Skip to main content
  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Large Molecule Therapeutics

Novel Anti-TM4SF1 Antibody–Drug Conjugates with Activity against Tumor Cells and Tumor Vasculature

Alberto Visintin, Kelly Knowlton, Edyta Tyminski, Chi-Iou Lin, Xiang Zheng, Kimberly Marquette, Sadhana Jain, Lioudmila Tchistiakova, Dan Li, Christopher J. O'Donnell, Andreas Maderna, Xianjun Cao, Robert Dunn, William B. Snyder, Anson K. Abraham, Mauricio Leal, Shoba Shetty, Anthony Barry, Leigh Zawel, Anthony J. Coyle, Harold F. Dvorak and Shou-Ching Jaminet
Alberto Visintin
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kelly Knowlton
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edyta Tyminski
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chi-Iou Lin
2The Center for Vascular Biology Research and the Departments of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiang Zheng
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kimberly Marquette
3Pfizer Inc., Global Biotherapeutic Technologies (GBT), Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sadhana Jain
3Pfizer Inc., Global Biotherapeutic Technologies (GBT), Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lioudmila Tchistiakova
3Pfizer Inc., Global Biotherapeutic Technologies (GBT), Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dan Li
2The Center for Vascular Biology Research and the Departments of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher J. O'Donnell
4Pfizer Inc., Worldwide Medicinal Chemistry, Groton, Connecticut.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Maderna
4Pfizer Inc., Worldwide Medicinal Chemistry, Groton, Connecticut.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xianjun Cao
5Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), San Diego, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Dunn
5Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), San Diego, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William B. Snyder
5Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), San Diego, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anson K. Abraham
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mauricio Leal
6Pfizer Inc., Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism (PDM), Pearl River, New York.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shoba Shetty
7Pfizer Inc., Drug Safety R&D, Investigative Toxicology, Groton, Connecticut.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony Barry
8Pfizer Inc., Biotherapeutics Pharmaceutical Sciences, Andover, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leigh Zawel
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony J. Coyle
1Pfizer Inc., Centers for Therapeutic Innovation (CTI), Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harold F. Dvorak
2The Center for Vascular Biology Research and the Departments of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sjaminet@bidmc.harvard.edu hdvorak@bidmc.harvard.edu
Shou-Ching Jaminet
2The Center for Vascular Biology Research and the Departments of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sjaminet@bidmc.harvard.edu hdvorak@bidmc.harvard.edu
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0188 Published August 2015
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADC) represent a promising therapeutic modality for managing cancer. Here, we report a novel humanized ADC that targets the tetraspanin-like protein TM4SF1. TM4SF1 is highly expressed on the plasma membranes of many human cancer cells and also on the endothelial cells lining tumor blood vessels. TM4SF1 is internalized upon interaction with antibodies. We hypothesized that an ADC against TM4SF1 would inhibit cancer growth directly by killing cancer cells and indirectly by attacking the tumor vasculature. We generated a humanized anti-human TM4SF1 monoclonal antibody, v1.10, and armed it with an auristatin cytotoxic agent LP2 (chemical name mc-3377). v1.10-LP2 selectively killed cultured human tumor cell lines and human endothelial cells that express TM4SF1. Acting as a single agent, v1.10-LP2 induced complete regression of several TM4SF1-expressing tumor xenografts in nude mice, including non–small cell lung cancer and pancreas, prostate, and colon cancers. As v1.10 did not react with mouse TM4SF1, it could not target the mouse tumor vasculature. Therefore, we generated a surrogate anti-mouse TM4SF1 antibody, 2A7A, and conjugated it to LP2. At 3 mpk, 2A7A-LP2 regressed several tumor xenografts without noticeable toxicity. Combination therapy with v1.10-LP2 and 2A7A-LP2 together was more effective than either ADC alone. These data provide proof-of-concept that TM4SF1-targeting ADCs have potential as anticancer agents with dual action against tumor cells and the tumor vasculature. Such agents could offer exceptional therapeutic value and warrant further investigation. Mol Cancer Ther; 14(8); 1868–76. ©2015 AACR.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1765

Introduction

Judah Folkman envisioned that targeting the “tumor angiogenic factor” responsible for initiating tumor angiogenesis would have clinical benefit by preventing the formation of the new blood vessels that tumors require if they are to survive and grow beyond minimal size (1). VEGF is now recognized as the primary tumor angiogenic factor, and antibodies directed against it can prevent the growth of many rapidly growing mouse tumors (2, 3). However, in the clinic, targeting VEGF or its primary angiogenic receptor, KDR (VEGFR-2), has met with only limited success (4–6). Antibodies or “traps” directed against VEGF, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors that target VEGF receptors, are effective for a time as monotherapies in renal cell carcinoma and in some patients with glioblastoma multiforme. When combined with chemotherapy, they delay recurrence, and, in some instances, prolong patient survival, but are not curative. If antivascular therapy is to become more effective and achieve its full potential, additional targets beyond the VEGF–VEGFR-2 axis are required.

Transmembrane-4 L Six Family member 1 (TM4SF1) was discovered in 1986 as a tumor cell antigen recognized by the mouse monoclonal antibody L6 (7, 8). TM4SF1 is an integral membrane glycoprotein structurally related to tetraspanins (8, 9). It is abundantly expressed on many cancer cells (7, 10), on endothelial cells lining human cancer blood vessels (11), and on the endothelial cells of angiogenic blood vessels induced in mice with retinopathy of prematurity (12) or by an adenovirus expressing VEGF-A (11). It is also weakly expressed on the endothelial cells of many normal organs and tissues (13, 14). TM4SF1 regulates cell motility and intercellular adhesion in both tumor (15–17) and endothelial cells (11, 18) and is clustered on the plasma membrane in intermittent microdomains (11, 18, 19). Because TM4SF1 is highly expressed by many human cancer cells (10) and is associated with pathologic angiogenesis, we hypothesized that targeting TM4SF1 would provide a dual anticancer mechanism: killing tumor cells both directly and also indirectly by targeting the tumor vasculature (secondary mechanism).

We reported previously that a mouse anti-human TM4SF1 monoclonal (IgG1) antibody, 8G4, effectively destroyed the human component of the vascular network engineered in Matrigel plugs implanted in nude mice, presumably by an antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) mechanism (20). 8G4 also killed human PC3 prostate cancer cells that were dependent on that network (20). Together, these data indicated that naked anti-TM4SF1 antibodies were able to kill TM4SF1-expressing cells in both the tumor and vascular compartments (20). Another murine anti-TM4SF1 monoclonal antibody, L6 (IgG2a–kappa; refs. 7, 10), had been used to treat human tumor cell lines in immunocompromised mice (10). L6, and its mouse/human chimeric variant, chL6, were well tolerated and produced objective responses in patients with several different cancers that expressed TM4SF1 (10, 13, 21–24).

Building on our mouse experiments with 8G4, and the clinical experience with L6 and chL6 anti-TM4SF1 antibodies, we hypothesized that conjugation of a cytotoxic agent to anti-TM4SF1 antibodies would significantly amplify their anticancer activity (25). To test this hypothesis, we humanized L6, generating antibody v1.10; L6 and v1.10, unlike 8G4, cross-react with cynomolgus monkey TM4SF1 (10). We then armed v1.10 with LP2 (chemical name mc-3377), a synthetic analog of dolastatin-10 (26); dolastatin-10 and synthetic analogs, termed auristatins, inhibit tubulin polymerization, and ultimately induce G2–M cell-cycle arrest and cell death at low picomolar intracellular concentrations (27). Tubulin inhibitors have been extensively investigated as vascular targeting agents and seem to be preferentially toxic against tumor and tumor vascular endothelial cells with high proliferation rates, while sparing the nondividing endothelial cells of normal tissues (28–30).

Because TM4SF1 is highly expressed by both tumor cells and tumor vascular endothelium, an ideal therapeutic would target TM4SF1 on both cell types. Unfortunately, none of the monoclonal antibodies we and others have raised against human TM4SF1 cross-react with mouse TM4SF1 (7, 10, 20). Consequently, v1.10-LP2 would be expected to exert a direct effect on human tumor cells implanted in nude mice, but would not be expected to have an indirect effect on the xenograft's mouse vasculature. We therefore generated a humanized anti-mouse TM4SF1 antibody, 2A7A, and conjugated it to LP2 to test the therapeutic potential of targeting the mouse tumor vasculature. We now report that both v1.10 and 2A7A antibody–drug conjugates (ADC) are highly effective as single agents against tumor xenografts that express TM4SF1 and are still more effective when combined so as to target both human tumor cells and the mouse tumor vasculature.

Materials and Methods

Cell lines and reagents

Tumor cell lines were purchased from ATCC and maintained according to vendor recommended conditions (RPMI/10% FBS media, supplemented with sodium pyruvate and nonessential amino acids for Calu-3 and SK-Mes-1, at 37°C and 5% CO2). Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC, Lonza) were cultured according to the supplier's protocols, and used at passages 3–6. Endothelial cell purity was confirmed by flow cytometry (FACS) which yielded 100% double positive TM4SF1/CD31 cells. 293 stably expressing human or mouse TM4SF1 were generated by lentiviral transduction using a lentiviral expression vector from BioSettia, and packaged using ViraPower (Life Technologies). Human and mouse TM4SF1–transfected 293 cells expressed 994 and 875 TM4SF1 mRNA copies/cell, respectively. Mouse anti-rabbit IgG was from Southern Biotechnologies.

Linker/payload LP2

The structure of LP2 (chemical name mc-3377) is shown in Supplementary Fig. S1A. LP2 is comprised of a synthetic dolastatin-10 analog that resembles in its structure momomethyl auristatin F (MMAF, red color in Supplementary Fig. S1A; ref. 27). However, a key difference of MMAF is the presence of a N-methylated α,α-dimethyl amino acid (Aib) that replaces the N-methyl valine on the N-terminus of MMAF. This structural modification of dolastatin-10 analogs has recently been described by Maderna and colleagues and provides synthetic analogs with excellent potencies and differentiated ADME properties (27). The conjugation to the antibody is accomplished with the maleimidocaproyl linker (mc, blue color in Supplementary Fig. S1A) that is attached to the cytotoxin via an amide bond. After ADC catabolism in lysosomes, ADCs generated with this linker/payload are expected to produce Cys-capped-mc-3377 (26). The mc linker is termed “noncleavable” because the release of the cytotoxic payload requires ADC catabolism in the lysosome.

Anti-TM4SF1 antibodies and ADCs

Mouse anti-human TM4SF1 antibodies 8G4 (20), and L6 and chL6 (31), were described previously. L6 was humanized by Complementarity Determining Regions grafting and the humanized L6 VH and VL were joined to the human IgG1 and human Kappa constant regions, respectively, with proprietary expression vectors. On the basis of structure modeling (32), we generated a series of humanized L6 variants modified by the introduction of back mutations from the parental mouse antibody to restore binding efficiency and antibody stability. The humanized L6 variant chosen for further preclinical development, v1.10, outperformed the chL6 antibody as an ADC in a PC3 xenograft model. Recombinant humanized v1.10 antibody was produced at different scales in CHO or 293 cells. Preparation and characterization of the rabbit/human chimeric anti-mouse/rat TM4SF1 antibody, 2A7A, are presented in Supplementary Materials and Methods.

Generation of anti-TM4SF1 ADCs

ADCs were prepared by partial reduction of the antibodies with tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine followed by coupling to maleimidocapronic-auristatin (mc3377; ref. 33). Excess of N-ethylmaleimide and L-Cys were added in sequence to cap the unreacted thiols and quench any unreacted linker-payload. After overnight dialysis in PBS, pH 7.4, the antibodies were purified by size exclusion chromatography. Protein concentrations were determined by UV spectrophotometry. Drug:antibody ratio (DAR) was determined as described in Supplementary Fig. S1B.

Cytotoxicity assays

Target cells were plated at densities of 500–2,000 cells/100 μL culture medium per well in 96-well plates. After overnight incubation at 37°C, 100 μL of culture media containing serial dilutions of ADCs were added. Ninety-six hours later, 50 μL of CellTiter-Glo (Promega) were added to each well and the plates were read for luminescence. Data are expressed as % viability compared with that of control untreated cells.

Xenografts

Xenografts were performed at Crown Bioscience Inc., Pfizer Oncology, and BIDMC, as indicated. Six- to eight-week-old female athymic nude mice (strain 490, homozygous, Charles River) were used in the American sites, whereas BALB/c nude mice (HFK Bioscience) were used at Crown Bioscience. Mice were inoculated subcutaneously with 1 to 5 million tumor cells to produce 200–300 mm3-sized tumors within 15 days. Tumor-bearing mice were injected intraperitoneally (Crown Bioscience Inc. and BIDMC) or intravenously (Pfizer Oncology) with ADCs as indicated. A nontargeting monoclonal antibody (8.8, human IgG1) conjugated to LP2 was used as a control at 10 mpk (mg/kg). Tumor volumes were calculated as described (34). Animals were housed and handled according to institution-approved animal care protocols. Mice were terminated with CO2 inhalation followed by cervical dislocation.

Gene expression analysis

TM4SF1 gene expression levels were estimated from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE, http://www.broadinstitute.org/ccle/home). RNA expression was quantified with the Affymetrix microarray platform. Normalization of gene expression was done by applying the Robust Multi-array Average algorithm. For validation of the microarray data, we employed multi-gene transcriptional profiling (MGTP) to quantify mRNA copies per cell by normalization to 18S-rRNA, assuming that, on average, cells express approximately 106 copies of 18S-rRNA (35, 36).

FACS analysis

A total of 1 × 105 cells were reacted with the indicated antibody or ADCs in 100 μL of PBS/2%FBS for 60 minutes on ice and washed two times. In some instances, antibodies were conjugated to a fluorophore; otherwise, an Alexa 647-labeled secondary anti-human Fc (Life Technologies) was added and cells were incubated for an additional 60 minutes on ice. After washing in PBS/2% FBS, fluorescence was quantified by FACS (BD LSR Fortessa; 10,000 events collected/point).

To determine the relative number of TM4SF1 copies on the cell surface, we stained cells with saturating amounts (30–100 μg/mL) of Alexa488 (Life Technologies) conjugated anti-TM4SF1 antibodies (chL6 or 2A7A) or isotype control antibodies. The degree of labeling (DOL) for each antibody was determined using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer [moles dye/mole protein = absorbance494/(71,000 × protein concentration (mol/L)]. Calibration curves were generated using the Quantum Alexa488 MESF kit (Bangs Laboratories, Inc.). The geometric mean fluorescence values obtained from the test samples were then divided by the DOL and the background (isotype control–stained cells) subtracted. TM4SF1 receptor numbers were calculated from a calibration curve.

Results

Expression of TM4SF1 in human cancers

We used immunohistochemistry to confirm literature reports (10) that TM4SF1 protein was strongly expressed on the tumor and vascular cells of cancers resected from patients. Collaborating with Indivumed, we found strong tumor cell staining in 10 of 13 liver, 16 of 20 non–small cell lung (NSCLC), 4 of 20 breast, and 3 of 20 colon cancer patient samples (Supplementary Fig. S2), in all cases the tumor vasculature and the vasculature of adjacent normal tissues also stained.

Binding properties and cytotoxic effects of v1.10 and v1.10-LP2 on cultured endothelial cells

8G4 and L6 interact with different epitopes on external loop 2 of human TM4SF1. Because L6 reacts with cynomolgus TM4SF1 (7, 10), whereas 8G4 does not (20), we selected L6 for further studies and prepared v1.10, a humanized clone of L6. We analyzed v1.10's reactivity with cultured human endothelial cells that express high endogenous levels of TM4SF1, that is, approximately 100 copies of TM4SF1 mRNA/cell (11, 20) and 4–5 × 105 surface protein molecules/cell. As shown in Fig. 1A, v1.10 bound to cultured HUVECs and human lung microvascular endothelial cells (HLEC) with an apparent Kd of 2 to 5 nmol/L (the antibody concentration that gave 50% of the maximal binding by FACS analysis). v1.10 was then conjugated to an auristatin-like payload LP2 (chemical name mc-3377) to an average DAR of 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1B). The resulting anti-human TM4SF1 ADC (v1.10-LP2) bound to HUVECs and HLECs in a manner similar to v1.10 (Fig. 1A). Neither v1.10 nor v1.10-LP2 interacted with cells that did not express human TM4SF1, for example, 293 cells or 293 cells that were stably transfected with mouse TM4SF1 (Fig. 1B).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

v1.10 and v1.10-LP2 (mc-3377) reactivity with, and cytotoxicity against, cultured human endothelial cells. A, FACS analysis of reactivity of v1.10 and v1.10-LP2 on HUVEC and HLEC. Geometric mean fluorescence (MFI) values are plotted versus antibody concentration. Apparent Kd values (EC50) were generated using Graph Pad software. B, FACS analysis demonstrates that v1.10 interacts strongly with 293 cells stably transduced with human TM4SF1 (293hTM4SF1, clear profile), but not with 293 cells (gray profile) or with 293 stably transduced with mouse TM4SF1 (293mTM4SF1, black profile). C, cytotoxicity of HUVEC and HLEC treated with varying amounts of v1.10-LP2 and a control ADC, 8.8-LP2. Cell viability was assessed at 96 hours by luminometry.

To achieve cytotoxicity, the antibody–toxin conjugate must be internalized and trafficked to lysosomes, where the antibody is catabolized and the toxic payload is released. HUVEC internalized substantial amounts of v1.10 by 30 minutes and there was essentially complete colocalization of antibody with LAMP1-positive vesicles (late lysosomes) by 4 hours (Supplementary Fig. S3).

v1.10-LP2 ADC was highly effective in killing HUVECs and HLECs (Fig. 1C). For both cell lines, the IC50 of v1.10-LP2 killing was in the low nanomolar range (1.7 nmol/L for HUVECs and 2.2 nmol/L for HLECs), while a control nontargeting human IgG1 antibody, 8.8-LP2, did not kill endothelial cell at concentrations below 100 nmol/L.

Selection of TM4SF1-expressing tumor cell lines

Tumor cell lines expressing high levels of TM4SF1 were identified with an in silico survey of public and proprietary gene expression databases (CCLE, Oncomine, Gene Logic, and OTP) and from prior publications (7, 8, 16, 37). As a group, NSCLC tumor cell lines expressed the highest levels of TM4SF1 among solid tumors (Fig. 2A). However, many other cancer cell lines also ranked high, including those originating in ovary, liver, pancreas, prostate, colon, and breast (data not shown). TM4SF1 expression levels gave similar rank order whether measured as mRNA copy numbers (Fig. 2B) or as cell surface protein (Fig. 2C).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

TM4SF1 expression in different human tumor cell lines and their sensitivity to v1.10-LP2 (mc-3377). A, plot of TM4SF1 mRNA expression by 12 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines against sensitivity to v1.10-LP2. TM4SF1 mRNA expression data were extracted from the CCLE (www.broadinstitute.org/ccle/home; ref. 47). mRNA levels (y-ordinate) are expressed in a RNA-normalized linear fluorescence intensity scale. IC50 values (x-ordinate) were calculated from full 10-point dose response curves (Supplementary Fig. S4) using GraphPad software. Except for NCI-H358 (indicated by black dashed circle), sensitivity to v1.10-LP2 correlated well with TM4SF1 RNA expression levels. Six NSCLC tumor cell lines (horizontal arrows) that express different levels of TM4SF1 were selected for xenograft studies (Fig. 3A). B and C, quantification of per cell mRNA copy numbers and surface protein levels, respectively, by MGTP and FACS analysis on five NSCLC and on the breast cancer cell line MCF-7. Mean fluorescence values were obtained using saturating amounts of Alexa488-labeled chimeric L6, and were converted to receptor numbers using calibration beads (Bangs Laboratories Inc.). Data represent the mean of three independent determinations.

Sensitivity of various cancer cell lines to v1.10-LP2

As with endothelial cells, the apparent Kd of v1.10 binding to several tumor cell lines was in the single digit nanomolar range. Cell lines with low TM4SF1 RNA expression levels (e.g., Calu-6 expresses only ∼4.2 × 104 surface copies of TM4SF1/cell), were largely insensitive to v1.10-LP2. In general, in vitro sensitivity to v1.10-LP2 correlated with TM4SF1 RNA expression levels, with IC50 values in the low nanomolar range for most of the cell lines tested (Fig. 2A and Supplementary Fig. S4). The exception was NCI-H358, for which we have no explanation.

Expression of TM4SF1 in human tumor xenografts

Seven different tumor xenografts (Supplementary Fig. S5A) were grown as xenografts, either at Crown Bioscience Inc. in Balb/c nude mice or at BIDMC in athymic 490 nude mice. SK-MES-1, A549, SW620, MiaPaCa2, and PC3 tumors expressed more than 50 TM4SF1 mRNA copies/106 18S copies as determined by MGTP (35, 36), whereas NCI-H460 and Calu6 tumors expressed fewer than 50 copies. Tumor xenografts that were grown in athymic 490 nude mice at BIDMC expressed substantially higher levels of mouse TM4SF1, as well as the specific endothelial cell markers CD144 and VEGFR-2, than tumors grown in Balb/c nude mice at Crown Bioscience Inc. (Supplementary Fig. S5B); TM4SF1 mRNA assays of both Crown Bioscience and BIDMC xenograft tumors were performed at BIDMC. These data suggest that tumor xenografts grown in different nude mouse strains generate different levels of vascular density.

Effect of v1.10-LP2 ADCs on NSCLCs and other tumor xenografts

To assess the therapeutic potential of anti-TM4SF1 ADCs in vivo, select NSCLC tumor cell lines (horizontal arrows in Fig. 2A) were implanted subcutaneously in nude mice. When tumors had grown to approximately 200 mm3 (300 mm3 for A549 and SK-MES-1 cells), mice received intraperitoneal injections of 100 μL of PBS, or PBS containing 3 or 10 mpk of v1.10-LP2, or 10 mpk of control 8.8-LP2. Treatments were administered at 4-day intervals for four cycles (q4d×4).

v1.10-LP2 induced complete tumor regression, defined as nonpalpable tumors, in nearly all mice bearing NSCLC xenografts that expressed high levels of TM4SF1 (Fig. 3A). Calu-6 cells, which express low levels of TM4SF1 and were insensitive to v1.10-LP2 in culture, were also poorly sensitive to v1.10-LP2 in vivo.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

v1.10-LP2 (mc-3377)-induced regression of human tumor xenografts. A, different NSCLC tumor cell lines that express varying levels of TM4SF1 (Fig. 2A) were grown subcutaneously in nude mice to a size of approximately 200 to 300 mm3 (Calu3, SK-MES-1, EBC-1, NCI-H1299, Calu-6) or approximately 300 mm3 (A549). Mice were then treated intraperitoneally with 100 μL PBS (blue), v1.10-LP2 [3 mpk (green) or 10 mpk (red)], or a matching control ADC 8.8-LP2 (10 mpk; fuchsia). ADCs were administered q4d×4 (vertical dotted lines). v1.10-LP2 produced sustained complete regressions in all models at both 3 and 10 mpk doses, except for the low TM4SF1 expressing Calu-6 model, where treatment even at 10 mpk only delayed tumor growth. Experiments were performed either at BIDMC (BI, 4 or 5 mice per group in 490 athymic nude mice) or at Crown Biosciences Inc. (CB, 10 mice per group in Balb/c nude mice). Insets indicate the number of animals achieving complete regression at 3 mpk. B, tumor xenograft models of pancreatic (MiaPaCa2, Panc-1), prostate (PC3), and colon (SW620) origin. In addition to tumors prepared with the same tumor growth and antibody injection schemes shown in A, Pfizer Oncology (PO) implanted tumors in Matrigel and injected antibodies intravenously.

Efficacy of v1.10-LP2 was also evaluated in human cancer xenografts originating in colon (SW620), prostate (PC3), and pancreas (MiaPaca-2, Capan-1, and Panc-1). Similar results were obtained whether drugs were administered intravenously or intraperitoneally, and whether tumors were, or were not, implanted in Matrigel (Fig. 3B). Complete regressions were achieved in the majority of the tumors tested at 3 mpk, and, at 10 mpk, in all of the models except for SW620 at the Pfizer Oncology site where tumors did not regress but remained growth static for approximately 50 days.

v1.10-LP2 was well tolerated at all three study sites. Mice did not exhibit signs of toxicity such as changes in grooming habits or weight loss at either 3 or 10 mpk. On the basis of the A549, MiaPaCa2 and PC3 regression profiles and the pharmacokinetics of v1.10-LP2 in nude mice, we calculated a serum effective concentration range of 0.5 to 16 μg ADC/mL (Supplementary Fig. S6A).

2A7A, a humanized rabbit anti-mouse TM4SF1 monoclonal antibody

v1.10 does not recognize mouse TM4SF1. This is not surprising in that the amino acid sequences of human and mouse TM4SF1 extracellular loop 2 differ significantly (20), and neither we nor others have been able to develop an antibody that reacts with both human and mouse TM4SF1. Therefore, to target the mouse TM4SF1 expressed on endothelial cell lining the tumor xenograft vasculature, we developed a humanized rabbit surrogate monoclonal antibody, 2A7A. 2A7A recognized mouse TM4SF1, but did not react with human TM4SF1. As shown in Fig. 4A, 2A7A bound to 293 cells that had been stably transduced with mouse TM4SF1 (293mTM4SF1) and to the immortalized mouse microvascular endothelial cell line, MS1. However, 2A7A did not bind to untransfected parental 293 cells or to cells expressing human TM4SF1 such as HUVEC (Fig. 4B). Consistent with its binding pattern, 2A7A-LP2, was highly cytotoxic to MS1 cells and 293mTM4SF1 with IC50 values of 0.015 and 0.003 nmol/L, respectively (Fig. 4C). The number of mouse TM4SF1 molecules on the surface of 293mTM4SF1 or MS1 cells was calculated to be 5.2 × 105 and 5.7 × 105 copies/cell, respectively, that is, levels comparable with those of human TM4SF1 expressed by HUVEC (∼4 × 105 copies/cell) and HLEC (∼5 × 105 copies/cell). However, the potency of the 2A7A-LP2 ADC toward cultured rodent endothelial cells was about two orders of magnitude higher than that of v1.10-LP2 against human HUVEC and HLEC, possibly due to the 10-fold higher binding affinity of 2A7A for mouse TM4SF1 (0.5 nmol/L) versus that of v1.10 for human TM4SF1 (∼5 nmol/L).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

2A7A and 2A7A-LP2 (mc-3377) reactivity with and cytotoxicity against different cultured cells. A, FACS analysis demonstrates that 2A7A-Alexa488 conjugate reacts strongly with 293 cells that stably express mouse TM4SF1 (293mTM4SF1) and with MS1 immortalized mouse endothelial cell, but not with untransfected parental 293 cells. B, MS1 cells (top) stained with 2A7A-Alexa488, whereas HUVEC (bottom) did not. C, cytotoxicity assays. 293 cells were not susceptible to either 2A7A-LP2 or 8.8-LP2 (top). 2A7A-LP2 efficiently killed 293mTM4SF1 (middle), and MS1 cells (bottom), whereas control 8.8-LP2 was not toxic to any of the cells at the concentrations used. Percent cell viability was determined at 96 hours using the CellTiter-Glo kit. Results are from two independent experiments which gave similar results.

Distribution and antitumor activity of 2A7A-LP2

2A7A-LP2 injected intraperitoneally into mice bearing PC3 xenografts bound strongly to the mouse tumor vasculature, and also to a lesser extent to the vasculature of nearby normal tissues, but did not bind tumor cells which expressed human TM4SF1 (Fig. 5A). In contrast, v1.10-LP2, similarly injected intraperitoneally into mice bearing PC3 tumors, localized almost entirely to the tumor cells which express human TM4SF1 and was not detected in tumor or adjacent normal tissue blood vessels that express mouse TM4SF1 (Fig. 5B). A nontargeting isotype-matched control antibody, 8.8-LP2, did not localize to the tumor or to the host vasculature (not shown).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Distribution of 2A7A-LP2 (mc-3377) and v1.10-LP2 (mc-3377) in PC3 tumor xenografts and the effect of 2A7A-LP2 on tumor xenografts. PC3 tumor cells were implanted in athymic nude mice and allowed to grow to 300 mm3. Mice were then injected intraperitoneally with 3 mpk 2A7A-LP2 (A) or v1.10-LP2 (B). Forty-eight hours later, tumors were harvested after intravenous injections of FITC-dextran to visualize blood vessels. Fresh frozen sections were stained with Alexa594 conjugated anti-human IgG antibodies to visualize 2A7A-LP2 (A) or v1.10-LP2 (B). Dashed white lines indicate tumor–host interface. 2A7A-LP2 was localized to tumor (white arrows) and host (yellow arrows) blood vessels, largely obscuring green FITC-dextran staining (A). In contrast, v1.10-LP2 was localized to tumor cells (B) and green FITC-dextran stained vessels are clearly seen. C, effects of 2A7A-LP2 (red lines) or control 8.8-LP2 (black lines) on A549, MiaPaCa2, PC3, and SW620 human tumor xenografts. Treatments (3 mpk, q4d×4, vertical dotted lines) were started when tumors had reached a size of approximately 300 mm3. Experiments were performed at BIDMC, 5 mice per group.

Using the same q4d×4 protocol used for v1.10-LP2 (Fig. 3), 2A7A-LP2 at 3 mpk induced partial (PC3) or complete (A549, MiaPaCa2, and SW620) regressions (Fig. 5C). MiaPaCa2 regression persisted for almost 50 days, whereas A549 and SW620 tumors recurred at around 8 days after the fourth injection of 2A7A-LP2, and PC3 tumors began to recur even before the fourth injection. Treatment with 2A7A-LP2, like that with the control ADC 8.8-LP2, was well tolerated at the 3 mpk dose level with mice exhibiting no signs of systemic toxicity such as changes in grooming behavior or weight loss (Supplementary Fig. S6B). However, at higher doses of 5 to 10 mpk, significant weight loss was observed immediately after the fourth injection (data not shown).

Simultaneous targeting of TM4SF1 expressed on tumor cells and on tumor vasculature

The foregoing studies with v1.10-LP2 and 2A7A-LP2 established that targeting TM4SF1 expressed by either tumor cells or by the tumor vasculature could regress tumor xenografts. Because the two approaches are nonredundant, we hypothesized that the combined effects of targeting tumor and vasculature would be additive. To test this hypothesis, we studied Calu-6 and NCI-H460 tumors whose cells express low levels of TM4SF1 in culture (Fig. 2B and C). Also, whereas cultured NCI-H460 cells did respond to v1.10-LP2, Calu-6 did not (Supplementary Fig. S4A). Furthermore, Calu-6 xenografts were resistant to v1.10-LP2 as a single agent (Fig. 3A).

As shown in Fig. 6A, 3 mpk v1.10-LP2 or 2A7A-LP2 alone only minimally impacted the growth of Calu-6 xenografts. However, when combined, these ADCs added an additional 15 days to progression-free survival. Despite in vitro sensitivity, the NCI-H460 model was resistant to v1.10-LP2 in vivo, but responded to 2A7A-LP2, delaying tumor progression by approximately 15 days (Fig. 6B). Combination therapy delayed tumor growth for an additional 10 days.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Combination treatment of refractory tumor xenografts with ADC directed against human and mouse TM4SF1. Clau-6 (A) and NCI-H460 (B) xenograft tumors were grown in Balb/c nude mice (Crown Biosciences, Inc.) to approximately 200 to 300 mm3 and were treated with v1.10-LP2 or 2A7A-LP2, alone or in combination, q4d×4 (vertical dotted lines). Mean tumor volumes ± SEM, 10 mice per group.

Discussion

TM4SF1 is an important housekeeping gene that is required for the polarization and migration of cultured endothelial cell (11, 18). It is also highly expressed by many different human cancer cells (7, 10) and has important roles in cancer initiation, migration, and invasion (38). Earlier studies with L6, an antibody targeting human TM4SF1, exhibited low toxicity and gave promising results in mouse tumor xenografts and in a small number of cancer patients, presumably via mechanisms involving CDC and ADCC (21, 39). Together these findings suggested that therapy could be enhanced by targeting TM4SF1 with an ADC approach. ADCs have entered the clinic and are currently used to target tumors expressing many different antigens, including CD33 (40), Her2 (41), and CD30 (42); more than 100 additional ADCs directed against different tumor cell targets populate the preclinical and clinical pipelines (43–46). An ADC against a target expressed by both tumor cells and the tumor vasculature would be expected to offer exceptional therapeutic benefit.

Here, we report the development of v1.10, a humanized version of the previously described anti-TM4SF1 mouse monoclonal antibody L6. v1.10 has low nanomolar affinity for cultured human endothelial cells and for many cancer cells (Figs. 1A and 2), and, when reacted with plasma membrane TM4SF1, was internalized (Supplementary Fig. S3), a property essential for ADC efficacy. When conjugated to a proprietary tubulin inhibitor, LP2 (chemical name mc-3377), the resulting ADC was highly cytotoxic against both cultured endothelial (Fig. 1C) and tumor cells (Supplementary Fig. S4). v1.10-LP2 induced complete regressions in five of six different NSCLC tumor xenografts (Fig. 3A) and of tumor xenografts of pancreas, prostate, and colon origin (Fig. 3B). In general, sensitivity to v1.10-LP2 correlated well with TM4SF1 expression at both the RNA and protein levels and as measured both in vitro and in vivo. Naked v1.10 antibody (3 mpk, q4d×4) had slight anti-PC3 xenograft tumor activity, presumably due to ADCC, and limited tumor growth during the four injection cycle; however, PC3 tumors did not regress and grew rapidly after treatment ceased (data not shown). Thus, the antitumor activity of v1.10-LP2 is largely implemented by ADC.

ADCs targeting TM4SF1 offer the opportunity to attack both cancer cells and cancer-associated vascular endothelium. A concern, of course, is that such ADCs will also damage the vascular endothelium of normal organs. Four cycles of 2A7A-LP2 at 3 mpk were well tolerated, despite antibody binding to normal vasculature (Fig. 5A, yellow arrows), with no changes in body weight (Supplementary Fig. S6B), animal activity, or grooming behavior. Treatments could be safely increased to 10 cycles of 3 mpk 2A7A-LP2 at 2-day intervals (data not shown). Thus, 2A7A-LP2 has a clear predilection for damaging xenograft tumor endothelial cells versus normal endothelial cell. However, at higher doses (5–10 mpk, q4d×4), 2A7A-LP2 caused substantial weight loss and even lethality.

Consistent with the findings of Hellstrom with L6 (10), v1.10-ADC was well-tolerated in cynomolgus monkeys at doses up to 12 mg/kg, although the pharmacologic relevance of cynomolgus monkey to humans has not been fully established for this target. The clinical experience with L6 and chL6 (and their radio-conjugated counterparts) is also consistent with our mouse data. Although L6 did not carry a payload, it was competent to trigger CDC and ADCC, accumulated in endothelial cell–rich tissues such as lungs, and exhibited little toxicity in patients (21, 39). A number of tubulin inhibitors, including vinca alkaloids, auristatins, taxanes, tubulysin, and combretastatins, have been extensively researched and developed as antiangiogenic drugs, and the resistance of normal endothelium to such agents has been well documented in the clinic (28–30).

Several important considerations need to be resolved before our mouse findings can be extended to human cancer patients. First, the binding affinity of 2A7A antibody to mouse TM4SF1 (0.5 nmol/L) was 10-fold higher than the apparent Kd of v1.10 antibody to human TM4SF1 (∼5 nmol/L); this might translate into better activity in different mouse strains, but could also increase toxicity compared with v1.10-LP2. 2A7A-LP2 is 50- to 100-fold more potent in killing immortalized mouse endothelial cells than is v1.10-LP2 in killing cultured human endothelial cells or tumor cells, possibly because of better target binding properties. It is therefore unclear how well 2A7A-LP2 approximates the activity of v1.10-LP2 against human vasculature. Second, while the overall distribution of TM4SF1 in mouse organs is qualitatively similar to that in humans, we have not yet determined whether the TM4SF1 expression levels are quantifiably comparable. Third, the in vivo models used here involve rapidly growing tumor xenografts implanted subcutaneously in inbred mice. Whether the vasculature of these tumors appropriately phenocopies the tumor vasculature of established human cancers remains to be determined. Finally, 2A7A-LP2 showed an extremely rapid distribution phase in mice, falling two logs in serum concentration in less than an hour after injection (Supplementary Fig. S6A). On the one hand, a rapid fall was not unexpected in that anti-TM4SF1 antibodies bind to the endothelial cells of normal organs throughout the body. However, the reported distribution phase of the chL6 antibody in human cancer patients was approximately 5 days (37). Hence, 2A7A-LP2 may be a poor predictor of therapeutic index or pharmacokinetics in humans. Nevertheless, at very low plasma levels, 2A7A-LP2 effectively targeted human xenografts (Fig. 5) and achieved an even better outcome when combined with v1.10-LP2 (Fig. 6).

In sum, we have shown that two ADCs, one (v1.10-LP2) acting against human tumor TM4SF1 (direct mechanism) and the other (2A7A-LP2) acting against mouse tumor vascular endothelial cell TM4SF1 (indirect mechanism), are effective as single agents in treating mouse tumor xenografts (Figs. 3 and 5), and that, when combined (Fig. 6), are still more effective. The response is likely determined by a number of variables, including TM4SF1 surface expression levels on tumor and vascular endothelial cells. Overall tumor vascularity may also be a factor as we observed differences in vascular markers in tumors grown in different strains of nude mice (Supplementary Fig. S5B). Unfortunately, v1.10-LP2 does not react with murine TM4SF1, and so we do not at present have a single ADC that is reactive with both human tumor and mouse vascular TM4SF1 for use in preclinical studies. Nonetheless, our data validate the potential of TM4SF1 as an attractive human cancer target and provide proof-of-concept that targeting TM4SF1 with an ADC can be exploited therapeutically to treat human cancer xenografts. v1.10-LP2 may be the first in a new class of drugs with the bifunctional capacity to target a molecule, TM4SF1, that is expressed both by tumor cells and by the tumor vasculature.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: A. Visintin, K. Knowlton, K. Marquette, L. Tchistiakova, C.J. O'Donnell, W. Snyder, L. Zawel, H.F. Dvorak, S.-C. Jaminet

Development of methodology: A. Visintin, E. Tyminski, X. Zheng, S. Jain, L. Tchistiakova, A. Maderna, X. Cao, R. Dunn, W. Snyder, S.-C. Jaminet

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): K. Knowlton, E. Tyminski, C.-I. Lin, X. Zheng, S. Jain, D. Li, X. Cao, A. Barry, H.F. Dvorak, S.-C. Jaminet

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): A. Visintin, K. Knowlton, E. Tyminski, X. Zheng, K. Marquette, S. Jain, L. Tchistiakova, D. Li, A.K. Abraham, M. Leal, A. Barry, H.F. Dvorak, S.-C. Jaminet

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: A. Visintin, K. Knowlton, E. Tyminski, X. Zheng, K. Marquette, S. Jain, L. Tchistiakova, C.J. O'Donnell, R. Dunn, W. Snyder, A.K. Abraham, M. Leal, S. Shetty, A. Barry, H.F. Dvorak, S.-C. Jaminet

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): D. Li, M. Leal, H.F. Dvorak, S.-C. Jaminet

Study supervision: A. Visintin, A.J. Coyle, H.F. Dvorak, S.-C. Jaminet

Other (project leader for this program on Pfizer's side; supervised and overviewed all the activities pertaining to the program done at Pfizer; also wrote the manuscript together with Dr. Dvorak): A. Visintin

Other (served as a team member in studying this target; involved in scientific data interpretation, some study design, and review/revision of manuscript): S. Shetty

Grant Support

This study was funded by Pfizer CTI through an award to co-principal investigators (H.F. Dvorak and S.C. Jaminet) at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following Pfizer scientists and staff: Eric Bennett and Rita Agostinelli for humanization of L6 and production of recombinant antibodies, Dikran Aivazian, Dana Castro, and Rachel Roach for generation of 2A7A, Peter Pop-Damkov and Samantha Crocker for bioanalytical and Pharmacokinetic studies; Lauren Gauthier for studies with non-human primates, Matthew Doroski, Hud Risley, Alexander Porte, and Zecheng Chen for the synthesis of mc-3377, and Evangelia Hatzis and Darcy Paige for program management. Maoping Gao (CrownBiosciences) and Stephanie Shi coordinated outsourced animal studies. The authors also thank Yu Liu and Jane Seo-Jung Sa for xenograft studies at BIDMC.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received March 4, 2015.
  • Revision received June 5, 2015.
  • Accepted June 7, 2015.
  • ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Folkman J
    . Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 1971;285:1182–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ferrara N
    . Role of vascular endothelial growth factor in physiologic and pathologic angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. Semin Oncol 2002;29:10–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dvorak HF
    . Rous-Whipple Award Lecture. How tumors make bad blood vessels and stroma. Am J Pathol 2003;162:1747–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ellis LM,
    2. Rosen L,
    3. Gordon MS
    . Overview of anti-VEGF therapy and angiogenesis. Part 1: Angiogenesis inhibition in solid tumor malignancies. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2006;4:suppl 1–10; quz 1–2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hurwitz H,
    2. Fehrenbacher L,
    3. Novotny W,
    4. Cartwright T,
    5. Hainsworth J,
    6. Heim W,
    7. et al.
    Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Jain RK,
    2. Duda DG,
    3. Clark JW,
    4. Loeffler JS
    . Lessons from phase III clinical trials on anti-VEGF therapy for cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006;3:24–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hellstrom I,
    2. Horn D,
    3. Linsley P,
    4. Brown JP,
    5. Brankovan V,
    6. Hellstrom KE
    . Monoclonal mouse antibodies raised against human lung carcinoma. Cancer Res 1986;46:3917–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Marken JS,
    2. Schieven GL,
    3. Hellstrom I,
    4. Hellstrom KE,
    5. Aruffo A
    . Cloning and expression of the tumor-associated antigen L6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:3503–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wright MD,
    2. Ni J,
    3. Rudy GB
    . The L6 membrane proteins–a new four-transmembrane superfamily. Protein Sci 2000;9:1594–600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hellstrom I,
    2. Beaumier PL,
    3. Hellstrom KE
    . Antitumor effects of L6, an IgG2a antibody that reacts with most human carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1986;83:7059–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Shih SC,
    2. Zukauskas A,
    3. Li D,
    4. Liu G,
    5. Ang LH,
    6. Nagy JA,
    7. et al.
    The L6 protein TM4SF1 is critical for endothelial cell function and tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Res 2009;69:3272–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. English SB,
    2. Shih SC,
    3. Ramoni MF,
    4. Smith LE,
    5. Butte AJ
    . Use of Bayesian networks to probabilistically model and improve the likelihood of validation of microarray findings by RT-PCR. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:287–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. DeNardo SJ,
    2. O'Grady LF,
    3. Macey DJ,
    4. Kroger LA,
    5. DeNardo GL,
    6. Lamborn KR,
    7. et al.
    Quantitative imaging of mouse L-6 monoclonal antibody in breast cancer patients to develop a therapeutic strategy. Int J Radiat Appl Instrum B 1991;18:621–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. O'Donnell RT,
    2. DeNardo SJ,
    3. Shi XB,
    4. Mirick GR,
    5. DeNardo GL,
    6. Kroger LA,
    7. et al.
    L6 monoclonal antibody binds prostate cancer. Prostate 1998;37:91–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Allioli N,
    2. Vincent S,
    3. Vlaeminck-Guillem V,
    4. Decaussin-Petrucci M,
    5. Ragage F,
    6. Ruffion A,
    7. et al.
    TM4SF1, a novel primary androgen receptor target gene over-expressed in human prostate cancer and involved in cell migration. Prostate 2011;71:1239–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kao YR,
    2. Shih JY,
    3. Wen WC,
    4. Ko YP,
    5. Chen BM,
    6. Chan YL,
    7. et al.
    Tumor-associated antigen L6 and the invasion of human lung cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:2807–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lekishvili T,
    2. Fromm E,
    3. Mujoomdar M,
    4. Berditchevski F
    . The tumour-associated antigen L6 (L6-Ag) is recruited to the tetraspanin-enriched microdomains: implication for tumour cell motility. J Cell Sci 2008;121:685–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zukauskas A,
    2. Merley A,
    3. Li D,
    4. Ang LH,
    5. Sciuto TE,
    6. Salman S,
    7. et al.
    TM4SF1: a tetraspanin-like protein necessary for nanopodia formation and endothelial cell migration. Angiogenesis 2011;14:345–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Lin CI,
    2. Lau CY,
    3. Li D,
    4. Jaminet SC
    . Nanopodia–thin, fragile membrane projections with roles in cell movement and intercellular interactions. J Vis Exp 2014:86:e51320.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lin CI,
    2. Merley A,
    3. Sciuto TE,
    4. Li D,
    5. Dvorak AM,
    6. Melero-Martin JM,
    7. et al.
    TM4SF1: a new vascular therapeutic target in cancer. Angiogenesis 2014;17:897–907.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Liu AY,
    2. Robinson RR,
    3. Hellstrom KE,
    4. Murray ED Jr.,
    5. Chang CP,
    6. Hellstrom I
    . Chimeric mouse-human IgG1 antibody that can mediate lysis of cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1987;84:3439–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Leigh BR,
    2. Burke PA,
    3. Hong AM,
    4. O'Donnell RT,
    5. Howell LP,
    6. Miers LA,
    7. et al.
    Preclinical evaluation of chimeric L6 antibody for the treatment of Kaposi's sarcoma with radioimmunotherapy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 1999;14:113–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. DeNardo SJ,
    2. Mirick GR,
    3. Kroger LA,
    4. O'Grady LF,
    5. Erickson KL,
    6. Yuan A,
    7. et al.
    The biologic window for chimeric L6 radioimmunotherapy. Cancer 1994;73:1023–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Richman CM,
    2. DeNardo SJ,
    3. O'Grady LF,
    4. DeNardo GL
    . Radioimmunotherapy for breast cancer using escalating fractionated doses of 131I-labeled chimeric L6 antibody with peripheral blood progenitor cell transfusions. Cancer Res 1995;55:5916s–20s.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Beck A,
    2. Haeuw JF,
    3. Wurch T,
    4. Goetsch L,
    5. Bailly C,
    6. Corvaia N
    . The next generation of antibody-drug conjugates comes of age. Discov Med 2010;10:329–39.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Maderna A,
    2. Leverett CA
    . Recent advances in the development of new auristatins: structural modifications and application in antibody drug conjugates. Mol Pharm 2015;12:1798–812.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Maderna A,
    2. Doroski M,
    3. Subramanyam C,
    4. Porte A,
    5. Leverett CA,
    6. Vetelino BC,
    7. et al.
    Discovery of cytotoxic dolastatin 10 analogues with N-terminal modifications. J Med Chem 2014;57:10527–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Dumontet C,
    2. Jordan MA
    . Microtubule-binding agents: a dynamic field of cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010;9:790–803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Schwartz EL
    . Antivascular actions of microtubule-binding drugs. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:2594–601.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Tozer GM,
    2. Kanthou C,
    3. Baguley BC
    . Disrupting tumour blood vessels. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:423–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Fell HP,
    2. Gayle MA,
    3. Yelton D,
    4. Lipsich L,
    5. Schieven GL,
    6. Marken JS,
    7. et al.
    Chimeric L6 anti-tumor antibody. Genomic construction, expression, and characterization of the antigen binding site. J Biol Chem 1992;267:15552–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Sali A,
    2. Blundell TL
    . Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 1993;234:779–815.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Doroski MD,
    2. Maderna A,
    3. O'Donnell CJ,
    4. Subramanyam C,
    5. Vetelino BC,
    6. Dushin RG,
    7. Strop P,
    8. Graziani EI
    , inventors; Pfizer Inc., assignee. Cytotoxic peptides and antibody drug conjugates thereof. United Patent number: W2013072813 A2. 2013 May 23.
  34. 34.↵
    1. Tomayko MM,
    2. Reynolds CP
    . Determination of subcutaneous tumor size in athymic (nude) mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1989;24:148–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Shih SC,
    2. Smith LE
    . Quantitative multi-gene transcriptional profiling using real-time PCR with a master template. Exp Mol Pathol 2005;79:14–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Wada Y,
    2. Li D,
    3. Merley A,
    4. Zukauskas A,
    5. Aird WC,
    6. Dvorak HF,
    7. et al.
    A multi-gene transcriptional profiling approach to the discovery of cell signature markers. Cytotechnology 2011;63:25–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Goodman GE,
    2. Hellstrom I,
    3. Yelton DE,
    4. Murray JL,
    5. O'Hara S,
    6. Meaker E,
    7. et al.
    Phase I trial of chimeric (human-mouse) monoclonal antibody L6 in patients with non-small-cell lung, colon, and breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1993;36:267–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Seo DC,
    2. Sung JM,
    3. Cho HJ,
    4. Yi H,
    5. Seo KH,
    6. Choi IS,
    7. et al.
    Gene expression profiling of cancer stem cell in human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells. Mol Cancer 2007;6:75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Goodman GE,
    2. Hellstrom I,
    3. Brodzinsky L,
    4. Nicaise C,
    5. Kulander B,
    6. Hummel D,
    7. et al.
    Phase I trial of murine monoclonal antibody L6 in breast, colon, ovarian, and lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1083–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  40. 40.↵
    1. Thol F,
    2. Schlenk RF
    . Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in acute myeloid leukemia revisited. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2014;14:1185–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Krop IE,
    2. LoRusso P,
    3. Miller KD,
    4. Modi S,
    5. Yardley D,
    6. Rodriguez G,
    7. et al.
    A phase II study of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer who were previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3234–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Katz J,
    2. Janik JE,
    3. Younes A
    . Brentuximab Vedotin (SGN-35). Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:6428–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Reichert JM,
    2. Beck A,
    3. Lugovskoy AA,
    4. Wurch T,
    5. Coats S,
    6. Brezski RJ
    . 9th annual European Antibody Congress, November 11-13, 2013, Geneva, Switzerland. mAbs 2014;6:309–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Mullard A
    . Maturing antibody-drug conjugate pipeline hits 30. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013;12:329–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Golfier S,
    2. Kopitz C,
    3. Kahnert A,
    4. Heisler I,
    5. Schatz CA,
    6. Stelte-Ludwig B,
    7. et al.
    Anetumab ravtansine: a novel mesothelin-targeting antibody-drug conjugate cures tumors with heterogeneous target expression favored by bystander effect. Mol Cancer Ther 2014;13:1537–48.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Sapra P,
    2. Damelin M,
    3. Dijoseph J,
    4. Marquette K,
    5. Geles KG,
    6. Golas J,
    7. et al.
    Long-term tumor regression induced by an antibody-drug conjugate that targets 5T4, an oncofetal antigen expressed on tumor-initiating cells. Mol Cancer Ther 2013;12:38–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Barretina J,
    2. Caponigro G,
    3. Stransky N,
    4. Venkatesan K,
    5. Margolin AA,
    6. Kim S,
    7. et al.
    The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 2012;483:603–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics: 14 (8)
August 2015
Volume 14, Issue 8
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Cancer Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Novel Anti-TM4SF1 Antibody–Drug Conjugates with Activity against Tumor Cells and Tumor Vasculature
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Novel Anti-TM4SF1 Antibody–Drug Conjugates with Activity against Tumor Cells and Tumor Vasculature
Alberto Visintin, Kelly Knowlton, Edyta Tyminski, Chi-Iou Lin, Xiang Zheng, Kimberly Marquette, Sadhana Jain, Lioudmila Tchistiakova, Dan Li, Christopher J. O'Donnell, Andreas Maderna, Xianjun Cao, Robert Dunn, William B. Snyder, Anson K. Abraham, Mauricio Leal, Shoba Shetty, Anthony Barry, Leigh Zawel, Anthony J. Coyle, Harold F. Dvorak and Shou-Ching Jaminet
Mol Cancer Ther August 1 2015 (14) (8) 1868-1876; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0188

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Novel Anti-TM4SF1 Antibody–Drug Conjugates with Activity against Tumor Cells and Tumor Vasculature
Alberto Visintin, Kelly Knowlton, Edyta Tyminski, Chi-Iou Lin, Xiang Zheng, Kimberly Marquette, Sadhana Jain, Lioudmila Tchistiakova, Dan Li, Christopher J. O'Donnell, Andreas Maderna, Xianjun Cao, Robert Dunn, William B. Snyder, Anson K. Abraham, Mauricio Leal, Shoba Shetty, Anthony Barry, Leigh Zawel, Anthony J. Coyle, Harold F. Dvorak and Shou-Ching Jaminet
Mol Cancer Ther August 1 2015 (14) (8) 1868-1876; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0188
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • TriTAC Molecules Direct T Cells to Eliminate Solid Tumors
  • Potent TRAILR2-Mediated Tumor Cell Death via CDH17 Anchoring
  • Multiple Mechanisms of Action of anti-TIGIT Antagonists
Show more Large Molecule Therapeutics
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About MCT

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
eISSN: 1538-8514
ISSN: 1535-7163

Advertisement