Skip to main content
Cell Death and Differentiation logoLink to Cell Death and Differentiation
. 2015 Aug 21;22(11):1727–1741. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2015.109

Principles of antibody-mediated TNF receptor activation

H Wajant 1,*
PMCID: PMC4648319  PMID: 26292758

Abstract

From the beginning of research on receptors of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily (TNFRSF), agonistic antibodies have been used to stimulate TNFRSF receptors in vitro and in vivo. Indeed, CD95, one of the first cloned TNFRSF receptors, was solely identified as the target of cell death-inducing antibodies. Early on, it became evident from in vitro studies that valency and Fcγ receptor (FcγR) binding of antibodies targeting TNFRSF receptors can be of crucial relevance for agonistic activity. TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies of the IgM subclass and secondary cross-linked or aggregation prone dimeric antibodies typically display superior agonistic activity compared with dimeric antibodies. Likewise, anchoring of antibodies to cell surface-expressed FcγRs potentiate their ability to trigger TNFRSF receptor signaling. However, only recently has the relevance of oligomerization and FcγR binding for the in vivo activity of antibody-induced TNFRSF receptor activation been straightforwardly demonstrated in vivo. This review discusses the crucial role of oligomerization and/or FcγR binding for antibody-mediated TNFRSF receptor stimulation in light of current models of TNFRSF receptor activation and especially the overwhelming relevance of these issues for the rational development of therapeutic TNFRSF receptor-targeting antibodies.

Facts

  • Ligands of the TNF superfamily (TNFSF) occur as trimeric transmembrane proteins but also as soluble trimeric molecules.

  • A subgroup of the TNF receptor superfamily (TNFRSF) is not or only slightly activated by soluble TNFSF ligands.

  • Oligomerization and cell surface-anchoring of soluble TNFSF ligands provide these molecules with membrane TNFSF ligand-like activities.

  • Dimeric TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies have typically no or only a moderate agonistic activity.

  • Oligomerization and Fcγ receptor-binding frequently converts dimeric TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies into strong agonists.

Open Questions

  • What is the molecular basis of the different responsiveness of TNFRSF receptors toward binding of soluble TNFSF ligands?

  • How one can generate antibody-based TNFRSF receptor agonists with oligomerization- and FcγR binding-independent activity?

  • What are the mechanisms underlying the FcγR binding-independent agonistic activity of TNFRSF receptor-specific human IgG2 isoform B antibodies?

General Principles of TNFRSF Receptor Activation by Ligands of the TNF Superfamily

Receptors of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily (TNFRSF) are naturally activated by ligands of the TNF superfamily.1, 2 Cytokines are assigned to the TNF superfamily (TNFSF) based on a conserved carboxy-terminal homology domain called the TNF homology domain (THD) (Figure 1).1, 2 The THD promotes the assembly of homotrimeric molecules, or in rare cases the formation of dimeric (murine GITRL)3, 4 or heterotrimeric (LTαβ2)5 ligands, and is essential for interaction with receptors of the TNFRSF. With exception of LTα, TNFSF ligands are expressed as trimeric type II transmembrane proteins in which the THD is separated from the transmembrane domain by a stalk region of variable length (Figure 1). Due to proteolytic processing in the stalk region or by alternative splicing, TNFSF ligands can also be found in the form of soluble trimeric molecules (Figure 1). Soluble TNFSF ligands still contain the THD and thus retain the ability to interact with TNFRSF receptors.1, 2 X-ray crystallographic studies of various soluble TNFSF ligands, alone or in complex with TNFRSF receptor ectodomains (Table 1), not only confirmed the trimeric organization of TNFSF ligands deduced from biochemical assays but also revealed that each of the three protomer–protomer interfaces of a TNFSF ligand trimer binds a single TNFRSF receptor molecule.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Ligands of the TNF superfamily (TNFSF) stimulate receptors of the TNF receptor superfamily (TNFRSF). The TNFSF comprises 19 human ligands, which are defined by a conserved C-terminal trimerization domain, designated as TNF homology domain (THD), and include TNF, CD40L, CD95L and TWEAK. LTα is a secreted ligand while the other TNFSF ligands are single spanning transmembrane proteins. In many cases, however, soluble ligand molecules can be released from the membrane-bound proteins by proteolytic cleavage in the stalk region by proteases of the furin, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and a disintegrin and metalloproteinase89 family. TNFSF ligands exert their activity by stimulation of TNFRSF receptors. The latter are characterized by having one or more cysteine-rich domains (CRDs) in their extracellular parts and can be classified into three groups according to functional and structural similarities: (i) death receptors that have a cytoplasmic protein–protein interaction domain called death domain that enables some death receptors to trigger cell death pathways, (ii) TRAF-interacting receptors that contain one to three binding motifs for adapter proteins of the TNF receptor-associated factor (TRAF) family that link these receptors to proinflammatory signaling pathways, and (iii) decoy receptors without own signaling capabilities that control the activity of other TNFRSF receptors. With regard to function the classification of the signaling competent TNFRSF receptors into cell death-inducing death receptors and proinflammatory TRAF-interacting receptors is an oversimplification. Death receptors are also able to trigger proinflammatory pathways and TRAF-interacting receptors via versa can boast apoptotic responses by blocking TRAF-dependent survival activities

Table 1. Crystal structures of ligands and receptors of the TNF family.

graphic file with name cdd2015109t1.jpg

In view of the structural organization of TNFSF ligand/TNFRSF receptor complexes, a sequential model of TNFRSF receptor activation was initially assumed. According to this model, a single TNFRSF receptor molecule initially interacts with a TNFSF trimer and the resulting cell surface-associated TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor complex then recruits in two further steps two additional monomeric TNFRSF receptor molecules to form an active TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complex (Figure 2a). This early model of TNFRSF receptor activation, however, is incompatible with some fundamental observations. First, ligand binding studies gave no evidence for a sequential assembly of TNFSF ligand–TNFRSF receptor complexes and consistently argued for a single binding site interaction between TNFSF ligands and TNFRSF receptors. Second, the affinity of a single soluble TNFRSF receptor ectodomain for its ligand is usually rather low (>1 μM).6, 7 Indeed, efficient functional neutralization of TNFSF ligands with soluble TNFRSF receptor variants requires the assembly of two or more receptor molecules, for example, by genetic fusion with dimerizing or trimerizing protein domains (e.g., Holler et al.8). Third, the sequential TNFRSF receptor activation model cannot explain why some mutants of the TNFRSF receptors CD95 and TACI, which are defective in ligand binding, nevertheless act in a dominant-negative manner and cause autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome (ALPS)9 and common variable immunodeficiency (CVID).10

Figure 2.

Figure 2

PLAD-assisted oligomerization model of TNFRSF receptor activation. This model is based on the fundamental observation that at least some TNFRSF receptors pre-assembles in the absence of ligand. The self-affinity of TNFRSF receptors would not only allow to explain TNFSF ligand binding by formation of high affinity dimeric or trimeric TNFRSF complexes but may also drive secondary interaction of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes. The initially formed TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes may already allow the recruitment of TNFRSF receptor-associated signaling molecules but do not ensure full activation of these molecules by transactivation. Please note, the capacity of soluble TNFSF ligand-induced TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes to secondary aggregate spontaneously into fully active receptor clusters may vary considerably between TNFRSF receptors. In some cases (right, upper part) the self-affinity of TNFRSF receptors is maybe too low to trigger spontaneous clustering of soluble TNFSF ligand-induced receptor complexes while in other cases (right, lower part) the self-affinity is high enough to trigger this

The limitations of the sequential TNFRSF receptor activation model were solved by the discovery of a protein domain within several TNFRSF receptors that mediates self-assembly in the absence of ligand molecules.9, 11, 12, 13 The interaction of two (or three) receptor molecules by this so-called 'pre-ligand assembly domain' (PLAD) may create single high affinity binding sites for TNFSF ligand trimers. This not only explains the single binding site interaction typically found for TNFSF ligands and cell bound TNFRSF receptors but also delivers a rationale for the dominant-negative activity of ligand binding-defective CD95/TACI mutants. If such mutants still contain a functional PLAD, then this results in the trapping of wild-type receptor molecules in complexes with mutant receptor molecules. The latter do not contribute to ligand binding, thus in this case dimerization of receptor molecules does not result in a relevant increase in apparent affinity. It is noteworthy that the affinity of the PLAD–PLAD interaction is rather low and almost in the mM range.14 This corresponds to the observation that soluble TNFRSF receptor ectodomains are typically very poor TNFSF ligand agonists unless they are fused with multimerizing scaffolds. In view of the weak PLAD-PLAD affinity an unclear aspect of the PLAD-based TNFRSF receptor activation model concerns the equilibrium between monomeric and PLAD-assembled TNFRSF receptors. At one extreme, the PLAD-PLAD affinity, despite its weakness, is possibly sufficient to drive the huge majority of receptors in the PLAD-assembled state due to the spatial pre-orientation and immobilization of the receptor molecules in the plasma membrane (Figure 2b). However, at the other extreme, the equilibrium point favors monomeric TNFRSF receptors and suggests that there are only a few receptors in the PLAD-assembled state at any given moment (Figure 2b). In this second scenario, the binding of a TNFSF ligand trimer to the rare PLAD-assembled receptor species would result in the stabilization of the few assembled receptors and their removal from the equilibrium with the monomeric receptor species. According to the principle of LeChatelier, the pool of ligand-free PLAD-assembled TNFRSF receptors is then recovered at the expense of the pool of the monomeric receptor species. Thus, with time almost the complete pool of TNFRSF receptor molecules would become accessible for ligand binding via the ligand-free PLAD-assembled TNFRSF receptors despite the rare occurrence of this receptor species. Currently, it is not possible to differentiate between the two extremes and there are certainly TNFRSF receptor type-dependent quantitative differences in the PLAD–PLAD interaction that may considerably affect the dynamic equilibrium between monomeric and PLAD-assembled TNFRSF receptors.

The PLAD-based model for the formation of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes alone, however, does not adequately explain one fundamental observation of overwhelming functional importance namely why a significant fraction of TNFRSF receptors bind soluble TNFSF ligands with high affinity but nevertheless fail to efficiently activate receptor-associated signaling pathways. While interaction with a membrane-bound TNFSF ligand in any case results in strong receptor activation, TNFRSF receptors differ in their response to binding of soluble ligand trimers. Some TNFRSF receptors strongly stimulate intracellular signaling pathways in response to soluble TNFSF ligands whereas another group of TNFRSF receptors binds soluble ligand molecules with a limited effect on signal transduction (Table 2). The limited responsiveness to soluble TNFSF ligands of this second type of TNFRSF receptors reflects an intrinsic quality of the TNFRSF receptor type and not an insufficiency of the soluble ligand. For example, soluble TNF efficiently stimulates TNFR1 signaling but fails to properly activate TNFR2 despite efficient binding.15, 16 Similarly, soluble APRIL interacts with the TNFRSF receptors TACI and Baff receptor-3 (BR3) but only activates the latter.17, 18 TNFRSF receptors that fail to signal properly in response to binding of soluble ligand trimers, typically respond quite well when the ligand molecules become secondarily oligomerized (Table 2). The latter can be achieved for example by antibodies recognizing a tag attached to the cytokine molecules or by genetic fusion with protein domains triggering the assembly of two or more ligand trimers in a single molecule (Table 3). Because oligomerization has no major effect on the apparent affinity of TNFSF ligand–TNFRSF receptor interaction.19, 20 This indicates that secondary interaction of two or more TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes is a key event in stimulation of TNFRSF receptor-associated signaling pathways.

Table 2. Effect of anti-Flag oligomerization on the receptor stimulating activities of soluble Flag-tagged TNFSF ligand trimers.

graphic file with name cdd2015109t2.jpg

Table 3. TNFSF ligand fusion protein molecules containing two or more TNF trimers.

graphic file with name cdd2015109t3.jpg

There is, however, initial evidence that different types of TNFRSF receptor-associated signaling pathways differ in the need for secondary interaction of two or more TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes for activation. The need for clustering of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes for receptor activation has been typically observed in experiments where apoptosis induction or activation of the classical NFκB pathway has been investigated (see Table 2). Recent studies indicated that soluble CD95L, at low concentrations where it typically fails to trigger apoptosis without crosslinking, induces cell migration and proliferation (for review, see Wajant21). Soluble TWEAK ((TNF)-like weak inducer of apoptosis) furthermore stimulates strong and efficient activation of the alternative NFκB pathway but activates the classical NFκB pathway only weakly whereas both NFκB pathways were strongly activated by membrane TWEAK and oligomerized soluble TWEAK.22 The different oligomerization requirement for CD95L-induced apoptosis and CD95L-induced cell migration as well as the different need of oligomerization for soluble TWEAK-triggered classical and alternative NFκB signaling correspond in both cases to different mechanisms how these pathways are activated. Interestingly, form studies comparing ligand- and antibody-induced activation of CD40 and Fn14, there is also evidence for pathway-specific activation requirements of TNFRSF receptors. For example, it has been reported that antibody production and IL6 secretion in B cells are induced after CD40 stimulation with membrane-bound CD40L while an agonistic CD40-specific antibody triggered antibody but not IL6 production.23 Fn14 targeting antibodies, furthermore, can stimulate the alternative NFκB pathway without a significant effect on the classical NFκB pathway.24

Fn14-mediated activation of the classical NFκB pathway requires the recruitment of the adapter protein TRAF2 and the TRAF2-interacting E3 ligases cIAP1 and cIAP2.25, 26 TRAF2 forms homotrimeric molecules that binds tightly to a probably monomeric and thus inactive cIAP1 or cIAP2 E3 ligase molecule.27, 28, 29, 30 Dimerization of two cIAPs results in an active conformation with E3 activity and the capacity to promote signaling via the classical NFκB pathway.27, 31 Thus, in view of the data discussed above soluble TWEAK seems to induce the formation of complexes that only contain a single cIAP1/2 molecule (TWEAK3-Fn143-TRAF23-cIAP1/2) and which are still unable to trigger the classical NFκB pathway but are competent to do this upon cIAP1/2 transactivation-enabling crosslinking. In contrast, the formation of TWEAK-Fn14 complexes containing only one TRAF2 trimer and a single cIAP1/2 molecule is already sufficient to activate the alternative NFκB pathway, because in this case, it is sufficient to withdraw TRAF2–cIAP1/2 complexes from the cytosol32, 33 where they are involved in triggering the destruction of the alternative NFκB inducing kinase NIK. In the case of CD95-induced apoptosis, there is crystallographic evidence that a pentameric/oligomeric complex of the CD95-recruited death domain-containing adapter protein FADD has to be formed to trigger efficient dimerization and activation of caspase-8 in oligomeric structures.34, 35, 36, 37, 38 In contrast, soluble CD95L-induced CD95-mediated cell migration and proliferation are independent from FADD and occur by help of tyrosine kinases that directly interact with CD95.39 In this case, signaling pathway activation could already emerge from CD95L3–CD953 complexes. In sum, the evidence for oligomerization-independent selective activation of only certain receptor-associated signaling pathways by soluble TWEAK and soluble CD95L favors a two-step model of TNFRSF receptor activation. In a first step, there is ligand induced formation of signaling competent TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes, which might already trigger certain signaling pathways. In a second step, there is then oligomerization of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes that eventually enables activation of signaling pathways requiring transactivation/oligomerization of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complex-associated signaling intermediates (Figure 2b).

The capacity of membrane-bound TNFSF ligands to trigger TNFRSF receptor clustering has not been extensively investigated. The finding that membrane-bound CD95L but not soluble CD95L induces the formation of durable supramolecular ligand-receptor clusters, however, is in good accordance with this idea.40 In accordance with the evidence discussed above that activation of only a subset of CD95-induced signaling pathways, including apoptosis induction, requires oligomerization of CD95L3–CD953 complexes and thus membrane-bound CD95L, O'Reilly et al. reported that mice expressing only soluble CD95L have defective CD95-induced apoptosis but also obtained evidence for soluble CD95L-mediated non-apoptotic activities.41 It is furthermore worth mentioning that artificially anchoring soluble TNFSF ligands to the cell surface is all that is required to equip these molecules with the activity of the corresponding membrane-bound cytokine. For example, soluble TNFSF ligand fusion proteins with interaction domains recognizing a cell surface exposed molecular structure/protein acquire membrane ligand-like activity after target binding.42, 43 Similarly, soluble CD95L gain high apoptotic activity after fibronectin binding and APRIL stimulates Baff-R when trapped by the extracelluar matrix via a heparan sulfate proteoglycan binding motif in the stalk region.18, 44, 45 Moreover, it has been observed that the enhanced TNFR2-stimulating activity of a cell surface-anchored fusion protein of soluble TNF is accompanied by clustering of TNFR2 complexes.46

Ligand binding and self-assembly occur via different parts of the ectodomain of TNFRSF receptors.9, 11 TNFRSF receptors have therefore the ability to interact with each other also when complexed by their ligand suggesting a model of TNFRSF receptor activation in which PLAD–PLAD interactions not only facilitate the binding of TNFSF ligands to TNFRSF receptors to form signaling competent TNFSF ligands3–TNFRSF receptors3 complexes but also promote secondarily their clustering into supramolecular aggregates where transactivation of TNFRSF receptor3-associated signaling complexes become possible (Figure 2b).

The two-step model of TNFRSF receptor activation is based on data of the subgroup of TNFRSF receptors that do not or only poorly activate apoptosis and classical NFκB signaling in response to binding of soluble TNFSF ligands. An obvious question that has not been addressed so far is how TNFRSF receptors that are readily activated by soluble TNFSF ligands, such as TNFR1, fit in the two-step model of TNFRSF activation. One possibility is that the PLAD-dependent self-affinity of these TNFRSF receptors is simply high enough to drive secondary clustering of initially formed TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes. However, it cannot be ruled out that this TNFRSF receptor type uses still unknown mechanisms/factors enabling these receptors to promote oligomerization of TNFRSF-associated adapter proteins without oligomerization of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes.

Relevance of Isotype and Oligomerization for Agonistic Activity of TNFRSF Receptor-Specific Antibodies

Agonistic receptor-specific antibodies were important tools for studying functions of TNFRSF receptors as long as their corresponding TNFSF ligands were unknown and are accordingly still of special relevance for the analysis of the orphan TNFRSF receptors DR6, TROY and RELT. Agonistic antibodies are also a great help for research on TNFRSF receptors that share a common TNFSF ligand, as for example the TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptors. Above all, however, agonistic antibodies are still the means of choice in scenarios where activation of TNFRSF receptors is needed. Indeed, antibodies have superior pharmacokinetics compared with recombinant TNFSF ligands that have quite low serum half-life of around 10–30 min47, 48, 49 and therefore require elaborate clinical treatment regimes, such as infusion. Moreover, there is broad experience in the development, production and approval of antibodies. Accordingly, there are various agonistic TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies that are currently under consideration in clinical trials (Table 4). Typically, TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies are used with the intention to activate TNFRSF receptors on tumor cells to trigger cell death (TRAILR1, TRAILR2) or to activate costimulatory receptors on immune cells to promote antitumor immunity (4-1BB, GITR, CD27, OX40 CD40). In some cases (CD30, Fn14), the tumor-associated expression pattern of certain TNFRSF receptors is exploited to target tumor cells with ADCC-inducing antibodies or antibody immunotoxins.

Table 4. TNFRSF receptor antibodies in clinical trials.

Antibody Target Isotype Status ID Condition
Brentuximab-Vedotin SGN-35 CD30 Drug conjugate, chimerized IgG1 Approved, >70 studies Lymphoma
XmAb2513 CD30 IgG1 Enhanced FcγR binding Phase 1 Completed NCT00606645 Hodgkin lymphoma Anaplastic large cell lymphoma
MDX-1401 CD30 IgG1 Phase 1 Completed NCT00634452 Hodgkin lymphoma
HeFi-1 CD30 Murine IgG1 Agonist Phase 1 Phase 1 Completed Completed NCT00048880 NCT00003741 Neoplasms Lymphoma
PF-05082566 4-1BB IgG2 Agonist Phase 1 Phase 1 Recruiting Recruiting NCT02179918 NCT01307267 Advanced solid tumors NHL
Urelumab BMS-663513 4-1BB IgG4 Agonist Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1/2 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1/2 Phase 2 Recruiting Recruiting Recruiting Recruiting Recruiting Terminated Terminated Terminated Completed NCT01775631 NCT02252263 NCT02253992 NCT01471210 NCT02110082 NCT00461110 NCT00351325 NCT00309023 NCT00612664 B-cell malignancies Multiple myeloma Advanced solid tumors Advanced B-cell NHL Solid tumors, B-cell NHL CRC, HNC NSCLC Solid malignancies Advanced cancer Melanoma
TRX518 GITR IgG1 N297 Fc-disabled Phase 1 Recruiting NCT01239134 Stage III/IV melanoma Solid tumors
MK-4166 GITR   Phase 1 Recruiting NCT02132754 Solid tumors
Varlilumab CD27 IgG1 Phase 1 Recruiting NCT01460134 B-cell malignancies
CDX-1127           Solid tumors
      Phase 1 Recruiting NCT02284971 Prostate cancer
      Phase 1/2 Recruiting NCT02335918 NSCLC, CRC, HNC, OC, Melanoma
MEDI6469 OX40 Murine Phase 1 Unknown NCT01644968 Advanced cancer
    IgG1 Phase 1/2 Recruiting NCT01862900 Metastatic breast, lung and liver cancer
      Phase 1 Recruiting NCT02274155 HNC
      Phase 1/2 Recruiting NCT01303705 Prostate cancer
      Phase 1/2 Recruiting NCT02205333 Advanced solid tumors
MEDI0562 OX40 IgG1 humanized Agonist Phase 1 Recruiting NCT02318394 Solid tumors
CP-870,893 CD40 IgG2 Phase 1 Completed NCT01103635 Recurrent/IV melanoma
    Agonist Phase 1 Completed NCT00607048 Neoplasms
      Phase 1 Completed NCT02225002 Advanced solid tumors
      Phase 1 Active NCT01008527 Melanoma
      Phase 0 Completed NCT02157831 Solid tumors
      Phase 1 Completed NCT01456585 Adenocarcinoma
      Phase 1 Completed NCT00711191 Pancreatic neoplasm
PG102 FFP104 CD40 IgG4 Antagonist   Terminated (poor recruitment) NCT00787137 Psoriatic arthritis
Lucatumumab HCD122 CD40 IgG1 Antagonist Phase 2 Phase 1 Completed Terminated NCT00231166 NCT00108108 Multiple myeloma CLL
Chi Lob 7/4 CD40 IgG1 chimeric Agonist Phase 1 Completed NCT01561911 Cancer, lymphoma
ASKP1240 CD40 IgG4 Antagonist Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2 Completed Completed Active NCT01565681 NCT01585233 NCT01780844 Healthy volunteers Psoriasis Kidney transplantation
Enavatuzumab PDL192 Fn14 IgG1 humanized Phase 1 Completed NCT00738764 Advanced solid tumors
Conatumumab AMG655 TRAILR2/DR5 IgG1 Agonist Phase 1b Phase 1b/2 Phase 1b/2 Phase 1b/2 Phase 1b/2 Phase 1b/2 Phase 2 Phase 2 Phase 1b/2 Completed Completed Terminated Completed Completed Completed Completed Ongoing Completed NCT00791011 NCT00625651 NCT00819169 NCT00626704 NCT00534027 NCT00630552 NCT00813605 NCT01327612 NCT00630786 Lymphoma CRC Solid tumors Sarcoma NSCLC Pancreatic cancer Metastatic CRC Solid tumors, lymphoma CRC
Lexatumumab HGS-ETR2 TRAILR2/DR5 IgG1 Agonist Phase 1 Completed NCT00428272 Sarcoma neuroblastoma
Mapatumumab HGS-ETR1 TRAILR1/DR4 IgG1 Agonist Phase 2 Phase 2 Completed Completed NCT00092924 NCT00094848 NSCLC NHL
Tigatuzumab TRAILR2/DR5 IgG1 humanized Phase 1 Completed NCT01220999 CRC neoplasms
CS-1008   Agonist Phase 2 Ongoing NCT01307891 Breast cancer
      Phase 2 Terminated NCT00969033 Metastatic CRC
      Phase 2 Completed NCT00991796 NSCLC
      Phase 2 Completed NCT00521404 Pancreatic cancer
      Phase 2 Completed NCT00945191 OC
      Phase 1 Completed NCT01124630 Metastatic CRC
      Phase 2 Ongoing NCT01033240 Liver cancer
      Phase 1 Completed NCT00320827 Malignancies, lymphoma
Drozitumab TRAILR2/DR5 IgG1 Phase 2 Terminated NCT00543712 Chondrosarcoma
PRO95780   Agonist Phase 2 Completed NCT00480831 NSCLC
      Phase 1 Completed NCT00497497 CRC
      Phase 2 Completed NCT00517049 NHL
      Phase 1 Completed NCT00851136 Metastatic CRC
LBY135 TRAILR2/DR5 IgG1 chimeric Agonist Sharma et al.159     Advanced solid tumors
TAS266 TRAILR2/DR5 Tetrameric nanobody Phase 1 Terminated NCT01529307 Advanced solid tumors

Abbreviations: CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; CRC, colorectal cancer; HNC, head and neck cancer; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OC, ovarian cancer

Soon after the description of the first TNFRSF receptor-specific agonistic antibodies, it turned out that the valency of antibodies, thus the antigen binding sites per molecule, is of crucial relevance for the agonistic activity. In a panel of 17 human TNFR1-specific IgG2a and IgG2b antibodies, Engelmann et al. identified only two antibodies that moderately mimicked the cytotoxic activity of TNF while all of the these antibodies showed strong TNFR1-mediated killing upon cross-linking with secondary antibodies.50 Likewise, it was found that cross-linking converts the antagonistic TNFR1-specific IgG2a antibody H398 into a potent TNFR1 agonist.51 Another study characterized the in vitro activities of two IgG1 antibodies and an IgM specific for TNFR1 and reported superior agonistic activity for the pentameric IgM variant.52 Related data have been reported for CD95-specific antibodies. The highly agonistic CD95-specific antibody APO-1 is an IgG3 and has thus a considerable tendency to self-aggregate. In contrast, IgG1, IgG2a, IgG2b and IgA variants of APO-1, that have no or only a low capacity to aggregate, elicit no or less efficient CD95 activation in vitro.53 Cross-linking with protein A or secondary antibodies, however, restored the high agonistic activity of these APO-1 variants.53 In line with this, various other CD95-specific mAbs of the IgG1 and IgG2a/b subclass have been described that only display strong agonistic activity after cross-linking while the pentameric CD95-specific IgM CH-11, but not Fab2 fragments derived of this antibody, has high, aggregation-independent agonistic activity.54, 55, 56 The potentiating, or even uncovering, effect of cross-linking on the agonistic activity of dimeric antibodies has also been broadly documented for other TNFRSF receptors including CD40,57, 58 CD27,59 TRAILR1/DR4,60 TRAILR2/DR561, 62, 63, 64, 65 and Fn14.24, 66, 67, 68 The relevance of cross-linking for the agonistic activity of dimeric TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies is also reflected by the fact that antibodies recognizing non-overlapping epitopes synergistically induce receptor activation.58 In a variation of this theme, it has been recently demonstrated that the therapeutic agonistic activity of the rat IgG2a murine 4-1BB-specific antibody 3H3 in mouse models of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and allergic asthma is based on the expression of galectin-9 which binds to 4-1BB without affecting antibody binding.69 Thus, the endogenously present galectin-9 molecule may act as a natural crosslinker here. Although antibody-specific factors, such as affinity and epitope localization in the targeted TNFRSF receptor, certainly play a role for agonistic activity, the data discussed, in sum suggest that the valency of TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies and antibody preparations is the dominant factor that determines their receptor-stimulatory capacity. In particular in view of the importance of clustering of trimeric ligand–receptor complexes for the activation of TNFRSF receptor-associated signaling pathways, it seems natural that interaction of two or more receptor2–antibody complexes is required to form active [receptor2–antibody]n aggregates (Figure 3a).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

TNFRSF receptor activation by oligomerized and FcγR-bound dimeric antibodies. The binding of two TNFRSF molecules by a bivalent antibody may lead, to some extent, to the recruitment of TNFRSF-associated proteins but with lower efficiency than in the case of stimulation by trimeric ligand. There is, however, no transactivation of TNFRSF receptor3-associated signaling complexes. Optimal recruitment of adapter proteins as well as transactivation of receptor-bound effector molecules, thus full receptor activation, only occurs after secondary crosslinking of antibody–TNFRSF receptor2 complexes by protein A or G or secondary antibodies (a) or can be promoted by the self-affinity of the TNFRSF receptors when there is assistance by the spatial and mobility constraints given by binding to plasma membrane localized FcγRs (b)

The need for secondary interaction of initially formed trimeric ligand–receptor complexes for full TNFRSF receptor activation is nicely reflected by the ability of some per se non-agonistic TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies to synergistically stimulate receptor signaling in concert with soluble TNFSF ligands. Already in the 1990s, we described the TNFR2-specific monoclonal antibody 80M2 that allowed robust TNFR2 activation by soluble TNF which alone is an inefficient stimulator of TNFR2 signaling.15 Likewise, it has been found that poorly active, soluble CD95L trimers synergistically induce cell death with non-apoptotic CD95-specific antibodies and that some CD40-specific antibodies enhance soluble CD40L activity.58, 70 Of course, a straightforward explanation of these observations is that these TNFRSF receptor antibodies bring together individually assembled trimeric ligand–receptor complexes.

The typically quite limited agonistic potential of bivalent TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies may further suggest that monomeric receptors are the dominant receptor species in the equilibrium of monomeric receptors and PLAD-assembled receptors. In the case of a significant fraction of PLAD-assembled receptors, one would predict the formation of flexible ‘chains' or clusters formed due to the bivalency of the antibodies and the two or three epitopes present in dimeric (or trimeric) PLAD-assembled receptors. It is not so obvious why further cross-linking should have here the huge functional relevance that has been observed experimentally. In the case of a low degree of PLAD-driven complex formation, however, cross-linking of dimeric antibodies would have an almost obligate impact on the secondary interaction of receptor2–antibody complexes and thus on receptor2–antibody chain/cluster formation.

The overwhelming importance of the intrinsically limited activity of soluble TNFSF ligand trimers and dimeric anti-TNFRSF receptor antibodies for the development of TNFRSF receptor-targeting therapeutic concepts becomes particularly apparent in the development of TRAIL death receptor-targeting drugs. TRAIL has been initially identified due to its homologies to TNF. TRAIL binds to five different receptor types that all belong to the TNFRSF receptor family: TRAILR1 to TRAILR4 and osteoprotegerin (OPG). While TRAILR3, TRAILR4 and OPG act as membrane-associated or soluble decoy receptors, TRAILR1 and TRAILR2 are typical representatives of the death receptor type of TNFRSF receptors.71 Early on, it has been observed that TRAIL triggers apoptosis in a variety of transformed cell lines but not or only rarely in non-transformed cell types. Accordingly, there were/are considerable efforts of a variety of research groups and companies to develop TRAIL death receptor-targeting therapeutics for tumor treatment.71 Indeed, recombinant soluble TRAIL (Dulanermin) and several TRAIL death receptor-specific antibodies have been subjected to clinical trials (Table 4). As monotherapy but also in combination with other anticancer drugs, all these TRAIL death receptor-targeting therapeutics have found to be well tolerated to date.71 Unfortunately, however, there was also no or quite limited clinical efficacy. From the beginning a variety of in vitro studies demonstrated that oligomerization potentiates the activity of soluble TRAIL (e.g., Schneider et al.72 and Wiley et al.73) and TRAILR1/2 targeting antibodies (see above). Thus, the TRAIL death receptor-targeting reagents tested so far in the clinic obviously failed to unleash the full apoptotic activity of the two TRAIL death receptors and the poor therapeutic activity, but also the excellent tolerability, is therefore perhaps no real surprise. It is noteworthy that in accordance with the already discussed fact that poorly active soluble TNFSF ligand trimers can co-operate with barely active TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies to trigger maximal receptor activation, it has been recently shown in vitro and in vivo that co-treatment with soluble TRAIL and the TRAILR2-specific antibody AMG655 (Conatumumab) results in enhanced apoptosis induction and improved antitumor responses.74, 75 Soluble TRAIL and the murine TRAILR2-specific antibody MD5-1 also synergistically induce cell death in vitro in various murine cell lines.74 More importantly, the combined treatment with these reagents showed superior antitumor activity and good tolerability in vivo.74 This suggests that it is possible to target at least TRAILR2 with highly active agonists without paying with detrimental off-target effects.

TNFRSF Receptor Activation by Fcγ Receptor-Bound Antibodies

TNFRSF receptor-specific bivalent antibodies not only resemble soluble TNFSF ligands with respect to the agonistic activity-potentiating effect of oligomerization but also mirror the differential ability of soluble and membrane-bound TNFSF ligands to activate certain types of TNFRSF receptors. Similar to soluble TNFSF ligand fusion proteins that functionally mimic membrane TNFSF ligands upon anchoring to cell surface-exposed molecules (Figure 3b), antigen-bound antibodies naturally anchor to certain cell types in an antigen-independent manner by interaction with Fc receptors recognizing the constant parts of antibodies. For the clinically most important IgG isotypes, there are five human and four murine Fc receptors, the so-called Fcγ receptors (FcγR; Table 5) that are expressed to a varying extent on B cells and myeloid cell types.76, 77 After binding of antigen–antibody complexes the activatory Fcγ receptors (human: FcγRI, FcγRIIA, FcγRIIC, FcγRIIIA, FcγRIIIB; murine: FcγRI, FcγRIII, FcγRIV) trigger immune effector functions, such as cytokine release, phagocytosis, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC). The activity of these activatory Fcγ receptors is antagonized by the inhibitory FcγRIIB.76, 77 There is now broad in vitro and in vivo evidence that Fcγ receptor-bound antibodies display strongly enhanced agonistic activity. Crystallographic studies showed that a single IgG molecule interacts with a single FcγR molecule78, 79, 80, 81, 82 arguing against activation of TNFRSF receptors by sole FcγR-mediated cross-linking of receptor2–antibody complexes as discussed above for protein A and secondary antibodies. Instead, it is tempting to speculate that in analogy to membrane-bound TNFSF ligands and cell surface anchored fusion proteins of soluble TNFSF ligands, the plasma membrane-associated spatial and mobility constraints of FcγR-bound antibodies assist TNFRSF receptor self-affinity driven clustering of receptor2–antibody complexes (Figure 3b).

Table 5. Fcγ receptors.

graphic file with name cdd2015109t4.jpg

The potential relevance of FcγR binding for TNFRSF antibody activity in vivo became already indirectly obvious in the early studies with antibody class switch variants of the CD95 targeting APO-1 antibody. While it turned out that the IgG2b isoform of APO-1 is inactive in vitro, it nevertheless displayed significant antitumor activity in vivo.53 Although, it was not clarified in an early report to which extent antibody-dependent effector functions, such as ADCC and CDC, and FcγR binding-dependent agonistic activity of APO-1 IgG2b contributed to the antitumoral effect, in vitro studies performed with the hamster IgG2 anti-mouse CD95 mAb Jo2 revealed later strong FcγR binding-dependent agonistic activity.83 Most importantly, however, in vivo studies with Jo2 and various mice strains with defective expression of one or more FcγRs revealed a crucial role of the inhibitory FcγRII receptor in Jo2-induced hepatotoxicity, the deadly hallmark of systemic CD95 activation.84, 85 This straightforwardly showed for the first time that the FcγR binding-dependent agonistic activity of a TNFRSF receptor-specific IgG antibody, and thus receptor activation, is decisive for the observed in vivo effects.

Some important factors that determine the FcγR binding-dependent agonistic activity of TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies have been revealed in recent years in preclinical studies by investigating the mode of action of CD40- and TRAILR2-specific antibodies by help of FcγR-deficient mice and FcγR discriminating antibody panels. In a vaccination model where the mouse CD40-reactive rat anti-CD40 IgG2a mAb 1C10 has been used as an adjuvant, Li and Ravetch86 observed abrogation of CD40-dependent T-cell expansion/activation and antitumor activity in mice without the common Fc receptor γ (FcRγ) chain. As all three activating FcγRs in mice require the common FcRγ chain for expression and signaling, this observation pointed to a crucial role of the remaining inhibitory FcγRII for the adjuvant activity of 1C10 and ruled out a major role of ADCC. In line with the idea of a FcγRII-dependent mode of CD40 activation, it turned out furthermore that 1C10-derived Fab2 preparations and a deglycosylated form of 1C10, thus 1C10 variants that fail to interact with Fcγ receptors, elicit no adjuvant activity in this model, too.86 Similar findings were made with 3/23, another murine CD40-specific rat IgG2a. A chimeric murine IgG1 variant of 3/23, which significantly binds to FcγRII and the activating FcγRIII, showed in vitro and in vivo strong stimulatory effects on antigen-presenting cells (B cells, dendritic cells) that are indicative for CD40 activation.87 In contrast, a chimeric murine IgG2a variant of 3/23 displaying strong binding to the murine activating Fcγ receptors but only poor binding to FcγRII showed no or only marginal immune stimulatory activities.87 Analogous results were also revealed in studies with the murine TRAILR2/DR5-specific hamster IgG2 antibody MD5-1 and the human TRAILR2/DR5-specific human IgG1 Drozitumab.88, 89 Again, the activating FcγRs were found to be dispensable for agonistic antibody activity in vivo. A murine IgG1 variant of Drozitumab, which does not interact with FcγRIV, retained antitumoral activity in FcγRI/FcγRIII double deficient mice.89 Similarly, the well-documented mouse strain-specific hepatotoxicity and tumoricidial activity of MD5-190, 91 was completely abrogated in FcγRII mice.88 Moreover, Fc domain mutants of MD5-1 and Drozitumab devoid of FcγR binding lost in vivo activity and a variant of MD5-1 with enhanced binding to human FcγRIIB showed improved activity in FcγRII KO mice with a human FcγRIIB transgene.88

It is worth note that upon immobilization on plastic the aforementioned murine 3/23 chimeras were highly effective with respect to triggering CD40 activation irrespective of their FcγR preferences.87 In vitro studies with cells expressing a cytoplasmic deletion mutant of FcγRII indicated furthermore that triggering of intracellular signaling pathways is dispensable for FcγRII to unleash the agonistic activity of 3/23.87 Last but not least, it has been shown that all the activating FcγRs also promote CD40 activation by anti-CD40 IgGs and TRAILR2 activation by Drozitumab in vitro and a similar FcγR type-independent enhanced activity of FcγR-bound IgGs have also been reported for Fn14-specific antibodies.24, 68, 87, 89 At the first glance, in sum these data suggest that the sole binding of dimeric antibodies to cell surface-expressed molecules or a plastic surface is sufficient to enable these molecules to activate TNFRSF receptors. However, this simple view is challenged by the observation that inhibitors of the actin cytoskeleton strongly inhibit the receptor-stimulating activity of CD95- and DR5-specific IgG antibodies without affecting their binding to FcγRs.83, 89

Against the background that binding to all FcγR types is sufficient to confer strong agonistic activity to TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies in vitro, it is tempting to speculate that the observed dominant role of the inhibitory FcγRII in vivo reflects its better bioavailability compared with the activating FcγRs. In further accordance with the idea that the available number of Fcγ receptors is important for the in vivo activity of dimeric anti-TNFRSF receptor antibodies, Li and Ravetch92 reported that the agonistic in vivo activities of the CD40-specific 1C10 and the TRAILR2-specific mAb MD5-1 are abrogated not only in FcγRII KO mice but also in heterozygous FcγRII animals.

Taken together, FcγR-bound bivalent antibodies display high, membrane-bound TNFSF ligand mimicking TNFRSF receptor-stimulating activity and resemble in this regard extracellular matrix-bound soluble TNFSF ligands and soluble TNFSF ligand fusion proteins that have been anchored to a cell surface-expressed molecular target. Of course, this does not mean that ‘conventional' Fc effector activities of antibodies, such as ADCC or CDC, are unimportant for the in vivo effects of TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies. Indeed, the antitumoral activity of IgGs targeting the costimulatory TNFRSF receptors GITR and OX40 have been found to be dominated by ADCC of tumor-associated regulatory T cells.93, 94

Conclusion and Perspective

The knowledge accumulated in recent years on the relevance of valency, oligomerization and FcγR binding for the agonistic activity of TNFRSF receptor-targeted antibodies will certainly improve the rational design of antibody-derived TNFRSF receptor agonists but will also help to avoid pitfalls. The agonism-generating effects of oligomerization and FcγR binding are also of obvious relevance for the development of antagonistic ligand binding-blocking TNFRSF antibodies. Corresponding efforts have not only to avoid the use of antibody variants that bind FcγRs but must also ensure lack of immunogenicity to prevent the development of cross-linking secondary antibodies.

The recognition of the overwhelming importance of FcγRII/FcγRIIB binding for the agonistic activity of most TNFRSF receptor-specific IgGs may revitalize/enhance efforts to target the TRAIL death receptors in cancer therapy with antibody variants with FcγRIIB-binding properties superior to the antibodies used so far. In cases where FcγRIIB anchoring has its limitations, for example, due to poor bioavailability of FcγRIIB expressing cells, artificial oliogmerization of TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies or antibodies fragments may deliver an alternative solution to overcome the poor agonistic activity of conventional IgGs. Indeed, high, secondary oligomerization-independent activity has been described for trimeric, tetrameric and pentameric TRAILR2/DR5-specific nanobody/scFv variants.95, 96 A first clinical trial with the tetravalent nanobody TAS266 revealed reversible hepatoxicity.97 Thus, multivalent highly active TRAILR2-targeting antibody constructs may offer the promise of increased antitumoral activity but there is also a need to reconsider the possible side effects of systemic TRAILR2 activation when potent agonists are used in vivo.

The relevance of oligomerization and FcγRIIB anchoring for the agonistic activity of bivalent TNFRSF receptor-specific antibodies has been clearly recognized yet and corresponds very well with current concepts of TNFRSF receptor activation by secondary interaction of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes. Oligomerization and FcγRIIB anchoring of bivalent antibodies, however, are presumably not the only factors that determine agonistic activity of TNFRSF-specific IgGs. There are at least two basal observations that cannot be straightforwardly integrated in a TNFRSF receptor activation model where oligomerized and cell surface-anchored IgGs promote the clustering of TNFSF ligand3–TNFRSF receptor3 complexes. First, only just, an unexpected, clinically potentially relevant, FcγR binding-independent agonistic activity has been observed for CD40-targeting human IgG2 isoform B antibodies.98 Here, future studies must show whether this type of bivalent antibody indeed activates TNFRSF receptor-associated pathways without TNFRSF receptor clustering or have to clarify how this antibody type triggers TNFRSF receptor clustering without an obvious capacity to auto-aggregate and without evidence for antigen-independent cell surface binding. Second, it is currently not understood why the agonistic activity of FcγR-bound CD95- and TRAILR2/DR5-specific IgG antibodies is abrogated by pretreatment of the FcγR-expressing cells with actin inhibitors although this do not interfere with antibody binding.83, 89

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, grant WA 1025/24-1) and from Deutsche Krebshilfe (111703).

Glossary

ADCC

antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity

CDC

complement-dependent cytotoxicity

cIAP1/2

cellular inhibitor of apoptosis

FcγR

Fcγ receptor

Fn14

fibroblast growth factor inducible

NFκB

nuclear factor κB

NIK

NFκB inducing kinase

PLAD

pre-ligand assembly domain

TACI

transmembrane activator and CAML interactor

TNFR1

TNF receptor-1

TNFRSF

tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily

TRAF2

TNF receptor associated factor-2

TRAIL

TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand

TWEAK

(TNF)-like weak inducer of apoptosis.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Edited by G Melino

References

  1. 1Bodmer JL, Schneider P, Tschopp J. The molecular architecture of the TNF superfamily. Trends Biochem Sci 2002; 27: 19–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 2Locksley RM, Killeen N, Lenardo MJ. The TNF and TNF receptor superfamilies: integrating mammalian biology. Cell 2001; 104: 487–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 3Chattopadhyay K, Ramagopal UA, Brenowitz M, Nathenson SG, Almo SC. Evolution of GITRL immune function: murine GITRL exhibits unique structural and biochemical properties within the TNF superfamily. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 635–640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 4Zhou Z, Tone Y, Song X, Furuuchi K, Lear JD, Waldmann H et al. Structural basis for ligand-mediated mouse GITR activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 641–645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 5Androlewicz MJ, Browning JL, Ware CF. Lymphotoxin is expressed as a heteromeric complex with a distinct 33-kDa glycoprotein on the surface of an activated human T cell hybridoma. J Biol Chem 1992; 267: 2542–2547. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 6Day ES, Cachero TG, Qian F, Sun Y, Wen D, Pelletier M et al. Selectivity of BAFF/BLyS and APRIL for binding to the TNF family receptors BAFFR/BR3 and BCMA. Biochemistry 2005; 44: 1919–1931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 7Nelson CA, Warren JT, Wang MW, Teitelbaum SL, Fremont DH. RANKL employs distinct binding modes to engage RANK and the osteoprotegerin decoy receptor. Structure 2012; 20: 1971–1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 8Holler N, Kataoka T, Bodmer JL, Romero P, Romero J, Deperthes D et al. Development of improved soluble inhibitors of FasL and CD40L based on oligomerized receptors. J Immunol Methods 2000; 237: 159–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 9Siegel RM, Frederiksen JK, Zacharias DA, Chan FK, Johnson M, Lynch D et al. Fas preassociation required for apoptosis signaling and dominant inhibition by pathogenic mutations. Science 2000; 288: 2354–2357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 10Garibyan L, Lobito AA, Siegel RM, Call ME, Wucherpfennig KW, Geha RS. Dominant-negative effect of the heterozygous C104R TACI mutation in common variable immunodeficiency (CVID). J Clin Invest 2007; 117: 1550–1557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 11Chan FK, Chun HJ, Zheng L, Siegel RM, Bui KL, Lenardo MJ. A domain in TNF receptors that mediates ligand-independent receptor assembly and signaling. Science 2000; 288: 2351–2354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 12Neumann S, Hasenauer J, Pollak N, Scheurich P. Dominant negative effects of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor 4 on TRAIL receptor 1 signaling by formation of heteromeric complexes. J Biol Chem 2014; 289: 16576–16587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 13Papoff G, Hausler P, Eramo A, Pagano MG, Di Leve G, Signore A et al. Identification and characterization of a ligand-independent oligomerization domain in the extracellular region of the CD95 death receptor. J Biol Chem 1999; 274: 38241–38250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 14Cao J, Meng F, Gao X, Dong H, Yao W. Expression and purification of a natural N-terminal pre-ligand assembly domain of tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (TNFR1 PLAD) and preliminary activity determination. Protein J 2011; 30: 281–289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 15Grell M, Douni E, Wajant H, Lohden M, Clauss M, Maxeiner B et al. The transmembrane form of tumor necrosis factor is the prime activating ligand of the 80 kDa tumor necrosis factor receptor. Cell 1995; 83: 793–802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 16Grell M, Wajant H, Zimmermann G, Scheurich P. The type 1 receptor (CD120a) is the high-affinity receptor for soluble tumor necrosis factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 95: 570–575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 17Bossen C, Cachero TG, Tardivel A, Ingold K, Willen L, Dobles M et al. TACI, unlike BAFF-R, is solely activated by oligomeric BAFF and APRIL to support survival of activated B cells and plasmablasts. Blood 2008; 111: 1004–1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 18Ingold K, Zumsteg A, Tardivel A, Huard B, Steiner QG, Cachero TG et al. Identification of proteoglycans as the APRIL-specific binding partners. J Exp Med 2005; 201: 1375–1383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 19Fick A, Lang I, Schafer V, Seher A, Trebing J, Weisenberger D et al. Studies of binding of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-like weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK) to fibroblast growth factor inducible 14 (Fn14). J Biol Chem 2012; 287: 484–495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. 20Lang I, Fick A, Schafer V, Giner T, Siegmund D, Wajant H. Signaling active CD95 receptor molecules trigger co-translocation of inactive CD95 molecules into lipid rafts. J Biol Chem 2012; 287: 24026–24042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 21Wajant H. Principles and mechanisms of CD95 activation. Biol Chem 2014; 395: 1401–1416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22Roos C, Wicovsky A, Muller N, Salzmann S, Rosenthal T, Kalthoff H et al. Soluble and transmembrane TNF-like weak inducer of apoptosis differentially activate the classical and noncanonical NF-kappa B pathway. J Immunol 2010; 185: 1593–1605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23Baccam M, Bishop GA. Membrane-bound CD154, but not CD40-specific antibody, mediates NF-kappaB-independent IL-6 production in B cells. Eur J Immunol 1999; 29: 3855–3866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24Salzmann S, Seher A, Trebing J, Weisenberger D, Rosenthal A, Siegmund D et al. Fibroblast growth factor inducible (Fn14)-specific antibodies concomitantly display signaling pathway-specific agonistic and antagonistic activity. J Biol Chem 2013; 288: 13455–13466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25Saitoh T, Nakayama M, Nakano H, Yagita H, Yamamoto N, Yamaoka S. TWEAK induces NF-kappaB2 p100 processing and long lasting NF-kappaB activation. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 36005–36012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26Varfolomeev E, Goncharov T, Maecker H, Zobel K, Komuves LG, Deshayes K et al. Cellular inhibitors of apoptosis are global regulators of NF-kappaB and MAPK activation by members of the TNF family of receptors. Sci Signal 2012; 5: ra22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27Dueber EC, Schoeffler AJ, Lingel A, Elliott JM, Fedorova AV, Giannetti AM et al. Antagonists induce a conformational change in cIAP1 that promotes autoubiquitination. Science 2011; 334: 376–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28Mace PD, Smits C, Vaux DL, Silke J, Day CL. Asymmetric recruitment of cIAPs by TRAF2. J Mol Biol 2010; 400: 8–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. 29Park YC, Burkitt V, Villa AR, Tong L, Wu H. Structural basis for self-association and receptor recognition of human TRAF2. Nature 1999; 398: 533–538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30Zheng C, Kabaleeswaran V, Wang Y, Cheng G, Wu H. Crystal structures of the TRAF2: cIAP2 and the TRAF1: TRAF2: cIAP2 complexes: affinity, specificity, and regulation. Mol Cell 2010; 38: 101–113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 31Feltham R, Bettjeman B, Budhidarmo R, Mace PD, Shirley S, Condon SM et al. Smac mimetics activate the E3 ligase activity of cIAP1 protein by promoting RING domain dimerization. J Biol Chem 2011; 286: 17015–17028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. 32Vince JE, Chau D, Callus B, Wong WW, Hawkins CJ, Schneider P et al. TWEAK-FN14 signaling induces lysosomal degradation of a cIAP1-TRAF2 complex to sensitize tumor cells to TNFalpha. J Cell Biol 2008; 182: 171–184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. 33Wicovsky A, Salzmann S, Roos C, Ehrenschwender M, Rosenthal T, Siegmund D et al. TNF-like weak inducer of apoptosis inhibits proinflammatory TNF receptor-1 signaling. Cell Death Differ 2009; 16: 1445–1459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. 34Dickens LS, Boyd RS, Jukes-Jones R, Hughes MA, Robinson GL, Fairall L et al. A death effector domain chain DISC model reveals a crucial role for caspase-8 chain assembly in mediating apoptotic cell death. Mol Cell 2012; 47: 291–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. 35Esposito D, Sankar A, Morgner N, Robinson CV, Rittinger K, Driscoll PC. Solution NMR investigation of the CD95/FADD homotypic death domain complex suggests lack of engagement of the CD95 C terminus. Structure 2010; 18: 1378–1390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. 36Schleich K, Warnken U, Fricker N, Ozturk S, Richter P, Kammerer K et al. Stoichiometry of the CD95 death-inducing signaling complex: experimental and modeling evidence for a death effector domain chain model. Mol Cell 2012; 47: 306–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. 37Scott FL, Stec B, Pop C, Dobaczewska MK, Lee JJ, Monosov E et al. The Fas-FADD death domain complex structure unravels signalling by receptor clustering. Nature 2009; 457: 1019–1022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38Wang L, Yang JK, Kabaleeswaran V, Rice AJ, Cruz AC, Park AY et al. The Fas-FADD death domain complex structure reveals the basis of DISC assembly and disease mutations. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2010; 17: 1324–1329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39Martin-Villalba A, Llorens-Bobadilla E, Wollny D. CD95 in cancer: tool or target? Trends Mol Med 2013; 19: 329–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. 40Henkler F, Behrle E, Dennehy KM, Wicovsky A, Peters N, Warnke C et al. The extracellular domains of FasL and Fas are sufficient for the formation of supramolecular FasL-Fas clusters of high stability. J Cell Biol 2005; 168: 1087–1098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41O'Reilly LA, Tai L, Lee L, Kruse EA, Grabow S, Fairlie WD et al. Membrane-bound Fas ligand only is essential for Fas-induced apoptosis. Nature 2009; 461: 659–663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42de Bruyn M, Bremer E, Helfrich W. Antibody-based fusion proteins to target death receptors in cancer. Cancer Lett 2013; 332: 175–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43Wajant H, Gerspach J, Pfizenmaier K. Engineering death receptor ligands for cancer therapy. Cancer Lett 2013; 332: 163–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. 44Hendriks J, Planelles L, de Jong-Odding J, Hardenberg G, Pals ST, Hahne M et al. Heparan sulfate proteoglycan binding promotes APRIL-induced tumor cell proliferation. Cell Death Differ 2005; 12: 637–648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. 45Mhawech-Fauceglia P, Kaya G, Sauter G, McKee T, Donze O, Schwaller J et al. The source of APRIL up-regulation in human solid tumor lesions. J Leukoc Biol 2006; 80: 697–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46Gerspach J, Muller D, Munkel S, Selchow O, Nemeth J, Noack M et al. Restoration of membrane TNF-like activity by cell surface targeting and matrix metalloproteinase-mediated processing of a TNF prodrug. Cell Death Differ 2006; 13: 273–284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. 47Beutler BA, Milsark IW, Cerami A. Cachectin/tumor necrosis factor: production, distribution, and metabolic fate in vivo. J Immunol 1985; 135: 3972–3977. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. 48Flick DA, Gifford GE. Pharmacokinetics of murine tumor necrosis factor. J Immunopharmacol 1986; 8: 89–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49Kelley SK, Harris LA, Xie D, Deforge L, Totpal K, Bussiere J et al. Preclinical studies to predict the disposition of Apo2L/tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand in humans: characterization of in vivo efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2001; 299: 31–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50Engelmann H, Holtmann H, Brakebusch C, Avni YS, Sarov I, Nophar Y et al. Antibodies to a soluble form of a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor have TNF-like activity. J Biol Chem 1990; 265: 14497–14504. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. 51Grell M, Scheurich P, Meager A, Pfizenmaier K. TR60 and TR80 tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-receptors can independently mediate cytolysis. Lymphokine Cytokine Res 1993; 12: 143–148. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52Espevik T, Brockhaus M, Loetscher H, Nonstad U, Shalaby R. Characterization of binding and biological effects of monoclonal antibodies against a human tumor necrosis factor receptor. J Exp Med 1990; 171: 415–426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. 53Dhein J, Daniel PT, Trauth BC, Oehm A, Moller P, Krammer PH. Induction of apoptosis by monoclonal antibody anti-APO-1 class switch variants is dependent on cross-linking of APO-1 cell surface antigens. J Immunol 1992; 149: 3166–3173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. 54Alderson MR, Tough TW, Braddy S, Davis-Smith T, Roux E, Schooley K et al. Regulation of apoptosis and T cell activation by Fas-specific mAb. Int Immunol 1994; 6: 1799–1806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. 55Fadeel B, Thorpe CJ, Yonehara S, Chiodi F. Anti-Fas IgG1 antibodies recognizing the same epitope of Fas/APO-1 mediate different biological effects in vitro. Int Immunol 1997; 9: 201–209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. 56Yonehara S, Ishii A, Yonehara M. A cell-killing monoclonal antibody (anti-Fas) to a cell surface antigen co-downregulated with the receptor of tumor necrosis factor. J Exp Med 1989; 169: 1747–1756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. 57Bjorck P, Braesch-Andersen S, Paulie S. Antibodies to distinct epitopes on the CD40 molecule co-operate in stimulation and can be used for the detection of soluble CD40. Immunology 1994; 83: 430–437. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. 58Schwabe RF, Hess S, Johnson JP, Engelmann H. Modulation of soluble CD40 ligand bioactivity with anti-CD40 antibodies. Hybridoma 1997; 16: 217–226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59Gravestein LA, Nieland JD, Kruisbeek AM, Borst J. Novel mAbs reveal potent co-stimulatory activity of murine CD27. Int Immunol 1995; 7: 551–557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. 60Pukac L, Kanakaraj P, Humphreys R, Alderson R, Bloom M, Sung C et al. HGS-ETR1, a fully human TRAIL-receptor 1 monoclonal antibody, induces cell death in multiple tumour types in vitro and in vivo. Br J Cancer 2005; 92: 1430–1441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61Ichikawa K, Liu W, Zhao L, Wang Z, Liu D, Ohtsuka T et al. Tumoricidal activity of a novel anti-human DR5 monoclonal antibody without hepatocyte cytotoxicity. Nat Med 2001; 7: 954–960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62Li J, Knee DA, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Johnson JA, Cheng J et al. LBY135, a novel anti-DR5 agonistic antibody induces tumor cell–specific cytotoxic activity in human colon tumor cell lines and xenografts. Drug Dev Res 2008; 69: 69–82. [Google Scholar]
  63. 63Natoni A, MacFarlane M, Inoue S, Walewska R, Majid A, Knee D et al. TRAIL signals to apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia cells primarily through TRAIL-R1 whereas cross-linked agonistic TRAIL-R2 antibodies facilitate signalling via TRAIL-R2. Br J Haematol 2007; 139: 568–577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64Yada A, Yazawa M, Ishida S, Yoshida H, Ichikawa K, Kurakata S et al. A novel humanized anti-human death receptor 5 antibody CS-1008 induces apoptosis in tumor cells without toxicity in hepatocytes. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1060–1067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. 65Zhang L, Zhang X, Barrisford GW, Olumi AF. Lexatumumab (TRAIL-receptor 2 mAb) induces expression of DR5 and promotes apoptosis in primary and metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a mouse orthotopic model. Cancer Lett 2007; 251: 146–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66Michaelson JS, Amatucci A, Kelly R, Su L, Garber E, Day ES et al. Development of an Fn14 agonistic antibody as an anti-tumor agent. MAbs 2011; 3: 362–375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. 67Purcell JW, Kim HK, Tanlimco SG, Doan M, Fox M, Lambert P et al. Nuclear Factor kappaB is required for tumor growth inhibition mediated by Enavatuzumab (PDL192), a humanized monoclonal antibody to TweakR. Front Immunol 2014; 4: 505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. 68Trebing J, Lang I, Chopra M, Salzmann S, Moshir M, Silence K et al. A novel llama antibody targeting Fn14 exhibits anti-metastatic activity in vivo. MAbs 2014; 6: 297–308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. 69Madireddi S, Eun SY, Lee SW, Nemcovicova I, Mehta AK, Zajonc DM et al. Galectin-9 controls the therapeutic activity of 4-1BB-targeting antibodies. J Exp Med 2014; 211: 1433–1448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. 70Xiao S, Jodo S, Sung SS, Marshak-Rothstein A, Ju ST. A novel signaling mechanism for soluble CD95 ligand. Synergy with anti-CD95 monoclonal antibodies for apoptosis and NF-kappaB nuclear translocation. J Biol Chem 2002; 277: 50907–50913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. 71Lemke J, von Karstedt S, Zinngrebe J, Walczak H. Getting TRAIL back on track for cancer therapy. Cell Death Differ 2014; 21: 1350–1364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. 72Schneider P, Holler N, Bodmer JL, Hahne M, Frei K, Fontana A et al. Conversion of membrane-bound Fas(CD95) ligand to its soluble form is associated with downregulation of its proapoptotic activity and loss of liver toxicity. J Exp Med 1998; 187: 1205–1213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. 73Wiley SR, Schooley K, Smolak PJ, Din WS, Huang CP, Nicholl JK et al. Identification and characterization of a new member of the TNF family that induces apoptosis. Immunity 1995; 3: 673–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. 74Graves JD, Kordich JJ, Huang TH, Piasecki J, Bush TL, Sullivan T et al. Apo2L/TRAIL and the death receptor 5 agonist antibody AMG 655 cooperate to promote receptor clustering and antitumor activity. Cancer Cell 2014; 26: 177–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. 75Tuthill MH, Montinaro A, Zinngrebe J, Prieske K, Draber P, Prieske S et al. TRAIL-R2-specific antibodies and recombinant TRAIL can synergise to kill cancer cells. Oncogene 2014; 34: 2138–2144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. 76Bruhns P. Properties of mouse and human IgG receptors and their contribution to disease models. Blood 2012; 119: 5640–5649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77Pincetic A, Bournazos S, DiLillo DJ, Maamary J, Wang TT, Dahan R et al. Type I and type II Fc receptors regulate innate and adaptive immunity. Nat Immunol 2014; 15: 707–716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. 78Lu J, Chu J, Zou Z, Hamacher NB, Rixon MW, Sun PD. Structure of FcgammaRI in complex with Fc reveals the importance of glycan recognition for high-affinity IgG binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112: 833–838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79Mizushima T, Yagi H, Takemoto E, Shibata-Koyama M, Isoda Y, Iida S et al. Structural basis for improved efficacy of therapeutic antibodies on defucosylation of their Fc glycans. Genes Cells 2011; 16: 1071–1080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80Radaev S, Motyka S, Fridman WH, Sautes-Fridman C, Sun PD. The structure of a human type III Fcgamma receptor in complex with Fc. J Biol Chem 2001; 276: 16469–16477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. 81Ramsland PA, Farrugia W, Bradford TM, Sardjono CT, Esparon S, Trist HM et al. Structural basis for Fc gammaRIIa recognition of human IgG and formation of inflammatory signaling complexes. J Immunol 2011; 187: 3208–3217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. 82Sondermann P, Huber R, Oosthuizen V, Jacob U. The 3.2-A crystal structure of the human IgG1 Fc fragment-Fc gammaRIII complex. Nature 2000; 406: 267–273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. 83Bando M, Miyake Y, Shiina M, Wachi M, Nagai K, Kataoka T. Actin cytoskeleton is required for early apoptosis signaling induced by anti-Fas antibody but not Fas ligand in murine B lymphoma A20 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2002; 290: 268–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. 84Jodo S, Kung JT, Xiao S, Chan DV, Kobayashi S, Tateno M et al. Anti-CD95-induced lethality requires radioresistant Fcgamma RII+ cells. A novel mechanism for fulminant hepatic failure. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 7553–7557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. 85Xu Y, Szalai AJ, Zhou T, Zinn KR, Chaudhuri TR, Li X et al. Fc gamma Rs modulate cytotoxicity of anti-Fas antibodies: implications for agonistic antibody-based therapeutics. J Immunol 2003; 171: 562–568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. 86Li F, Ravetch JV. Inhibitory Fcgamma receptor engagement drives adjuvant and anti-tumor activities of agonistic CD40 antibodies. Science 2011; 333: 1030–1034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. 87White AL, Chan HT, Roghanian A, French RR, Mockridge CI, Tutt AL et al. Interaction with FcgammaRIIB is critical for the agonistic activity of anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody. J Immunol 2011; 187: 1754–1763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. 88Li F, Ravetch JV. Apoptotic and antitumor activity of death receptor antibodies require inhibitory Fcgamma receptor engagement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 10966–10971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. 89Wilson NS, Yang B, Yang A, Loeser S, Marsters S, Lawrence D et al. An Fcgamma receptor-dependent mechanism drives antibody-mediated target-receptor signaling in cancer cells. Cancer Cell 2011; 19: 101–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. 90Takeda K, Kojima Y, Ikejima K, Harada K, Yamashina S, Okumura K et al. Death receptor 5 mediated-apoptosis contributes to cholestatic liver disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 10895–10900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. 91Takeda K, Yamaguchi N, Akiba H, Kojima Y, Hayakawa Y, Tanner JE et al. Induction of tumor-specific T cell immunity by anti-DR5 antibody therapy. J Exp Med 2004; 199: 437–448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92Li F, Ravetch JV. Antitumor activities of agonistic anti-TNFR antibodies require differential FcgammaRIIB coengagement in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110: 19501–19506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. 93Bulliard Y, Jolicoeur R, Windman M, Rue SM, Ettenberg S, Knee DA et al. Activating Fc gamma receptors contribute to the antitumor activities of immunoregulatory receptor-targeting antibodies. J Exp Med 2013; 210: 1685–1693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. 94Bulliard Y, Jolicoeur R, Zhang J, Dranoff G, Wilson NS, Brogdon JL. OX40 engagement depletes intratumoral Tregs via activating FcgammaRs, leading to antitumor efficacy. Immunol Cell Biol 2014; 92: 475–480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. 95Huet HA, Growney JD, Johnson JA, Li J, Bilic S, Ostrom L et al. Multivalent nanobodies targeting death receptor 5 elicit superior tumor cell killing through efficient caspase induction. MAbs 2014; 6: 1560–1570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. 96Liu F, Si Y, Liu G, Li S, Zhang J, Ma Y. The tetravalent anti-DR5 antibody without cross-linking direct induces apoptosis of cancer cells. Biomed Pharmacother 2015; 70: 41–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. 97Papadopoulos KP, Isaacs R, Bilic S, Kentsch K, Huet HA, Hofmann M et al. Unexpected hepatotoxicity in a phase I study of TAS266, a novel tetravalent agonistic Nanobody targeting the DR5 receptor. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015; 75: 887–895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98White AL, Chan HT, French RR, Willoughby J, Mockridge CI, Roghanian A et al. Conformation of the human immunoglobulin G2 hinge imparts superagonistic properties to immunostimulatory anticancer antibodies. Cancer Cell 2015; 27: 138–148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99Banner DW, D'Arcy A, Janes W, Gentz R, Schoenfeld HJ, Broger C et al. Crystal structure of the soluble human 55 kd TNF receptor-human TNF beta complex: implications for TNF receptor activation. Cell 1993; 73: 431–445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. 100Eck MJ, Sprang SR. The structure of tumor necrosis factor-alpha at 2.6 A resolution. Implications for receptor binding. J Biol Chem 1989; 264: 17595–17605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. 101Eck MJ, Ultsch M, Rinderknecht E, de Vos AM, Sprang SR. The structure of human lymphotoxin (tumor necrosis factor-beta) at 1.9-A resolution. J Biol Chem 1992; 267: 2119–2122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. 102Naismith JH, Devine TQ, Kohno T, Sprang SR. Structures of the extracellular domain of the type I tumor necrosis factor receptor. Structure 1996; 4: 1251–1262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. 103Naismith JH, Devine TQ, Brandhuber BJ, Sprang SR. Crystallographic evidence for dimerization of unliganded tumor necrosis factor receptor. J Biol Chem 1995; 270: 13303–13307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. 104Mukai Y, Nakamura T, Yoshikawa M, Yoshioka Y, Tsunoda S, Nakagawa S et al. Solution of the structure of the TNF-TNFR2 complex. Sci Signal 2010; 3: ra83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. 105Sudhamsu J, Yin J, Chiang EY, Starovasnik MA, Grogan JL, Hymowitz SG. Dimerization of LTbetaR by LTalpha1beta2 is necessary and sufficient for signal transduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110: 19896–19901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. 106Karpusas M, Hsu YM, Wang JH, Thompson J, Lederman S, Chess L et al. 2 A crystal structure of an extracellular fragment of human CD40 ligand. Structure 1995; 3: 1031–1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. 107An HJ, Kim YJ, Song DH, Park BS, Kim HM, Lee JD et al. Crystallographic and mutational analysis of the CD40-CD154 complex and its implications for receptor activation. J Biol Chem 2011; 286: 11226–11235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. 108Compaan DM, Hymowitz SG. The crystal structure of the costimulatory OX40-OX40L complex. Structure 2006; 14: 1321–1330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. 109Won EY, Cha K, Byun JS, Kim DU, Shin S, Ahn B et al. The structure of the trimer of human 4-1BB ligand is unique among members of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily. J Biol Chem 2010; 285: 9202–9210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110Hymowitz SG, O'Connell MP, Ultsch MH, Hurst A, Totpal K, Ashkenazi A et al. A unique zinc-binding site revealed by a high-resolution X-ray structure of homotrimeric Apo2L/TRAIL. Biochemistry 2000; 39: 633–640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111Cha SS, Kim MS, Choi YH, Sung BJ, Shin NK, Shin HC et al. 2.8 A resolution crystal structure of human TRAIL, a cytokine with selective antitumor activity. Immunity 1999; 11: 253–261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. 112Cha SS, Sung BJ, Kim YA, Song YL, Kim HJ, Kim S et al. Crystal structure of TRAIL-DR5 complex identifies a critical role of the unique frame insertion in conferring recognition specificity. J Biol Chem 2000; 275: 31171–31177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. 113Hymowitz SG, Christinger HW, Fuh G, Ultsch M, O'Connell M, Kelley RF et al. Triggering cell death: the crystal structure of Apo2L/TRAIL in a complex with death receptor 5. Mol Cell 1999; 4: 563–571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. 114Mongkolsapaya J, Grimes JM, Chen N, Xu XN, Stuart DI, Jones EY et al. Structure of the TRAIL-DR5 complex reveals mechanisms conferring specificity in apoptotic initiation. Nat Struct Biol 1999; 6: 1048–1053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. 115Lam J, Nelson CA, Ross FP, Teitelbaum SL, Fremont DH. Crystal structure of the TRANCE/RANKL cytokine reveals determinants of receptor-ligand specificity. J Clin Invest 2001; 108: 971–979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. 116Ito S, Wakabayashi K, Ubukata O, Hayashi S, Okada F, Hata T. Crystal structure of the extracellular domain of mouse RANK ligand at 2.2-A resolution. J Biol Chem 2002; 277: 6631–6636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. 117Liu C, Walter TS, Huang P, Zhang S, Zhu X, Wu Y et al. Structural and functional insights of RANKL-RANK interaction and signaling. J Immunol 2010; 184: 6910–6919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. 118Luan X, Lu Q, Jiang Y, Zhang S, Wang Q, Yuan H et al. Crystal structure of human RANKL complexed with its decoy receptor osteoprotegerin. J Immunol 2012; 189: 245–252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. 119Ta HM, Nguyen GT, Jin HM, Choi J, Park H, Kim N et al. Structure-based development of a receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor peptide and molecular basis for osteopetrosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107: 20281–20286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. 120Chattopadhyay K, Ramagopal UA, Nathenson SG, Almo SC. 1.8 A structure of murine GITR ligand dimer expressed in Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2009; 65: 434–439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. 121Chattopadhyay K, Ramagopal UA, Mukhopadhaya A, Malashkevich VN, Dilorenzo TP, Brenowitz M et al. Assembly and structural properties of glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor ligand: Implications for function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: 19452–19457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. 122Zhan C, Yan Q, Patskovsky Y, Li Z, Toro R, Meyer A et al. Biochemical and structural characterization of the human TL1A ectodomain. Biochemistry 2009; 48: 7636–7645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. 123Jin T, Guo F, Kim S, Howard A, Zhang YZ. X-ray crystal structure of TNF ligand family member TL1A at 2.1A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2007; 364: 1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. 124Zhan C, Patskovsky Y, Yan Q, Li Z, Ramagopal U, Cheng H et al. Decoy strategies: the structure of TL1A:DcR3 complex. Structure 2011; 19: 162–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. 125Liu W, Zhan C, Cheng H, Kumar PR, Bonanno JB, Nathenson SG et al. Mechanistic basis for functional promiscuity in the TNF and TNF receptor superfamilies: structure of the LIGHT:DcR3 assembly. Structure 2014; 22: 1252–1262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. 126Wallweber HJ, Compaan DM, Starovasnik MA, Hymowitz SG. The crystal structure of a proliferation-inducing ligand, APRIL. J Mol Biol 2004; 343: 283–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. 127Liu Y, Xu L, Opalka N, Kappler J, Shu HB, Zhang G. Crystal structure of sTALL-1 reveals a virus-like assembly of TNF family ligands. Cell 2002; 108: 383–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. 128Karpusas M, Cachero TG, Qian F, Boriack-Sjodin A, Mullen C, Strauch K et al. Crystal structure of extracellular human BAFF, a TNF family member that stimulates B lymphocytes. J Mol Biol 2002; 315: 1145–1154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. 129Oren DA, Li Y, Volovik Y, Morris TS, Dharia C, Das K et al. Structural basis of BLyS receptor recognition. Nat Struct Biol 2002; 9: 288–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. 130Gordon NC, Pan B, Hymowitz SG, Yin J, Kelley RF, Cochran AG et al. BAFF/BLyS receptor 3 comprises a minimal TNF receptor-like module that encodes a highly focused ligand-binding site. Biochemistry 2003; 42: 5977–5983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. 131Hymowitz SG, Patel DR, Wallweber HJ, Runyon S, Yan M, Yin J et al. Structures of APRIL-receptor complexes: like BCMA, TACI employs only a single cysteine-rich domain for high affinity ligand binding. J Biol Chem 2005; 280: 7218–7227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. 132Pellegrini M, Willen L, Perroud M, Krushinskie D, Strauch K, Cuervo H et al. Structure of the extracellular domains of human and Xenopus Fn14: implications in the evolution of TWEAK and Fn14 interactions. FEBS J 2013; 280: 1818–1829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. 133Liu Y, Hong X, Kappler J, Jiang L, Zhang R, Xu L et al. Ligand-receptor binding revealed by the TNF family member TALL-1. Nature 2003; 423: 49–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. 134Kim HM, Yu KS, Lee ME, Shin DR, Kim YS, Paik SG et al. Crystal structure of the BAFF-BAFF-R complex and its implications for receptor activation. Nat Struct Biol 2003; 10: 342–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. 135He F, Dang W, Saito K, Watanabe S, Kobayashi N, Guntert P et al. Solution structure of the cysteine-rich domain in Fn14, a member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily. Protein Sci 2009; 18: 650–656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. 136Hymowitz SG, Compaan DM, Yan M, Wallweber HJ, Dixit VM, Starovasnik MA et al. The crystal structures of EDA-A1 and EDA-A2: splice variants with distinct receptor specificity. Structure 2003; 11: 1513–1520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. 137Kuester M, Kemmerzehl S, Dahms SO, Roeser D, Than ME. The crystal structure of death receptor 6 (DR6): a potential receptor of the amyloid precursor protein (APP). J Mol Biol 2011; 409: 189–201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. 138Ru H, Zhao L, Ding W, Jiao L, Shaw N, Liang W et al. S-SAD phasing study of death receptor 6 and its solution conformation revealed by SAXS. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2012; 68: 521–530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. 139Gong Y, Cao P, Yu HJ, Jiang T. Crystal structure of the neurotrophin-3 and p75NTR symmetrical complex. Nature 2008; 454: 789–793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. 140Feng D, Kim T, Ozkan E, Light M, Torkin R, Teng KK et al. Molecular and structural insight into proNGF engagement of p75NTR and sortilin. J Mol Biol 2010; 396: 967–984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. 141He XL, Garcia KC. Structure of nerve growth factor complexed with the shared neurotrophin receptor p75. Science 2004; 304: 870–875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. 142Berg D, Lehne M, Muller N, Siegmund D, Munkel S, Sebald W et al. Enforced covalent trimerization increases the activity of the TNF ligand family members TRAIL and CD95L. Cell Death Differ 2007; 14: 2021–2034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. 143Berg D, Stuhmer T, Siegmund D, Muller N, Giner T, Dittrich-Breiholz O et al. Oligomerized tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis inducing ligand strongly induces cell death in myeloma cells, but also activates proinflammatory signaling pathways. FEBS J 2009; 276: 6912–6927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. 144Kelley RF, Totpal K, Lindstrom SH, Mathieu M, Billeci K, Deforge L et al. Receptor-selective mutants of apoptosis-inducing ligand 2/tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand reveal a greater contribution of death receptor (DR) 5 than DR4 to apoptosis signaling. J Biol Chem 2005; 280: 2205–2212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. 145Schneider P, Schwenzer R, Haas E, Muhlenbeck F, Schubert G, Scheurich P et al. TWEAK can induce cell death via endogenous TNF and TNF receptor 1. Eur J Immunol 1999; 29: 1785–1792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. 146Carmona Arana JA, Seher A, Neumann M, Lang I, Siegmund D, Wajant H. TNF Receptor-Associated Factor 1 is a Major Target of Soluble TWEAK. Front Immunol 2014; 5: 63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. 147Swee LK, Ingold-Salamin K, Tardivel A, Willen L, Gaide O, Favre M et al. Biological activity of ectodysplasin A is conditioned by its collagen and heparan sulfate proteoglycan-binding domains. J Biol Chem 2009; 284: 27567–27576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. 148Wyzgol A, Muller N, Fick A, Munkel S, Grigoleit GU, Pfizenmaier K et al. Trimer stabilization, oligomerization, and antibody-mediated cell surface immobilization improve the activity of soluble trimers of CD27L, CD40L, 41BBL, and glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor ligand. J Immunol 2009; 183: 1851–1861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. 149Muller N, Wyzgol A, Munkel S, Pfizenmaier K, Wajant H. Activity of soluble OX40 ligand is enhanced by oligomerization and cell surface immobilization. FEBS J 2008; 275: 2296–2304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. 150Holler N, Tardivel A, Kovacsovics-Bankowski M, Hertig S, Gaide O, Martinon F et al. Two adjacent trimeric Fas ligands are required for Fas signaling and formation of a death-inducing signaling complex. Mol Cell Biol 2003; 23: 1428–1440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. 151Gieffers C, Kluge M, Merz C, Sykora J, Thiemann M, Schaal R et al. APG350 induces superior clustering of TRAIL receptors and shows therapeutic antitumor efficacy independent of cross-linking via Fcgamma receptors. Mol Cancer Ther 2013; 12: 2735–2747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. 152Seifert O, Plappert A, Fellermeier S, Siegemund M, Pfizenmaier K, Kontermann RE. Tetravalent antibody-scTRAIL fusion proteins with improved properties. Mol Cancer Ther 2014; 13: 101–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. 153Rauert H, Wicovsky A, Muller N, Siegmund D, Spindler V, Waschke J et al. Membrane tumor necrosis factor (TNF) induces p100 processing via TNF receptor-2 (TNFR2). J Biol Chem 2010; 285: 7394–7404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. 154Haswell LE, Glennie MJ, Al-Shamkhani A. Analysis of the oligomeric requirement for signaling by CD40 using soluble multimeric forms of its ligand, CD154. Eur J Immunol 2001; 31: 3094–3100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  155. 155Stone GW, Barzee S, Snarsky V, Kee K, Spina CA, Yu XF et al. Multimeric soluble CD40 ligand and GITR ligand as adjuvants for human immunodeficiency virus DNA vaccines. J Virol 2006; 80: 1762–1772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. 156Kanagavelu S, Termini JM, Gupta S, Raffa FN, Fuller KA, Rivas Y et al. HIV-1 adenoviral vector vaccines expressing multi-trimeric BAFF and 4-1BBL enhance T cell mediated anti-viral immunity. PLoS One 2014; 9: e90100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. 157Kanagavelu SK, Snarsky V, Termini JM, Gupta S, Barzee S, Wright JA et al. Soluble multi-trimeric TNF superfamily ligand adjuvants enhance immune responses to a HIV-1 Gag DNA vaccine. Vaccine 2012; 30: 691–702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. 158Morris NP, Peters C, Montler R, Hu HM, Curti BD, Urba WJ et al. Development and characterization of recombinant human Fc:OX40L fusion protein linked via a coiled-coil trimerization domain. Mol Immunol 2007; 44: 3112–3121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. 159Sharma S, de Vries EG, Infante JR, Oldenhuis CN, Gietema JA, Yang L et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the DR5 antibody LBY135 alone and in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Invest New Drugs 2014; 32: 135–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  160. 160Luo Y, Lu Z, Raso SW, Entrican C, Tangarone B. Dimers and multimers of monoclonal IgG1 exhibit higher in vitro binding affinities to Fcgamma receptors. MAbs 2009; 1: 491–504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. 161Bruhns P, Iannascoli B, England P, Mancardi DA, Fernandez N, Jorieux S et al. Specificity and affinity of human Fcgamma receptors and their polymorphic variants for human IgG subclasses. Blood 2009; 113: 3716–3725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. 162Nimmerjahn F, Bruhns P, Horiuchi K, Ravetch JV. FcgammaRIV: a novel FcR with distinct IgG subclass specificity. Immunity 2005; 23: 41–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  163. 163Vafa O, Gilliland GL, Brezski RJ, Strake B, Wilkinson T, Lacy ER et al. An engineered Fc variant of an IgG eliminates all immune effector functions via structural perturbations. Methods 2014; 65: 114–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  164. 164White AL, Dou L, Chan HT, Field VL, Mockridge CI, Moss K et al. Fcgamma receptor dependency of agonistic CD40 antibody in lymphoma therapy can be overcome through antibody multimerization. J Immunol 2014; 193: 1828–1835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cell Death and Differentiation are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES