Cargando…

Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent

Based on their mechanism of action, two types of anti-CD20 antibodies are distinguished: Type I, which efficiently mediate complement-dependent cytotoxicity, and Type II, which instead are more efficient in inducing direct cell death. Several molecular characteristics of these antibodies have been s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bondza, Sina, ten Broeke, Toine, Nestor, Marika, Leusen, Jeanette H. W., Buijs, Jos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7531561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32744151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2020.1792673
_version_ 1783589781083521024
author Bondza, Sina
ten Broeke, Toine
Nestor, Marika
Leusen, Jeanette H. W.
Buijs, Jos
author_facet Bondza, Sina
ten Broeke, Toine
Nestor, Marika
Leusen, Jeanette H. W.
Buijs, Jos
author_sort Bondza, Sina
collection PubMed
description Based on their mechanism of action, two types of anti-CD20 antibodies are distinguished: Type I, which efficiently mediate complement-dependent cytotoxicity, and Type II, which instead are more efficient in inducing direct cell death. Several molecular characteristics of these antibodies have been suggested to underlie these different biological functions, one of these being the manner of binding to CD20 expressed on malignant B cells. However, the exact binding model on cells is unclear. In this study, the binding mechanism of the Type I therapeutic antibodies rituximab (RTX) and ofatumumab (OFA) and the Type II antibody obinutuzumab (OBI) were established by real-time interaction analysis on live cells. It was found that the degree of bivalent stabilization differed for the antibodies: OFA was stabilized the most, followed by RTX and then OBI, which had the least amount of bivalent stabilization. Bivalency inversely correlated with binding dynamics for the antibodies, with OBI displaying the most dynamic binding pattern, followed by RTX and OFA. For RTX and OBI, bivalency and binding dynamics were concentration dependent; at higher concentrations the interactions were more dynamic, whereas the percentage of antibodies that bound bivalent was less, resulting in concentration-dependent apparent affinities. This was barely noticeable for OFA, as almost all molecules bound bivalently at the tested concentrations. We conclude that the degree of bivalent binding positively correlates with the complement recruiting capacity of the investigated CD20 antibodies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7531561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75315612020-10-13 Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent Bondza, Sina ten Broeke, Toine Nestor, Marika Leusen, Jeanette H. W. Buijs, Jos MAbs Report Based on their mechanism of action, two types of anti-CD20 antibodies are distinguished: Type I, which efficiently mediate complement-dependent cytotoxicity, and Type II, which instead are more efficient in inducing direct cell death. Several molecular characteristics of these antibodies have been suggested to underlie these different biological functions, one of these being the manner of binding to CD20 expressed on malignant B cells. However, the exact binding model on cells is unclear. In this study, the binding mechanism of the Type I therapeutic antibodies rituximab (RTX) and ofatumumab (OFA) and the Type II antibody obinutuzumab (OBI) were established by real-time interaction analysis on live cells. It was found that the degree of bivalent stabilization differed for the antibodies: OFA was stabilized the most, followed by RTX and then OBI, which had the least amount of bivalent stabilization. Bivalency inversely correlated with binding dynamics for the antibodies, with OBI displaying the most dynamic binding pattern, followed by RTX and OFA. For RTX and OBI, bivalency and binding dynamics were concentration dependent; at higher concentrations the interactions were more dynamic, whereas the percentage of antibodies that bound bivalent was less, resulting in concentration-dependent apparent affinities. This was barely noticeable for OFA, as almost all molecules bound bivalently at the tested concentrations. We conclude that the degree of bivalent binding positively correlates with the complement recruiting capacity of the investigated CD20 antibodies. Taylor & Francis 2020-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7531561/ /pubmed/32744151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2020.1792673 Text en © 2020 Ridgeview Instruments AB. Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Report
Bondza, Sina
ten Broeke, Toine
Nestor, Marika
Leusen, Jeanette H. W.
Buijs, Jos
Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
title Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
title_full Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
title_fullStr Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
title_full_unstemmed Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
title_short Bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-CD20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
title_sort bivalent binding on cells varies between anti-cd20 antibodies and is dose-dependent
topic Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7531561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32744151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2020.1792673
work_keys_str_mv AT bondzasina bivalentbindingoncellsvariesbetweenanticd20antibodiesandisdosedependent
AT tenbroeketoine bivalentbindingoncellsvariesbetweenanticd20antibodiesandisdosedependent
AT nestormarika bivalentbindingoncellsvariesbetweenanticd20antibodiesandisdosedependent
AT leusenjeanettehw bivalentbindingoncellsvariesbetweenanticd20antibodiesandisdosedependent
AT buijsjos bivalentbindingoncellsvariesbetweenanticd20antibodiesandisdosedependent