the present study we demonstrated their ability to promote target cell phagocytosis. However, in a variety of murine tumor models, anti-Fc?RIIB mAbs demonstrated limited therapeutic activity despite optimized treatment regimens. Unexpectedly, we observed that the anti-Fc?RIIB mAbs are rapidly and extensively consumed in vivo, both by the tumor and host cells, including B cells, leading to a precipitous loss from the circulation. Closer analysis revealed that the anti-Fc?RIIB mAbs become extensively internalized from the cell surface within 24 h in vivo, likely explaining their suboptimal efficacy. Subsequent studies revealed that anti-Fc?RIIB mAb immunotherapy was effective when used against Fc?RIIB+ tumors in Fc?RIIB?/? recipients, indicating that consumption of the mAb by nontumor cells is the primary limitation of these reagents. Importantly, similar rates of internalization were not seen on human target cells, at least in vitro. These studies further highlight the need to determine the propensity of mAb therapeutics to internalize target receptors and also identify potential key differences between human and mouse cells in this respect