Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35017153›Full record

ArticleJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2022

Fc-null anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies deliver optimal checkpoint blockade in diverse immune environments.

Julia Moreno-Vicente, Jane E Willoughby, Martin C Taylor, Steven G Booth, Vikki L English, Emily L Williams, Christine A Penfold, C Ian Mockridge, Tatyana Inzhelevskaya, Jinny Kim and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Tailored FcγR blockade enhances immune checkpoint therapy and overcomes resistance.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2026
    Article
  3. Lymph node fine-tuning FcγR signaling boosts anti-PD-1 therapy.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia Moreno-VicenteAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1740-9350
Jane E WilloughbyAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6326-4519
Martin C TaylorAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Steven G BoothAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Vikki L EnglishAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Emily L WilliamsAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Christine A PenfoldAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
C Ian MockridgeAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Tatyana InzhelevskayaAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jinny KimAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
H T Claude ChanAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Mark S CraggAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Juliet C GrayAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Stephen A BeersAntibody and Vaccine Group, Centre for Cancer Immunology, Cancer Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK s.a.beers@soton.ac.uk.
Centre for Cancer Biology · AUUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 20537Cancer Research UK 24721Cancer Research UK A20537Cancer Research UK A24721Cancer Research UK A25139Cancer Research UK A29286
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite extensive clinical use, the mechanisms that lead to therapeutic resistance to anti-programmed cell-death (PD)-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) remain elusive. Here, we sought to determine how interactions between the Fc region of anti-PD-1 mAbs and Fcγ receptors (FcγRs) affect therapeutic activity and how these are impacted by the immune environment.

methodsMouse and human anti-PD-1 mAbs with different Fc binding profiles were generated and characterized in vitro. The ability of these mAbs to elicit T-cell responses in vivo was first assessed in a vaccination setting using the model antigen ovalbumin. The antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 mAbs was investigated in the context of immune 'hot' MC38 versus 'cold' neuroblastoma tumor models, and flow cytometry performed to assess immune infiltration.

resultsEngagement of activating FcγRs by anti-PD-1 mAbs led to depletion of activated CD8 T cells in vitro and in vivo, abrogating therapeutic activity. Importantly, the extent of this Fc-mediated modulation was determined by the surrounding immune environment. Low FcγR-engaging mouse anti-PD-1 isotypes, which are frequently used as surrogates for human mAbs, were unable to expand ovalbumin-reactive CD8 T cells, in contrast to Fc-null mAbs. These results were recapitulated in mice expressing human FcγRs, in which clinically relevant hIgG4 anti-PD-1 led to reduced endogenous expansion of CD8 T cells compared with its engineered Fc-null counterpart. In the context of an immunologically 'hot' tumor however, both low-engaging and Fc-null mAbs induced long-term antitumor immunity in MC38-bearing mice. Finally, a similar anti-PD-1 isotype hierarchy was demonstrated in the less responsive 'cold' 9464D neuroblastoma model, where the most effective mAbs were able to delay tumor growth but could not induce long-term protection.

conclusionsOur data collectively support a critical role for Fc:FcγR interactions in inhibiting immune responses to both mouse and human anti-PD-1 mAbs, and highlight the context-dependent effect that anti-PD-1 mAb isotypes can have on T-cell responses. We propose that engineering of Fc-null anti-PD-1 mAbs would prevent FcγR-mediated resistance in vivo and allow maximal T-cell stimulation independent of the immunological environment.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalDisease Models, AnimalHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyMiceNeoplasmsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorTumor MicroenvironmentAntibodies, MonoclonalImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptorantibodiesimmunotherapyneoplasmprogrammed cell death 1 receptor

Identifiers

PMID35017153
PMCPMC8753441
OpenAlexW4206209930

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.