Considerations in Establishing Affinity Design Goals for Development of Antibody-Based Therapeutics

  • Mohammad Tabrizi


Establishing design goals with respect to antibody affinity is a critical consideration that should be incorporated into development strategies from the earliest stages of the discovery process for antibody-based therapeutics. Selection of the adequate affinity for a functional antibody should allow achievement of the maximum therapeutic benefit at a dose associated with a manageable cost of goods and the intended route of administration. Application of theoretical pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling with incorporation of relevant parameters with respect to antibody PK properties and biodistribution, antigen turnover rate, and antigen concentrations under physiological and pathological conditions can facilitate determination of the optimum affinity required. This chapter will review the critical considerations necessary for the design of optimum affinity goals for antibody-based therapeutics.


Design Goal Antigen Concentration Soluble Antigen Therapeutic Antibody Effect Compartment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bornstein GG, Queva C, Tabrizi M, Abbema AV, Chavez C, Wang P et al (2009) Development of a new fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of B-cell malignancies. Invest New Drugs. doi: 10.1007/s10637-009-9291-z PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Desjarlais JR, Lazar GA, Zhukovsky EA, Chu SY (2007) Optimizing engagement of the immune system by anti-tumor antibodies: an engineer’s perspective. Drug Discov Today 12(21–22):898–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Graff CP, Wittrup KD (2003) Theoretical analysis of antibody targeting of tumor spheroids: importance of dosage for penetration, and affinity for retention. Cancer Res 63(6):1288–1296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Moore GL, Chen H, Karki S, Lazar GA (2010) Engineered Fc variant antibodies with enhanced ability to recruit complement and mediate effector functions. MAbs 2(2):181–189Google Scholar
  5. Roskos L, Klakamp SL, Liang M, Arends R, Green L (2007) Molecular engineering II: antibody affinity. In: Dubel S (ed) Handbook of therapeutic antibodes. Wiley, pp 149–169Google Scholar
  6. Tabrizi MA, Bornstein GG, Klakamp SL, Drake A, Knight R, Roskos L (2009a) Translational strategies for development of monoclonal antibodies from discovery to the clinic. Drug Discov Today 14(5–6):298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Tabrizi M, Bornstein GG, Suria H (2009b) Biodistribution mechanisms of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in health and disease. AAPS J 12:33–43. doi: 10.1208/s12248-009-9157-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tabrizi M, Funelas C, Suria H (2010) Application of quantitative pharmacology in development of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. AAPS J 12(4):592–601. doi:  10.1208/s12248-010-9220-2 Google Scholar
  9. Thurber GM, Zajic SC, Wittrup KD (2007) Theoretic criteria for antibody penetration into solid tumors and micrometastases. J Nucl Med 48(6):995–999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Thurber GM, Schmidt MM, Wittrup KD (2008a) Factors determining antibody distribution in tumors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 29(2):57–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Thurber GM, Schmidt MM, Wittrup KD (2008b) Antibody tumor penetration: transport opposed by systemic and antigen-mediated clearance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60(12):1421–1434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Merck IncPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations