Monitoring the levels of therapeutic antibodies in individual patients would allow patient-specific dose optimization, with the potential for major therapeutic and financial benefits. Our group recently developed a new platform of bioluminescent sensor proteins (LUMABS; LUMinescent AntiBody Sensor) that allow antibody detection directly in blood plasma. In this study, we targeted four clinically important therapeutic antibodies, the Her2-receptor targeting trastuzumab, the anti-CD20 antibodies rituximab and obinutuzumab, and the EGFR-blocking cetuximab. A strong correlation was found between the affinity of the antibody binding peptide and sensor performance. LUMABS sensors with physiologically relevant affinities and decent sensor responses were obtained for trastuzumab and cetuximab using mimotope and meditope peptides, respectively, with affinities in the 10-7 M range. The lower affinity of the CD20-derived cyclic peptide employed in the anti-CD20 LUMABS sensor ( Kd = 10-5 M), translated in a LUMABS sensor with a strongly attenuated sensor response. The trastuzumab and cetuximab sensors were further characterized with respect to binding kinetics and their performance in undiluted blood plasma. For both antibodies, LUMABS-based detection directly in plasma compared well to the analytical performance of commercial ELISA kits. Besides identifying important design parameters for the development of new LUMABS sensors, this work demonstrates the potential of the LUMABS platform for point-of-care detection of therapeutic antibodies.
Monitoring the levels of therapeutic antibodies in individual patients would allow patient-specific dose optimization, with the potential for major therapeutic and financial benefits. Our group recently developed a new platform of bioluminescent sensor proteins (LUMABS; LUMinescent AntiBody Sensor) that allow antibody detection directly in blood plasma. In this study, we targeted four clinically important therapeutic antibodies, the Her2-receptor targeting trastuzumab, the anti-CD20 antibodies rituximab and obinutuzumab, and the EGFR-blocking cetuximab. A strong correlation was found between the affinity of the antibody binding peptide and sensor performance. LUMABS sensors with physiologically relevant affinities and decent sensor responses were obtained for trastuzumab and cetuximab using mimotope and meditope peptides, respectively, with affinities in the 10-7 M range. The lower affinity of the CD20-derived cyclic peptide employed in the anti-CD20 LUMABS sensor ( Kd = 10-5 M), translated in a LUMABS sensor with a strongly attenuated sensor response. The trastuzumab and cetuximab sensors were further characterized with respect to binding kinetics and their performance in undiluted blood plasma. For both antibodies, LUMABS-based detection directly in plasma compared well to the analytical performance of commercial ELISA kits. Besides identifying important design parameters for the development of new LUMABS sensors, this work demonstrates the potential of the LUMABS platform for point-of-care detection of therapeutic antibodies.
Therapeutic
antibodies represent
an important class of newly introduced drugs and have been particularly
successful in cancer therapy and the treatment of inflammatory diseases.
At the end of 2016, nearly 60 antibody drugs had been FDA approved
and many more are currently in clinical trials.[1] Because of their relatively long serum half-life,[2,3] therapeutic antibodies are given via intravenous injection at a
time interval of several weeks. At present, monoclonal antibodies
are either administered using a fixed dose or by providing a body-size
adjusted dose. However, interpatient variabilities in distribution
as well as clearance have been shown for various therapeutic antibodies.[4,5] Several studies have shown a strong correlation between clearance
rates and treatment efficacy, suggesting that patient-specific therapeutic
drug monitoring (TDM) would allow better efficacy by preventing both
over- and under-dosing.[6,7]Thus, far, TDM has been
mainly explored in the area of autoimmune
disorders,[8−10] but it is relatively new to oncology.[11,12] Patient-specific adjustment of the dosing regime in autoimmune disorders
is possible by measuring antibody trough values just before a patient
receives a new injection, but in oncology individual pharmacokinetic
profiles are ideally determined during treatment following the first
dose of antibody. For this to be practical and economically sustainable,
a sensitive and easy to perform point-of-care assay for the detection
of therapeutic antibodies is needed. The standard of practice in antibody
detection is the enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA), which
is highly valued for its sensitivity and specificity. However, ELISA
and other immunoassays require multiple washing and waiting steps,
which makes it difficult to adapt them to the POC setting.[13] While both miniaturization of ELISAs into POC
testing devices[14,15] and the use of alternate detection
systems such as lateral flow tests,[16] electrochemical
sensors,[17] surface plasmon resonance (SPR),[18] and mass spectrometry[19] are actively pursued, these assays are either semiquantitative or
still require sophisticated equipment.Our group recently developed
a new platform of bioluminescent sensor
proteins (LUMABS; LUMinescent AntiBody Sensor) that allow antibody
detection directly in blood plasma using the camera of a smart phone
as the sole piece of equipment.[20,21] LUMABS consist of the
blue-light emitting luciferase NanoLuc[22] connected via a semiflexible linker[23,24] to a green
fluorescent acceptor protein mNeonGreen,[25] which in the absence of an antibody are kept in close proximity
by an interaction between an Src Homology 3 (SH3) domain and a proline
rich peptide (PRP).[26] Binding of an antibody
to epitope sequences flanking the linker disrupts the interaction
between these helper domains, resulting in a large decrease in BRET
efficiency. The resulting change in color of the emitted light from
green-blue to blue can be detected directly in blood plasma, even
at low pM concentrations of antibody.[20] The LUMABS sensors developed thus far targeted antibodies for which
linear peptide epitopes with a relatively high affinity were available.
Here we report the development of LUMABS proteins targeting four clinically
important therapeutic antibodies, the Her2-binding trastuzumab, the
anti-CD20 antibodies rituximab and obinutuzumab, and the EGFR-blocking
cetuximab. Since no simple linear epitope sequences of sufficient
affinity were available for these antibodies, we explored the use
of disulfide-linked cyclic epitopes, mimotopes, and meditopes.[27] In addition to providing clinically relevant
LUMABS sensors for cetuximab and trastuzumab, our results provide
further insight into the thermodynamics of the LUMABS–antibody
interaction, in particular the relation between the monovalent antibody
affinity and the dynamic range of the sensor response.
Experimental
Section
NB: Details on molecular cloning, protein expression
and purification,
peptide synthesis, fluorescence polarization, and ELISA can be found
in the Supporting Information.
General Reagents
Therapeutic antibodies trastuzumab
(Herceptin, Roche), rituximab, (MabThera, Roche), obinutuzumab (Gazyva,
Roche), and cetuximab (Erbitux, Merck) were obtained via the Catherina
hospital pharmacy in Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Antibody concentrations
expressed in units of molarity were obtained by dividing the concentrations
given by the manufacturer in mg mL–1 by the molecular
weight of 150 000 g mol–1. Pooled human blood
plasma was obtained from Innovative Research Inc. NanoGlo luciferase
substrate was from Promega.
Bioluminescence Spectroscopy
Spectra
were recorded
in PBS pH 7.4 with 0.1% (w/v) BSA at 100 pM sensor concentration and
a NanoGlo substrate dilution of 1000-fold on a Varian Cary Eclipse
spectrophotometer in bioluminescence scan mode with a 5 nm emission
slit. Spectra were smoothed by averaging over a moving 5 data-point
(5 nm) interval. Background at 600 nm was subtracted and spectra were
normalized at 450 nm.
LUMABS Microtiter Plate Assays
Antibody
titrations
were performed using 100 pM LUMABS protein in PBS with 0.1% (w/v)
BSA in a total volume of 50 μL in PerkinElmer flat white 384
well OptiPlate microtiter plates and incubated for 2 h at room temperature.
Two microliters of 40× prediluted NanoGlo (final dilution 1000×)
was then added to each well, and the plate was incubated at room temperature
for another 30 min. Luminescence was then recorded on a Tecan Infinite
F500 plate reader using an exposure time of 1000 ms. Emission was
recorded in two channels, blue (400–450 nm) and green (500–550
nm). eq was fit through
the data to obtain apparent Kd values.ER is the emission
ratio at antibody
concentration [Ab], ERmin is the emission ratio at sensor
saturation. ERmax is the emission ratio in the absence
of antibody. Kd.app is the apparent dissociation
constant. Dynamic range (DR) was calculated as the total change in
emission ratio divided by the lowest ratio:Measurements in plasma were done by serially diluting cetuximab
in PBS pH 7.4 and subsequently diluting each concentration 10×
in pooled human plasma. LUMABS protein was added to a final concentration
of 1 nM (final plasma content 85%). After 2 h at room temperature,
NanoGlo was added to a final dilution factor of 1000×. After
another 30 min incubation step, wells were read out as described above.
Results
Thermodynamic Considerations
The modular architecture
of the LUMABS sensor allows one to change antibody specificity by
simple exchange of the antibody-binding epitope sequences, without
the need for extensive sensor optimization for each new antibody target.
The two most important sensor properties, the overall affinity for
the target antibody and the change in BRET ratio between the closed
state and the antibody-bound state, are independent of the nature
of the molecular interactions but are determined by the monovalent
affinity of the interaction between antigen-binding domain and the
epitope, the strength of the helper domain interaction and two effective
concentration terms that describe the intramolecular interaction between
the helper domains, and the binding of the sensor to the second antigen
binding domain following initial complex formation. A thermodynamic
scheme can be derived that allows one to obtain equations describing
the overall dissociation constant of the antibody-sensor interaction
and to model the change in emission ratio as a function of these parameters
(Figure A, Figure S1).
Figure 1
Thermodynamic model of
LUMABS sensor mechanism. (A) Different states
accessible to the sensor in the absence or presence of antibody. (B)
Predicted response curves for sensors with epitopes of different Kd.Ab and a Ceff.helper/Ceff.Ab ratio of 10 (see Supporting Information for the exact parameters
used). The gray area between dashed lines represents the global concentration
range of therapeutic antibodies in patient serum. DR = dynamic range.
Thermodynamic model of
LUMABS sensor mechanism. (A) Different states
accessible to the sensor in the absence or presence of antibody. (B)
Predicted response curves for sensors with epitopes of different Kd.Ab and a Ceff.helper/Ceff.Ab ratio of 10 (see Supporting Information for the exact parameters
used). The gray area between dashed lines represents the global concentration
range of therapeutic antibodies in patient serum. DR = dynamic range.eq shows that because
of the bivalent interaction, the affinity of the antibody–sensor
interaction depends very strongly on the monovalent antibody–epitope
affinity, which in principle should increase the specificity of the
sensor. The magnitude of this effect can be substantial, as we previously
determined Kd values of 50–100
pM for the overall antibody–sensor interaction, using a monovalent
peptide-antibody interaction of 40 nM.[20] However, previous work also taught that when the monovalent interaction
becomes too weak (Kd,Ab ≥ 10 μM),
no ratiometric change is observed, even in the presence of very high
antibody concentrations. The explanation for this observation is that
even at high concentrations where the first antibody–sensor
complex is formed (step 1), the intramolecular interaction between
the second epitope and the second antigen binding site is not sufficient
to compete (step 3) with the intramolecular interaction between the
helper domains (step 2). Interestingly, therapeutic antibodies occur
in patient serum at nanomolar to low micromolar concentrations. The
thermodynamic model predicts that sensors with a Kd.app within this concentration range can be obtained
using monovalent antibody-epitope interactions of moderate strength
(Kd.Ab 0.1–10 μM), but the
emission ratio change may be attenuated, because a certain percentage
of sensors will remain in the closed state (Figure B) The first therapeutic antibody that we
targeted, trastuzumab, demonstrates this fine balance between affinity
and the sensor’s ratiometric response.
Sensor Development
Four clinically important therapeutic
antibodies were chosen as suitable targets for LUMABS sensor development:
the Her2-receptor targeting trastuzumab, the EGFR-blocking cetuximab,
and the anti-CD20 antibodies rituximab and obinutuzumab. Each of these
antibodies has been implicated as useful targets for TDM, and for
each target, antibody-binding peptides have been reported with affinities
in the high nM to low μM range. Trastuzumab is used in the treatment
of breast cancers overexpressing the cell surface receptor Her2. Population
pharmacokinetics indicate that 10% of patients display fast clearance
of trastuzumab, resulting in drug levels below the minimally effective
concentration.[28] Cetuximab has been clinically
approved to treat colorectal carcinoma,[29] nonsmall cell lung carcinoma,[30] and squamous
cell head and neck carcinoma.[31] Several
studies indicate that a high clearance rate of cetuximab correlates
with poor clinical outcome.[6,7] CD20 is a cell surface
receptor expressed on B-cells and is targeted by the anti-CD20 antibodies
rituximab and obinutuzumab in the treatment of various B-cell malignancies
as well as autoimmune disorders. Intersubject variability in pharmacokinetic
rates of clearance are typically large, and higher serum levels have
been shown to correlate with greater tumor shrinkage,[32,33] thus underscoring the potential benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring.Because trastuzumab recognizes a discontinuous conformational epitope,
no linear epitopes were available that would bind with sufficient
affinity to be used in a LUMABS sensor.[34] Trastuzumab binding mimotope peptides have been obtained from phage
display screening,[35] but their affinities
for trastuzumab were not reported. We therefore synthesized the fluorescently
labeled QLGPYELWELSH mimotope peptide and used fluorescence polarization
titration experiments to determine the affinity of the trastuzumab-mimotope
interaction, yielding a Kd of 294 ±
10 nM (Figure S2, Table ). Since the model predicted that this affinity
is sufficient to support antibody-induced conformational switching
in a LUMABS sensor, a synthetic DNA fragment containing this mimotope
sequence at each end of the semiflexible linker was cloned into a
LUMABS expression plasmid. The resulting TRAS-LUMABS-1 sensor protein
was expressed in E. coli and successfully
purified in good yield. The bioluminescence emission spectrum of TRAS-LUMABS-1
showed efficient BRET in the absence of antibody, with the intensity
of the mNeonGreen emission peak at 517 nm slightly higher than the
NanoLuc peak at 460 nm (Figure A). Addition of saturating amounts of trastuzumab resulted
in a clear decrease in BRET, corresponding to a 1.5-fold change in
emission ratio. A titration experiment in which the emission ratio
was monitored as a function of trastuzumab concentration revealed
a Kd.app of 303 ± 15 nM (Figure B, Table ). TRAS-LUMABS variants with
mimotope sequences that bound trastuzumab with affinities of 1.2 and
1.6 μM were still responsive, but showed smaller changes in
emission ratio (Supplementary Figures S2–S4, Table ). The latter
is expected based on the thermodynamic model and shows that these
weaker binding mimotope sequences do not allow the sensor to switch
completely to the open state. While all sensors were responsive in
the clinically relevant concentration regime between 10–7 and 10–5 M,[28,36,37] TRAS-LUMABS-1 clearly showed the largest change in emission ratio,
making this sensor the preferred choice to quantify trastuzumab levels
in patient samples.
Table 1
Affinities and Dynamic
Range of LUMABS
Sensors
target antibody
sensor
name
Ab binding elementa
monovalent Kd.Abb
sensor Kd.app
sensor DR
trastuzumab
TRAS-LUMABS-1
QLGPYELWELSH
0.29 ± 0.01 μM
303 ± 15 nM
59 ± 4%
TRAS-LUMABS-2
LWGPYEWWELHH
1.6
± 0.3 μM
0.6 ± 0.2 μM
20 ± 1%
TRAS-LUMABS-3
LWGPYEWWEFHH
1.2 ± 0.2 μM
0.16 ± 0.05 μM
31 ±
2%
obinutuzumab
CD20-LUMABS-1
YNCEPANPSEKNSPSTQYCYSI
7 μMd
0.54 ± 0.13 nM
23 ±
1%
CD20-LUMABS-2
YNCAPATPSEKNSPSTQYCYSI
N.D.
0.23 ±
0.06 nM
26 ± 1%
rituximab
CD20-LUMABS-1
YNCEPANPSEKNSPSTQYCYSI
28 μMd
3.9 ± 0.7
μM
22 ± 1%
CD20-LUMABS-2
YNCAPATPSEKNSPSTQYCYSI
N.D.
N.B.
N.B.
cetuximab
CTX-LUMABS-1
CQFDLSTRRLKC
0.27 ± 0.01 μMc
376 ± 18 nM
47.3
± 0.6%
CTX-LUMABS-2
CVFDLGTRRLRC
61 ± 2 nMc
55 ± 3 nM
60.0 ± 0.8%
CTX-LUMABS-3
AVFDLGTRRLRA
N.D.
N.B.
N.B.
Epitope, mimotope,
or meditope as
described in the text. For exact sequences of the proteins used in
this study, refer to the Supporting Information.
Per binding site.
See ref[43]
See ref (30). DR dynamic range. N.D.
not determined. N.B.
no binding.
Figure 2
Characterization of LUMABS assays for the detection of
trastuzumab
and cetuximab. (A,C,E) Luminescence emission spectra of 100 pM TRAS-LUMABS-1
(A) CTX-LUMABS-1 (C) or CTX-LUMABS-2 (E) with or without the indicated
amount of the target antibody and normalized at 460 nm. (B,D,F) Antibody
titrations to 100 pM of TRAS-LUMABS-1 (B) CTX-LUMABS-1 (D) or CTX-LUMABS-2
(F). Data represent mean ± SD from triplicate measurements.
Characterization of LUMABS assays for the detection of
trastuzumab
and cetuximab. (A,C,E) Luminescence emission spectra of 100 pM TRAS-LUMABS-1
(A) CTX-LUMABS-1 (C) or CTX-LUMABS-2 (E) with or without the indicated
amount of the target antibody and normalized at 460 nm. (B,D,F) Antibody
titrations to 100 pM of TRAS-LUMABS-1 (B) CTX-LUMABS-1 (D) or CTX-LUMABS-2
(F). Data represent mean ± SD from triplicate measurements.Epitope, mimotope,
or meditope as
described in the text. For exact sequences of the proteins used in
this study, refer to the Supporting Information.Per binding site.See ref[43]See ref (30). DR dynamic range. N.D.
not determined. N.B.
no binding.Because cetuximab
binds a conformational epitope on EGFR, linear
epitope sequences are also not available for cetuximab.[38] Cyclic mimotope sequences have been reported
for cetuximab, but these cyclic peptides are relatively long (20 aa),
and their interaction strength has not been well characterized.[39] Therefore, we here tested whether we could instead
use a so-called meditope peptide. Meditopes are peptides that specifically
recognize an antibody by binding in a cavity at the interface between
the constant and variable domains (Figure S5). Donaldson et al. reported the crystal structure of a cetuximab
Fab fragment complexed with a 10 aa disulfide cyclized meditope peptide
(CQFDLSTRRLKC, hereafter called meditope 1) that binds with a Kd of 260 nM.[27] In
a recent study using deep mutational scanning, we identified three
mutations that together increased the affinity of the meditope peptide
for cetuximab further to 60 nM (CVFDLGTRRLRC, meditope 2).[40] Two LUMABS variants were cloned and expressed
that contained either meditope 1 or meditope 2. To assess the importance
of peptide cyclization, we also included a third variant, (CTX-LUMABS-3)
that contains a linear version of meditope 2 in which the cysteines
were replaced by alanines (AVFDLGTRRLRA, meditope 3). In the absence
of cetuximab, the bioluminescence emission spectra of all three sensor
variants were the same and similar to those observed for the other
LUMABS sensors in the absence of antibody. Addition of cetuximab induced
a robust decrease in emission ratio of 47 ± 0.6% and 60 ±
0.8% for CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2, respectively (Figure C,E), while no change in emission ratio was
observed for CTX-LUMABS-3 up to 1 μM cetuximab (Supplementary Figure S6). These results are consistent
with previous observations that disulfide-cyclization is required
for high affinity binding to cetuximab[41] and thus imply the correct formation of these disulfide bonds in
CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2. Correct disulfide bond formation was also confirmed
by ESI-MS, which showed a 4 Da increase in molecular weight for both
CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2 following treatment with dithiothreitol (Supplementary Figure S7). Cetuximab titrations
revealed apparent Kd values of 380 ±
20 nM and 55 ± 3 nM for CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2, respectively (Figure D,F, Table ). While the 7-fold difference
in cetuximab affinity is somewhat smaller than anticipated based on
the thermodynamic model, these results still demonstrate the ability
to tune the affinity of the LUMABS sensors in a predictable way. Importantly,
the responsive concentration regime of these two sensors together
covers the range of cetuximab concentrations that have been reported
in patient serum (25 nM–2.3 μM.)[6,7,42,43] The CTX-LUMABS
sensors do not target the antigen binding domains of cetuximab, but
rather, they bind a cavity inside the cetuximab Fab fragment. Although
structural analysis suggests that the chimeric nature of cetuximab
renders this binding site significantly different from the pocket
present in other antibodies, we nonetheless tested the response of
CTX-LUMABS-1 and CTX-LUMABS-2 against two humanized therapeutic antibodies,
(trastuzumab and obinutuzumab) and two chimeric ones, rituximab and
infliximab (Supplementary Figure S8). Neither
sensor showed any response to micromolar concentrations of any of
these four antibodies. We also tested binding to a mix of IgG from
human serum and found no unspecific binding (Supplementary Figure S9).The anti-CD20 antibodies obinutuzumab and
rituximab recognize different,
but overlapping epitopes within the second extracellular loop of CD20
(sequence 165-YNCEPANPSEKNSPSTQYCYSI-186).[44−46] Previous binding studies reported affinities of 7 and 28 μM
for binding of this disulfide-cyclized peptide to obinutuzumab and
rituximab, respectively.[46] Although these
affinities were likely to be too low, we nonetheless constructed two
LUMABS proteins, one incorporating the original cyclic CD20 epitope
sequence (CD20-LUMABS-1), and one containing the same cyclic peptide
with two mutations (E168A and N171T) that were reported to enhance
the affinity for obinutuzumab but completely abrogated rituximab binding
(CD20-LUMABS-2).[46] Titration experiments
with rituximab showed either a small response and weak binding (CD20-LUMABS-1),
or no response at all (CD20-LUMABS-2) (Supplementary Figure S10). Addition of obinutuzumab induced a modest 20%
change in emission ratio for both sensors, with Kd.app-values of 0.5 ± 0.1 μM and 0.23 ±
0.06 μM for CD20-LUMABS-1 and -2, respectively (Table and Supplementary Figure S11). While the latter results show that relatively
large disulfide-cyclized peptide epitopes can be successfully incorporated
in LUMABS sensors, it is clear that epitopes with higher affinity
are required to obtain CD20-LUMABS sensors with a more robust change
in emission ratio. Development of a higher affinity sensor was attempted
by incorporating the entire extracellular loop as an epitope, because
the affinity of both antibodies to cells expressing full-length CD20
is in the nanomolar range.[46] Unfortunately,
this construct suffered from proteolytic degradation during expression.
TRAS-LUMABS and CTX-LUMABS Allow Direct Antibody Quantification
in Blood Plasma
Because LUMABS sensors with physiologically
relevant affinities and a sufficient change in emission ratio were
obtained for both trastuzumab (TRAS-LUMBAS-1) and cetuximab (CTX-LUMABS-1
and -2), we next assessed the potential of these LUMABS sensors to
allow direct antibody quantification in blood plasma. An important
consideration for use in a point-of-care setting is whether the response
of the sensor is fast enough to allow accurate quantification within
a reasonable time frame. The kinetics of the sensors’ responses
were determined for different antibody concentrations (Figure ). Addition of trastuzumab
to TRAS-LUMABS-1 induced a rapid response, showing essentially complete
equilibration within minutes for physiologically relevant antibody
concentrations. A similar rapid equilibration was observed for CTX-LUMABS-1,
but the response of CTX-LUMABS-2 was considerably slower than that
of CTX-LUMABS-1. Because all sensors have the same helper interaction,
these clear differences in kinetics show that the dissociation of
the helper interaction cannot be rate-limiting. Most likely, at low
antibody concentrations, the kinetics of equilibration are dominated
by the dissociation rate of the mimotope/meditope peptide-antibody
interaction, which is expected to be lower for the higher affinity
interaction in CTX-LUMABS-2. Based on its faster kinetics, CTX-LUMABS-1
would be the preferred sensor for a point-of-care application.
Figure 3
Kinetics of
TRAS-LUMABS and CTX-LUMABS sensors. Green/blue luminescence
emission ratio was monitored at 100 pM of TRAS-LUMABS-1 (A), CTX-LUMABS-1
(B) or CTX-LUMABS-2 (C) in 50 μL of luminescence buffer and
a NanoGlo substrate dilution of 1000×. Error bars represent mean
± SD of triplicate measurements. Data were normalized to the
average ratio of the last 10 data before antibody addition.
Kinetics of
TRAS-LUMABS and CTX-LUMABS sensors. Green/blue luminescence
emission ratio was monitored at 100 pM of TRAS-LUMABS-1 (A), CTX-LUMABS-1
(B) or CTX-LUMABS-2 (C) in 50 μL of luminescence buffer and
a NanoGlo substrate dilution of 1000×. Error bars represent mean
± SD of triplicate measurements. Data were normalized to the
average ratio of the last 10 data before antibody addition.Because the LUMABS sensors are
intended to be used directly in
patient plasma, we next assessed their performance in pooled human
plasma spiked with different concentrations of trastuzumab and cetuximab.
Because some of the emitted light is reabsorbed in plasma, the absolute
intensity ratios were different between buffer and plasma, but the
relative response was comparable (41.0 ± 1.2%, 47.2 ± 0.6%
and 57.6 ± 1.9% for TRAS-LUMABS-1, CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2, respectively).
The apparent affinity of TRAS-LUMABS-1 was found to be 10-fold lower
in blood plasma (Kd.app = 3.61 ±
0.21 μM), whereas the apparent affinities of CTX-LUMABS-1 and
-2 were found to be slightly increased, yielding Kd.app values of 100 ± 5 nM and 34 ± 4 nM for
CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2, respectively (Figure A,B). These results show that the performance
of both sensors in plasma was comparable to that in buffer, although
a calibration curve should be obtained in plasma since the Kd values and absolute emission ratios cannot
be directly compared between buffer and plasma.
Figure 4
Performance of TRAS-LUMABS
and CTX-LUMABS assays in blood plasma.
(A,B) Calibration of TRAS-LUMABS-1 (A) and CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2 (B)
in 90% plasma. Error bars represent mean ± SD from three measurements
of the same calibration sample. (C,D) Correlation of antibody concentrations
measured by ELISA and by TRAS-LUMABS-1 (C) or CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2
(D). Concentrations were calculated from each measurement using the
calibration curve. Error bars represent mean ± SD of these concentrations.
Performance of TRAS-LUMABS
and CTX-LUMABS assays in blood plasma.
(A,B) Calibration of TRAS-LUMABS-1 (A) and CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2 (B)
in 90% plasma. Error bars represent mean ± SD from three measurements
of the same calibration sample. (C,D) Correlation of antibody concentrations
measured by ELISA and by TRAS-LUMABS-1 (C) or CTX-LUMABS-1 and -2
(D). Concentrations were calculated from each measurement using the
calibration curve. Error bars represent mean ± SD of these concentrations.Finally, we compared the analytical
performance of the TRAS-LUMABS
and CTX-LUMABS sensors with commercially available ELISAs that are
currently used to quantify trastuzumab and cetuximab concentrations
in clinical samples. Test samples were prepared in human blood plasma
at four different trastuzumab concentrations, representing typical
peak measurements (2.3 μM), two levels corresponding to slow-
and fast-clearance patients (1.38 μM and 500 nM), and a low
trough level (138 nM). The trastuzumab concentrations in the test
samples were determined by ELISA after appropriate dilution, resulting
in an average deviation from the spiked concentrations of 22%. The
deviation was highest for the 138 nM sample (38%). In parallel, test
samples were directly measured by TRAS-LUMABS-1 without dilution by
comparing the measured emission ratios with the sigmoidal fit for
the calibration curve obtained in Figure A. The concentrations obtained deviated from
the spiked concentrations by 8% on average, with the highest deviation
of 13% for the 500 nM sample. A good correlation was observed between
the ELISA and Tras-LUMABS-1, R2 = 0.9959, p < 0.003 (Figure C). Similarly, test samples were simulated by spiking pooled
human blood plasma with four different cetuximab concentrations, representing
typical peak measurements (2.3 μM), trough concentrations from
patients with relatively slow clearance (500 nM), trough levels from
fast-clearance patients (200 nM) and the very low trough levels (12
nM) found when patients must forego a dose.[42,43,47,48] Determination
of the cetuximab concentrations in the test samples using the commercial
ELISA was again done after proper dilution, yielding an average deviation
from the true concentration of 14% (Supplementary Figure S13). No measurement deviated by more than 20% from
the spiked concentration. In parallel, cetuximab concentrations were
determined directly in the spiked plasma samples with CTX-LUMABS-1
and -2 in a microtiter well plate assay by comparing the measured
emission ratios with the sigmoidal fit for the calibration curve obtained
in Figure B. On average,
the concentrations obtained using CTX-LUMABS-1 deviated from the spiked
concentrations by 9% (Figure D). The deviation was highest for the 2.3 μM sample
(24%), which is probably due to the fact that the sigmoidal curve
levels off at the high concentration end. For CTX-LUMABS-2, the average
deviation from the spiked concentrations was 21%. This higher deviation
is due to the insensitivity of CTX-LUMABS-2 in the high concentration
regime, as reflected by the high deviations observed for the 500 nM
sample (deviation 24%) and particularly the 2.3 μM sample (49%).
As a result, a very good correlation was observed between the ELISA
and CTX-LUMABS-1, R2 = 0.9998, p < 0.001 and a slightly lower correlation between the
ELISA and CTX-LUMABS-2, R2 = 0.985 p < 0.05 (Figure D).
Discussion and Conclusions
In this
work, we successfully demonstrated the development of dual
color bioluminescent sensor proteins that allow homogeneous detection
of two well-known therapeutic antibodies directly in solution. LUMABS
sensors with physiologically relevant affinities and a robust response
were obtained for trastuzumab and cetuximab, whereas a relatively
weak antibody-epitope interaction yielded suboptimal LUMABS variants
for the anti-CD20 antibodies obinutuzumab and rituximab. The strength
of the monovalent antibody-peptide interaction strongly correlated
with the relative change in bioluminescent emission ratio observed
upon antibody binding, which can be understood using a thermodynamic
model that describes the binding of the sensor to the antibody in
three different steps. Further characterization of the trastuzumab
and cetuximab LUMABS sensors in buffer showed excellent antibody selectivity
and sufficiently rapid equilibration. Importantly, because the signal
is ratiometric and based on bioluminescence, both LUMABS sensors could
be used directly in blood plasma, where their analytical performance
compared well to that obtained using a classical ELISA.The
thermodynamic model introduced in this work can be used to
guide the development of LUMABS for other therapeutic antibodies.
Our results showed a good correlation between the affinity of the
antibodies for the fluorescently labeled peptides determined in fluorescence
anisotropy titration experiment and the properties of the sensors
in which these peptides were genetically encoded. With decreasing
monovalent affinity (higher Kd.Ab) the
apparent sensor Kd shifted toward higher
concentrations, whereas the difference in emission ratio was attenuated.
Of course, the model predictions are not absolute as antibody binding
may also be affected by interactions with surrounding residues, such
as the label in the fluorescent peptides or interactions with flanking
amino acids in the sensor. Nonetheless, our work shows that, as a
rule of thumb, the antigen–antibody interaction should preferably
have a Kd of 1 μM or lower.The most obvious strategy to improve the dynamic response of LUMABS
sensors is to increase the affinity of the antibody epitope, mimotope,
or meditope interaction. The example of the anti-CD20 antibodies shows
that this can be challenging as many therapeutic antibodies recognize
complex discontinuous epitopes whose structural features may not be
well preserved in peptide analogues. The successful introduction of
disulfide constrained peptides, suggests that it may be worth to explore
other structurally constrained epitopes such small protein domains
or bicyclic peptides, which afford high affinity and selectivity and
can be screened using phage display.[49] An
alternative strategy to improve the dynamic response of LUMABS sensors
may be to adjust the ratio of Ceff.helper/Ceff.Ab. On the basis of earlier work,
we estimated the effective concentration for formation of the enzyme–inhibitor
complex (Ceff.EI, equivalent to Ceff.helper in this work) to be 10-fold higher
than the effective concentration for formation of the intramolecular
antibody-peptide interaction (Ceff.Ab).[50] However, Ceff.Ab may also depend on the orientation of antibody–peptide interaction
and differences in conformational preferences between different antibody
classes, as determined by the flexibility of the hinge region.[51,52] Modeling the relationship between the dynamic range and Kd.app for different values of Ceff.helper/Ceff.Ab shows that
the concentration where the dynamic range starts to decrease from
its maximum is higher for lower Ceff.helper/Ceff.Ab (Supplementary Figure S1). One way to decrease this ratio would be to make
the linker stiffer, which should results in an increase in Ceff.Ab.The trastuzumab and cetuximab
LUMABS sensors developed in this
work are attractive candidates for the development of a low cost point-of-care
assay for TDM applications. Because bioluminescence does not require
external excitation, LUMABS detection does not suffer from background
signals or light scattering, making detection in complex matrices
relatively straightforward. The bright and stable luminescence produced
by NanoLuc allows sensitive detection both in heterogeneous and homogeneous
assay formats, as demonstrated by several recent applications including
the use of antibody-NanoLuc fusions in the heterogeneous detection
of antidrug antibodies and the high-throughput screening of antibody
libraries.[53,54] Moreover, the two-color, ratiometric
detection renders LUMABS-based detection independent of sensor concentration
and much less sensitive to matrix effects that affect the absolute
signal intensity such as temperature, pH, substrate concentration,
and product inhibition. Nonetheless, in the next step, it will be
important to demonstrate that these principle advantages also hold-up
when measuring antibody concentrations in patient samples. Even though
we have previously shown that the LUMABS signal is readily detected
using as a standard smart phone camera, reabsorption of light by components
in blood plasma can affect the absolute ratio. Because individual
patient samples can vary considerably in absorbance, we are currently
exploring to combine the LUMABS sensors with paper-based detection
devices, where the short path length that the light travels through
the sample will effectively suppress light reabsorption.[55]
Authors: Remco Arts; Ilona den Hartog; Stefan E Zijlema; Vito Thijssen; Stan H E van der Beelen; Maarten Merkx Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Shiqing Li; Karl R Schmitz; Philip D Jeffrey; Jed J W Wiltzius; Paul Kussie; Kathryn M Ferguson Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Brian Leyland-Jones; Ramon Colomer; Maureen E Trudeau; Andrew Wardley; Jean Latreille; David Cameron; Ricardo Cubedo; Nedal Al-Sakaff; Andrea Feyereislova; Olivier Catalani; Yumi Fukushima; Michael Brewster; Javier Cortés Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hyun-Soo Cho; Karen Mason; Kasra X Ramyar; Ann Marie Stanley; Sandra B Gabelli; Dan W Denney; Daniel J Leahy Journal: Nature Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 49.962