Preclinical, Clinical, and Translational Sciences
Md Tariqul Haque Tuhin, PhD (he/him/his)
Postdoctoral Fellow
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Md Tariqul Haque Tuhin, PhD (he/him/his)
Postdoctoral Fellow
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Mark Bryniarski, Ph.D.
Principal Scientist
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Carolyn Shomin, Ph.D.
Scientific Associate Director
Amgen Inc.
Thousand Oaks, California, United States
Marcus Soto, n/a
Sr Principal Scientist
Amgen Inc.
Thousand Oaks, California, United States
Timothy Acker, Ph.D.
Principal Scientist
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Shweta Mandavalli, n/a
Sr Scientist
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Ronya Primack, n/a
Sr Scientist
Amgen Inc.
Thousand Oaks, California, United States
Craig Uyeda, n/a
Sr Scientist
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Aochiu Chen, Ph.D.
Sr Scientist
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Kevin Cook, Ph.D.
Director Preclinical
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Kip Conner, Ph.D.
Scientific Director
Amgen Inc.
South San Francisco, California, United States
Figure 1: (A) Anti-IL-4Rα WT and –YTE mAb cartoon figures with mutation sites. Antibody homology modeling of anti-IL-4Rα mAb in MOE software identified several charge patches on the anti-IL-4Rα mAb variable region (Fv), including two positive patches in heavy chain (HC) complementarity determining regions, CDR1 (R33) and CDR3 (R110), and one positive charge patch (R95) at the light chain (LC) framework. Additional isolated positive surface charge area in HC Fv (R20) was also mutated which doesn’t form a patch. (B) Non-specific endocytosis measurements of anti-IL-4Rα mAb WT and YTE mAb mutant panel in CHO-K1 cells at pH 5.8. The non-specific endocytosis of all WT and YTE mutants was significantly different when compared to the control anti-IL-4Rα wild-type (WT) mAb at pH 5.8 (ordinary one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test; *: P ≤ 0.0001). Each bar graph represents mean ± SD, N = 3-4 per group.
Figure 2: Poor hFcRn recycling scores correspond to high CLind in hFcRn SCID Tg32 mice PK. Brown symbols represent FREM scores of the mutant mAbs which are connected by teal lines. The scores were normalized to anti-IL-4Rα mAb-EEES-YTE. The assay was optimized to simultaneously compare both WT (i.e. hIgG2) and Fc-engineered charge mutant mAbs. The half-life extending YTE mAbs exhibited better FREM scores relative to their WT counterparts. Each brown symbol represents mean ± SD, and N= 6-8 replicates per group, except for anti-IL-4Rα mAb-EEES-YTE, where N = 16. YTE mutant mAbs were tested in two batches in two different days, and FREM scores from each day were normalized to the EEES-YTE mutant mAb from that day as the relative control. The blank and grey bars represent the target independent clearance (CLind) of anti-IL-4Rα mAb WT and YTE mutant mAbs, respectively (N=3 mice per group). The figure shows the comparison between CLind and hFcRn recycling efficiency metric (FREM) scores. It was observed that mAbs with relatively lower FREM scores demonstrated higher CLind and vice versa.