Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32695107›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2020

T-Cell Dependent Immunogenicity of Protein Therapeutics Pre-clinical Assessment and Mitigation-Updated Consensus and Review 2020.

Vibha Jawa, Frances Terry, Jochem Gokemeijer, Shibani Mitra-Kaushik, Brian J Roberts, Sophie Tourdot, Anne S De Groot

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Molecular origin, discovery, validation and application of neoantigens.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Vibha JawaPredictive and Clinical Immunogenicity, PPDM, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, United States.
Frances TerryEpiVax, Inc., Providence, RI, United States.
Jochem GokemeijerDiscovery Biotherapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Shibani Mitra-KaushikBiologics Development, Sanofi, Framingham, MA, United States.
Brian J RobertsEpiVax, Inc., Providence, RI, United States.
Sophie TourdotBioMedicine Design, Pfizer Inc., Andover, MA, United States.
Anne S De GrootEpiVax, Inc., Providence, RI, United States.
Providence College · USBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USEpiVax (United States) · USMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USPfizer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immune responses to protein and peptide drugs can alter or reduce their efficacy and may be associated with adverse effects. While anti-drug antibodies (ADA) are a standard clinical measure of protein therapeutic immunogenicity, T cell epitopes in the primary sequences of these drugs are the key drivers or modulators of ADA response, depending on the type of T cell response that is stimulated (e.g., T helper or Regulatory T cells, respectively). In a previous publication on T cell-dependent immunogenicity of biotherapeutics, we addressed mitigation efforts such as identifying and reducing the presence of T cell epitopes or T cell response to protein therapeutics prior to further development of the protein therapeutic for clinical use. Over the past 5 years, greater insight into the role of regulatory T cell epitopes and the conservation of T cell epitopes with self (beyond germline) has improved the preclinical assessment of immunogenic potential. In addition, impurities contained in therapeutic drug formulations such as host cell proteins have also attracted attention and become the focus of novel risk assessment methods. Target effects have come into focus, given the emergence of protein and peptide drugs that target immune receptors in immuno-oncology applications. Lastly, new modalities are entering the clinic, leading to the need to revise certain aspects of the preclinical immunogenicity assessment pathway. In addition to drugs that have multiple antibody-derived domains or non-antibody scaffolds, therapeutic drugs may now be introduced via viral vectors, cell-based constructs, or nucleic acid based therapeutics that may, in addition to delivering drug, also prime the immune system, driving immune response to the delivery vehicle as well as the encoded therapeutic, adding to the complexity of assessing immunogenicity risk. While it is challenging to keep pace with emerging methods for the preclinical assessment of protein therapeutics and new biologic therapeutic modalities, this collective compendium provides a guide to current best practices and new concepts in the field.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological TherapyBiomarkersCytokinesDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansImmunity, InnateInflammation MediatorsProteinsT-LymphocytesT-Lymphocyte SubsetsBiomarkersCytokinesInflammation MediatorsProteinsanti-drug-antibodybiologicenzyme-replacementimmunogenicitymonoclonalprotein therapeuticT-cell

Identifiers

PMID32695107
PMCPMC7338774
OpenAlexW3039467801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.