Most purported antibodies to the human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor are not specific.

OBJECTIVE: Antibodies to human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor (HuG-CSFR) are widely available and have been used in numerous studies to evaluate the expression of this protein on normal and malignant cells of hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic origin. Spurred by recent studies that demonstrated that two commonly used antibodies against the erythropoietin and thrombopoietin receptors can in fact bind to completely unrelated and more broadly expressed proteins, we screened 27 commercially available monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies with claimed specificity to HuG-CSFR to determine if they are specific to this receptor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Antibodies were evaluated by Western blotting, flow cytometry, and immunohistochemistry using 293T cells engineered to overexpress HuG-CSFR protein, immortalized human hematopoietic cell lines expressing endogenous G-CSFR, and purified human neutrophils. RESULTS: Only two monoclonal antibodies and one polyclonal antibody could be employed using defined Western blotting or flow cytometry protocols to detect G-CSFR protein in cell lysates or on the surface of cells that express G-CSFR messenger RNA with no binding to cells that did not express the gene. None of the antibodies were suitable for immunohistochemistry. Competitive inhibition with soluble G-CSFR extracellular domain and small inhibitory RNA-mediated knock-down of G-CSFR messenger RNA further demonstrated the limited specificity of these antibodies for HuG-CSFR expressed on the cell surface. CONCLUSIONS: Most commercially available anti-HuG-CSFR antibodies do not bind specifically to this protein. These studies highlight the need for investigators to validate antibodies in their own systems to avoid the inadvertent use of nonspecifically binding antibodies that could lead, as exemplified in this case with a hematopoietic growth factor receptor, to erroneous conclusions about protein expression.

Comparison of epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa biological activity under different administration schedules in normal mice.

The unit of erythropoietic activity has long been the standard by which erythropoietic agents are judged, but the development of long-acting agents such as darbepoetin alfa has highlighted the shortcomings of this approach. To this point, we compared the in vivo activity of Epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa per microgram of protein core. Using the established mass-to-unit conversion for Epoetin alfa (1 microg congruent with 200 U), we then calculated darbepoetin alfa activity in units. Activity varied with treatment regimen (1 microg darbepoetin alfa congruent with 800 U for 3 times weekly dosing to 8,000 U for a single injection). This analysis reveals the inadequacy of evaluating darbepoetin alfa activity in terms of standard erythropoietic units. We therefore propose that for molecules with heightened biological activity, a more legitimate basis for comparison is the protein mass.

Darbepoietin alfa potentiates the efficacy of radiation therapy in mice with corrected or uncorrected anemia.

Darbepoietin alfa (DA) is a long-acting analogue of erythropoietin that has reduced receptor affinity and enhanced biological activity. Experiments were done to test the hypothesis that correction of anemia in tumor-bearing mice by DA would increase tumor oxygenation and potentiate radiation-induced tumor cell killing. A SCC VII tumor model was used to study tumor responses to fractionated radiation therapy in mice with anemia induced by total body irradiation. Administration of DA reduced the extent and duration of anemia and associated tumor hypoxia, protected the bone marrow cells and prevented the body weight loss from the effect of irradiation, and facilitated the recovery in a time-dependent manner, with the administration of DA prior to total body irradiation having the greatest protective effect. When combined with fractionated radiation therapy, DA increased the tumor growth delay time from 2.7 days for irradiation alone to 7.3 to 10.6 days for combination of DA and irradiation. The effect of DA on tumor responses to fractionated radiation therapy was observed when DA was given 18 to 4 days before starting radiation therapy, but DA was also equally effective as a radiosensitizer when given only 2 hours before fractionated irradiation therapy. Weekly dosing of DA was as efficacious for the enhancement of radiation responses of tumors as biweekly dosing. Similar results were obtained in the RIF-1 fibrosarcoma tumor model. These studies show that DA can effectively correct anemia in tumor-bearing mice and sensitize tumor cells to fractionated radiation therapy. Importantly, DA was also able to sensitize tumors to radiation in mice with uncorrected anemia and hypoxia, suggesting that the effect of DA on radiosensitivity was independent of these factors and a different mechanism of action may be responsible for this effect.

Kinetics of haematopoietic recovery after dose-intensive chemo/radiotherapy in mice: optimized erythroid support with darbepoetin alpha.

Despite its frequency and impact on clinical outcomes, anaemia in cancer patients remains poorly understood and suboptimally treated. The definition of optimum treatment schedules with erythropoietic agents requires a suitable model of chemotherapy-induced progressive anaemia. This study investigated novel strategies such as once-per-chemotherapy-cycle dosing, synchronization between erythroid supportive care and chemotherapy, and definition of the optimum timing of erythroid support. A murine model of carboplatin chemotherapy/radiotherapy (CRT)-induced anaemia was used, which caused progressive anaemia across multiple cycles. Weekly administration of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) was effective, but the longer-acting darbepoetin alpha resulted in superior responses. In all animals, anaemia became progressive and more refractory across cycles because of accumulated bone marrow damage. Exploiting a specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, which could distinguish between darbepoetin alpha and endogenous erythropoietin, the effect of CRT upon the pharmacokinetics of darbepoetin alpha showed that clearance of darbepoetin alpha, and presumably erythropoietin, was at least partially dependent on a chemotherapy-sensitive pathway. Scheduling data suggested that administration of erythropoietic agents prior to chemotherapy was more effective than administration after chemotherapy. There was no evidence that erythropoietic agents exacerbated anaemia, even when administered immediately prior to CRT in an attempt to "prime" erythroid cells for the effects of CRT.