2014
DOI: 10.1111/cei.12309
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential cross-reactivity of monoclonal antibodies against clinically relevant mycobacteria

Abstract: Summary Tuberculosis is a disease caused by the

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Specifically, PET scans would look for increased activity in the posterior cingulate and temporoparietal regions, which show significantly lessened metabolism in the AD brain when compared to a healthy control [89,90]. Additionally, the use of biomarker reduction as an indicator of target engagement, though superficially logical, is particularly inadequate when concerning Aβ-targeting immunotherapies, due to the potential for antibody cross-reactivity (though cross-reactivity is much less likely in clinically useful monoclonal strategies than other antibody-based therapeutics) [91,92]. In other words, the reduction of toxic Aβ in response to treatment with a monoclonal antibody does not summarily imply the binding of such antibody to Aβ itself or to the correct epitope [91][92][93].…”
Section: Potential Causes Of Trialmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Specifically, PET scans would look for increased activity in the posterior cingulate and temporoparietal regions, which show significantly lessened metabolism in the AD brain when compared to a healthy control [89,90]. Additionally, the use of biomarker reduction as an indicator of target engagement, though superficially logical, is particularly inadequate when concerning Aβ-targeting immunotherapies, due to the potential for antibody cross-reactivity (though cross-reactivity is much less likely in clinically useful monoclonal strategies than other antibody-based therapeutics) [91,92]. In other words, the reduction of toxic Aβ in response to treatment with a monoclonal antibody does not summarily imply the binding of such antibody to Aβ itself or to the correct epitope [91][92][93].…”
Section: Potential Causes Of Trialmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the use of biomarker reduction as an indicator of target engagement, though superficially logical, is particularly inadequate when concerning Aβ-targeting immunotherapies, due to the potential for antibody cross-reactivity (though cross-reactivity is much less likely in clinically useful monoclonal strategies than other antibody-based therapeutics) [91,92]. In other words, the reduction of toxic Aβ in response to treatment with a monoclonal antibody does not summarily imply the binding of such antibody to Aβ itself or to the correct epitope [91][92][93]. The antibody may in fact be binding to an unintended target that, due to a secondary mechanism, results in the reduction of Aβ.…”
Section: Potential Causes Of Trialmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The most striking aspects of aptamers are heightened epitope affinity and specificity. Whereas, mAbs still suffer from cross-reactivity for closely related protein epitopes (Flores-Moreno et al, 2014). Immunogenicity has been uncovered as a serious drawback of mAbs used as therapies -host immune response can create antibodies against the administered therapeutic mAbs as even the purified versions could have residues of animal proteins (Harding et al, 2010;Knezevic, Kang, & Thorpe, 2015).…”
Section: How Are Aptamers Different From Antibodies?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CLUSTAL W served for calculating the rate of local and global aminoacidic conservation rate [52]. We selected this software due to its large utilization and proven validity [53][54][55][56][57]. The aminoacidic conservation rate is the result of the sequence alignment of the amino acids of two proteins that are more or less conserved (changes in the amino acid sequence) in different species.…”
Section: Comparative Evolutionary Genomicmentioning
confidence: 99%