ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016
Targeted erythropoietin selectively stimulates red blood cell expansion in vivo.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular and therapeutic frontiers in anemia therapy.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- BRAIDing receptors for cell-specific targeting.eLife · 2024Article
- Bioinspired Design of Artificial Signaling Systems.Biochemistry · 2023Review
- Enhancing Erythropoiesis by a Phytoestrogen Diarylheptanoid fromBiomedicines · 2022Article
- Development of a Neuroprotective Erythropoietin Modified with a Novel Carrier for the Blood-Brain Barrier.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020Article
- Rational Design of a Bifunctional AND-Gate Ligand To Modulate Cell-Cell Interactions.ACS synthetic biology · 2020Article
- A post-genome-wide association study validating the association of the glycophorin C gene with serum hemoglobin level in pig.Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The design of cell-targeted protein therapeutics can be informed by natural protein-protein interactions that use cooperative physical contacts to achieve cell type specificity. Here we applied this approach in vivo to the anemia drug erythropoietin (EPO), to direct its activity to EPO receptors (EPO-Rs) on red blood cell (RBC) precursors and prevent interaction with EPO-Rs on nonerythroid cells, such as platelets. Our engineered EPO molecule was mutated to weaken its affinity for EPO-R, but its avidity for RBC precursors was rescued via tethering to an antibody fragment that specifically binds the human RBC marker glycophorin A (huGYPA). We systematically tested the impact of these engineering steps on in vivo markers of efficacy, side effects, and pharmacokinetics. huGYPA transgenic mice dosed with targeted EPO exhibited elevated RBC levels, with only minimal platelet effects. This in vivo selectivity depended on the weakening EPO mutation, fusion to the RBC-specific antibody, and expression of huGYPA. The terminal plasma half-life of targeted EPO was ∼28.3 h in transgenic mice vs. ∼15.5 h in nontransgenic mice, indicating that huGYPA on mature RBCs acted as a significant drug sink but did not inhibit efficacy. In a therapeutic context, our targeting approach may allow higher restorative doses of EPO without platelet-mediated side effects, and also may improve drug pharmacokinetics. These results demonstrate how rational drug design can improve in vivo specificity, with potential application to diverse protein therapeutics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.