Therapeutic Potential of HLA-I Polyreactive mAbs Mimicking the HLA-I Polyreactivity and Immunoregulatory Functions of IVIg

HLA class-I (HLA-I) polyreactive monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reacting to all HLA-I alleles were developed by immunizing HLA-E monomeric heavy chain (HC) (Open Conformers, OCs). Two of the mAbs (TFL-006 and TFL-007) bound to the HC’s coated on a solid matrix. The binding was inhibited by a peptide 117AYDGKDY123, present in all alleles of the six HLA-I isoforms but masked by 2-microglobulin -m) in intact HLA-I trimers (Closed Conformers, CCs). Identical HLA-I polyreactivity is observed in IVIg administered to lower anti-HLA antibodies (Abs) in HLA-sensitized patients, but the mechanism is unknown. We hypothesized that the mAbs that mimic IVIg HLA-I polyreactivity might mimic the immunomodulatory functions of IVIg. We tested the relative binding affinity of the mAbs and IVIg for both OCs- and CCs and compared their effects on (a) the phytohemagglutinin (PHA)-activation T-cells, (b) the production of anti-HLA-II antibody (Ab) by B-memory cells, and anti-HLA-I Ab by immortalized B-cells, and (c) the upregulation of CD4+, CD25+, and Fox P3+ T-regs. The mAbs bound only to OCs, whereas IVIg is bound to both CCs and OCs. The mAbs suppressed blastogenesis and proliferation of PHA-activated T-cells, anti-HLA Ab production by B-cells and expanded the T-regs, better than IVIg. We conclude that a humanized version of the TFL-mAbs could be an ideal therapeutic IVIg-mimetic.

GRAM: A True Null Model for Relative Binding Affinity Predictions

Relative binding affinity prediction is a critical component in computer aided drug design. Significant amount of effort has been dedicated to developing rapid and reliable in silico methods. However, robust assessment of their performance is still a complicated issue, as it requires a performance measure applicable in the prospective setting and more importantly a true null model that defines the expected performance of random in an objective manner. Although many performance metrics, such as correlation coefficient (r2), mean unsigned error (MUE), and room mean square error (RMSE), are frequently used in the literature, a true and non-trivial null model has yet been identified. To address this problem, here we introduce an interval estimate as an additional measure, namely prediction interval (PI), which can be estimated from the error distribution of the predictions. The benefits of using the interval estimate are 1) it provides the uncertainty range in the predicted activities, which is important in prospective applications; 2) a true null model with well-defined PI can be established. We provide one such example termed Gaussian Random Affinity Model (GRAM), which is based on the empirical observation that the affinity change in a typical lead optimization effort has the tendency to distribute normally N (0, s). Having an analytically defined PI that only depends on the variation in the activities, GRAM should in principle allow us to compare the performance of relative binding affinity prediction methods in a standard way, ultimately critical to measuring the progress made in algorithm development.<br>

GRAM: A True Null Model for Relative Binding Affinity Predictions

Relative binding affinity prediction is a critical component in computer aided drug design. Significant amount of effort has been dedicated to developing rapid and reliable in silico methods. However, robust assessment of their performance is still a complicated issue, as it requires a performance measure applicable in the prospective setting and more importantly a true null model that defines the expected performance of random in an objective manner. Although many performance metrics, such as correlation coefficient (r2), mean unsigned error (MUE), and room mean square error (RMSE), are frequently used in the literature, a true and non-trivial null model has yet been identified. To address this problem, here we introduce an interval estimate as an additional measure, namely prediction interval (PI), which can be estimated from the error distribution of the predictions. The benefits of using the interval estimate are 1) it provides the uncertainty range in the predicted activities, which is important in prospective applications; 2) a true null model with well-defined PI can be established. We provide one such example termed Gaussian Random Affinity Model (GRAM), which is based on the empirical observation that the affinity change in a typical lead optimization effort has the tendency to distribute normally N (0, s). Having an analytically defined PI that only depends on the variation in the activities, GRAM should in principle allow us to compare the performance of relative binding affinity prediction methods in a standard way, ultimately critical to measuring the progress made in algorithm development.<br>