Literature DB >> 25097801

Anti-human CD40 monoclonal antibody therapy is potent without FcR crosslinking.

Lee P Richman1, Robert H Vonderheide1.   

Abstract

Antibody agonists targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) superfamily receptors, including CD40, are being tested therapeutically as anticancer agents. Studies in mice have shown that anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody (mAb) requires Fc-receptor (FcR) engagement to activate antitumor immunity. In contrast, we have reported that clinically active anti-human CD40 mAb CP-870,893 does not require FcR crosslinking, a finding with translational implications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CD40; Fc receptor; immunotherapy; tumor immunity

Year:  2014        PMID: 25097801      PMCID: PMC4091558          DOI: 10.4161/onci.28610

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncoimmunology        ISSN: 2162-4011            Impact factor:   8.110


Introduction

With the clinical value of immune checkpoint blockade convincingly established, agents that directly activate the immune system are being reconsidered. Agonist antibodies that bind tumor-necrosis factor (TNF) superfamily receptors, recognized for their ability to modulate T-cell responses, have shown efficacy against murine and human cancers and thus represent a potentially complimentary therapeutic approach to CTLA-4 or PD-1 blockade., Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against one such receptor, CD40, work through multiple synergistic mechanisms, activating antigen presenting cells (APC) and other cells, rather than T cells directly. These mAb can also promote activity of tumoricidal macrophages., Clinically, one agonistic anti-CD40 mAb, CP-870,893 (originally developed by Pfizer), has demonstrated activity in a spectrum of cancer patients, including those afflicted with melanoma and pancreatic adenocarcinoma.,, Well-tolerated overall, CP-870,893 triggers transient cytokine release syndrome, manageable in the outpatient setting but a potential harbinger of its biological potency.

Role of Fc Crosslinking and Epitope Specificity for CD40 Agonist mAb

It has long been appreciated that epitope fine specificity and antibody crosslinking impact the functional effects of anti-CD40 mAb in both mouse and human systems., Recent studies of anti-mouse CD40 mAb have demonstrated that crosslinking via Fc engagement of Fc receptors (FcR) can be especially important.,- FcγRIIB in mice has been specifically implicated as necessary for the induction of downstream signaling by anti-CD40 mAb (Fig. 1).- FcγRIIB−/− mice show a severely attenuated response to anti-CD40 mAb (typically rat IgG2a isotype), and the antitumor immune responses in these mice are poor.,- Mutation of the Fc region of anti-murine CD40 to enhance FcR binding increases signal potency, suggesting that Fc engineering could be an important step for optimizing efficacy of CD40 in the clinic.,, However, we have recently shown that the anti-human CD40 mAb CP-870,893, a fully human IgG2 molecule, does not require FcR crosslinking for potency, although CP-870,893 is the strongest agonist among the anti-CD40 mAbs currently in clinical trials.,, Human IgG2 has a low affinity for Fc receptors and is presumably minimally crosslinked via FcR-Fc interactions in vivo. We have found that antigen presenting cell (APC) activation induced by CP-870,893 does not require FcR crosslinking in vitro (Fig. 1), with no statistically significant difference observed in the ability of F(ab)’2 CP-870,893 vs. intact CP-870,893 to stimulate B cells in culture. Artificial crosslinking by an FcγRII expressing cell line or anti-Fc antibodies did not enhance B cell activation. In contrast, an anti-mouse CD40 agonist mAb, FGK45 (rat IgG2a), does require FcR crosslinking, a necessary component both in vitro and in vivo to induce APC activation. Potentially underlying these observations, we found that three crosslinking-dependent murine anti-CD40 mAbs (FGK45, 1C10, 3/23)- compete with CD40L for binding to CD40 on the surface of murine B cells, in contrast to CP-870,893, that recognizes an epitope independent of the human CD40L binding site. These results suggest that the fine specificity of epitope binding plays a pivotal role in dictating the agonist potency of anti-human CD40 mAb, and further, that targeting the right epitope can bypass the need for FcR-mediated crosslinking to promote signaling through the CD40 molecule, as previously reported for mouse anti-human CD40 mAb. The lower dose of CP-870,893 needed to achieve an equivalent pharmacodynamic effect in vivo relative to that of anti-murine CD40 may reflect both epitope specificity and the nature of the Fc construct.,,

Figure 1. Differential cell-surface binding of anti-mouse vs. anti-human CD40 agonist mAb. Although each type of monoclonal antibody (mAb) can activate the CD40 pathway and license antigen presenting cells (APCs) to drive T cell immunity, anti-mouse CD40 mAb critically engage FcR crosslinking for biological activity. In contrast, FcR crosslinking is not absolutely necessary for the efficacy of anti-human CD40 mAb. This schematic is based on our studies with the anti-mouse CD40 mAb FGK45 and the anti-human IgG2 CD40 mAb CP-870,893.

Figure 1. Differential cell-surface binding of anti-mouse vs. anti-human CD40 agonist mAb. Although each type of monoclonal antibody (mAb) can activate the CD40 pathway and license antigen presenting cells (APCs) to drive T cell immunity, anti-mouse CD40 mAb critically engage FcR crosslinking for biological activity. In contrast, FcR crosslinking is not absolutely necessary for the efficacy of anti-human CD40 mAb. This schematic is based on our studies with the anti-mouse CD40 mAb FGK45 and the anti-human IgG2 CD40 mAb CP-870,893.

The Next Steps for Anti-CD40 Therapy

Based on our results in vitro, it would seem unlikely that reengineering the Fc portion of CP-870,893 will necessarily improve clinical efficacy. Moreover, if conversion of CP-870,893 to IgG1 is found to increase potency in vivo, then this reagent as a therapeutic would need to be carefully reevaluated, not only for dose and toxicity but also for the potential of activation-induced immune suppression. Other agonistic anti-human CD40 mAbs (mostly human IgG1) vary in potency from CP-870,893, potentially related to epitope specificity, isotype specificity, or both. Although antibody engineering is an important means to potentiate immunotherapeutic antibodies, other avenues such as alternative dosing strategies, combinations with cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation, and combinatorial treatments of immune checkpoint-blockade mAbs represent, in our view, the most promising routes to enhance anti-CD40 clinical efficacy and drive tumor regression.
  10 in total

1.  Minimal cross-linking and epitope requirements for CD40-dependent suppression of apoptosis contrast with those for promotion of the cell cycle and homotypic adhesions in human B cells.

Authors:  J D Pound; A Challa; M J Holder; R J Armitage; S K Dower; W C Fanslow; H Kikutani; S Paulie; C D Gregory; J Gordon
Journal:  Int Immunol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.823

2.  Functional activity of CD40 antibodies correlates to the position of binding relative to CD154.

Authors:  T A Barr; A W Heath
Journal:  Immunology       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 7.397

Review 3.  FcγRΙΙB controls the potency of agonistic anti-TNFR mAbs.

Authors:  Ann L White; H T Claude Chan; Ruth R French; Stephen A Beers; Mark S Cragg; Peter W M Johnson; Martin J Glennie
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2013-03-31       Impact factor: 6.968

4.  Role of crosslinking for agonistic CD40 monoclonal antibodies as immune therapy of cancer.

Authors:  Lee P Richman; Robert H Vonderheide
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Res       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 11.151

5.  Inhibitory Fcγ receptor engagement drives adjuvant and anti-tumor activities of agonistic CD40 antibodies.

Authors:  Fubin Li; Jeffrey V Ravetch
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  An Fcγ receptor-dependent mechanism drives antibody-mediated target-receptor signaling in cancer cells.

Authors:  Nicholas S Wilson; Becky Yang; Annie Yang; Stefanie Loeser; Scot Marsters; David Lawrence; Yun Li; Robert Pitti; Klara Totpal; Sharon Yee; Sarajane Ross; Jean-Michel Vernes; Yanmei Lu; Cam Adams; Rienk Offringa; Bob Kelley; Sarah Hymowitz; Dylan Daniel; Gloria Meng; Avi Ashkenazi
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 31.743

7.  Clinical activity and immune modulation in cancer patients treated with CP-870,893, a novel CD40 agonist monoclonal antibody.

Authors:  Robert H Vonderheide; Keith T Flaherty; Magi Khalil; Molly S Stumacher; David L Bajor; Natalie A Hutnick; Patricia Sullivan; J Joseph Mahany; Maryann Gallagher; Amy Kramer; Stephanie J Green; Peter J O'Dwyer; Kelli L Running; Richard D Huhn; Scott J Antonia
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  CD40 agonists alter tumor stroma and show efficacy against pancreatic carcinoma in mice and humans.

Authors:  Gregory L Beatty; Elena G Chiorean; Matthew P Fishman; Babak Saboury; Ursina R Teitelbaum; Weijing Sun; Richard D Huhn; Wenru Song; Dongguang Li; Leslie L Sharp; Drew A Torigian; Peter J O'Dwyer; Robert H Vonderheide
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Interaction with FcγRIIB is critical for the agonistic activity of anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody.

Authors:  Ann L White; H T Claude Chan; Ali Roghanian; Ruth R French; C Ian Mockridge; Alison L Tutt; Sandra V Dixon; Daniel Ajona; J Sjef Verbeek; Aymen Al-Shamkhani; Mark S Cragg; Stephen A Beers; Martin J Glennie
Journal:  J Immunol       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 5.422

10.  Agonistic CD40 antibodies and cancer therapy.

Authors:  Robert H Vonderheide; Martin J Glennie
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 12.531

  10 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  Trial watch: Dendritic cell-based anticancer therapy.

Authors:  Norma Bloy; Jonathan Pol; Fernando Aranda; Alexander Eggermont; Isabelle Cremer; Wolf Hervé Fridman; Jitka Fučíková; Jérôme Galon; Eric Tartour; Radek Spisek; Madhav V Dhodapkar; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer; Lorenzo Galluzzi
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2014-12-21       Impact factor: 8.110

Review 2.  Enhancing the safety of antibody-based immunomodulatory cancer therapy without compromising therapeutic benefit: Can we have our cake and eat it too?

Authors:  Joseph M Ryan; Jeffrey S Wasser; Adam J Adler; Anthony T Vella
Journal:  Expert Opin Biol Ther       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.388

Review 3.  Targeting the tumor microenvironment to enhance antitumor immune responses.

Authors:  Kevin Van der Jeught; Lukasz Bialkowski; Lidia Daszkiewicz; Katrijn Broos; Cleo Goyvaerts; Dries Renmans; Sandra Van Lint; Carlo Heirman; Kris Thielemans; Karine Breckpot
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-01-30

Review 4.  CD40 stimulation as a molecular adjuvant for cancer vaccines and other immunotherapies.

Authors:  Timothy N J Bullock
Journal:  Cell Mol Immunol       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 11.530

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.