Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a provisional response from the authors.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorGoutham NarlaUniversity of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States of America
- Senior EditorErica GolemisFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
Starting from an unbiased search for somatic mutations (from COSMIC) likely disrupting binding of clinically approved antibodies the authors focus on mutations known to disrupt binding between two ERBB2 mutations and Pertuzamab. They use a combined computational and experimental strategy to nominate a position that when mutated could result in restoring the therapeutic activity of the antibody. Using in vitro assays the authors confirm that the engineered antibody binds to the mutant ERBB2 and prevents ERBB3 phosphorylation
Strengths:
1. In my assessment, the data sufficiently demonstrates that a modified version of Pertuzamab can bind both the wild-type and S310 mutant forms of ERBB2.
2. The engineering strategy employed is rational and effectively combines computational and experimental techniques.
3. Given the clinical activity of HER2-targeting ADCs, antibodies unaffected by ERBB2 mutations would be desired.
Weaknesses:
1. There is no data showing that the engineered antibody is equally specific as Pertuzamab i.e. that it does not bind to other (non-ERBB2) proteins.
2. There is no data showing that the engineered antibody has the desired pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics properties or efficacy in vivo.
3. Computational approaches are only used to design a phage-screen library, but not used to prioritize mutations that are likely to improve binding (e.g. based on predicted impact on the stability of the interaction). A demonstration of how computational pre-screening or lead optimization can improve the time-intensive process would be a welcome advance.
Context:
The conflict of interest statement is inadequate. Most authors of the study (but not the first author) are employees of Biolojic, a company developing multi-specific antibodies, but the statements do not clarify whether the presented antibodies represent Biolojic IP, whether the company sponsored the research, and whether the company is further developing the specific antibodies presented.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Peled et al identified HER2 mutations in connection with resistance to the anti-HER2 antibody Pertuzumab-mediated therapy. After constructing a yeast display library of Pertuzumab variants with 3.86×1011 sequences for targeted screening of variant combinations in chosen 6 out of 14 residues, the authors performed experimental screening to obtain the clones that bind to HER2 WT and/or mutants (S310Y and S310F), and then combined new variations to obtain antibodies with a broad spectrum binding to both WT and two HER2 mutants. These are interesting studies of clinical impact and translational potential.
Strengths:
1. Deep computational analyses of large datasets of clinical data provide useful information about HER2 mutations and their potential relevance to antibody therapy resistance.
2. There is valuable information analyzing the residues within or near the interface between the antigen HER2 and the Pertuzumab antibody (heavy chain). The experimental antibody library screening obtained 90+ clones from 3.86×1011 sequences for further functional validation.
Weaknesses:
1. There is a lack of assessment for antibody variant functions in cancer cell phenotypes in vitro (proliferation, cell death, motility) or in vivo (tumor growth and animal survival). The only assay was the western blotting of phosphopho-HER3 in Figure 4. However, HER2 levels and phosphor-HER2 were not analyzed.
2. There is a misleading impression from the title of computational engineering of a therapeutic antibody and the statement in the abstract "we designed a multi-specific version of Pertuzumab that retains original function while also bindings these HER2 variants" for a few reasons:
a. The primary method used for variant antibody identification for HER2 mutant binding is rather traditional experimental screening based on yeast display instead of the computational design of a multi-specific version of Pertuzumab.
b. There is insufficient or lack of computational power in the antibody design or prioritization in choosing variant residues for the library construction of 3.86×1011 sequences. It seems random combinations from 6 residues out of 4 groups with 20 amino acid options.
c. The final version of the tri-binding variant is a combination of screened antibody clones instead of computation design from scratch.
d. There is incomplete experimental evidence about the therapeutic values of newly obtained antibody clones.
3. Figures can be improved with better labeling and organization. Some essential pieces of data such as Supplementary Figure 1B on HER2 mutations in S310 that abrogated its binding to Pertuzumab should be placed in the main figures.
4. It is recommended to provide a clear rationale or flowchart overview into the main Figure 1. Figure 2A can be combined with Figure 1 to the list of targeted residues.
5. The quality of Figures such as Figure 2B-C flow data needs to be improved.