ReviewFrontiers in immunology2025
MAPPs assays for non-clinical immunogenicity risk assessment: best practices recommended by the European immunogenicity platform.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impurities and Potential Immunogenicity Associated With Follow-on and Compounded Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Review: application and opportunities for machine learning and artificial intelligence in preclinical immunogenicity risk assessment.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Inflammasome-associated pyroptosis and tumor angiogenesis in prostate cancer.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Dendritic cell maturation assay for non-clinical immunogenicity risk assessment: best practices recommended by the European Immunogenicity Platform.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- T cell assays for non-clinical immunogenicity risk assessment: best practices recommended by the European Immunogenicity Platform.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of the MAPPs (Major histocompatibility complex Associated Peptide Proteomics) assay by pharmaceutical companies, service providers, and academic laboratories is rapidly increasing, attesting to its increasingly pivotal role in biotherapeutic drug candidate design, selection, and mechanistic investigations. Implementation of the MAPPs assay is labor-intensive, necessitating a high level of expertise. Differences observed in protocols established by laboratories may lead to considerable variability in data quality, limiting inter-laboratory comparisons. To address these challenges, the Non-Clinical Immunogenicity Risk Assessment working group (NCIRA) of the European Immunogenicity Platform (EIP) sought to provide comprehensive recommendations for establishing robust workflows that will ensure robust data and meaningful interpretation. Recognizing the improbability of the complete harmonization of protocols, we aimed to define and propose a set of best practices to maximize confidence in the data generated by laboratories. The work presented here reviews the pitfalls and limitations of the assay, proposes strategies to enhance assay sensitivity and robustness, and outlines approaches for data analysis, reporting, and interpretation. Additionally, the potential of the MAPPs assay for future applications such as clinical studies is discussed. By proposing measures and controls that support the development of high-quality MAPPs assays, we seek to improve their reproducibility and reliability for drug candidates' nonclinical immunogenicity risk evaluation.
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.