Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18071942›Full record

ReviewHandbook of experimental pharmacology2008

Human monoclonal antibodies from transgenic mice.

N Lonberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Handbook of experimental pharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

N LonbergMedarex, 521 Cottonwood Drive, Milpitas, CA 95035, USA. nlonberg@medarex.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the 1986 regulatory approval of muromonomab-CD3, a mouse monoclonal antibody (MAb) directed against the T cell CD3epsilon antigen, MAbs have become an increasingly important class of therapeutic compounds in a variety of disease areas ranging from cancer and autoimmune indications to infectious and cardiac diseases. However, the pathway to the present acceptance of therapeutic MAbs within the pharmaceutical industry has not been smooth. A major hurdle for antibody therapeutics has been the inherent immunogenicity of the most readily available MAbs, those derived from rodents. A variety of technologies have been successfully employed to engineer MAbs with reduced immunogenicity. Implementation of these antibody engineering technologies involves in vitro optimization of lead molecules to generate a clinical candidate. An alternative technology, involving the engineering of strains of mice to produce human instead of mouse antibodies, has been emerging and evolving for the past two decades. Now, with the 2006 US regulatory approval of panitumumab, a fully human antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, transgenic mice expressing human antibody repertoires join chimerization, CDR grafting, and phage display technologies, as a commercially validated antibody drug discovery platform. With dozens of additional transgenic mouse-derived human MAbs now in clinical development, this new drug discovery platform appears to be firmly established within the pharmaceutical industry.

Indexed as

Drug DesignMice, TransgenicAnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntigen-Antibody ReactionsHumansImmunotherapyMiceProtein EngineeringRecombinant Fusion ProteinsSpecies SpecificityAntibodies, MonoclonalRecombinant Fusion Proteins

Identifiers

PMID18071942
PMCPMC7120671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.