| Literature DB >> 29615812 |
J D Nosanchuk1, A Jeyakumar1, A Ray1, E Revskaya1, Z Jiang1, R A Bryan1, K J H Allen2, R Jiao2, M E Malo2, B L Gómez3, A Morgenstern4, F Bruchertseifer4, D Rickles5, G B Thornton6, A Bowen7, A Casadevall7, E Dadachova8.
Abstract
Metastatic melanoma remains difficult to treat despite recent approvals of several new drugs. Recently we reported encouraging results of Phase I clinical trial of radiolabeled with 188Re murine monoclonal IgM 6D2 to melanin in patients with Stage III/IV melanoma. Subsequently we generated a novel murine IgG 8C3 to melanin. IgGs are more amenable to humanization and cGMP (current Good Manufacturing Practice) manufacturing than IgMs. We performed comparative structural analysis of melanin-binding IgM 6D2 and IgG 8C3. The therapeutic efficacy of 213Bi- and 188Re-labeled 8C3 and its comparison with anti-CTLA4 immunotherapy was performed in B16-F10 murine melanoma model. The primary structures of these antibodies revealed significant homology, with the CDRs containing a high percentage of positively charged amino acids. The 8C3 model has a negatively charged binding surface and significant number of aromatic residues in its H3 domain, suggesting that hydrophobic interactions contribute to the antibody-melanin interaction. Radiolabeled IgG 8C3 showed significant therapeutic efficacy in murine melanoma, safety towards healthy melanin-containing tissues and favorable comparison with the anti-CTLA4 antibody. We have demonstrated that antibody binding to melanin relies on both charge and hydrophobic interactions while the in vivo data supports further development of 8C3 IgG as radioimmunotherapy reagent for metastatic melanoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29615812 PMCID: PMC5882926 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-23889-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Comparisons of the heavy and light chain protein sequences of mAb 6D2 and 8C3.
Figure 2Comparison of 6D2 and 8C3 variable region molecular models. (A) Top and side views of the structural alignment of the 6D2 and 8C3 variable regions. 6D2 VH is red, 6D2 VL is green, and both 8C3 chains are blue. CDRs 1–3 on both the H and L chains are labeled in the side view, while the CDR-L1 and CDR-H3 are highlighted in the top view. (B) A top view of the surface charge of 6D2 is illustrated by electrostatic potential with red indicating negatively charged regions and blue indicating positively charged regions. The transparent surface view shows the underlying H chain (red) and L chain (green). (C) A top view of 6D2 showing aromatic residues highlighted in blue. (D) A top view of the surface charge of 8C3 is illustrated by electrostatic potential with red indicating negatively charged regions and blue indicating positively charged regions. The transparent surface view shows the underlying H chain (red) and L chain (green). (E) A top view of 8C3 showing aromatic residues highlighted in blue.
Figure 3Similarity of permissive and non-permissive antibody sequences with the 6D2 V region sequences. Unique VH (A) and VL (B) amino acid sequences for 13 of these murine antibodies were described previously[30]. Leaf labels in the dendrograms are colored according to whether changes in the constant region for that antibody were permissive (green) or non-permissive (red) of specificity changes. Numbering of the sequences corresponds to their numbering in the previous review[30].
Figure 4Biodistribution and microSPECT/CT imaging of 111In-8C3 in B16-F10 subcutaneous melanoma bearing C57BL6 mice and biodistribution of the rrelevant control 111In-IgG in healthy C57BL6 mice after IV administration of the mAbs. The biodistibution was performed at 4 and 24 hrs and microSPECT/CT imaging at 72 hrs. (A) 111In-8C3 in tumor bearing mice; (B) irrelevant control 111In-IgG in healthy C57BL6 mice; (C) microSPECT/CT of a tumor bearing mouse. The arrow is pointing to the tumor.
Figure 5Treatment of B16-F10 metastatic melanoma tumor-bearing C57BL6 mice with radiolabeled 6D2 and 8C3 melanin-binding mAbs. The mice were given B16-F10 murine melanoma cells intravenously via tail vein, treated on Day 4 with the radiolabeled mAbs and sacrificed on Day 14: (A) comparative treatment with 100 µCi 213Bi-6D2 and 213Bi-8C3; (B) high resolution microphotographs of the lungs of C57BL6 mice at the conclusion of the experiment. Left panel – unlabeled (“cold”) 8C3 group, right panel - 213Bi-8C3 mAb group; (C) comparative treatment with 188Re-8C3 and 213Bi-8C3. 213Bi-6D2 or 213Bi-8C3 mAbs demonstrated significant (p < 0.01) reduction in metastases-like nodules compared to untreated mice or those administered unlabeled 6D2 or 8C3. 213Bi-8C3 was significantly more effective than 213Bi-6D2 (p = 0.03). Both 213Bi-8C3 and 188Re-8C3 achieved significance compared to untreated or unlabeled 8C3 controls (p < 0.01) in treatment of B16-F10 melanoma. 188Re-8C3 appeared to be more effective than 213Bi-8C3, however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06).
Figure 6Treatment of B16-F10 metastatic melanoma tumor-bearing C57BL6 mice with RIT delivered by 213Bi-8C3, immunotherapy with anti-CTLA4 mAb 9D9 and their combination. (A) treatment schematic; (B) treatment results. RIT alone and combination treatment groups received IP 150 μCi 213Bi-8C3; immunotherapy alone and combination treatment groups received IP 100 μg 9D9 mAb on days 5, 9 and 11 after cell injection. Both the RIT and RIT plus immunotherapy groups showed significantly fewer lung metastases in comparison with the untreated control group (p = 0.045). No statistical difference between the efficacy of RIT alone and the combination of RIT plus immunotherapy groups was observed (p = 0.956).