Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40628289›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2025

Understanding antibody-target antigen interactions and the avidity effect using mathematical modelling.

Luke Heirene, Helen Byrne, Armin Sepp, Eamonn Gaffney, James Yates

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Luke HeireneMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-2845-7860
Helen ByrneMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Armin SeppCertara UK Limited, Sheffield, UK.
Eamonn GaffneyMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
James YatesGSK plc, Stevenage, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunotherapies are designed to exploit the immune system to target pathologies such as cancer. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are an important class of immunotherapies that induce anti-tumour effects. Fundamental to the success of mAbs in cancer treatments are their interactions with target antigens. For example, binding multiple antigens, increasing binding affinity, termed the avidity effect, has been shown to impact treatment outcomes. However, there has been limited theoretical analysis addressing the impacts of antibody-antigen interactions on avidity, potency and efficacy. Hence, our aim is to use a mathematical model to develop insight on these impacts. We analyse an ordinary differential equation model of bivalent, monospecific IgG antibodies binding to membrane antigens and show that the ratio of antibody to antigen number impacts quantities that contribute to mAb potency and efficacy, such as antigen occupancy, and whether an antibody can bind both its antigen-binding arms. A global parameter sensitivity analysis shows that antigen occupancy and the ratio of bound antibody to total antigen number are sensitive to the antibody-antigen binding rates only for high antibody concentrations. We also identify parameter ranges in which the avidity effect is predicted to be large. These results could be used in the preclinical development of mAb therapies by predicting conditions that enhance mAb potency, efficacy and the avidity effect.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAntibody AffinityAntigensImmunoglobulin GModels, ImmunologicalNeoplasmsHumansAntibodies, MonoclonalAntigensImmunoglobulin Gantibodiesavidityimmunotherapiesmathematical model

Identifiers

PMID40628289
PMCPMC12308350

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.