Anaphylaktischer Schock nach wiederholter Injektion von 99mTc-markiertem CEA-Antikörper

Noninvasive cell-tracking methods

Cell-based therapies, such as adoptive immunotherapy and stem-cell therapy, have received considerable attention as novel therapeutics in oncological research and clinical practice. The development of effective therapeutic strategies using tumor-targeted cells requires the ability to determine in vivo the location, distribution, and long-term viability of the therapeutic cell populations as well as their biological fate with respect to cell activation and differentiation. In conjunction with various noninvasive imaging modalities, cell-labeling methods, such as exogenous labeling or transfection with a reporter gene, allow visualization of labeled cells in vivo in real time, as well as monitoring and quantifying cell accumulation and function. Such cell-tracking methods also have an important role in basic cancer research, where they serve to elucidate novel biological mechanisms. In this Review, we describe the basic principles of cell-tracking methods, explain various approaches to cell tracking, and highlight recent examples for the application of such methods in animals and humans.

High affinity mouse-human chimeric Fab against hepatitis B surface antigen

AIM

Passive immunotherapy using antibody against hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) has been advocated in certain cases of Hepatitis B infection. We had earlier reported on the cloning and expression of a high affinity scFv derived from a mouse monoclonal (5S) against HBsAg. However this mouse antibody cannot be used for therapeutic purposes as it may elicit anti-mouse immune responses. Chimerization by replacing mouse constant domains with human ones can reduce the immunogenicity of this antibody.

METHODS

We cloned the V(H) and V(L) genes of this mouse antibody, and fused them with CH1 domain of human IgG1 and C(L) domain of human kappa chain respectively. These chimeric genes were cloned into a phagemid vector. After initial screening using the phage display system, the chimeric Fab was expressed in soluble form in E. coli.

RESULTS

The chimeric Fab was purified from the bacterial periplasmic extract. We characterized the chimeric Fab using several in vitro techniques and it was observed that the chimeric molecule retained the high affinity and specificity of the original mouse monoclonal. This chimeric antibody fragment was further expressed in different strains of E. coli to increase the yield.

CONCLUSION

We have generated a mouse-human chimeric Fab against HBsAg without any significant loss in binding and epitope specificity. This chimeric Fab fragment can be further modified to generate a full-length chimeric antibody for therapeutic uses.

Human Anti-Animal Antibody Interferences in Immunological Assays

Purpose: The scope and significance of human anti-animal antibody interference in immunological assays is reviewed with an emphasis on human anti-animal immunoglobulins, particularly human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMAs).

Issues: Anti-animal antibodies (IgG, IgA, IgM, IgE class, anti-isotype, and anti-idiotype specificity) arise as a result of iatrogenic and noniatrogenic causes and include human anti-mouse, -rabbit, -goat, -sheep, -cow, -pig, -rat, and -horse antibodies and antibodies with mixed specificity. Circulating antibodies can reach gram per liter concentrations and may persist for years. Prevalence estimates for anti-animal antibodies in the general population vary widely and range from <1% to 80%. Human anti-animal antibodies cause interferences in immunological assays. The most common human anti-animal antibody interferent is HAMA, which causes both positive and negative interferences in two-site mouse monoclonal antibody-based assays. Strategies to prevent the development of human anti-animal antibody responses include immunosuppressant therapy and the use of humanized, polyethylene glycolylated, or Fab fragments of antibody agents. Sample pretreatment or assay redesign can eliminate immunoassay interferences caused by anti-animal antibodies. Enzyme immunoassays, immunoradiometric assays, immunofluorescence, and HPLC assays have been designed to detect HAMA and other anti-animal antibodies, but intermethod comparability is complicated by differences in assay specificity and lack of standardization.

Conclusions: Human anti-animal antibodies often go unnoticed, to the detriment of patient care. A heightened awareness on the part of laboratory staff and clinicians of the problems caused by this type of interference in routine immunoassay tests is desirable. Efforts should be directed at improving methods for identifying and eliminating this type of analytical interference.