| Literature DB >> 21176153 |
Brian Drozdowski1, Yuhong Zhou, Brad Kline, Jared Spidel, Yin Yin Chan, Earl Albone, Howard Turchin, Qimin Chao, Marianne Henry, Jacqueline Balogach, Eric Routhier, Sina Bavari, Nicholas C Nicolaides, Philip M Sass, Luigi Grasso.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staphylococcal enterotoxins are considered potential biowarfare agents that can be spread through ingestion or inhalation. Staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB) is a widely studied superantigen that can directly stimulate T-cells to release a massive amount of proinflammatory cytokines by bridging the MHC II molecules on an antigen presenting cell (APC) and the Vβ chains of the T-cell receptor (TCR). This potentially can lead to toxic, debilitating and lethal effects. Currently, there are no preventative measures for SEB exposure, only supportive therapies.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21176153 PMCID: PMC3022601 DOI: 10.1186/1476-8518-8-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immune Based Ther Vaccines ISSN: 1476-8518
Figure 1Binding strength of HuMAbs was tested by ELISA using microplates coated with SEB. Each point represents the average of triplicate samples ± the SD and the data shown are representative of two or more independent experiments.
Figure 2HuMAb specificity demonstrated by Western blotting. Human cell lysates (20 μg) spiked with SEB (0.5 μg) were blotted under reducing and non-reducing conditions then probed with HuMAbs. HuMAbs bind only SEB within cell lysates without binding any of the lysate proteins.
Binding kinetics of HuMAbs as determined by surface plasmon resonance
| HuMAb | ka1 | kd1 | KD1(nM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.56E+03 | 2.39E-04 | 25.0 | |
| 207E+03 | 11.3E-04 | 5.46 | |
| 93.2E+03 | 0.27E-04 | 0.29 |
Figure 3Assessment of HuMAbs . A) Dose-dependent cytokine production inhibitory activity of HuMAb-79G9 as compared to an irrelevant IgG1κ. Each bar represents the average of triplicate samples ± the SD and the data shown are representative of two or more independent experiments. At all antibody concentrations for each cytokine, % inhibition by HuMAb-79G9 was significant (P < 0.05) as compared to % inhibition by an irrelevant hIgG. B) Comparison of dose-dependent cytokine production inhibitory activity of three lead HuMAbs. Each point on each line represents the average of triplicate samples ± the SD and the data shown are representative of two or more independent experiments.
HuMAb-154 lot comparison of inhibitory activity measured by EC50
| Operator | HuMAb-154 | aTNFα EC50 | INFγ EC50 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lot #1 | 0.54 | 0.44 |
| 2 | Lot #2 | 0.52 | 0.49 |
| 1 | Lot #1 | 0.56 | 0.48 |
| 2 | Lot #2 | 0.52 | 0.50 |
| 1 | Lot #1 | 0.52 | 0.51 |
| 2 | Lot #2 | 0.64 | 0.50 |
Figure 4Cross-reactivity of HuMAb-154 to other bacterial toxins. A) Toxin-specific control Abs. B) HuMAb-154 and irrelevant hIgG reactivity against the panel of related toxins.
Figure 5Prophylactic administration of HuMAb-154 protected mice exposed to lethal doses of SEB challenge. A) Kaplan-Meier survival chart demonstrates dose escalation of SEB in LPS prime model to find the minimal dose of SEB to reach 100% mortality (n = 5). B) Effect of HuMAb-154 at a fixed dose (500 μg) in the protection of LPS primed mice from an escalating SEB challenge. Each HuMAb-154 group contained an n of 10 while the untreated contained an n of 5. Survival of each SEB challenge group that was administered HuMAb-154 was significant (P < 0.015) as compared to the 5 μg SEB challenge group that was not administered HuMAb-154.
Figure 6Kaplan-Meier survival chart showing HuMAb-154 treatment following SEB challenge improves survival of mice. Time to death was delayed in mice treated with HuMAb-154 shortly after SEB challenge. Mice were challenged with 10 μg of SEB and HuMAb-154 was administered at time points following SEB challenge as indicated. Data are cumulative results of three studies (n = 30 for each group). Survival of each HuMAb-154 treatment group was significant (P < 0.0001) as compared to the untreated group.