ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Development and characterization of dendritic cell internalization and activation assays contributing to the immunogenicity risk evaluation of biotherapeutics.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impurities and Potential Immunogenicity Associated With Follow-on and Compounded Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- First step towards predicting clinical immunogenicity of biologics using in vitro based readouts as animal trial alternatives.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026Article
- Host cell protein impurities in therapeutic proteins: overview of advances in detection, nonconventional removal technologies and immunogenicity assessment.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Review
- Mechanisms of therapeutic antibodies immunogenicity: infliximab oligomeric aggregates increase T-cell response and uptake by dendritic cells involving mannose-sensitive receptor CD206.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Dendritic cell maturation assay for non-clinical immunogenicity risk assessment: best practices recommended by the European Immunogenicity Platform.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Antigen-presenting cell internalization is key for understanding and evaluating therapeutic antibodies' immunogenicity.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- A real-time imaging approach to quantify dendritic cell internalization for immunogenicity risk assessment of biotherapeutics.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Internalization of therapeutic antibodies into dendritic cells as a risk factor for immunogenicity.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Immunogenicity refers to the ability of a substance, such as a therapeutic drug, to elicit an immune response. While beneficial in vaccine development, undesirable immunogenicity can compromise the safety and efficacy of therapeutic proteins by inducing anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). These ADAs can reduce drug bioavailability and alter pharmacokinetics, necessitating comprehensive immunogenicity risk assessments starting at early stages of drug development. Given the complexity of immunogenicity, an integrated approach is essential, as no single assay can universally recapitulate the immune response leading to the formation of anti-drug antibodies. Methods: To better understand the Dendritic Cell (DC) contribution to immunogenicity, we developed two flow cytometry-based assays: the DC internalization assay and the DC activation assay. Monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDCs) were generated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and differentiated over a five-day period. The internalization assay measured the accumulation rate of therapeutic antibodies within moDCs, while the activation assay assessed the expression of DC activation markers such as CD40, CD80, CD86, CD83, and DC-SIGN (CD209). To characterize these two assays further, we used a set of marketed therapeutic antibodies. Results: The study highlights that moDCs differentiated for 5 days from freshly isolated monocytes were more prone to respond to external stimuli. The internalization assay has been shown to be highly sensitive to the molecule tested, allowing the use of only 4 donors to detect small but significant differences. We also demonstrated that therapeutic antibodies were efficiently taken up by moDCs, with a strong correlation with their peptide presentation on MHC-II. On the other hand, by monitoring DC activation through a limited set of activation markers including CD40, CD83, and DC-SIGN, the DC activation assay has the potential to compare a series of compounds. These two assays provide a more comprehensive understanding of DC function in the context of immunogenicity, highlighting the importance of both internalization and activation processes in ADA development. Discussion: The DC internalization and activation assays described here address key gaps in existing immunogenicity assessment methods by providing specific and reliable measures of DC function. The assays enhance our ability to pre-clinically evaluate the immunogenic potential of biotherapeutics, thereby improving their safety and efficacy. Future work should focus on further validating these assays and integrating them into a holistic immunogenicity risk assessment framework.
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.