LCR54 Antibody

What are the key differences between blocking and detecting antibodies in research applications?

Blocking antibodies are designed to inhibit protein function by binding to active sites or critical domains, while detecting antibodies are optimized for protein visualization or quantification.

For example, the SPC-54 antibody serves as an excellent blocking antibody model. This rat monoclonal anti-mouse PC antibody inhibits amidolytic and anticoagulant activities of murine APC by >95% by blocking access to APC's active site. In experimental settings, SPC-54 effectively blocks active site titration of purified APC using the active site titrant, biotinylated FPR-chloromethylketone .

In contrast, detecting antibodies like fluorochrome-labeled anti-CD4 (S3.5) are designed to bind their targets without affecting function, enabling quantification through methods like flow cytometry .

How does antibody-mediated receptor occupancy (RO) impact experimental outcomes?

Receptor occupancy quantifies the percentage of target receptors bound by an antibody, serving as a critical predictor of therapeutic efficacy for receptor-targeting antibodies. Traditional RO calculation methods often lack sensitivity, resulting in high background and overcalculation .

Two methodological approaches for measuring RO include:

• Direct competition assay: Comparing binding of a labeled detection antibody before and after treatment with the blocking antibody

• Indirect measurement: Using a secondary antibody that recognizes the bound therapeutic antibody

For example, with the anti-CCR5 antibody Leronlimab, researchers developed two independent flow cytometric methods that yielded comparable CCR5 RO values, with low background on untreated CCR5+CD4+ T cells. These methods successfully measured occupancy on both blood and tissue-resident CD4+ T cells that correlated longitudinally with plasma concentrations in Leronlimab-treated macaques .

What considerations should guide antibody selection for in vivo studies?

When selecting antibodies for in vivo studies, researchers should consider:

• Target specificity and cross-reactivity: Verify specificity using techniques like Western blot with appropriate controls

• Binding affinity: Higher affinity antibodies may be required for effective receptor blockade

• Isotype and Fc function: These properties affect antibody half-life and immune recruitment

• Dose-response relationship: Establish through preliminary studies

• Pharmacokinetics: Determine antibody stability and clearance rate in the target species

For example, in SPC-54 studies, a single 10 mg/kg injection neutralized circulating PC in mice for at least 7 days. Western blot analysis revealed that PC antigen levels significantly increased at 24 and 48 hours after injection, showing that antibody selection must account for potential impacts on the target protein's half-life and circulation .

What validation experiments are essential before using a new antibody in critical research?

Comprehensive antibody validation should include:

• Specificity testing:

  • Western blot with positive and negative controls

  • Immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry

  • Testing in cells with gene knockouts or knockdowns

• Functional validation:

  • For blocking antibodies: Enzyme inhibition assays (like SPC-54's inhibition of APC activities)

  • For detecting antibodies: Flow cytometry titration with appropriate controls

• Binding characteristics:

  • Affinity measurements (KD values)

  • Epitope mapping to confirm binding to the intended region

• Cross-reactivity assessment:

  • Testing against similar proteins or species variants

How can researchers confirm antibody-antigen complex formation in vivo?

Confirming antibody-antigen complex formation requires multiple complementary approaches:

• Western blot analysis under non-denaturing conditions: For example, SPC-54:PC complexes showed distinctly slower migration compared to free PC in non-denaturing PAGE .

• Immunoprecipitation with protein G-agarose: This technique can directly demonstrate antibody:antigen complexes. In SPC-54 studies, pull-down of immunoglobulin by protein G-agarose showed marked depletion of PC antigen from plasma 48 hours after SPC-54 infusion, while elution of protein bound to protein G-beads revealed a strong PC band .

• Size exclusion chromatography: To separate complexes based on size.

• Surface plasmon resonance: For real-time binding kinetics.

• Functional assays: To assess if complexes retain biological activity.

Derived from data in search result

What role do CDRs play in antibody specificity and engineering?

Complementarity Determining Regions (CDRs) are hypervariable loop regions in antibodies responsible for antigen recognition and binding specificity. CDRs offer strategic targets for antibody engineering to create novel therapeutic functions.

Advanced research approaches include:

• CDR grafting: Substituting the extended CDRH3 regions with modified peptides that adopt specific conformations, as demonstrated with the bovine antibody BLV1H12, where CXCR4-binding peptides were engineered into the CDR scaffold .

• CDR length modification: Elongated CDRs can reach binding pockets inaccessible to traditional antibodies. For example, researchers generated antibodies specifically targeting the ligand binding pocket of CXCR4 receptor by modifying BLV1H12's naturally ultralong CDRH3 .

• Position optimization: Different CDRs have varying degrees of solvent exposure. CDRH2 is often the most solvent-exposed CDR among all CDRs, making it an alternative target for engineering. The bAb-AC4 antibody designed by grafting CDRH3 sequence into CDRH2 demonstrated higher expression yields (17 mg/L compared to the original construct) .

This approach yielded antibodies that selectively bound CXCR4-expressing cells with binding affinities in the low nanomolar range, while also inhibiting SDF-1-dependent signal transduction .

How should dosing be determined when using blocking antibodies in animal models?

Determining optimal dosing for blocking antibodies requires a systematic approach:

• In vitro potency assessment:

  • Determine IC50/EC50 values in relevant cell-based assays

  • Assess concentration required for complete inhibition (like SPC-54's >95% inhibition of murine APC)

• Pharmacokinetic profiling:

  • Single-dose studies tracking antibody levels over time

  • Assessment of target engagement duration (e.g., SPC-54 neutralized circulating PC for at least 7 days after a single 10 mg/kg dose)

• Dose-ranging studies:

  • Multiple dose levels to establish dose-response relationship

  • Measurement of receptor occupancy at different doses (as demonstrated with Leronlimab at 10 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg doses)

• Model-specific considerations:

  • Target protein expression levels (e.g., higher CCR5 expression on macaque cells required 10-fold higher concentrations of Leronlimab compared to human cells)

  • Species differences in binding affinity

• Endpoint-relevant monitoring:

  • Track both antibody levels and functional outcomes

  • Consider tissue penetration (demonstrated different Leronlimab levels across tissues, with lowest levels in colon correlating with breakthrough infection)

For chronic studies, researchers should also monitor for anti-drug antibody (ADA) development, as seen in some Leronlimab-treated macaques where ADA led to rapid loss of receptor occupancy and treatment failure .

What controls should be included when measuring receptor occupancy with antibodies?

Proper controls for receptor occupancy (RO) measurement include:

• Pre-treatment baseline samples: Critical for establishing baseline receptor expression levels before antibody administration.

• Isotype control antibodies: To account for non-specific binding.

• Competitive binding controls: For direct competition assays, include samples with saturating concentrations of unlabeled antibody.

• Receptor-negative cells or tissues: Essential for setting accurate background thresholds. For example, in CCR5 RO studies, Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells without CXCR4 expression served as controls .

• Dynamic receptor expression monitoring: Since receptor expression can change over time due to inflammatory stimuli or treatment itself (e.g., CCR5 expression increased during Leronlimab treatment) .

• Tissue-specific controls: Include multiple tissue types when relevant, as RO can vary between blood and tissues (e.g., Leronlimab showed different RO patterns in blood versus colon) .

When traditional RO calculation methods were applied to the anti-CCR5 antibody HGS004, researchers observed baseline pre-treatment CCR5 RO values of 20% in HIV-1 infected participants, demonstrating how poor controls can lead to inaccurate results .

How can researchers determine if an antibody alters target protein half-life in vivo?

Antibodies can significantly impact target protein half-life through various mechanisms. A systematic approach to evaluate this includes:

• Time-course protein quantification:

  • Measure total protein levels at multiple timepoints following antibody administration

  • Use immunocapture assays for functional protein measurement (as demonstrated with SPC-54, where PC antigen increased while functionally viable PC decreased)

• Complex formation analysis:

  • Non-denaturing PAGE to visualize antibody-antigen complexes

  • Protein-G pulldown experiments to isolate antibody-bound fractions

  • Western blot analysis under both denaturing and non-denaturing conditions

• Functional readouts:

  • Assess downstream signaling or activity to determine if complexed protein retains function

  • Compare free versus antibody-bound protein activity

• Clearance mechanism investigation:

  • Determine if complexes are cleared through standard Fc-receptor pathways

  • Assess liver and kidney involvement in complex elimination

In the case of SPC-54, PC antigen levels significantly increased at 24 and 48 hours after injection while functional PC availability decreased. Western blot analysis revealed that this resulted from SPC-54:PC antibody:antigen complexes that were not cleared from circulation as quickly as PC itself, due to the longer half-life of antibodies compared to the likely short 6-8 hour half-life of murine PC .

How can antibodies be engineered to target specific protein domains or binding sites?

Advanced antibody engineering strategies include:

• CDR modification techniques:

  • β-hairpin peptide integration: Researchers successfully substituted the extended CDRH3 of BLV1H12 with modified CXCR4-binding peptides that adopt β-hairpin conformations, creating antibodies that specifically target the ligand binding pocket of CXCR4 .

  • Loop region optimization: By removing regions that reside outside binding pockets and substituting inverse hairpin sequences for functional domains .

• Alternative CDR targeting:

  • CDRH2 engineering: Studies show CDRH2 is highly solvent-exposed and can be engineered with extended antiparallel β-strand stalks to create more accessible antigen recognition domains, particularly valuable for targeting buried receptor sites .

  • Combination approaches: Grafting one CDR sequence into another CDR position (e.g., grafting CDRH3 sequence into CDRH2) to optimize both binding and expression .

• Structure-guided design:

  • Crystal structure analysis to identify optimal peptide integration points

  • Molecular dynamics simulations to screen for residues involved in target recognition .

The success of these approaches is evident in experimental outcomes. For instance, the bAb-AC4 antibody (with CDRH3 sequence grafted into CDRH2) showed dramatically improved expression yields (17 mg/L versus lower yields for CDRH3 modifications) while maintaining target binding .

What methods exist for measuring antibody-mediated receptor occupancy across different tissues?

Comprehensive receptor occupancy (RO) assessment across tissues requires specialized approaches:

• Tissue-specific sampling techniques:

  • Endoscopic biopsies for gastrointestinal tissues

  • Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) for lung tissue assessment

  • Lymph node fine-needle aspiration

  • Necropsy collection for terminal studies

• Flow cytometry-based RO measurement:

  • Direct competition method: Using fluorescently labeled antibodies that compete with the therapeutic antibody for receptor binding

  • Indirect detection: Using secondary antibodies to detect bound therapeutic antibody on cell surfaces

  • Both approaches have demonstrated comparable CCR5 RO values with low background on untreated CCR5+CD4+ T cells

• Tissue processing considerations:

  • Enzymatic digestion protocols optimized to preserve epitope integrity

  • Fresh versus fixed tissue analysis protocols

  • Single-cell suspension preparation to maintain receptor expression

• Correlation with functional outcomes:

  • In SHIV challenge studies with Leronlimab, complete protection correlated with full CCR5 RO on CD4+ T cells across multiple tissues including lymph nodes, duodenum, and BAL

  • Breakthrough infection occurred in an animal with the lowest Leronlimab levels in colon despite adequate blood levels

How can antibodies be used to model genetic deficiencies in research models?

Antibodies offer powerful tools to functionally mimic genetic deficiencies without genetic manipulation:

• Competitive inhibition approach:

  • Anti-CCR5 antibody Leronlimab demonstrated that CCR5+ T cells from wild-type donors became resistant to CCR5-tropic HIV infection, precisely mimicking the natural resistance seen in CCR5 Δ32/Δ32 individuals .

  • This approach enables temporary, reversible modeling of genetic deficiency states.

• Complete versus partial inhibition strategies:

  • Dose-dependent inhibition can model heterozygous versus homozygous genetic states

  • Tissue-specific effects can be studied through varying antibody penetration across tissues

• Mechanistic considerations:

  • Competitive inhibitors like Leronlimab directly outcompete HIV for binding to CCR5 by targeting the same extracellular domains used by HIV Env

  • In contrast, allosteric modulators like Maraviroc work through conformational changes

• Advantages over genetic models:

  • Reversible effects allow temporal control

  • Can be applied to established models without extensive breeding

  • Allows study of otherwise lethal genetic deficiencies

  • Enables cross-species application of human genetic insights

• Practical applications:

  • HIV prevention research using anti-CCR5 antibodies instead of CCR5 Δ32/Δ32 donors

  • Modeling protein C deficiency using SPC-54 to study thrombotic disorders

  • Potential applications in modeling other receptor deficiencies relevant to infectious disease and immune function

What factors contribute to inconsistent results when using antibodies in flow cytometry?

Inconsistent flow cytometry results often stem from methodological variables that researchers can control:

• Sample preparation variations:

  • Cell fixation timing: For cell surface markers, staining before fixation is recommended as some fixatives can adversely affect antibody binding sites

  • Improper blocking: Essential to prevent non-specific antibody binding; include both standard blocking agents and Fc receptor blocking for immune cells

  • Inconsistent permeabilization: Different protocols may yield variable access to intracellular targets

• Antibody-specific considerations:

  • Inadequate validation: ~50% of commercial antibodies fail to meet basic characterization standards

  • Lot-to-lot variations: Request lot-specific validation data from vendors

  • Storage and handling: Repeated freeze-thaw cycles can degrade antibody performance

• Technical variables:

  • Fluorochrome selection: Consider spectral overlap, brightness, and stability of fluorochromes

  • Compensation setup: Improperly compensated data leads to false positives/negatives

  • Instrument calibration: Daily quality control is essential for consistent results

• Biological factors:

  • Dynamic receptor expression: Surface receptors like CCR5 change in response to inflammatory stimuli

  • Cell activation status: Affects receptor expression profiles

  • Sample viability: Dead/dying cells increase non-specific binding

To minimize inconsistency, researchers should implement standardized protocols, include appropriate controls (isotype, FMO, positive/negative samples), and perform regular validation experiments to confirm antibody performance .

What approaches help determine if cross-reactivity is affecting antibody specificity?

Cross-reactivity can significantly compromise research findings. Systematic assessment includes:

• Knockout/knockdown validation:

  • Test antibodies in cells/tissues lacking the target protein

  • CRISPR-edited cell lines provide definitive controls

• Multi-method confirmation:

  • Compare results across different detection methods (flow cytometry, Western blot, immunoprecipitation)

  • Discrepancies between methods may indicate cross-reactivity issues

• Competitive binding assays:

  • Pre-incubation with unlabeled antibodies or purified target protein should eliminate specific binding

  • Persistent signal suggests cross-reactivity

• Binding pattern analysis:

  • Cross-reactive antibodies often show unexpected binding patterns or molecular weight bands

  • The University of Hong Kong and Scripps Research demonstrated that while antibodies from SARS-CoV could bind to SARS-CoV-2, this cross-reaction wasn't sufficient to neutralize the virus

• Epitope mapping:

  • Identify the exact binding region to assess potential for cross-reactivity

  • Peptide arrays or mutagenesis studies can provide definitive evidence

Scientists at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Center estimate that "at a minimum, half of [scientific manuscripts] contained potentially incorrect immunohistochemical staining results due to lack of best practice antibody validation," highlighting the critical importance of cross-reactivity assessment in all antibody applications .

How should researchers troubleshoot antibody-based receptor occupancy assays that show high background?

High background in receptor occupancy (RO) assays can severely impact accuracy. Methodological solutions include:

• Improved blocking strategies:

  • Implement comprehensive Fc receptor blocking using appropriate reagents

  • Extend blocking time and optimize buffer composition

  • Include serum matching the secondary antibody source species

• RO calculation refinement:

  • Use baseline-corrected calculations rather than raw percentages

  • Implement sophisticated formulas that account for dynamic receptor expression

  • Two independent flow cytometric methods for calculating CCR5 RO showed that both led to comparable values with low background on untreated CCR5+CD4+ T cells

• Control optimization:

  • Include receptor-negative cells (e.g., untransfected CHO cells for CCR5 studies)

  • Create calibration curves with known concentrations of blocking antibody

  • Use competing antibodies targeting different epitopes to establish true maximum blockade

• Technical refinements:

  • Optimize antibody concentrations through careful titration

  • Evaluate multiple fluorochromes to identify those with minimal autofluorescence

  • Increase washing stringency to remove non-specifically bound antibodies

• Advanced analysis approaches:

  • Apply fluorescence minus one (FMO) controls for precise gating

  • Consider ratio-based measurements rather than absolute percentages

  • Implement computational correction factors based on isotype control binding