Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30103312›Full record

ReviewHuman antibodies2019

Nomenclature of humanized mAbs: Early concepts, current challenges and future perspectives.

Patrick Mayrhofer, Renate Kunert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human antibodies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Therapeutic Antibodies: An Overview.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Selected Biological Medicinal Products and Their Veterinary Use.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Review
  14. Opinion: Standardizing the definition of gene drive.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  15. 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

2 authors.

Patrick Mayrhofer
Renate Kunert

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1224
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies traditionally followed a strict scheme indicating target and species information. Because of the rapid advances in this field, emphasized by approval of four humanized and six human antibodies in 2017, the International Nonproprietary Name of new antibodies was updated profoundly by removing the species substem completely. In this review we give an overview about what developments led to the preference of the scientific community towards human-like antibodies. We summarize the major updates in naming schemes that tried to classify antibodies according to their humanization technique or to the final primary sequence and how this led to the erroneous perception to indicate expected immunogenicity. Following the new 2017 nomenclature update, there will not be any information available about the species origin in the names of new antibodies, which emphasizes the need for providing additional supplemental information to the scientific community and develop tools to accurately estimate and control the safety of new monoclonal antibody molecules.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedComplementarity Determining RegionsHumansProtein EngineeringAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedComplementarity Determining Regionsantibody immunogenicityCDR graftingsuperhumanizationUSAN

Identifiers

PMID30103312
PMCPMC6294595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.