ArticleFrontiers in immunology2021
Comparison of Two Strategies to Generate Antigen-Specific Human Monoclonal Antibodies: Which Method to Choose for Which Purpose?
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibodies and cryptographic hash functions: quantifying the specificity paradox.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are valuable tools to link genetic information with functional features and to provide a platform for conformational epitope mapping. Additionally, combined data on genetic and functional features provide a valuable mosaic for systems immunology approaches. Strategies to generate human mAbs from peripheral blood have been described and used in several studies including single cell sequencing of antigen-binding B cells and the establishment of antigen-specific monoclonal Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) immortalized lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs). However, direct comparisons of these two strategies are scarce. Hence, we sought to set up these two strategies in our laboratory using peanut 2S albumins (allergens) and the autoantigen anti-Rho guanosine diphosphate dissociation inhibitor 2 (RhoGDI2, alternatively 'ARHGDIB') as antigen targets to directly compare these strategies regarding costs, time expenditure, recovery, throughput and complexity. Regarding single cell sequencing, up to 50% of corresponding V(D)J gene transcripts were successfully amplified of which 54% were successfully cloned into expression vectors used for heterologous expression. Seventy-five percent of heterologously expressed mAbs showed specific binding to peanut 2S albumins resulting in an overall recovery of 20.3%, which may be increased to around 29% by ordering gene sequences commercially for antibody cloning. In comparison, the establishment of monoclonal EBV-LCLs showed a lower overall recovery of around 17.6%. Heterologous expression of a mAb carrying the same variable region as its native counterpart showed comparable concentration-dependent binding abilities. By directly comparing those two strategies, single cell sequencing allows a broad examination of antigen-binding mAbs in a moderate-throughput manner, while the establishment of monoclonal EBV-LCLs is a powerful tool to select a small number of highly reactive mAbs restricted to certain B cell subpopulations. Overall, both strategies, initially set-up for peanut 2S albumins, are suitable to obtain human mAbs and they are easily transferrable to other target antigens as shown for ARHGDIB.
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.