In vivo protection by antimicrobial neutralizing Abs can require the contribution of effector functions mediated by Fc-Fcγ receptor (Fc-FcγR) interactions for optimal efficacy. In influenza, broadly neutralizing anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) stalk mAbs require Fc-FcγR interactions to mediate in vivo protection, but strain-specific anti-HA head mAbs do not. Whether this rule applies only to anti-stalk Abs or is applicable to any broadly neutralizing Ab (bNAb) against influenza is unknown. Here, we characterized the contribution of Fc-FcγR interactions during in vivo protection for a panel of 13 anti-HA mAbs, including bNAbs and non-neutralizing Abs, against both the stalk and head domains. All classes of broadly binding anti-HA mAbs required Fc-FcγR interactions to provide protection in vivo, including those mAbs that bind the HA head and those that do not neutralize virus in vitro. Further, a broadly neutralizing anti-neuraminidase (anti-NA) mAb also required FcγRs to provide protection in vivo, but a strain-specific anti-NA mAb did not. Thus, these findings suggest that the breadth of reactivity of anti-influenza Abs, regardless of their epitope, necessitates interactions with FcγRs on effector cell populations to mediate in vivo protection. These findings will guide the design of antiviral Ab therapeutics and inform vaccine design to elicit Abs with optimal binding properties and effector functions.
David J. DiLillo, Peter Palese, Patrick C. Wilson, Jeffrey V. Ravetch
Usage data is cumulative from May 2023 through May 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 1,016 | 238 |
142 | 62 | |
Figure | 113 | 4 |
Table | 52 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 42 | 18 |
Citation downloads | 25 | 0 |
Totals | 1,390 | 322 |
Total Views | 1,712 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.