Always follow your funding opportunity's instructions for application format. Although this application 

demonstrates good grantsmanship, time has passed since the grantee applied. The samplemay not reflect 

the latest format or rules. NIAID posts new samples periodically: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grantscontracts/sample-applications

The text of the application is copyrighted. You may use it only for nonprofit educational purposes

provided the document remains unchanged and the PI, the grantee organization, and NIAID are

credited.

Note on Section 508 conformance and accessibility: We have reformatted these samples to 

improve accessibility for people with disabilities and users of assistive technology. If you have 

trouble accessingthe content, please contact the NIAID Office of Knowledge and Educational

Resources

at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov. 

PI: Meyer, Aaron Samuel Title: Mapping the effector response space of antibody combinations

Received: 02/01/2019 FOA: AI18-042 Council: 10/2019

Competition ID: FORMS-E FOA Title: Fc-Dependent Mechanisms of Antibody-Mediated Killing (U01 Clinical

Trial Not Allowed)

1 U01 AI148119-01 Dual: Accession Number: 4259985

IPF: 577505 Organization: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES

Former Number: Department: Bioengineering

IRG/SRG: ZAI1 SB-I (S1) AIDS: N Expedited: N

Subtotal Direct Costs Animals: Y New Investigator: N

(excludes consortium F&A) Humans: N Early Stage Investigator: N

Year 1: Clinical Trial: N 

Year 2: Current HS Code: 10

Year 3: HESC: N

Year 4:

Year 5:

Senior/Key Personnel: Organization: Role Category:

Aaron Meyer The Regents of the University of PD/PI 

California, Los Angeles

Falk Nimmerjahn Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen- MPI 

Nuremberg
Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 . Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00 Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

Page 1

OMB Number: 4040-0001

Expiration Date: 10/31/2019

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier

SF 424 (R&R)

1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION* 4.a. Federal Identifier

❍Pre-application ❍Application ●Changed/Corrected b. Agency Routing Number

Application

2. DATE SUBMITTED Application Identifier c. Previous Grants.gov Tracking Number

2019-02-01 GRANT12778592

5. APPLICANT INFORMATION Organizational DUNS*:

Legal Name*: The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

Department:

Division:

Street1*: Office of Contract and Grant Administration

Street2:

City*: Los Angeles

County: Los Angeles County

State*: CA: California

Province: 

Country*: USA: UNITED STATES 

ZIP / Postal Code*: 90095-1406

Person to be contacted on matters involving this application

Prefix: Mr. First Name*: Evan Middle Name: Last Name*: Garcia Suffix:

Position/Title: Grant Officer

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Los Angeles

County: Los Angeles County

State*: CA: California

Province: 

Country*: USA: UNITED STATES 

ZIP / Postal Code*: 90095-1406

Phone Number*: Fax Number: Email:

6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) or (TIN)* 

7. TYPE OF APPLICANT* H: Public/State Controlled Institution of Higher Education

Other (Specify):

Small Business Organization Type ❍Women Owned ❍Socially and Economically Disadvantaged

8. TYPE OF APPLICATION* If Revision, mark appropriate box(es).

● New ❍ Resubmission ❍A. Increase Award ❍B. Decrease Award ❍C. Increase Duration

❍Renewal ❍Continuation ❍Revision ❍D. Decrease Duration ❍E. Other (specify) :

Is this application being submitted to other agencies?* ❍Yes ●No What other Agencies?

9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY* 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER

National Institutes of Health TITLE:

11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT*

Mapping the effector response space of antibody combinations

12. PROPOSED PROJECT 13. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF APPLICANT

Start Date* Ending Date* CA-033

12/01/2019 11/30/2024
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 . Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00 Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

Page 2

SF 424 (R&R) APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE Page 2

14. PROJECT DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Prefix: First Name*: Aaron Middle Name: Last Name*: Meyer Suffix:

Position/Title: Assistant Professor 

Organization Name*: The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

Department: Bioengineering

Division:

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Los Angeles

County: Los Angeles County

State*: CA: California

Province: 

Country*: USA: UNITED STATES 

ZIP / Postal Code*: 90095-1406

Phone Number*: Fax Number: Email*:

15. ESTIMATED PROJECT FUNDING 16.IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?*

a. YES ❍ THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE

a. Total Federal Funds Requested* AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372

b. Total Non-Federal Funds* PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON:

c. Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds* DATE: 

d. Estimated Program Income* b. NO ● PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.O. 12372; OR

❍ PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR

REVIEW 

17. By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications* and (2) that the statements herein

are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances * and agree to comply with

any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to

criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001)

●I agree* * The list of certifications and assurances, or an Internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions.

18. SFLLL or OTHER EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTATION File Name:

19. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

Prefix: Mr. First Name*: Evan Middle Name: Last Name*: Garcia Suffix:

Position/Title*: Grant Officer

Organization Name*: The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

Department: Office of Contract & Grant Adm

Division:

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Los Angeles

County: Los Angeles County

State*: CA: California

Province: 

Country*: USA: UNITED STATES 

ZIP / Postal Code*: 90095-1406

Phone Number*: Fax Number: Email*:

Signature of Authorized Representative* Date Signed*

02/01/2019

20. PRE-APPLICATION File Name:

21. COVER LETTER ATTACHMENT File Name:20190201_U01_CoverLtr1053974464.pdf
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

424 R&R and PHS-398 Specific

Table Of Contents

SF 424 R&R Cover Page............................................................................................................. 1 

Table of Contents. ................................................................................................................... 3 

Performance Sites. ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Research & Related Other Project Information. ...................................................................... 5 

Project Summary/Abstract(Description)............................................................................... 6 

Project Narrative...................................................................................................................... 7 

Facilities & Other Resources. ................................................................................................ 8 

Equipment..............................................................................................................................11

Other Attachments. ...............................................................................................................14

Foreign_Justification1053818959. ...................................................................................14

Research & Related Senior/Key Person.................................................................................15

PHS398 Cover Page Supplement. ...........................................................................................26

PHS 398 Modular Budget. ........................................................................................................28

Personnel Justification.........................................................................................................34

Consortium Justification......................................................................................................35

Additional Narrative Justification........................................................................................36

PHS 398 Research Plan............................................................................................................37

Specific Aims.........................................................................................................................38

Research Strategy.................................................................................................................39

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information.......................................................51

Vertebrate Animals................................................................................................................52

Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan............................................................................................54

Bibliography & References Cited. .......................................................................................55

Consortium/Contractual Arrangements..............................................................................58

Resource Sharing Plan(s).....................................................................................................59

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources........................................ 60

Table of Contents Page 3
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron OMB Number: 4040-0010

Project/Performance Site Location(s)

Project/Performance Site Primary Location ❍I am submitting an application as an individual, and not on behalf of

a company, state, local or tribal government, academia, or other type of

organization.

The Regents of the University of California, Los Organization Name: Angele

Duns Number:

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Los Angeles

County: Los Angeles

State*: CA: California

Province: 

Country*: USA: UNITED STATES

Zip / Postal Code*: 90095-1600

Project/Performance Site Congressional District*: CA-033

Project/Performance Site Location 1 ❍I am submitting an application as an individual, and not on behalf of

a company, state, local or tribal government, academia, or other type of

organization.

Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen- Organization Name: Nurember

DUNS Number:

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Erlangen

County:

State*:

Province: 

Country*: DEU: GERMANY

Zip / Postal Code*: 91058-0000

Project/Performance Site Congressional District*: 00-000

Additional Location(s) File Name:

Expiration Date: 10/31/2019

Page 4

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839 Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

RESEARCH & RELATED Other Project Information

1. Are Human Subjects Involved?* ❍ Yes ● No

1.a. If YES to Human Subjects

Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations? ❍ Yes ❍ No

If YES, check appropriate exemption number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 If 

NO, is the IRB review Pending? ❍ Yes ❍ No

IRB Approval Date:

Human Subject Assurance Number

2. Are Vertebrate Animals Used?* ● Yes ❍ No

2.a. If YES to Vertebrate Animals

Is the IACUC review Pending? ● Yes ❍ No

IACUC Approval Date:

Animal Welfare Assurance Number

3. Is proprietary/privileged information included in the application?* ❍ Yes ● No

4.a. Does this project have an actual or potential impact - positive or negative - on the environment?* ❍ Yes ● No

4.b. If yes, please explain:

4.c. If this project has an actual or potential impact on the environment, has an exemption been authorized or an ❍ Yes ❍ No

environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) been performed?

4.d. If yes, please explain:

5. Is the research performance site designated, or eligible to be designated, as a historic place?* ❍ Yes ● No

5.a. If yes, please explain:

6. Does this project involve activities outside the United States or partnership with international ● Yes ❍ No

collaborators?*

6.a. If yes, identify countries: Germany

6.b. Optional Explanation:

Filename

7. Project Summary/Abstract* project_summary1053974458.pdf

8. Project Narrative* project_narrative1053974455.pdf

9. Bibliography & References Cited Bibliography1053818961.pdf

10.Facilities & Other Resources FacilitiesResources1053974637.pdf

11.Equipment MajorEquipment1053974639.pdf

12. Other Attachments Foreign_Justification1053818959.pdf

OMB Number: 4040-0001

Expiration Date: 10/31/2019

Page 5

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839 Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Antibodies are crucial, central regulators of the immune response. They are particularly versatile

therapeutic agents due to their ability to both bind to a target with high affinity and direct the

immune system. Indeed, antibodies comprise a broad range of approved therapies across

disease indications, many of which are known to rely in large part on effector cell (immune)

response. Antibodies of the IgG isotype interact with FcγRs on effector cells and elicit effector

function through multiple cell types (e.g., macrophages, monocytes) and through multiple

processes, including phagocytosis and killing of diseased cells. The many possible design

parameters—constant region composition, FcγRs, cell populations, and antigen binding in

combination—have made precisely understanding, measuring, and manipulating effector

function an elusive goal. Our proposed work is centered around the hypothesis that two IgGs

can elicit distinct responses when present in combination from what would be suggested by the

response to either on its own. Using a computational model of antibody-FcγR interaction, we will

identify predicted cases of this emergent behavior. These combinations will be tested for their

binding and effector response in vitro and then in two models of antibody-targeted cell killing.

Finally, we will use the computational model of effector regulation to map how human and

mouse IgGs are related according to their effector response. In total, these efforts will provide

critical information for designing more effective antibodies with the goal of targeted cell killing

and provide a clearer view of how existing therapeutic antibodies function.

Project Summary/Abstract

Page 6
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Antibodies, especially those of the IgG type, are central to immunity and comprise a

wide class of biologic therapies. In addition to binding an antigen target, IgG antibodies

direct the response of immune cells through Fc-gamma receptor binding. This project

aims to better understand how antibodies influence the behavior of one another in target

cell killing when present together.

Project Narrative

Page 7
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 8

Facilities & Other Resources

FACILITIES & OTHER RESOURCES – UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

Laboratory: Dr. Meyer’slab occupies dedicated laboratory space Engineering V (EV).

EV opened in Fall of 2007 and provides a state-of-the-art research home for the Department of Bioengineering

faculty members and their labs. Dr. Meyer is allotted over 800 square feet of space including laboratory and

shared research support space. A portion of this (200 sq ft) is a dedicated, positive-pressure cell culture room.

This space includes access to air/gas and vacuum connections at both the bench and hood locations, internal

deionized water systems, and appropriately scaled HVAC and electrical service. Recent renovations (2017)

have ensured it is specifically tailored to the work proposed here. The lab space is within close proximity to

shared resources, conference room space, and office space.

Computational: Dr. Meyer has two computers: (1) a Mac Pro located in his office (Mac OS), and (2) a

MacBook Pro laptop (Mac OS). Each technician and student is equipped with a similar laptop. The University

provides a subscription to Zoom Meeting telecommunication software for remote meetings and provides

all campus members with unlimited storage versioned and stored off-site through the Box service. The

engineering school provides all faculty, students, and staff with access to software development tools, office

software, and statistical software for common and specialized needs (e.g. MATLAB). The Meyer lab maintains

two high-performance, 32-core servers for computationally intensive jobs. For long-term storage, the lab

maintains a network attached storage server (Synology) with 4TB of space. In addition, the Hoffman2 cluster

on campus provides support for larger computational tasks with 13,340 cores and over 50TB of memory. All

computers in the Meyer lab are automatically and continually backed up to off-site storage. The combination

of these information technologies contributes to efficient data handling and optimal communication among

members of the research team.

Office: As a faculty member of the Bioengineering Department within the Samueli School Of Engineering,

Dr. Meyer has an office one floor away from his laboratory. It is equipped with desk, task chairs, two 4-drawer

filing cabinets, and hardwired high-speed access. His lab members have access to dedicated, separate office

space in the lab’s own room for writing and study. The students’/ technician’s shared office space has similar

access and is equipped with four individual desks, four task chairs, and five 2-drawer filing cabinets. There is

also access to the internet through the University’s wireless network. These facilities ensure that Dr. Meyer

and his immediate research team will have the necessary space in which to formulate experiments, analyze

results, and prepare manuscripts for publication.

Institutional Support: Full administrative support is provided by the engineering school. This includes staff

individually dedicated to funds management, student advisement, purchasing, and facilities maintenance.

Intellectual Rapport: The academic structure is founded on an interdisciplinary ethic. There are many

opportunities to meet, hear about, and discuss research, including the Bioengineering seminar series, the

Bioinformatics seminar series, the Stem Cell Center meetings, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center

speaker series and discussion meetings, and the QCBio (Institute for Quantitative and Computational Biology)

seminar series. The Meyer lab additionally participates in a regular joint meeting with the labs of Alex Hoffman

(Immunology) and Roy Wollman (Biological Chemistry) on modeling and microscopy.

All members of the Meyer lab receive regular feedback and career planning formalized through individualized

development plans and annual reviews. Additionally, graduate students are assigned a thesis committee that

helps to provide independent mentorship and career planning advice.

Shared Resources:

As a member of the Jonsson Cancer Center and the Broad Stem Cell Center, Dr. Meyer has access to

extensive resources within the core facilities including flow cytometry, genomics, molecular screening, small

animal imaging, translational pathology, high-throughput sequencing, imaging, and biostatistics. These

services are available to members of the centers at a subsidized rate. Particularly relevant to the work
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 9

Facilities & Other Resources

proposed here:

The Advanced Light Microscopy/ Spectroscopy Core is housed within the California NanoSystems Institute

and provides consultation, services, and support for the application of novel spectroscopic methods and

advanced image analysis techniques for the study of macromolecules, cellular dynamics and nanoscale

characterization of bio-materials.

The Janis V. Giorgi Flow Cytometry Core Laboratory is a part of the UCLA medical school and offers

consultation, services, and support for flow analysis and sorting. As a member of the Jonsson Comprehensive

Cancer Center, the Meyer lab receives a discounted rate on all services.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 10

Facilities & Other Resources

Program Director/Principal Investigator (Last, First, Middle):

Facility and RESOURCES

Laboratory:

Dr. Nimmerjahn has a ~4,000 sq. ft. laboratory at the Institute of Genetics at the Friedrich-Alexander University

Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), as well as in house core facilities for FACS analysis, cell sorting and mouse housing. The

spaces include three wet labs, tissue culture facilities, cold room, imaging laboratory, and office space for all staff.

Clinical: N/A

Biocontainment: N/A. All work done at the Institute of Genetics will involve recombinant proteins and tissue derived from

mice. The Nimmerjahn laboratory is equipped for BSL-1 and -2 studies for lentiviral infection of human cells and

maintenance of human BSL2 cell lines.

Animal:

The Institute of Genetics has a 6000sq. ft. animal facility to house up to 6000 animals in IVC cages or under full barrier

conditions. The animal facility is maintained by professional animal technicians and also contains procedure rooms to

bleed mice and recover mouse organs.

Computer:

The laboratory has ~10 high-end Macintosh and windows workstations. For additional data processing, we have access

to the supercomputing cluster of the technical faculty at the University.

Office:

The P.I. and administrative staff have enclosed office space. Two half-time administrative assistants provide

administrative support.

Other:

Other close collaborations and interchanges exist with > 30 immunology and 15 molecular biology faculty at FAU with

expertise in human and mouse immunology (incl. cancer immunology, neuroimmunology, cancer immunology), cell

biology (stem cell biology, cancer biology, development, virology, microbiology), x-ray crystallography and electron

microscopy.

SCIENTIFIC ENVIRONMENT: Contribution to the probability of success.

The laboratory of Dr. Nimmerjahn is able to produce and purify antibodies and recombinant proteins at large scale,

perform functional tests in tissue culture and in animal models systems. The laboratory houses two refrigerated

shakers, four tissue culture incubators, four biological hoods, microscopes, 3 PCR machines, cold room, water purifier,

fume hood, five -86°C and five -20°C freezers, and an automatic refill liquid nitrogen storage freezer. For protein

purification and analysis, the laboratory has two ATKApure and FPLC systems, multiple electrophoresis and blotting

apparatuses, low and high speed chromatography pumps, a UV/Vis spectrophotometer, a UV/kinetics plate reader, and

low speed and high speed Beckman centrifuges. A BiaCore to measure binding affinities and kinetics is shared with the

Department of Chemistry at the FAU.

SPECIAL FACILITIES: Describe facilities used for working with biohazard, or other dangerous substances. N/A

PHS 398 (Rev. 01/18 Approved Through 03/31/2020) OMB No. 0925-0001

Page Resources Format Page
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 11

Equipment

EQUIPMENT - UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

Meyer Laboratory — The laboratory is equipped all necessary equipment for performing the proposed work,

including:

• Multiple electrophoresis units

• Thermocycler

• Swing-bucket centrifuge

• Fixed-angle high-speed centrifuge

• Two microfuges

• Two bacterial shakers and incubators

• Photographic equipment for documentation of gels and microscopy

• Refrigerators

• Standard freezers

• One –80°C freezer

• NanoDrop spectrophotometer

Cell culture facilities (biological safety cabinets, incubators, microscopes, assorted other equipment) are

all contained in a tissue culture room exclusive to the Meyer lab. Included in the Meyer lab’s cell culture

facility in one of the Meyer lab incubators is an Incucyte Zoom live-cell imaging system. This system provides

real-time monitoring of cells in culture and is equipped with software and hardware for automated cell migration,

proliferation, and apoptosis assays.

In addition, there is extensive shared equipment and services available across the UCLA campus. As a

member of the Jonsson Cancer Center and the Broad Stem Cell Center, Dr. Meyer has access to extensive

resources within the core facilities including flow cytometry, genomics, molecular screening, small animal

imaging, translational pathology, high-throughput sequencing, imaging, and biostatistics. These services are

available to members of the centers at a subsidized rate.

Common Equipment

• Dynamic light scattering analyzer

• Backup freezers

• Milli-Q water

• Ice machine

• Spectrophotometer

• Plate reader: 96 & 384 well, Multimode (UV/VIS/IR/Luminescence/Fluorescence)

• Centrifuges

• Autoclave

Shared Core Equipment

Advanced Light Microscopy/ Spectroscopy Core

The Advanced Light Microscopy/ Spectroscopy Core is housed within the California NanoSystems Institute and

provides consultation, services and support for the application of novel spectroscopic methods and advanced

image analysis techniques for the study of macromolecules, cellular dynamics and nanoscale characterization

of bio-materials.

• Confocal SP8-SMD
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 12

Equipment

• Confocal SP8 Compact

• Confocal SP5 Blue

• Confocal SP5 STED

• Confocal SP2 MP-FLIM

• Confocal microALEX-FCS

• Wide-Field CCD Microinjection Inverted

• Wide-Field NUANCE Microinjection Upright

• Wide-Field CCD IN SITU Upright

• In vivo Maestro 2

• Leica LMD7000

• Leica RM2235 Rotary Microtome

• Leica M205 FA Fluorescence Stereomicroscope

• Dissection Microscope and Microinjector

• DMIL Microscope with SPOT Camera

• SP8 Analysis Workstation

Flow Cytometry Core

The Janis V. Giorgi Flow Cytometry Core Laboratory is a part of the UCLA medical school and offers

consultation, services and support for flow analysis and sorting. As a member of the Jonsson Comprehensive

Cancer Center the Meyer lab receives a discounted rate on all services.

• LSRFortessa X-20 SORP

• SORP BD LSRII Analytic Flow Cytometer

• SORP BD HTLSRII Analytic Flow Cytometer

• SORP BD LSRII (IMED) Analytic Flow Cytometer

• ImageStreamx MarkII Imaging Flow Cytometer

• Helios (a CyTOF system) Mass Cytometer

• FACSAriaIII High-Speed Cell Sorter contained in a BioProtect IV class II biosafety cabinet

• FACSAria I (II) High-Speed Cell Sorter

• SORP FACSAriaII High-Speed Cell Sorter

• RoboSep Magnetic Cell Separator

Information Technology

• The engineering school provides all faculty, students, and staff with access to software development

tools, office software, and statistical software for common and specialized needs (e.g. MATLAB).

• UCLA provides all campus members with unlimited storage versioned and stored off-site through the

Box service.

• The Meyer lab maintains two high-performance, 32-core servers for computationally intensive jobs. In

addition, the Hoffman2 cluster on campus provides support for larger computational tasks with 13,340

cores and over 50TB of memory.

• All computers in the Meyer lab are automatically and continually backed up to off-site storage.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 13

Equipment

EQUIPMENT RESOURCES

The Institute of Genetics at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg: Falk

Nimmerjahn

The Institute of Genetics is equipped with state of the art laboratories and animal housing facilities for

performing immunological and molecular biology research at the highest standard. The Insitute has three

different FACS analyzers and one BD FACS Aria III cell sorter to isolate cell populations from mouse and

human blood and different mouse organs. Furthermore an ADVIA Heamtology system (Siemens) allows to

determine celluar changes in mouse and human blood and serum samples without the need for staining with

fluorescently labeled antibodies. For histology, standard cryotomes and microtomes are available to perform

immunohistochemical and immunofluorescent analysis. Biosafety level I and II tissue culture facilities are

available to study mouse and human cells of patients. Moreover, HPLC and FPLC machines for antibody

characterization and purification are available. The animal facility can house up to 6000 mice in a full barrier

or IVC facility.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Foreign Site Justification

Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and the Nimmerjahn lab

specifically are included in this proposal because they bring unique and vital,

internationally-recognized expertise in the immunology of effector cell responses to IgG

antibodies. Prof. Nimmerjahn’s expertise extends to the experimental methods and

reagents used throughout both Aim 1 and 3, the in vivo models used to validate the

computational predictions within the project, and input regarding integration of the

computational and experimental efforts. His participation is essential to effective

execution of this project and will help to ensure the success of this proposal’s important

goal understanding how antibodies operate to direct target cell killing when present in

combination. By accomplishing this goal, including FAU furthers the goals of the NIH

more effectively than domestic alternatives.

Foreign_Justification1053818959

Page 14
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron OMB Number: 4040-0001

Page 15

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 . Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00 Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

RESEARCH & RELATED Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded)

PROFILE - Project Director/Principal Investigator

Prefix: First Name*: Aaron Middle Name Last Name*: Meyer Suffix:

Position/Title*: Assistant Professor

Organization Name*: The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

Department: Bioengineering

Division:

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Los Angeles

County: Los Angeles County

State*: CA: California

Province: 

Country*: USA: UNITED STATES

Zip / Postal Code*: 90095-1406

Phone Number*: Fax Number:

E-Mail*:

Credential, e.g., agency login:

Project Role*: PD/PI Other Project Role Category:

Degree Type: Degree Year: 

Attach Biographical Sketch*: File Name: biosketch_meyer1053818960.pdf

Attach Current & Pending Support: File Name:

Expiration Date: 10/31/2019
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 16

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 . Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00 Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PROFILE - Senior/Key Person

Prefix: Dr. First Name*: Falk Middle Name Last Name*: Nimmerjahn Suffix:

Position/Title*: Professor - Chair of Genetics

Organization Name*: Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg

Department: Biology

Division:

Street1*:

Street2:

City*: Erlangen

County:

State*:

Province: 

Country*: DEU: GERMANY

Zip / Postal Code*: 91058-0000

Phone Number*: Fax Number:

E-Mail*:

Credential, e.g., agency login: FNIMMERJ

Project Role*: PD/PI Other Project Role Category:

Degree Type: Degree Year: 

Attach Biographical Sketch*: File Name: Biosketch_Nimmerjahn_20191054050156.pdf

Attach Current & Pending Support: File Name:
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 17

Biosketches

OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 09/17 Approved Through 03/31/2020)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

NAME: Aaron Samuel Meyer

eRA COMMONS USER NAME:

POSITION TITLE: Assistant Professor of Bioengineering

EDUCATION/TRAINING

INSTITUTION AND LOCATION DEGREE Completion Date FIELD OF STUDY

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) B.S. 6/2009 Bioengineering

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ph.D. 6/2014 Biological Engineering

A. Personal Statement

I have a background in biological engineering, with training in applied machine learning, cell signaling, and

cancer. My research broadly applies integrated experimental and theoretical approaches to understanding

the complex signaling that underlies tumor-immune communication and resistance to therapies. My lab is

particularly interested in how cues operate in combination within the tumor microenvironment to direct cancer

and immune effector cell behavior and how we might optimally target dysregulation. For example, my previous

work has shown how (1) IgG antibody effector function is transduced through multiple receptors and effector

cells, (2) an RTK family expressed in cancer and innate immune cells is activated in response to extracellular

cues in the tumor microenvironment, (3) bypass resistance to therapy operates through coordinated pathway

activation, and (4) receptor crosstalk is a mechanism of signal diversification promoting breast tumor invasion.

I have extensive experience with collaborative projects involving multiple labs such as in the work proposed

here and have a track record of success mentoring graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and technical

associates.

1. Robinett, R.A., N. Guan, A. Lux, M. Biburger, F. Nimmerjahn, A.S. Meyer. (2018). “Dissecting FcγR 

Regulation Through a Multivalent Binding Model.” Cell Systems. 2018 July 25; 6(7): 1–8.

2. Meyer, A.S.†, A.J.M. Zweemer, D.A. Lauffenburger†. (2015). The AXL Receptor Is a Sensor of Ligand

Spatial Heterogeneity. Cell Systems, 1(1):25–36. PMCID: 4520549.

3. Manole, S., E.J. Richards, A.S. Meyer. (2016). JNK pathway activation modulates acquired resistance

to EGFR/HER2 targeted therapies. Cancer Research. Sept 15; 76 (18): 5219-5228. PMCID: 5026573.

4. Meyer, A.S., M.A. Miller, F.B. Gertler, D.A. Lauffenburger. (2013). The receptor AXL diversifies EGFR

signaling and limits the response to EGFR-targeted inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer cells.

Science Signaling, 6(287), ra66. PMCID: 3947921.

†

Co-corresponding authors.

B. Positions and Honors

Positions and Employment

2006–2009 Undergraduate Researcher, Bioengineering Department, UCLA

2008 Summer intern, Bioprocess Development Division, Schering-Plough Corporation, Watchung, NJ

2009–2014 Graduate Researcher, Department of Biological Engineering, MIT

2014–2017 Principal Investigator/Research Fellow, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, MIT
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 18

Biosketches

2017–Present Assistant Professor, Bioengineering Department, UCLA

Other Experience and Professional Memberships

2010–2012 Member, MIT Biological Engineering Retreat Organizing Committee2010–

2013 Coordinator, MIT Biological Engineering Graduate Student Board 2010–Present

Member, Biomedical Engineering Society

2014–2017 Committee Member, Association of Early Career Cancer Systems Biologists

2015–Present Organizer, Systems Approaches to Cancer Biology meeting 2017–

Present Chair, Association of Early Career Cancer Systems Biologists

Honors

2009 Momenta Presidential Fellowship, MIT

2009 Graduate Research Fellowship, National Science Foundation

2010 Breast Cancer Research Predoctoral Fellowship, Department of Defense

2012 Repligen Fellowship in Cancer Research, Koch Institute

2012 Travel grant to attend PTMs in Cell Signaling Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark

2013 Whitaker Fellowship, MIT

2013 Siebel Scholar, Class of 2014

2016 Ten to Watch, Amgen Scholars Foundation

2016–2017 Fellowship, Terri Brodeur Breast Cancer Foundation

C. Contribution to Science

Understanding and targeting receptor family communication

Often receptor families have many ligands and receptors while being expressed across many cell populations.

This multi-layered multiplicity confounds intuition about how these receptors are regulated in homeostasis,

dysregulated in disease, and might be targeted with therapies. Through a combination of modeling and

experiment, we have been working to develop the tools enabling improved understanding of these families’

regulation and how best to target them. Within the FcγR family, which enacts effector function in response to

IgG antibodies, we recently showed that a multivalent binding model could predict effector function in vivo

better than previously-used metrics, which will enable more potent anti-tumor antibodies (1). Within the TAM

family of receptor tyrosine kinases, we identified that AXL can be transactivated from ErbB receptors and that

this transactivation drives the invasiveness of breast carcinoma cells more so than the signaling from the ErbB

receptors themselves (3). We then developed a kinetic model of AXL activation, mechanistically explaining

the dependence of the receptor upon phosphatidylserine for activation (2, 4). This basic understanding of

TAM and FcγR signaling enables more rationally designed therapies and understanding of which factors in the

tumor microenvironment drive activation.

1. Robinett, R.A., N. Guan, A. Lux, M. Biburger, F. Nimmerjahn, A.S. Meyer. (2018). “Dissecting FcγR 

Regulation Through a Multivalent Binding Model.” Cell Systems. 2018 July 25; 6(7): 1–8.

2. Meyer, A.S.†, A.J.M. Zweemer, D.A. Lauffenburger†. (2015). The AXL Receptor Is a Sensor of Ligand

Spatial Heterogeneity. Cell Systems, 1(1):25–36. PMCID: 4520549.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 19

Biosketches

3. Meyer, A.S., M.A. Miller, F.B. Gertler, D.A. Lauffenburger. (2013). The receptor AXL diversifies EGFR

signaling and limits the response to EGFR-targeted inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer cells.

Science Signaling, 6(287), ra66. PMCID: 3947921.

4. Zweemer, A., C.B. French, J. Mesfin, S. Gordonov, A.S. Meyer, and D.A. Lauffenburger. (2017).

Apoptotic Bodies Elicit Gas6-mediated Migration of AXL-expressing Tumor Cells. Molecular Cancer

Research. 2017 Dec; 15(12): 1656–1666. PMCID: 5957761.

†

Co-corresponding authors.

Therapeutic resistance and design

The benefits cancer patients derive from targeted therapies are limited by genetic and non-genetic mechanisms

of resistance. This is in part due to an incomplete understanding of the many compensatory molecular changes

that occur when one treats with a therapy. In (1) we explored a panel of resistance mechanisms to RTK

inhibitors, showed that coordinate JNK/Erk/Akt measurement was essential to predict cellular response, and

showed that the resistance mechanism’s effects could be explained through their effects on these pathways.

In (3) we showed that a complication of targeting autocrine growth factor signaling is the length-scales on

which ligand release and recapture occur. Through a diffusion reaction model, we instead predicted and

showed that inhibiting ligand release through protease inhibition is much more effective. In (2), we showed

that a common consequence of kinase inhibitors is reduced proteolytic shedding on the cell surface. This

change switches the kinase dependence of cells, in turn driving resistance to therapy (in large part via AXL).

These results highlight the complexity underlying targeted inhibitor response and demonstrate methods to

understand and overcome it.

1. Manole, S., E.J. Richards, A.S. Meyer. JNK pathway activation modulates acquired resistance to

EGFR/HER2 targeted therapies. Cancer Research. 2016 Sept 15; 76 (18): 5219-5228. PMCID:

5026573.

2. Miller, M.A., M.J. Oudin, R.J. Sullivan, S.J. Wang, A.S. Meyer, H. Im, D.T. Frederick, J. Tadros, L.G.

Griffith, H. Lee, R. Weissleder, K.T. Flaherty, F.B. Gertler, D.A. Lauffenburger. (2016). Reduced

Proteolytic Shedding of Receptor Tyrosine Kinases is a Post-Translational Mechanism of Kinase Inhibitor

Resistance. Cancer Discovery, 6(4):331–333, April 2016. PMCID: 5087317.

3. M.A. Miller, M.L. Moss, G. Powell, R. Petrovich, L. Edwards, A.S. Meyer, Linda G. Griffith, D.A. Lauffenburger. Targeting autocrine HB-EGF signaling with specific ADAM12 inhibition using recombinant

ADAM12 prodomain. Scientific Reports, 5:15150 EP –, October 2015. PMCID: 4609913.

4. Schwartz, A.D., L.E. Barney, L.E. Jansen, T.V. Nguyen, C.L. Hall, A.S. Meyer, S. Peyton. (2017).

A Biomaterial Screening Approach to Reveal Microenvironmental Mechanisms of Drug Resistance.

Integrative Biology. 2017 Dec 11;9(12):912-924. PMCID: PMC5725273.

Migration and metastasis mechanisms

Invasion and dissemination of cells underlie many diseases including breast cancer. Studying these processes

is challenging due to their complex regulation and the multiple biophysical steps involved. In earlier work, we

quantified the growth factor responsiveness of cell migration overall and individual processes involved in cell

migration, then compared them to 3D invasion through extracellular matrix (1). This identified that these same 

individual processes still regulated migration in 3D, but that the overall rate-limiting steps and thus migration

response were different. By studying the signaling (3) and protease (2) regulation of migration, we then linked

these processes to the invasive response to identify therapeutic approaches.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 20

Biosketches

1. Meyer, A.S., S.K. Hughes-Alford, J.E. Kay, A. Castillo, A. Wells, F.B. Gertler, D.A. Lauffenburger (2012).

2D protrusion but not motility predicts growth factor-induced cancer cell migration in 3D collagen. Journal

of Cell Biology, 197(6), 721-729. PMCID: 3373410.

2. Miller, M.A.‡, A.S. Meyer‡, M. Beste, Z. Lasisi, S. Reddy, Jeng, K., Chen, C.-H., Han, J., Isaacson, K.,

Griffith, L.G., Lauffenburger, D.A. (2013). ADAM-10 and -17 regulate endometriotic cell migration via

concerted ligand and receptor shedding feedback on kinase signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 

110(22), E2074-E2083. PMCID: 3670354.

3. Kim, H.D., Meyer, A.S., Wagner, J.P., Alford, S.K., Wells, A., Gertler, F.B., Lauffenburger, D.A. (2011).

Signaling network state predicts Twist-mediated effects on breast cell migration across diverse growth

factor contexts. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 10(11), M111.008433. PMCID: 3226401.

4. Riquelme, D.N., A.S. Meyer, M. Barzik, A. Keating, F.B. Gertler. (2015). Selectivity in Subunit Composition of Ena/VASP Tetramers. Bioscience Reports, 2015. PMCID: 4721544.

‡

Equal contribution.

Complete List of Published Work in My Bibliography: http://1.usa.gov/1So8BFr

D. Research Support

Ongoing Research Support

NIH U01-CA215709 9/01/2017 – 8/30/2022

Precision Lung Cancer Therapy Design Through Multiplexed Adapter Measurement

We propose to develop a global picture of bypass resistance mediated by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs)

not targeted by therapy. By examining multiple RTKs variable in their resistance-promoting capacity at once,

we will be able to determine features essential to the development of resistance. Examining receptor-proximal

interactions, we will identify causally-important interactions that can be measured to identify which receptors

are directing resistance.

Role: Co-PI

7/1/2017 – 6/30/2019

This project aims to use a computational model to direct design of new inhibitors for the TAM receptors. Using

these well-characterized compounds, we will examine the in vivo effects of inhibiting different TAM receptor

complements.

Role: PI

NIH DP5-OD019815 9/22/2014 – 9/1/2019

Adapter-Layer RTK Signaling: Basic Understanding & Targeted Drug Resistance

The goal of this project is to study sets of resistance mechanisms to RTK-targeted therapies, in order to

identify commonalities and ways to determine which mechanism may be driving individual tumors.

Role: PI
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 21

Biosketches

Completed Research Support

6/1/2015 – 6/1/2016

Quantitative and Multiplexed Tools for Probing G-Protein Coupled Receptor Activation

The goal of this project was to develop a novel multiplexed G-protein activation assay able to globally assess 

their activity.

Role: Co-PI
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 22

Biosketches

 OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 09/17 Approved Through 03/31/2020)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

DO NOT EXCEED FIVE PAGES. 

NAME: Nimmerjahn, Falk

eRA COMMONS USER NAME (credential, e.g., agency login):

POSITION TITLE: Full Professor of Immunology and Chairman of the Institute of Genetics

EDUCATION/TRAINING (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education, such as nursing,

include postdoctoral training and residency training if applicable. Add/delete rows as necessary.)

Completion INSTITUTION AND LOCATION DEGREE FIELD OF STUDY

(if applicable) Date

MM/YYYY

Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen- Diploma 05-1998 Immunology, genetics

Nuremberg, Germany (Master)

Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich PhD 05-2002 Tumor immunology

National Research Center for Environment and scientist 05-2004 Immunology, Virology

Health (GSF), Munich, Germany

The Rockefeller University, New York, USA Postdoc 08-2007 Immunology,

autoimmunity

A. Personal Statement

I have a long standing research interest in the mechanisms underlying antibody activity. We were one of the

first groups showing how IgG subclasses and IgG glycovariants not only modulate the pro- but also the antiinflammatory activity of IgG (1, 2). Moreover, our work on how different mouse and human IgG subclasses are

glycosylated and how they mediate their activity in glycosylation dependent and independent ways may be of

major relevance for polyclonal and complex antibody responses induced by bacterial or viral infections (3, 4).

Thus, I feel confident that my area of expertise will be of considerable value in this project.

1) Seeling, M., Bruckner, C., and Nimmerjahn, F. (2017). Differential antibody glycosylation in autoimmunity:

sweet biomarker or modulator of disease activity? Nat Rev Rheumatol 13, 621-630.10.1038/nrrheum.2017.146

2) Nimmerjahn, F., and Ravetch, J.V. (2005). Divergent immunoglobulin G subclass activity through selective 

Fc receptor binding. Science 310, 1510-1512.

3) Kao, D., Danzer, H., Collin, M., Gross, A., Eichler, J., Stambuk, J., Lauc, G., Lux, A., and Nimmerjahn, F.

(2015). A Monosaccharide Residue Is Sufficient to Maintain Mouse and Human IgG Subclass Activity and

Directs IgG Effector Functions to Cellular Fc Receptors. Cell Rep 13, 2376- 

2385.10.1016/j.celrep.2015.11.0276)

4) Schwab, I., Lux, A., and Nimmerjahn, F. (2015). Pathways Responsible for Human Autoantibody and

Therapeutic Intravenous IgG Activity in Humanized Mice. Cell Rep 13, 610-620.

B. Positions and Honors

Positions and Employment

Positions

2007-2010: Associate professor of immunology, Medical Department 3, University of ErlangenNuremberg, Germany

Since 2010: Full professor and chairman, Institute of Genetics, Department of Biology, University of

Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Since 2017: Head of the Department of Biology at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Fellowships

2005-2007 Fellow of the Cancer Research Institute, New York
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 23

Biosketches

OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 09/17 Approved Through 03/31/2020)

2007-2012 Fellow of the Bavarian Genome Research Network

Since 2006 Fellow of the German Society of Immunology

Since 2009 Fellow of the Henry G. Kunkel society, New York

Since 2016 Member of the American Association of Immunologists (AAI)

Other Experience and Professional Memberships

2003 Ph.D. award, Helmholtz Centre Munich and Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich for the best Ph.D.

thesis in immunology and molecular biology

2008 Excellence in research award from the European Macrophage and Dendritic Cell society

2008 Pro-Scientia award of the Eckhart Buddecke foundation

2009 Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstädter award

C. Contribution to Science

1. My group has a long standing interest in deciphering how cellular Fc-receptors contribute to the

activity of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. Over the last 12 years we have published some of the

key papers demonstrating that cytotoxic IgG antibodies mediate their activity mainly via cellular Fcreceptors and not via the activation of the complement pathway. These findings have been

reproduced by many other groups and have led to the development of second generation therapeutic

antibodies with an enhanced affinity to cellular Fc-receptors.

a. Lehmann, B., Biburger, M., Bruckner, C., Ipsen-Escobedo, A., Gordan, S., Lehmann, C., Voehringer,

D., Winkler, T., Schaft, N., Dudziak, D., Sirbu, H., Weber, G.F., and Nimmerjahn, F. (2017). Tumor

location determines tissue-specific recruitment of tumor-associated macrophages and antibodydependent immunotherapy response. Sci Immunol 2.10.1126/sciimmunol.aah6413

b. Schwab, I., Lux, A., and Nimmerjahn, F. (2015). Pathways Responsible for Human Autoantibody and

Therapeutic Intravenous IgG Activity in Humanized Mice. Cell Rep 13, 610-620.

c. Nimmerjahn, F., and Ravetch, J.V. (2005). Divergent immunoglobulin G subclass activity through

selective Fc receptor binding. Science 310, 1510-1512.

d. Nimmerjahn, F., Bruhns, P., Horiuchi, K., and Ravetch, J.V. (2005). Fc gamma RIV: A novel FcR with

distinct IgG subclass specificity. Immunity 23, 41-51.

2. Another key aspect of our research is to understand which effector cells are responsible for mouse and

human IgG subclass activity. This work has led to a change in our current models of how target cells become

depleted by cytotoxic antibodies. While the long standing assumption was that natural killer cells are the main

cell type involved in antibody dependent cell mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) it has become established that at

least in classical and humanized mouse model systems not NK cells but rather cells of the mononuclear

phagocytic system, including tissue resident macrophages and monocytes are key effector cells in this

pathway. Within this framework, our studies have also resulted in a new understanding of how the proinflammatory activity of IgG is modulated and how glycosylation of IgG impacts its activity. We were able to

show that IgG antibodies lacking fucose residues in their sugar domain have a more than ten-fold increased

affinity for mouse FcRIV and human FcRIIIa, respectively. This increased affinity translated into enhanced FcR

dependent effector functions and this concept has now been translated into the clinic in the form of second

generation therapeutic antibodies with increased affinity for activating and reduced affinity for the inhibitory

FcRIIb.

a. Lehmann, C.H.K., Baranska, A., Heidkamp, G.F., Heger, L., Neubert, K., Luhr, J.J., Hoffmann, A.,

Reimer, K.C., Bruckner, C., Beck, S., Seeling, M., Kiessling, M., Soulat, D., Krug, A.B., Ravetch, J.V.,

Leusen, J.H.W., Nimmerjahn, F., and Dudziak, D. (2017). DC subset-specific induction of T cell

responses upon antigen uptake via Fcgamma receptors in vivo. J Exp Med 214, 1509- 

1528.10.1084/jem.20160951; equal contribution senior author

b. Lux, A., Seeling, M., Baerenwaldt, A., Lehmann, B., Schwab, I., Repp, R., Meidenbauer, N.,

Mackensen, A., Hartmann, A., Heidkamp, G., et al. (2014). A humanized mouse identifies the bone

marrow as a niche with low therapeutic IgG activity. Cell Rep 7, 236-248.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 24

Biosketches

OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 09/17 Approved Through 03/31/2020)

c. Kao, D., Danzer, H., Collin, M., Gross, A., Eichler, J., Stambuk, J., Lauc, G., Lux, A., and Nimmerjahn,

F. (2015). A Monosaccharide Residue Is Sufficient to Maintain Mouse and Human IgG Subclass

Activity and Directs IgG Effector Functions to Cellular Fc Receptors. Cell Rep 13, 2376-2385.

d. Lux, A., Yu, X., Scanlan, C.N., and Nimmerjahn, F. (2013). Impact of immune complex size and

glycosylation on IgG binding to human FcgammaRs. J Immunol 190, 4315-4323.

3. A third focus of our work, which has resulted in a new understanding of how the pro-inflammatory activity of

IgG is modulated, is to define how glycosylation of IgG impacts its activity. We were able to show that IgG

antibodies lacking fucose residues in their sugar domain have a more than ten-fold increased affinity for

mouse FcRIV and human FcRIIIa, respectively. This increased affinity translated into enhanced FcR

dependent effector functions and this concept has now been translated into the clinic in the form of second

generation therapeutic antibodies with increased affinity for activating and reduced affinity for the inhibitory

FcRIIb. Further along these lines we were able to show that lack of galactosylation does not impact the proinflammatory activity of IgG. In contrast the size of an immune complex is a major factor determining the proinflammatory activity of IgG subclasses and may even diminish the influence of differentially glycosylated IgG

variants with respect to enhanced or decreased binding to individual activating FcRs.

a. Kao, D., Danzer, H., Collin, M., Gross, A., Eichler, J., Stambuk, J., Lauc, G., Lux, A., and Nimmerjahn,

F. (2015). A Monosaccharide Residue Is Sufficient to Maintain Mouse and Human IgG Subclass

Activity and Directs IgG Effector Functions to Cellular Fc Receptors. Cell Rep 13, 2376-2385.

b. Lux, A., Yu, X., Scanlan, C.N., and Nimmerjahn, F. (2013). Impact of immune complex size and

glycosylation on IgG binding to human FcgammaRs. J Immunol 190, 4315-4323.

c. Karsten, C.M., Pandey, M.K., Figge, J., Kilchenstein, R., Taylor, P.R., Rosas, M., McDonald, J.U., Orr,

S.J., Berger, M., Petzold, D., Blanchard, V., Winkler, A., Hess, C., Reid, D.M., Majoul, I.V., Strait, R.T.,

Harris, N.L., Kohl, G., Wex, E., Ludwig, R., Zillikens, D., Nimmerjahn, F., Finkelman, F.D., Brown,

G.D., Ehlers, M., and Kohl, J. (2012). Anti-inflammatory activity of IgG1 mediated by Fc galactosylation

and association of FcgammaRIIB and dectin-1. Nat Med 18, 1401-1406.10.1038/nm.2862

d. Nimmerjahn, F., Anthony, R.M., and Ravetch, J.V. (2007). Agalactosylated IgG antibodies depend on

cellular Fc receptors for in vivo activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America 104, 8433-8437.

Complete list of Published Work in My Bibliography

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=nimmerjahn+f

D. Additional information Research Support and/or Scholastic Performance

All current grants were awarded by

Ongoing Research Support

1. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Understanding the role of the human inhibitory Fcg-receptor for autoreactive and

protective humoral immune responses in vivo

Funding code:

Duration: 07/2017-06/2021

2. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn and Diana Dudziak

Sponsor:

Project title: Investigating the molecular and cellular pathways of intravenous immunoglobulin G

mediated resolution of established autoimmune inflammation

Funding code:
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 25

Biosketches

OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 09/17 Approved Through 03/31/2020)

Duration: 07/2015-06/2019

3. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Role of B cells for the initiation of systemic autoimmune diseases

Funding code:

Duration: 07/2015-06/2019

4. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Human IgG Subclass Glycosylation

Funding code:

Duration: 07/2018-06/2021

5. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: IgG glycosylation as a regulative factor controlling onset of RA

Funding code:

Duration: 07/2019-06/2022

Completed Research Support:

1. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Investigating the mechanism of antibody mediated effector functions in vivo 

Funding code:

Duration: 2008-2016

2. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Influence of immunoglobulin G on osteoclast and osteoblast development, activation

and effector functions

Funding code:

Duration: 2010-2016

3. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Impact of deregulated inhibitory Fc-receptor function on the humoral immune system in

humanized mice

Funding code:

Duration: 2007-2013

4. Applicant: Falk Nimmerjahn

Sponsor:

Project title: Establishing a humanized mouse model system to study human humoral immune

responses in vivo

Funding code: not applicable

Duration: 2007-2012
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

Page 26

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 . Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00 Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

1. Vertebrate Animals Section

Are vertebrate animals euthanized? ● Yes ❍ No

If "Yes" to euthanasia

Is the method consistent with American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) guidelines?

● Yes ❍ No

If "No" to AVMA guidelines, describe method and provide scientific justification

2. *Program Income Section

*Is program income anticipated during the periods for which the grant support is requested?

❍ Yes ● No

If you checked "yes" above (indicating that program income is anticipated), then use the format below to reflect the amount and

source(s). Otherwise, leave this section blank.

*Budget Period *Anticipated Amount ($) *Source(s)

OMB Number: 0925-0001

Expiration Date: 03/31/2020
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

Page 27

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 . Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00 Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

3. Human Embryonic Stem Cells Section

*Does the proposed project involve human embryonic stem cells? ❍ Yes ● No

If the proposed project involves human embryonic stem cells, list below the registration number of the specific cell line(s) from the

following list: http://grants.nih.gov/stem_cells/registry/current.htm. Or, if a specific stem cell line cannot be referenced at this time,

check the box indicating that one from the registry will be used:

Specific stem cell line cannot be referenced at this time. One from the registry will be used.

Cell Line(s) (Example: 0004):

4. Inventions and Patents Section (Renewal applications)

*Inventions and Patents: ❍ Yes ❍ No

If the answer is "Yes" then please answer the following:

*Previously Reported: ❍ Yes ❍ No

5. Change of Investigator/Change of Institution Section

❏ Change of Project Director/Principal Investigator

Name of former Project Director/Principal Investigator

Prefix: 

*First Name:

Middle Name:

*Last Name:

Suffix:

❏ Change of Grantee Institution

*Name of former institution:
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 28

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PHS 398 Modular Budget

OMB Number: 0925-0001

Expiration Date: 03/31/2020

Budget Period: 1 

Start Date: 12/01/2019 End Date: 11/30/2020

A. Direct Costs Funds Requested ($)

Direct Cost less Consortium Indirect (F&A)* 

Consortium Indirect (F&A)

Total Direct Costs*

B. Indirect (F&A) Costs

Indirect (F&A) Type Indirect (F&A) Rate (%) Indirect (F&A) Base ($) Funds Requested ($)

1. Research On Campus

2.

3.

4.

Cognizant Agency DHHS, Janet Turner,

(Agency Name, POC Name and Phone Number)

Indirect (F&A) Rate Agreement Date 05/03/2017 Total Indirect (F&A) Costs

C. Total Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (A + B) Funds Requested ($)
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 29

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PHS 398 Modular Budget

Budget Period: 2 

Start Date: 12/01/2020 End Date: 11/30/2021

A. Direct Costs Funds Requested ($)

Direct Cost less Consortium Indirect (F&A)* 

Consortium Indirect (F&A)

Total Direct Costs*

B. Indirect (F&A) Costs

Indirect (F&A) Type Indirect (F&A) Rate (%) Indirect (F&A) Base ($) Funds Requested ($)

1. Research On Campus

2.

3.

4.

Cognizant Agency DHHS, Janet Turner,

(Agency Name, POC Name and Phone Number)

Indirect (F&A) Rate Agreement Date 05/03/2017 Total Indirect (F&A) Costs

C. Total Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (A + B) Funds Requested ($)
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 30

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PHS 398 Modular Budget

Budget Period: 3 

Start Date: 12/01/2021 End Date: 11/30/2022

A. Direct Costs Funds Requested ($)

Direct Cost less Consortium Indirect (F&A)* 

Consortium Indirect (F&A)

Total Direct Costs*

B. Indirect (F&A) Costs

Indirect (F&A) Type Indirect (F&A) Rate (%) Indirect (F&A) Base ($) Funds Requested ($)

1. Research On Campus

2.

3.

4.

Cognizant Agency DHHS, Janet Turner,

(Agency Name, POC Name and Phone Number)

Indirect (F&A) Rate Agreement Date 05/03/2017 Total Indirect (F&A) Costs

C. Total Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (A + B) Funds Requested ($)
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 31

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PHS 398 Modular Budget

Budget Period: 4 

Start Date: 12/01/2022 End Date: 11/30/2023

A. Direct Costs Funds Requested ($)

Direct Cost less Consortium Indirect (F&A)* 

Consortium Indirect (F&A)

Total Direct Costs*

B. Indirect (F&A) Costs

Indirect (F&A) Type Indirect (F&A) Rate (%) Indirect (F&A) Base ($) Funds Requested ($)

1. Research On Campus

2.

3.

4.

Cognizant Agency DHHS, Janet Turner,

(Agency Name, POC Name and Phone Number)

Indirect (F&A) Rate Agreement Date 05/03/2017 Total Indirect (F&A) Costs

C. Total Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (A + B) Funds Requested ($)
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 32

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PHS 398 Modular Budget

Budget Period: 5 

Start Date: 12/01/2023 End Date: 11/30/2024

A. Direct Costs Funds Requested ($)

Direct Cost less Consortium Indirect (F&A)* 

Consortium Indirect (F&A)

Total Direct Costs*

B. Indirect (F&A) Costs

Indirect (F&A) Type Indirect (F&A) Rate (%) Indirect (F&A) Base ($) Funds Requested ($)

1. Research On Campus

2.

3.

4.

Cognizant Agency DHHS, Janet Turner,

(Agency Name, POC Name and Phone Number)

Indirect (F&A) Rate Agreement Date 05/03/2017 Total Indirect (F&A) Costs

C. Total Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (A + B) Funds Requested ($)
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 33

Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839

PHS 398 Modular Budget

Cumulative Budget Information

1. Total Costs, Entire Project Period

Section A, Total Direct Cost less Consortium Indirect (F&A) for Entire Project Period ($) 

Section A, Total Consortium Indirect (F&A) for Entire Project Period ($)

Section A, Total Direct Costs for Entire Project Period ($)

Section B, Total Indirect (F&A) Costs for Entire Project Period ($) 

Section C, Total Direct and Indirect (F&A) Costs (A+B) for Entire Project Period ($) 

2. Budget Justifications

Personnel Justification personnel_justification1054050153.pdf

Consortium Justification CONSORTIUM_JUSTIFICATION_V21054050154.pdf

Additional Narrative Justification Additional_Narrative_Justification1054050155.pdf
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Personnel Justification

The budget request covers only expenses explicitly related to these projects. There is no overlap with other

sources of support.

Senior / Key Personnel

Co-Principal Investigator—Aaron Meyer (17% effort or 1.5 summer months) Dr. Meyer is responsible for

all aspects of the project. He will directly supervise the work of the trainees within his laboratory, and be

responsible for their training and mentorship. He will also be directly involved in generation and analysis of all

data, and lead the computational analysis throughout. He will work closely with Dr. Nimmerjahn to ensure

integration of the computational analysis and experimental validation. 30% of his effort will be allocated to the

project and partial salary support is requested.

Other Personnel

Graduate Student Researcher—TBD (47.29% effort, 12 calendar months) This graduate student will be

centrally responsible for executing the computational analysis throughout the project, and especially Aims 1

and 3, alongside Dr. Meyer. This student will have prior computational experience, and will further develop

his/her skill set. Commensurate salary support is requested, along with three quarters of tuition support per

year.

Graduate Student Researcher—TBD (47.29% effort, 7 calendar months) This graduate student will focus

on the human-murine homology model, and the factorization methods, contained within Aim 2. He/she will

work alongside Dr. Meyer to execute this analysis and plan the validation experiments for these results. The

student will have prior computational experience and will further develop his/her skill set. Commensurate salary 

support is requested, along with two quarters tuition support per year.

Personnel Justification

Page 34
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

CONSORTIUM JUSTIFICATION

This proposal includes a subcontract to Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

(FAU), in Germany. FAU and the Nimmerjahn lab specifically are included in this proposal

because they bring unique and vital, internationally-recognized expertise in the immunology of

effector cell responses to IgG antibodies. Prof. Nimmerjahn’s expertise extends to the

experimental methods and reagents used throughout both Aim 1 and 3, the in vivo models used

to validate the computational predictions within the project, and input regarding integration of the

computational and experimental efforts. His participation is essential to effective execution of

this project and will help to ensure the success of this proposal’s important goal understanding

how antibodies operate to direct target cell killing when present in combination. By

accomplishing this goal, including FAU furthers the goals of the NIH more effectively than

domestic alternatives.

Total Costs

The total costs of this subaward are roughly per year, or over the five years

of the award.

Personnel

Falk Nimmerjahn, co-PI (1.20 calendar months) – Prof. Nimmerjahn will oversee the project,

instruct the Post Doc, and participate in planning experimental strategies, data evaluation and

writing of publications.

(6 calendar months) – will be responsible for

planning and performing the experiments as described in the experimental plan, data

interpretation and participate in writing of publications. As a postdoctoral trainee in my laboratory

will participate in carreer development programs at FAU very much alike

FASEB`s individual development plans. This includes mentoring by two faculty members, annual

meetings to discuss career options and a variety of soft skill courses.

Consortium Justification

Page 35
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Additional Narrative Justification

Graduate Student Remission

The Graduate Student Researcher fee remission for residents for one academic quarter is

We request funds for GSR fee remission for one graduate student for three

academic quarters for all 4 years of this project. We anticipate tuition to increase at a 3% annual 

rate due to inflation

Indirect Costs

The indirect cost rate pertaining to this budget is of the modified total direct costs (MTDC).

For this proposal MTDC consists of total direct costs minus graduate student non-resident

tuition and fee remissions for two graduate students.

Additional Narrative Justification

Page 36
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

PHS 398 Research Plan OMB Number: 0925-0001

Expiration Date: 03/31/2020

Introduction

1. Introduction to Application

(for Resubmission and Revision applications)

Research Plan Section

2. Specific Aims specific_aims_master_01221053682476.pdf

3. Research Strategy* strategy1053974460.pdf

4. Progress Report Publication List

Other Research Plan Section

5. Vertebrate Animals vertebrate_animals1053682470.pdf

6. Select Agent Research

7. Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan leadership_plan1053682469.pdf

8. Consortium/Contractual Arrangements consortium_language1053682473.pdf

9. Letters of Support

10. Resource Sharing Plan(s) resource_sharing_plan1053974453.pdf

11. Authentication of Key Biological and/or auth_key_resources1053682471.pdf Chemical Resources

Appendix

12. Appendix

Page 37

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839 Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042. Received Date:

2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Specific Aims

Antibodies are crucial regulators of the immune response and particularly versatile therapeutic agents

due to their ability to both bind with high affinity and direct the immune system. Indeed, antibodies comprise a broad range of approved therapies across disease indications, many of which are known to rely

in large part on immune effector cell response. Those of the IgG isotype interact with FcγRs on effector cells. IgGs elicit effector response through multiple cell types (e.g., macrophages, monocytes) and

through multiple processes, including removal of diseased cells through antibody-dependent cellular

cytotoxicity (ADCC) or antibody-dependent cell-mediated phagocytosis (ADCP). Many possible design

parameters—constant region composition, FcγRs, cell populations, and antigen binding properties— 

make precisely predicting and manipulating effector function an elusive goal.

In a recently published study, we built a model of multivalent immune complex (IC—IgG-antigen

complex) binding to FcγRs and showed that it can capture and predict experimentally measured binding and effector response of different IC compositions1. This model also predicted anti-tumor effector 

response to a single antibody of defined constant region in vivo. Importantly, endogenous IgG responses are known to rely on antibodies of distinct constant region composition in combination. We

hypothesize that IgGs of identical antigen binding, but different isotype or glycosylation status, can

show synergistic effector-elicited cell killing and that a multi-IgG Fc binding model can effectively identify these combinations. To identify potentially synergistic combinations of Fc domains, we propose to

extend our model to incorporate binding and effector response of ICs comprised of IgG combinations.

Aim 1: Validate a multivalent binding model’s ability to predict FcγR binding to mixed IgG composition immune complexes. Hypothesis: An equilibrium multivalent binding model accurately represents FcγR interaction with ICs of mixed IgG composition.

• Measure mixed composition synthetic IC binding to cells of defined FcγR expression.

• Generalize a multivalent binding model to account for ICs of mixed composition.

• Fit and verify that the model can predict effector response in vitro.

Aim 2: Map human and murine IgG isotypes to one another according to conserved effector

response. Hypothesis: Murine/human effector response regulation is conserved, even when single

IgG isotypes are not. 

• Map IC composition to effector responses by tensor decomposition.

• Correlate murine and human effector responses according to similar cell population response.

• Verify this mapping predicts known, similar cross-species effector cell responses.

Aim 3: Link IgG effects and in vivo efficacy to identify and verify synergistic IgG-elicited cell

killing. Hypothesis: A binding model can identify synergistic effector interactions in vivo.

• Regress single IgG treatments and in vivo cell clearance to identify synergistic combinations.

• Verify predicted cases of synergistic effector response in vivo within models of antibodydependent, effector-mediated platelet and B cell depletion.

• Identify the relevant cell populations and mechanisms of synergistic effector response.

This investigation will considerably improve our ability to both engineer IgG with optimal effector cell

killing response and inform how existing therapeutic and endogenous IgGs function. In particular, even

existing monoclonal antibodies are mixtures of Fc compositions due to the cocktail of glycosylation

forms present. A comprehensive view of how IgG Fc interact would therefore (1) improve our ability to

match effector cell-mediated killing during antibody manufacturing, (2) provide insight into the role of

the complex Fc cocktails created during an endogenous immune response, and (3) create the possibility

of engineering logic into effector cell responses through antibody combinations.

Specific Aims

Page 38
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 39

Research Strategy

Significance

The therapeutic potential of antibodies is demonstrated by their status as a broad class of effective

agents across autoimmune diseases, infection, and cancer. Their versatility is enabled through an

antibody’s selectivity toward target antigen as determined by its variable region, along with the ability

to elicit effector cell responses depending upon the composition of its constant Fc region. Antibodies

of the IgG type direct effector response by binding to the FcγR family of receptors. FcγR activation is

driven by multiple IgG clustering the receptors. Depending upon the configuration of receptors, this

interaction may promote or prevent effector response. Thus, the mechanism of FcγR activation ensures

that multiple IgG are present whenever eliciting effector response.

One capability elicited by effector cells is clearance of infected or otherwise pathogenic cells. Clearance can occur through two functionally distinct mechanisms: antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity

(ADCC) or antibody-dependent cell-mediated phagocytosis (ADCP). However, both mechanisms are (1)

regulated by the family of FcγRs present on effector cells, (2) modulated by the identity of the Fc region

present on an IgG2, (3) performed by multiple cell types3,4, and (4) influenced by properties of antigen

engagement5,6. This multilayered complexity is a central challenge to engineering antibodies with desirable cell-killing functions, as well as understanding successful and dysregulated endogenous immunity. 

Our team recently demonstrated that a multivalent binding model of immune complex (IC—IgG-antigen

complex) binding to FcγRs accurately captured and could predict in vitro binding across various IgG

isotypes1. Further, it could accurately predict antibody-elicited tumor cell killing in vivo across antibodies of varied isotype, glycosylation status, and FcγR knockout animals1. Directly quantifying and

predicting cell clearance made it possible to accurately predict and optimize for antibody-mediated

cell clearance regardless of whether it occurred by ADCC or ADCP.

Endogenous antibody responses universally involve Fc of diverse isotype and glycosylation in combination. The central hypothesis of our proposal is that antibodies of different Fc composition, but

identical antigen binding, can have properties other than the additive combination of either alone. A 

consequence of this is that, within a mixture, minor species (e.g., glycosylation variant) can have an

outsized effect promoting or preventing cell killing. Even when recombinantly manufacturing a single

monoclonal therapeutic agent, heterogeneity exists in the glycosylation forms derived7,8. Knowledge

of how these different forms influence the behavior of one another would allow one to increase or reduce cell killing by adjusting the mixture of glycosylation forms. This would also help guide evaluation

of biosimilars by determining whether glycosylation forms present at small fractions might influence

overall therapeutic efficacy. On the side of the effector cells involved in mediating therapeutic antibody

dependent effects, it has become clear that in addition to NK cells (expressing only one activating FcγR

(FcγRIIIA), tissue resident macrophages and bone marrow derived monocytes participate in cytotoxic

antibody dependent target cell clearance. In contrast to NK cells, these myeloid cell subsets express

all activating (excepting inflammatory monocytes lacking human (h)FcγRIIIA or mouse (m)FcγRIV) and

the inhibitory FcγRIIB. Thus, mixed IC may trigger all or specific subsets of activating/inhibitory FcRs,

resulting in a further complexity. Despite the ability of multiple activating FcRs on myeloid effector

cells our previous studies have demonstrated that individual IgG subclasses, such as mIgG2a/2c for

example, may mediate their activity through select activating FcγRs despite their capacity to bind to

other activating FcRs2. 

This work will only become more critical with recent advancements in our ability to experimentally

characterize polyclonal IgG mixtures in ever finer resolution by making sense of this veritable data

deluge9,10. Mapping interactions in effector response between pairs of antibodies will provide an essential first step toward more complex mixtures of Fc domains, and then integrating this information

with variation in antigen binding. Thus, there is great potential to integrate this undertaking with other

IgG engineering and antibody/effector cell characterization efforts. 

Innovation

This research is a convergence of immunology, data analysis, biophysics, simulation, and experiment

to develop a more predictive, mechanism-based, and quantitative picture of IgG-mediated cell killing.

Each of these areas is absolutely critical in combination to ensure the success of this proposal. In

response to an antigen, our body creates a cocktail of antibodies of diverse class, glycosylation, and
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 40

Research Strategy

antigen binding9,10. The biophysical properties of these molecules have been extensively characterized

but almost always on a component-by-component basis11. The subsequent combinatorial complexity

that arises ensures that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Modeling innovation to calculate and visualize mixed IgG-FcγR binding Innovative modeling and

analytical methods herein address key challenges in computationally predicting and visualizing IgGFcγR binding. Branching processes provide an elegant analytical approach for overcoming high degrees of combinatorial complexity to calculate overall binding state. These have been applied successfully to study aggregation phenomena such as antibody-antigen binding and polymer networks

where there are analogous calculation challenges12,13. A second key challenge will be interpreting the

high-dimensional space of possible IgG treatment combinations and response across cell populations.

Tensor factorization provides an efficient and parsimonious representation of high-dimensional space

and indeed has accepted use within the machine learning community for other problems of capturing

high-dimensional relationships such as topic modeling14,15. 

Builds upon earlier theory on Fc receptor activation Theoretical models have helped to understand Fc receptor activation, but critical gaps still exist in their application, especially when designing

IgG therapies. Multivalent ligand/monovalent receptor binding models successfully represent activation of receptors such as FcεRI with similar binding configurations16–21. However, most cells express

members of the FcγR family simultaneously in combination, meaning any manipulation of IC composition will necessarily have multivariate effects. Thus, while the underlying multivalent binding theory is

long-standing, FcγR-IgG interactions are especially suited for developments in inference approaches

to rigorously link these models to experimental observations and to visualize high-dimensional data22. 

Multivalent binding theory will be a critical companion to experiments mapping effector function; the

baffling number of potential combinations preclude purely experimental searches or intuition from revealing precise answers9. For example, even considering 30 glycosylation variants, 4 IgG isotypes,

pairs of two IgGs at 4 concentrations, and 5 antigen targets of varying valency, one is left with 9,600

design possibilities9,10. 

The model used here is in essence a minimal pharmacologic model of IgG effector cell-elicited

responses. By leaving out all but the most essential components, elegant pharmacologic models (e.g.,

competitive inhibition, additive interaction, etc) form the basis of analyzing compound effects from

the most initial development stages through clinical evaluation23,24. Foundational models of effectorelicited responses will similarly allow for IgG therapies to be more rigorously engineered and evaluated.

IgG-mediated logic Identifying antibody constant regions with synergistic or antagonistic cell killing

holds promise for more than just enhanced overall effector response. For example, a highly synergistic

combination essentially provides AND logic between target antigens. Two constant regions that only

lead to effector function in combination could help target cells for which a reliably specific antigen

does not exist. In other words, if tumor cells are only unique in their expression of protein A and

B, an anti-A/anti-B antibody combination would only signal for effector cell-elicited killing when both

antigens are found in combination. This capability is similarly being pursued with chimeric antigen

receptor cellular therapies in cancer, due to lack of completely specific tumor antigens, particularly in

solid tumors25,26. By comparison, IgG-mediated logic would have significant benefits in cost, reliability,

and likely toxicity as compared to cellular therapies. Other forms of logic may also be helpful and

revealed by the approach here, such as A but not B to protect bystander antigen-expressing cells

from an existing treatment. Therefore, synergistic constant region combinations hold promise both for

enhancing the potency and avoiding side effects of therapeutic antibodies.

Methods development relevant to other receptor-ligand families Finally, the innovative methods

here have immediate application in other areas of therapeutic engineering. Other immunotherapy and

targeted therapy targets, such as the common γ-chain cytokines, FGF receptor tyrosine kinases, VEGF

receptor tyrosine kinases, and bone morphogenic proteins, involve many ligands, large receptor families, and are expressed across many cell types27–31. The approach developed here—an activation

model, parameterized through inference, and then mapped through tensor factorization—has immediate application in understanding the function of these other receptor families, learning how they respond to combinations of cues in the extracellular environment, and targeting their dysregulation.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 41

Research Strategy

Combination

Cell

Population

Responses

Aim 1 

cMO DC

Aim 2 

IgG Class Combinations

IC Concentration

IC Valency

Predict antibody

effectiveness in vivo

Tensor

Factorization

Aim 3 

Cell Population

Human Map Murine Map

Correlate Effector

Response

Across Species

NK

MØ

Constant region/isotype 

(FcγR binding)

Variable region 

(antigen binding)

IgG-FcγR Affinities Immune Complex Valency

Time

Multivalent Binding Model 

Signal

ncM

Approach

Antibody Class

Figure 1: Overview (also see Gantt chart at end of proposal). Experimental IgG-FcγR binding measurements

will be fit to a multivalent binding model extended to incorporate immune complexes with IgGs of mixed

isotype and glycosylation. Binding and effector response predictions for these mixed isotype immune

complexes will be tested in vitro. Using the computational model, we will then identify IgG combinations

predicted to have synergistic effector-mediated killing and test on cell populations in vitro and in two in vivo

models of platelet and B cell depletion. Using the model, we will also build a map of murine-human homology

according to effector response.

Aim 1: Validate a multivalent binding model’s ability to predict FcγR binding to mixed IgG composition immune complexes

Rationale FcγR activation and effector response occurs through multivalent immune complex (IC)

binding and consequent receptor clustering. This aim will ensure that we are able to accurately model

the binding and in vitro FcγR-dependent effector response of a cell population with defined FcγR expression, given we know the composition of an IC. At the same time, it will provide a helpful data

compendium for examining the different factors that influence IC binding.

1.1. Measure mixed composition synthetic IC binding to cells of defined FcγR expression To

start, we will utilize a panel of previously-generated CHO cell lines that express each human FcγRIA,

FcγRIIA-131H, FcγRIIA-131R, FcγRIIIA-158V, FcγRIIIA-158F, or FcγRIIB individually (fig. 2)1,32. To ensure quantitative binding measurements, we will quantify receptor abundance in each cell line. These

measurements are performed using by staining with FITC-coupled Abs directed against FcγRIA (CD64;

clone 10.1; BD Pharmingen), FcgRIIA/IIB (CD32; clone 3D3; BD Pharmingen), and FcγRIIIA (CD16;

clone 3G8; BD Pharmingen). Absolute quantitation is obtained by comparison to a panel of beads with

defined numbers of antibody binding sites in each experiment. Cell lines with multi-modal distributions of receptor expression or variance greater than 50% of the expression level will be sorted again

for more precise expression.

We will assemble ICs using TNP(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl)-conjugated BSA at valencies of 4 and 26. AntiTNP antibodies of each IgG isotype will be bound to the TNP-BSA. Instead of creating IgG-TNP-BSA

complexes of one isotype as we performed previously1,32, we will use all pairs of 5:1 and 1:1 hIgG

isotype mixtures, in duplicate. Binding will be quantified on cells using a PE-conjugated goat antihuman IgG F(ab’)2. With four IgGs, six hFcγRs, and replicates, this corresponds to 528 independent

binding measurements with which to ensure our model captures multi-IgG binding.

We anticipate that this data will show striking variation in the amount of cell binding, depending

upon the valency of IC, affinity of each IgG used, ratio of IgGs present, and receptor expressed by the

cell. In contrast to our earlier work, in this case there are two interaction affinities present, of an IgG

present at higher and lower abundance. We expect this data will reveal that both affinities influence

FcγRs
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 42

Research Strategy

Kx Kx Kx

KD

Measured

TNP-BSA Binding

A B C

 

Figure 2: A two-step model captures IgG immune complex binding. 

expressing a single FcγR. Error bars indicate standard error of triplicate measurements. B) Diagram of binding

model. An initial monovalent interaction then leads to multivalent interaction with partition coefficient Kx. C) Fit

versus actual binding measurement across all IgG/FcγR pairs. Note that the most divergent

pair—hFcγRIIIA-158F/hIgG4—was determined to be based on an unreliable affinity measurement (the

equilibrium and kinetic binding assays in the source reference do not match for this case)33. 

binding, which we can inspect by plotting matched cases wherein one IgG identity is held constant

and the other varies. Additionally, we expect that the relative abundance of each IgG will matter, which

we can inspect by plotting matched pairs where the only difference is the ratio between each IgG.

In addition to the isotype itself, the sugar moiety attached to the N297 residue in each individual

IgG heavy chain can alter FcγR binding. Although several hundred IgG glycovariants may exist, the

most striking effect in altered binding of an IgG glycovariant to FcγRs has been observed for fucosylated/afucosylated IgG variants, which bind with altered affinity to hFcγRIIIA2,32,34. These IgG glycovariants can be generated via antibody production in cell lines deficient in the fucosyltransferase gene (LEC

13 CHO cells). To study how the abundance of certain IgG glycoforms affects FcγR binding, we will use

pairs of 10:1, 3:1, and 1:1 hIgG1 glycovariant mixtures and study binding to hFcγRIIIA-expressing cell

lines like above in triplicate. Depending on the outcome of these experiments we plan to extend these

studies to other human IgG isotypes. Of special interest are hIgG2 and hIgG4, which are considered

low FcγR binders, yet it is unclear how the presence of different amounts of afucosylated glycovariants

affects their functional activity. This set of data will be instrumental in assessing how the abundance

of individual glycoforms in a mixture affects FcγR binding and effector functions (e.g., how much this

can be allowed to change during manufacturing).

1.2. Generalize a multivalent binding model to account for ICs of mixed composition To model

these binding data, we will extend our published model of IgG-FcγR engagement to account for IgG isotype and glycovariant mixtures1. Briefly, we model FcγR engagement as a two-step process, wherein

an immune complex first binds to a single receptor with kinetics equal to those of monovalent binding

(fig. 2B)16–21. Subsequent binding events are governed by a partitioning parameter (Kx). This model

of multivalent engagement successfully represents other receptors with a similar binding configuration

such as FcεR and TCR18,21. A critical extension of this model that we made when applying it to the

FcγR family is extending it for multiple receptors present. In doing so, Kx is proportional to the affinity

of the receptor, which is necessary for the model to follow thermodynamic laws (detailed balance)1.

The largest hurdle to applying this model for IgG mixtures is performing the binding configuration

calculation. Though the number of microstates explodes in a combinatorial manner (we have to integrate over all possible mixtures of IC binding states—e.g., an IC bound at site 1, bound at site 1 and 2,

etc—weighted by their individual likelihood), modeling the probabilities of these states as a branching

process ensures we can efficiently calculate the macroscopic binding we expect to observe12. Importantly, despite many more possible binding configurations, there is no additional parametric uncertainty

relative to our published model1. Indeed, because of this, we do not necessarily need to fit any new

parameters and can directly make predictions based on our published parameterization (fig. 2). As

previously, Kx must be proportional to the affinity of an interaction to satisfy detailed balance, and so

there is only one K∗

x value we need to fit (Kx = K∗ 1 xKa) . We will nevertheless perform fitting to this new

A) Measurements of IC binding to cells
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 43

Research Strategy

data, however, in case it can provide more exact parameterization for K∗

x.

1.3. Fit and verify that the A B C model can predict effector re- yt vi i

Binding Model

ing

sponse in vitro As validation of

tc

A

d

our model, predictions of binding

/ noit

Bin

and effector response will be eval- azi r

158V

uated in peripheral blood mononu- e mitl

-

valency = 4 

clear cells (PBMC). PBMCs will be u

III

[IgG] = 1 nM M/

R

separated and differentiated into gn

γ

i d

Fc

valency = 24

individual effector cell populations ni

h

[IgG] = 10 nM

B

Percentage IgGY Percentage hIgG3 Percentage mIgG2b

and stimulated with the same IC

complexes1,32,35–37. As before, we Figure 3: Strategy for evaluating synergy, and preliminary evidence a

will assume effector response is multivalent binding model predicts non-additive interactions. A) We

proportional to the amount of acti- expect that, when plotting a quantity from the binding model and

vating receptor minus the amount of varying the relative abundance of two IgG Fc compositions, the output inhibitory receptor found in bound quantity would have a linear relationship with mixture composition. We

complexes of multiple receptors1. take deviations from this relationship to be either synergy or This construction satisfies the cri- antagonism depending on whether they are above or below the line, teria that increases in activating or respectively. This outcome will be summarized by quantifying the area inhibitory receptor multimerization under the curve for both the additive and actual case have their expected effect, and that (S = (A − A multimerization is essential for FcγR actual additive)/Aadditive). B) Example of predicted synergy in IC

binding. C) Example of predicted synergy in murine classical monocyte

activation1. Though this is the most activity (receptor expression previously measured1

). parsimonious construction that satisfies these rules, we will keep in mind this assumption and can easily explore alternative constructions.

Effector cell response will be quantified through induced cell type-specific cytokine secretion since

we are stimulating with synthetic ICs (e.g., we cannot measure ADCC)32. Ten IC complex mixtures

with large predicted variation in response, comprised of the isotypes and glycosylation forms from

Aim 1.1, will be selected to test with each cell type. We will focus on monocytes, macrophages, and

NK cells due to their ease of isolation and role of cytokine secretion during effector response35. The

FcγR expression of these populations is well-characterized, but we can re-quantify this if needed using

our well-established protocols1,3,38. We will measure a panel of >5 cytokines (including IL-6 and IFNγ)

in parallel by bead-based ELISA to ensure our results are not cytokine specific and our ranking is

similar across all IC-responsive cytokines within a cell type32,35. As different cell types might have very

different sensitivities to activated FcγRs, we will test our model’s predictive capacity by comparing

predicted and actual ranking (Spearman correlation) of response strength to these 10 mixed ICs within

a cell population. We expect close agreement between the IC compositions predicted to maximally

induce a response in each cell population, and the responses measured. In addition to measuring

cytokine secretion we will also study the phagocytosis of fluorescently labeled (FITC coupled TNPBSA) IC. By using a combination of intracellular and extracellular FACS staining for FITC we will be

able to distinguish between cell surface bound and intracellular antigen. As a second independent

verification of IC phagocytosis of fluorescently labeled IC we will use cyto-spins of IC fed monocytes

and macrophages and analyse intracellular IC via immunofluorescence microscopy. This work will

demonstrate that a binding model can predict which effector cell populations will respond to ICs of

mixed composition, helping to make sense of the vast number of possible IC compositions.

Finally, to validate use of this model for mIgG interventions in Aim 3, we will test a small subset of

mixed ICs for our ability to predict relative effector response. From previous work we have both affinities

and receptor abundance measurements with which to make model predictions1. We will select five

mixtures of mIgG1/2c, with large variation in their predicted response, to test (see Aim 3.1). The same

effector populations as above will be isolated from mouse spleens, and cytokine response measured

by bead-based ELISA. We will test agreement of our measurements and model predictions with the

same strategy as above.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 44

Research Strategy

Preliminary Data All of the methods used in Aim 1 are demonstrated in previous studies from our

labs1,32. As exemplified in fig. 2, we have successfully measured binding in the panel of CHO cell lines

used here and demonstrated that a multivalent binding model can account for binding of ICs comprised

of single IgGs. This work successfully predicted in vitro and in vivo effector response both for human

and murine ICs.

In preliminary work we have implemented the most basic components of the multi-IgG binding

model to demonstrate that calculating binding with this approach is indeed feasible (fig. 3). To verify

correctness we have compared this new implementation to our published model for cases of a single

IgG present and see agreement. The examples of non-additive interaction also fit intuitively with cases

of synergy and antagonism we expected to observe. In fig. 3B, hIgG2 has almost no binding, while

hIgG3 is a high affinity interaction. Sweeping between each IgG therefore is, in effect, changing the

valency of the IC, and the first few hIgG3 added to the left of the plot have the greatest effect on the

avidity of the interaction. One would expect adding a second binding site to have a larger relative

avidity effect than adding a sixth site, like this suggests. In total, while additional work is necessary to

make this binding model implementation usable for these studies, we do not expect challenges.

Challenges & Alternative Approaches We have previously used all of the methods in Aim 1 and

so do not anticipate significant challenges in these experiments. If our binding measurements do not

match our modeling predictions, we will first investigate whether the discrepancy is in a subset of the

measurements (e.g., those with a certain IgG), specific outliers, or across all the data. The hFcγRIIIA158F/hIgG4 case in fig. 2 provides an example, where we identified an outlier and traced it to the

underlying affinity measurements1. If there are discrepancies across a subset of the data, we will

investigate the underlying molecular mechanism. We can also use the single IgG measurements from

our published work as a guide for whether discrepancies are modeling or experimental problems.

If our measured and predicted binding is consistent but our cell response measurements do not

match our predictions, this will provide an opportunity to investigate additional mechanisms of effector

regulation beyond binding. For example, recent reports have implicated clustering of hFcγRI as a

mechanism of inside-out signaling39. If we observe divergent results from what we predict, we can

investigate whether mechanisms such as inside-out signaling influence the relative response to different

ICs. We can use a panel of blocking antibodies targeting each FcγR to isolate the influence of each

FcγR expressed within a cell population2,38. Importantly, these other regulatory factors can contribute

to effector cell response only after a cell has interacted with an IC, and so IC binding should still be a 

dominant factor in effector cell response, and certainly one for which we must first account.

Aim 2: Map human and murine IgG isotypes to one another according to conserved effector

response 

Rationale Unclear homology between the human and murine FcγR families stymies our ability to

translate findings from murine models of disease11. Using the overarching hypothesis that there is

conserved regulation at the level of cell type-specific effector response, we will use our interaction

model to build a homology map between species.

2.1. Map IC composition to effector responses by tensor decomposition An inter-species map

would greatly aid translation of findings in murine models of IgG-related diseases and IgG-elicited cell

killing. Assembling such a map first requires a global view of how the family is regulated. Our model

of FcγR engagement, besides fit parameters common to all FcγR-IgG pairs, requires affinities for each

FcγR-IgG pair and the profile of FcγR expression within a cell. As these exist for effector cell populations

within both murine and human cells1,38,40, we will use these to assemble a data compendium of the

predicted effector responses across IgG combinations in each species.

All combinations of IC concentration and composition will be varied to create a data tensor of

model-predicted FcγR activity within each effector cell population. We will use the same constructed

activity calculation as in Aim 1, as it successfully predicts effector response in our previously published

work and will be further validated in Aim 1.3. We will simulate every possible combination of cell

population (eosinophils, NK cells, dendritic cells, neutrophils, classical monocytes, and non-classical

monocytes based on their FcγR expression), valency (1–26), concentration (log-scaled, 1 fM–1 μM), and

IgG composition (combinations of 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, and 1:10 mixtures). We will start with the FcγRIIIA-158F
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 45

Research Strategy

Component 3 Component 3 Component 3 

cMO/ncMO – classical/non-classical monocytes DC – dendritic cells NE – neutrophils EO – eosinophils NK – natural killer cells

Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 

(I3⨉1) 

+ (I3⨉1)+

(I ⨉1)

(I3⨉1) 

+ (I3⨉1) ... (I2⨉R)

PARAFAC

decomposition

(I4⨉1)

4 (I ⨉1) (I3⨉R) 4 (I4⨉1)

Valency/Concentration

IgG composition

(I4⨉R)

5

4

Cell Populations

EO

cMO

IgG composition 6 IgG1-containing

mixtures

IgG1/IgG2a

combinations

3

2 (I1⨉R)

1 NK ncMO

NE DC

Component 4 

Component 4 Component 4 

Cell

Populations

Figure 4: Overview of tensor factorization to map effector response. A central challenge in engineering IgGelicited cell killing is that any intervention is pleiotropic on multiple levels. That is, an IC can have differing

effects based on its IgG composition, concentration, and valency, with responses from distinct cell populations.

With a binding model we can predict the outcome of any individual combination of factors but still have trouble

mapping and visualizing the predominant axes of variation in these data. Through tensor factorization, this

four-dimensional space can be decomposed into component factors that capture predominant axes of

variation. For example, in the hypothetical factorization results shown, components three and four increase

with concentration, and valency increases along component four. Component three, however, shows a bimodal

valency relationship. Eosinophils and classical monocytes are activated along component four, while only the

latter are activated along component three. Through the last components plot, we can see which mixtures

drive movement along each component; IgG1-containing mixtures are positively associated with component

four, while component three is exclusive to IgG1/IgG2a combinations. So, if we want to maximally activate

eosinophils, these plots indicate we want a combination with IgG1 and higher valency. In this way, factorization

provides a design schematic for variation in effector response.

and FcγRIIA-131R genotype; however, this method also provides an opportunity to look at predicted

differences in regulation based on genotype in future studies. While we are starting with a selected set

of effector cell populations for which we have existing FcγR abundance measurements, these results

can quickly and easily be updated with new measurements (e.g., macrophages, dendritic cell subsets).

These ~100,000 values for each species capture the variation in predicted effector function due to

differences in binding propensity to each cell population but remain challenging to interpret due to the

high-dimensional nature of the data.

We will then utilize canonical polyadic (CP) decomposition to visualize these data, a data reduction

technique similar to principal component analysis in some aspects, representing the variation in effector response in a reduced dimensionality space14. Briefly, this method finds factors, or directions of

variation in the data, and the relative contribution of each variable to that factor. The parallel plots of

each factor and the variables involved are essentially a map of the variation present within the data.

Importantly, with a sufficient number of factors, the data tensor can be perfectly reconstructed from

the factors, and so information is preserved in the factorization process. We will determine the number

of factors necessary to capture >95% of the variance in predicted response for each cell population

upon reconstruction. This factorization will then be used as a “map” for regulation of the FcγR family.

2.2. Correlate murine and human effector responses according to similar cell population response We hypothesize that, while the individual FcγRs/IgGs are not directly conserved, there exists

conserved regulation in the form of which cell populations are activated coordinately. That is, we can

identify cross-species IC pairs targeted to have the same cell population responses. To do so, we will

correlate each component of the cell population factorization between species. Identifying significant

correlations here (Pearson correlation, with family-wise error rate correction through cell population

randomization) will test our hypothesis that conserved regulation exists targeting the same cell populations.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 46

Research Strategy

As each resultant component of the factorization represents a separable subset of variation in

FcγR/IgG regulation, we expect to observe one-to-one correspondence between components of the

human and murine factorization. Therefore, we expect to see that each component of the cell population factorization has a single significant correlation pair (fig. 5).

2.3. Verify this mapping predicts known, similar cross-species ef- Human Components fector cell responses Experimentally testing our mapping from Aim 1 2 3 4 5

2.2 would require isolation of many immune populations from both

4 

 murine and human sources, along with cytokine measurements and 5 s

* functional characterization in both species. This scale of validation is nt

outside the scope of this proposal but will be enabled in future studies

ne

 

by the present analysis. However, we will check for a few features we oeinmp expect to observe: (1) hIgG1/hIgG3 and mIgG2a generally have greater ur

o effector responses and are more pro-inflammatory. We expect to iden- C

M

tify linked components that involve mixtures of both these IgG11. (2) Figure 5: Schemat

*

ic for

Both human and murine families have a single inhibitory receptor with expected results of human–

similar expression patterns, hFcγRIIB/mFcγR2B, and so we expect that murine cell population

these will be aligned in the factorization (weighted similarly in linked correlations. We expect to

components)11. (3) hFcγRIIIA/mFcγRIII are the sole Fc receptor on NK observe one-to-one links

cells. Therefore, we expect to find linked components that represent between each component of the

activation of these receptors and includes NK cell response11. factorization across species.

In addition to the individual component-specific relationships we ex- However, this need not be the

pect to find above, we will test our ability to apply our homology model same component number in for “translating” between murine and human IgG compositions in Aim each species. For example, 3.3. This will evaluate the most translationally-valuable aspect of our here, murine component three

results here. and human component two

Challenges & Alternative Approaches Importantly, while Aim 2 aids might be correlated due to

translation of Aim 3 and addresses a fundamental question about con- shared weighting of classical

servation of this receptor-ligand family, execution of both can proceed monocytes and NK cells.

independently. As CP decomposition efficiently and parsimoniously

captures variation in the original data tensor, we expect the factors identified to clearly display any

correspondence between species. However, if we do not identify components with corresponding

variation between species, we can take a more targeted approach. With an IC composition that leads

to a certain set of predicted effector cell response in humans (e.g., NK cells, but not other cell types),

we can then vary murine IC composition to look for compositions that have a matching profile in mice

(or vice versa). This will still identify homology across species.

We expect CP decomposition to be the most useful and easily interpretable method for tensor factorization, given that it provides parallel components along each dimension. However, many other

factorization methods exist which may have benefits depending upon the variation found in the data.

For example, Tucker decomposition is a more flexible generalization of CP decomposition that allows

for linking between components through a core tensor41. This creates a tradeoff of fewer components

being necessary to explain the data, but additional challenge in visualizing the core tensor. Additionally, both CP and Tucker decomposition can be forced to have only non-negative components. By

constraining the factorization in this way, this often makes the resulting components much easier to

interpret (since it separates out balanced negative and positive effects)42. In total, there is a rich toolbox

we can apply to further explore the data here to create an effective map of IgG-FcγR regulation.

Aim 3: Link IgG effects and in vivo efficacy to identify & verify synergistic IgG-elicited cell killing 

Rationale Successfully identifying examples of synergistic effector-elicited killing will demonstrate

that IgG isotypes have unique properties in combination. Moreover, it will show that a binding model

can successfully identify these cases to engineer response and that this synergy can be employed

successfully in vivo. 
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 47

Research Strategy

]

6A6-IgG2c ]6A6-IgG2c EndoS ] 6A6-IgG2c-FUC/EndoS

[%[%

*** ***

[%

*** ***

t

100 t

100 *** t

100 ** 

nu

*** *** n

n

80 u

o

*** o

80 u

ccco

80 *

te

60

te

60 *** *

te

60 l

ll

te

tete

a

40 a

40 a

40 l

ll

p

20 p

p

20 20

alalal

du

0 6

-

-

dudu

6

-

IV-

-

/

0 -

i

/

I

IV

/

i

6

i

0 -

-

-

es

/

-

-

I

es

/

/

/

R

es

/

R

IV

/

-

-

-

I

L

IV

V

I/

r

L

γ

R

L

R

7B

rr

γ

F

I

γ

R

7B

c

R

γ

R

/

c

γ

Fc

57B

c

5

F

γγ

RI

Fc

Fc

5

 -

C

/

F

γ

C

C

Fc

Fc

αCD20-IgG2c αCD20-IgG2c EndoS αCD20-IgG2c-FUC/EndoS

120 ]

]

120 ]

120

[%[%[%

*** ***

100 s

100 *** s

100 ***

l

sl

l

le

80 l

80 *** l

ee

c

*** *** c

c

80

B

60 B

*** 60 B

60

alalal

40 40 * * 40

dududu

i

20 i

20 i

eseses

20

0 r

0 r

r

6

-

-

-

/

0 /

/

6

-

-

-

/

/

/

6

-

-

-

/

/

/

/

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

I

/

L

IV

I/

-

V

IV

V

I

V

R

RR

57B

I

L

I

L

IV

I

γ

R

/

57B

γ

R

/

57B

γ

R

/

c

γ

RI

c

γ

F

RI

c

γ

F

F

RI

Fc

γ

Fc

γ

Fc

γ

C

c

C

c

C

c

3.1. Regress single IgG treatments and in vivo cell clearance to identify synergistic combinations We will use a passive mouse model of immunothrombocytopenia (ITP) and a model of cytotoxic antibody-mediated B cell depletion (CD20 specific) as model systems for IgG-elicited cell killing43. 

These model systems have beneficial properties, including that effector cell-elicited killing (platelet or B

cell depletion) can be assessed and quantified rapidly, and do not involve long-term inflammation with

unknown compensatory changes. Moreover, the responsible effector cells are liver resident Kupffer

cells and/or resident monocytes, which have a well-defined FcγR expression pattern3,4. 

To predict cell killing, we will use

a similar regression approach to the

one we recently performed for antitumor IgGs in a B16F10 melanoma

model1,2. Briefly, for each intervention, the binding model predicts a

level of FcγR activity for each cell

population, and then those “activities” are regressed against fractional

reduction in cell number (fig. 8) . This 1

regression will be performed using a

y = 1−exp(−X p· ) relationship, where

X is the matrix of activities and y is

the fractional reduction in cell number. This construction corresponds

to an exponential survival distribution

and thus an underlying random process wherein every cell is at uniform

risk of clearance. The structure of

the regression portion of the model

is unchanged by considering mixed

composition ICs; therefore, with our F

FF

Figure 6: Both platelet and B cell IgG-mediated depletion are FcγR-, updated binding model we will be Fc isotype-, and Fc glycosylation-dependent43. Quantification of able to immediately make predictions platelet and B cell depletion using either 6A6 or anti-CD20 IgG, about in vivo response after fitting. respectively. Like with the B16F10 model, we will

use a panel of pre-existing experimental results in which different IgG isotypes, glycosylation variants,

and FcγR knockouts have been evaluated. A wider panel of these experiments exists for both the ITP

and CD20-depletion models than the B16F10 case, in fact, which will aid exact parameterization of the

model and therefore accurate predictions (e.g., fig. 6)2,43,44. Model prediction will be quantified through

leave-one-out (LOO) and leave-one-isotype-out crossvalidation. The significance and distribution of

derived quantities will be estimated by bootstrap45. 

We will identify a predicted case of synergistic interaction between mIgG isotypes and/or glycosylation variants (fig. 7) for each target cell. Synergy will be calculated according to the Bliss independence

rule23. That is, in the absence of synergy, we will assume each antibody has an independent, proportional decrease in the number of platelets or CD20-positive cells observed. IgG combinations with

the greatest predicted reduction over that from an additive effect will be selected. If these cases are

widespread we will also consider the disease relevance of the glycosylation and/or isotype combination

(e.g., prioritize fucose/non-fucose combinations due to their therapeutic manufacturing relevance). We

also expect the combinations identified will be comprised of mIgG1 and/or mIgG2c, given the efficacy

of these as single agents2,43,44. 

Note that this approach is not limited to synergy in cell killing arising through synergy in FcγR binding (e.g., fig. 3C). For example, high affinity IgGs tend to also have a higher affinity for the inhibitory

hFcγRIIB/mFcγR2B. However, these higher affinity IgGs could play an outsized role on initial monovalent binding of ICs. ICs with a small number of high-affinity IgGs along with many lower affinity (but

mFcγR2B non-binding) IgGs therefore might lead to greater activation than ICs with either IgG alone.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 48

Research Strategy

All 10:1,5:1,2:1,1:1 pairs of IgG

Model Identify a strongly Validate in vivo

synergistic pair

lls

e

g

lls

g

C

n

e

n

i

i

ed

n

C

n

Additivity

ai

ai

t

al

ic

m

u

m

d

e

Additivity t

e

c

e

R

A

R

rP

 Measured Measured 

IgG Composition IgG Composition

3.2. Verify predicted cases of synergistic effector response in vivo within models of antibody-dependent, effector-mediated platelet and B cell depletion All four human and mouse IgG isotype

variants are available for both in vivo model systems2,43,44,46,47. Afucosylated IgG isotype glycovariants

can be generated by recombinant antibody production in LEC13 cells as we have done before48. The

selected combinations will be evaluated in C57BL/6 mice in parallel to matched treatments with either

IgG alone. Platelet and B cell depletion in the blood will be assessed before, 4 hours after, and 24

hours after the corresponding IgG isotype mixture injection by FACS analysis. We will use 8 mice per

treatment, or 32 total (control, each IgG alone, and the combination), to provide sufficient power (0.8)

for each test below.

In both target cell models we will evaluate the outcomes of the experiment in a few

different ways. First, to evaluate the predictive capacity of our model in this independent cohort, we will test that there is significant correlation between the predicted and

actual target cell depletions (Pearson correlation). Second, we will test that (1) the deviation observed with the combination is toward

synergy as predicted, and (2) the synergy is

statistically significant (mixed effects model,

significance tested by bootstrap). Within

Aim 3.3 we will additionally test the mechanism by which synergy arises. In total, this

work will demonstrate that mixtures of IgG

have unique properties of effector-elicited

cell clearance in combination. Figure 7: Synergy strategy. We will verify our cases of Lastly, to test our predictions of homol- predicted synergy through: (1) correlation between prediction

ogy between the human and murine FcγR & response, (2) significant synergy in the direction predicted, families, we will test these combinations in and (3) mechanism of synergy (Aim 3.3). humanized mouse models as we have done

before46,47. All single and mixture conditions used above will be “translated” from murine to human

IgG compositions using the results of Aim 2. These 6 conditions (3 interventions for either B cell or

platelet targeting) will be quantified for target cell depletion at the same times as above. We will test

for significant correlation between the results from the C57BL/6 and humanized models (Pearson correlation). This will serve as partial validation of the modeling in Aim 2 and demonstrate the value of the

human-mouse homology model.

3.3. Identify the relevant cell populations and mechanisms of synergistic effector response 

Broadly, there are four possible underlying mechanistic sources of synergy/antagonism between IgGs:

(1) at the level of binding to an individual effector cell population, (2) not in binding, but in the resultant

response of an individual cell population, (3) additivity on previous levels, but with two IgGs targeting

a differing complement of cell populations, or (4) additivity across cell populations, but some other

emergent interaction through cell communication.

To resolve the underlying mechanisms of interaction, we will use two initial experiments. First, we

will use TNP-BSA binding studies as outlined in Aim 1, with primary effector cell populations, to identify

whether mechanism (1) might explain the interaction we observe. Individual effector cell populations will

be separated and then incubated with each IgG separately, or with the indicated mixture of both IgGs.

Significant interactions between the IgGs in binding will be quantified through deviation from additivity.

Second, we will quantify the isobologram of ADCC/ADCP effector response in each cell population

to address mechanism (2). For B cells, we will incubate each population with B cells and anti-CD20

IgGs of the same mixtures as those tested in vivo. The number of remaining B cells will be quantified

through B220 staining after 72 hours incubation44. For platelets, we will incubate them with each cell

population and 6A6 antibodies of the same Fc compositions. The number of remaining platelets will

be quantified at 24, 36, and 72 hours of incubation using calcein staining then flow cytometry. Finally,
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 49

Research Strategy

A B C

Direct coef. determin.

D L.O.O. cross-val E F

1.0

0.5

0.0

One cell type removed Predicted cMO Effect

ncM cMO

NK

EO NE

O

G

ncMO

NE

cMONK

EO

Weightings

Figure 8: An FcγR-IgG binding model accurately predicts in vivo IgG-mediated tumor cell killing1. A) Schematic

of earlier IgG isotype experiments (top) and our approach (bottom). In earlier work, the ratio of the highest

affinity activating receptor to that of the inhibitory receptor (A/I ratio) was proposed to predict response2

. B)

Effectiveness (proportional reduction in lung metastases, i.e. no reduction is 0.0, complete is 1.0) of individual

mIgG interventions versus the A/I ratio for each mIgG constant region. C) Individual cell activities calculated for

each intervention using receptor multimerization predicted by multivalent binding model. Each quantity is

scaled according to the weighting applied by the fitted regression model (left) or by maximum cell type

response observed (right). D) Predicted versus observed effectiveness. E) R2

cwith individual input components

removed. F) Calculated activity index for cMO versus overall effectiveness of each intervention. G) Predicted

effect of modulating each individual mFcγR affinity of mIgG2b. Regression performed with exponential survival

relationship in contrast to published work, due to benefits explained in Aim 3.11

. EO: eosinophil, cMO: classical

monocyte, ncMO: non-classical monocyte, NK: natural killer, NE: neutrophil.

we will investigate mechanism (3) by determining whether additive combinations of the individual cell

population effector response measurements can explain the overall responses we observe in vivo. 

We strongly expect these first three mechanisms will explain the synergy we observe, as these are

the three mechanisms captured by our modeling prediction. Verifying the relevant cell populations involved will further validate the accuracy of our model. Based on our previous in vivo studies in both

the ITP and B cell depletion model, we would expect that liver resident Kupffer cells and/or resident

monocytes are the relevant effector cell populations. Both cell subsets express all activating and the

inhibitory FcγRIIB, making it difficult to distinguish the contribution of both cell subsets purely based on

using individual FcγR knockout mice. However, by selectively depleting bone marrow derived resident

monocytes through small doses of clodronate liposomes3 or by using a titrated irradiation approach

to generate mice with a selective lack of FcγRs on bone marrow derived monocytes or liver resident

Kupffer cells40 we will be able to delineate if B cell or platelet depletion through mixed IgG subclass

antibodies behaves differently compared to the use of one IgG subclass in vivo. Briefly, animals will

be injected with select ratios of IgG subclass mixtures of platelet (6A6) and B cell (CD20) specific antibodies. B cell and platelet counts will be assessed in the blood 4 and 16 hours after antibody injection.

To assess if tissue resident Kupffer cells are involved in B cell and platelet depletion, we will inject

mice with 10 μL of clodronate liposomes, which shows a rather selective depletion of bone marrow

derived resident monocytes3. Moreover, we will generate bone marrow chimeric animals selectively

expressing activating FcγRs either on tissue resident Kupffer cells or bone marrow derived monocytes

by irradiating FcγR deficient or sufficient animals with 6Gy followed by a reconstitution with bone marrow of FcγR sufficient or deficient mice40. Should mixed IgG subclass dependent target cell depletion

involve other cell populations, we can also study the involvement of NK cells or neutrophils by using

either NK- or neutrophil-depleting antibodies or NK cell- or neutrophil-deficient mouse strains. We

expect to observe a reduction in the degree to which either platelets or B cells are depleted that is

consistent with our model’s weighting for that population with the given mixture. Our model treats cell

populations as having separable contributions to platelet or B cell depletion. Therefore, if the effects 
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 50

Research Strategy

Title

Measure mixed isotype IC binding

Measure mixed glyosylation / murine IC binding

Binding model construction

Finalize & upload IC binding compendium

Fit binding model & experiments

Prepare manuscript on mixed IC binding model

Validate effector response predictions

Publish mixed IC binding model

Tensor decomposition of effector response

Correlate human/murine factorization

Update factorization with new fitting results

Verify expected mapping

Regress IgG treatments for in vivo predictions

Finalize predictions for in vivo synergy validation

Translate to humanized equivalents

In vivo validation of predicted synergy

Finalize predictions of human-murine translation

Manuscript preparation

Explore mechanism of in vivo synergy

Publish in vivo synergy

Manuscript preparation

In vivo validation of humanized model synergy

Publish human-murine translation

T+1y T+2y T+3y T+4y T+5y

FAU

FAU

UCLA / GSR 1; UCLA / GSR 2

UCLA / GSR 1; FAU

UCLA / GSR 1

Aim 1 

UCLA / GSR 1

FAU

UCLA / GSR 1; FAU

UCLA / GSR 2

UCLA / GSR 2

UCLA / GSR 2 Aim 2 

UCLA / GSR 2

UCLA / GSR 1

UCLA / GSR 1; FAU

UCLA / GSR 2

Aim 3 FAU

UCLA / GSR 2; FAU

UCLA / GSR 1

FAU

UCLA / GSR 1; FAU

UCLA / GSR 2

FAU

UCLA / GSR 2; FAU

Figure 9: Gantt chart of proposal timeline.

of depleting effector cell populations is other than we expect, and depleting either effector population

individually has a greater effect than expected, we will take this as evidence of cell communication or

other emergent behavior. In total, from these studies we will have a mechanistic view of how synergy

between IgGs arises.

Preliminary Data In a recently published study, we employed a model of multivalent IC binding to

FcγRs and showed that it can capture and predict experimentally measured binding and effector response with differing antigen valency, isotypes, and glycosylation variants1. With this model, we could

quantitatively predict anti-tumor cell killing in response to a single TA99 antibody of defined Fc region

in vivo. While predicting outcome, our approach also accurately identified the cell population driving

response in this model1,49. We have verified an identically-constructed model can similarly predict

platelet depletion (crossvalidation R2 > 0.8).

Challenges & Alternative Approaches If IgG combinations selected in Aim 3 do not show synergistic

responses, the mechanism-focused measurements in Aim 3.3 will be extremely valuable to diagnose

any inconsistencies from the model predictions.

Many alternative constructions exist for defining synergy, each based on underlying definitions for

how two agents additively interact23. Bliss synergy is a useful definition of synergy for our purposes

due to its simplicity and derivation from a statistical definition of additivity that fits well with our model

of predicting in vivo effect. Further, because it is defined based on a probabilistic interaction of individual agent’s effects, Bliss synergy is likely to be interpretable alongside the factorization results of Aim

2. However, we can explore other definitions of synergy to identify which are most informative of therapeutically meaningful interactions. In particular, Lowe synergy defines additive interactions through

the expectation that no drug should be synergistic with itself. To test whether this definition would be

more helpful, we can test how frequently Bliss synergy arises with IgGs mixed with themselves. Bliss

synergy most often indicates that an agent has synergy with itself when a dose response curve is especially sensitive with respect to concentration50, which we have not seen in our binding measurements.

Finally, Lowe synergy yields no close formed solution, and so has some added difficulty when calculating. Thus, in total, Bliss synergy is a well-justified starting definition, but alternative definitions such

as Lowe synergy may be informative and provide an alternative strategy.

To relate the activities of each effector cell population to depletion of B cells and platelets, we have

to define a survival function, or a function for the relative risk of each additional target cell to be cleared.

We propose using an exponential distribution, because this corresponds to the outcome observed

when each target cell is at identical “risk” of being cleared. However, alternative survival distributions

exist, corresponding to underlying definitions of relative risk. In particular, the Gompertz and Weibull

functions correspond to multiplicative and additive differences in “risk” among target cells. Therefore,

using these distributions could capture, for example, if platelets and B cells lie on a continuum from

easy to hard to clear for reasons unrelated to their antigen availability.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information OMB Number: 0925-0001 and 0925-0002

Expiration Date: 03/31/2020

Are Human Subjects Involved ❍ Yes ● No

Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations? ❍ Yes ❍ No

Exemption Nu ber m ❏1 ❏2 ❏3 ❏4 ❏5 ❏6 ❏7 ❏8

Does the proposed research involve human specimens ❍ Yes ● No and/or data

Other Requested information

Tracking Number: GRANT12779839 Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-AI-18-042 Received Date:

Page 51 2019-02-01T17:55:52.000-05:00
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 52

Vertebrate Animals

Vertebrate Animals

1. Description of Procedures

The proposed studies involve the use of mice specifically in Aims 1.3 and 3. Animals will be housed in

the animal facilities of the Friedrich Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nuremberg. The following

procedures will be used:

Mouse care

Six- to eight-week-old female C57BL/6, FcγRI-/-, FcγRIII-/-, FcγRIV-/-, FcγRI/IV-/-, FcRγ-/- mice (all

C57BL/6 background) will be obtained from commercial vendors (C57BL/6) or from in house breeding

stocks (Fc-receptor deficient strains) and will be used as recipient mice for the respective B cell and

platelet depleting antibodies. To generate bone marrow chimeric animals, bone marrow recipient mice

will be irradiated with 6Gy followed by an intravenous injection of bone marrow from donor animals

(C57BL/6 or Fc-receptor deficient mouse strains) to generate mice with deletions of Fc-receptors

selectively on hematopoietic cells and not on tissue resident macrophages. In select experiments

humanized mice will be generated. For this purpose, new born Nod/Scid/γc/FcRγ-/- mice will be

irradiated with 1.2 Gy followed by an intravenous injection with 50,000 human hematopoietic stem cells

(HSC) 4 to 6 hours after irradiation. HSC are provided by the placenta blood bank from the University

of Erlangen-Nürnberg after written consent of patients and according to the ethical guidelines of the

FAU. After 3-4 months mice will be analyzed for the presence of human cells in the peripheral blood

and positive mice will be used for further experiments. All mice will be housed in IVC cages and will be

monitored on a daily basis by professional animal caretakers employed by the animal facility.

6A6 antibody dependent platelet depletion

Mice will be injected intravenously with 0.2 μg/g body weight of the recombinant 6A6 antibody isotype

switch-variants or mixtures thereof diluted in 200 μl of PBS. Platelet counts before and 4 hours and 24

hours after antibody injection will be determined by blood collection (20 μl) from the retro-orbital plexus

followed by a 1:10 dilution in PBS/5% BSA and a measurement in an Advia 120 hematology system

(Siemens). To delete predominantly blood derived resident monocytes, mice will receive an intravenous

injection of 10 μl of clodronate liposomes. In humanized mice 6A6 humanized antibodies will be used

at 0.5 μg/g body weight.

CD20 antibody dependent B cell depletion

B cell depletion will be induced by intravenous injection of 5 μg/g of CD20 specific IgG subclass

switch variants or mixtures thereof. B-cell counts will be determined in the peripheral blood before

and 6 or 24 hours after antibody injection by FACS analysis. To delete predominantly blood derived

resident monocytes, mice will receive an intravenous injection of 10 μl of clodronate liposomes. To

study a potential involvement of NK cells or neutrophils we will inject mice one day before

administration of the CD20 specific antibody with 250 μg of a Ly6G specific antibody (clone 1A6) to

deplete neutrophils or with 100 μg of the NK cell specific NK1.1 antibody to deplete NK cells. In

humanized mice, human CD20 specific isotype switch variants of Rituximab will be used at 5 μg/g

body weight.

2. Justifications

There are no alternative models to the use of mice for the functional analyses IgG/immune complex

activity. The experiments proposed in Aims 1.3 and 3 are critical to assessing the efficacy of

homotypic or heterotypic IgG immune complex activity in the clinically most meaningful settings.

Finally, NSG mice are well-characterized mouse strains for the transplantation of a human immune

system. We have made every effort to use the minimum number of mice needed while maintaining

statistical power in our results. 
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 53

Vertebrate Animals

3. Minimization of Pain and Distress

Every effort has been made to use the absolute minimal number of mice in any one experiment and

experimental design has been optimized make use of common controls where feasible, to reduce the

number of mice needed on a per-experiment basis. 

Staff will ensure regular observation of the mice during experimental interventions, and if any mouse

experiences any of the below listed signs and symptoms, the mice will be immediately euthanized.

o Anorexia or persistent dehydration

o Weight loss of 15% over 72 hr period or failure to gain weight in young animals

o Extreme difficulty in remaining upright or moving

o Experiencing muscle atrophy or emaciation

o Is lethargic or does not respond to gentle stimuli

o Becomes hypothermic

o Is unconscious or in a coma

o There is bloodstained discharge emanating from any orifice

o Trouble breathing

o Exhibits anemia

o Is experiencing abdominal distension

o Has trouble with incontinence or experiencing diarrhea

Weekend, holiday and emergency care is provided through daily animal health checks by technicians,

providing husbandry as needed and notifying investigators and/or the consulting veterinarian of any

animal health problems. The attending veterinarian, back up veterinarian, Animal Facility Associate

Director and Veterinary Technologists are available at all times via cell phone. The Animal Facility

has an Emergency Response Plan that is reviewed and updated yearly by the Safety Office, Plant

Operations and the Animal Facility Office.

4. Method of Euthanasia

Animals will be euthanized with carbon dioxide or by cervical dislocation under previous anesthesia

with isoflurane (according to German rules and regulations and consistent with AVMA guidelines).
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Multiple PI Leadership Plan

Dr. Meyer (UCLA) and Dr. Nimmerjahn (FAU) will provide oversight of the entire project including

development and implementation of all policies, procedures and processes. Both PIs will share

responsibility for implementation of the specific aims as described in the Research Strategy.

Together they will oversee the scientific research, analyze and interpret research data, report results

to the scientific community, and disseminate approaches, methods, models, software, and tools.

They will also ensure that systems are in place to guarantee institutional compliance with US laws,

DHHS and NIH policies including biosafety, human and animal research, data and facilities.

Dr. Meyer will serve as the contact PI and lead for the computational modeling and data analysis

aspects of the project. He will be responsible for reporting progress to the NCI Program Officials on

the project’s research through a structured reporting format. Dr. Nimmerjahn will serve as the lead

for the in vitro and in vivo experimental measurements. Drs. Meyer and Nimmerjahn will

communicate regularly, either by phone, e-mail, or in person, to discuss experimental design, data

analysis, and all administrative responsibilities. They will work together to discuss any changes in the

direction of the research projects and the reprogramming of funds, if necessary. A publication policy

will be established based on the relative scientific contributions of the PIs and key personnel. Both

Drs. Meyer and Nimmerjahn have experience in managing highly collaborative work involving

contributions from multiple individuals. Indeed, their recent joint publication is demonstrated

success from their collaboration.

Drs. Meyer and Nimmerjahn will meet regularly with the staff and trainees committed to this project

to evaluate scientific progress, troubleshoot experimental difficulties, decide experimental directions

and mediate any conflicts that occur. In addition, there will be monthly meetings where all members

of the project will meet to share information, solve technical issues and ensure that the timeline and

milestones are achieved.

Intellectual Property

The PIs will grant necessary access rights to the pre-existing patents and/or the patents potentially

generated within the frame of this project for the purpose of this research project to all the other PIs

and key personnel on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis. Each PI shall take appropriate measures to

ensure that he/she can grant these access rights. Any pre-existing intellectual property will remain

the property of the party that created and/or controls it. An Intellectual Property Committee

composed of representatives from each institution that is part of the grant award will be formed to

work together to ensure the intellectual property developed by the PIs is protected according to the

policies established in the agreement.

Conflict Resolution

If a potential conflict develops, the PIs shall meet and attempt to resolve the dispute. If they fail to

resolve the dispute, the disagreement shall be referred to an arbitration committee consisting of one

impartial senior executive from UCLA and FAU as well as a third impartial senior executive mutually

agreed upon by both PIs. No members of the arbitration committee will be directly involved in the

research grant or disagreement.

Change in PI Location

If a PI moves to a new institution, attempts will be made to transfer the relevant portion of the grant

to the new institution. In the event that a PI cannot carry out his/her duties, a new PI will be recruited

as a replacement at one of the participating institutions.

Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan

Page 54
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 55

References Cited

References

1. Robinett RA, Guan N, Lux A, Biburger M, Nimmerjahn F, Meyer AS. Dissecting FcγR regulation

through a multivalent binding model. Cell Systems. 2018;6(7):1–8. PMCID: PMC6062446

2. Nimmerjahn F, Ravetch JV. Divergent IgG subclass activity through selective Fc receptor binding.

Science. 2005 Dec;310(5753):1510–1512. PMID: 16322460

3. Biburger M, Aschermann S, Schwab I, Lux A, Albert H, Danzer H, Woigk M, Dudziak D, Nimmerjahn F. Monocyte subsets responsible for immunoglobulin G-dependent effector functions in vivo.

Immunity. 2011;35(6):932–944. PMID: 22169040

4. Montalvao F, Garcia Z, Celli S, Breart B, Deguine J, Rooijen NV, Bousso P. The mechanism of antiCD20–mediated B cell depletion revealed by intravital imaging. The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

2013 Dec;123(12):5098–5103. PMCID: PMC3859399

5. Bakalar MH, Joffe AM, Schmid EM, Son S, Podolski M, Fletcher DA. Size-Dependent Segregation

Controls Macrophage Phagocytosis of Antibody-Opsonized Targets. Cell. 2018;174(1):131–142.e13.

PMID: 29958103

6. Tang Y, Lou J, Alpaugh RK, Robinson MK, Marks JD, Weiner LM. Regulation of antibodydependent cellular cytotoxicity by IgG intrinsic and apparent affinity for target antigen. The Journal

of Immunology. 2007;179(5):2815–2823. PMID: 17709495

7. Higel F, Seidl A, Sörgel F, Friess W. N-glycosylation heterogeneity and the influence on structure,

function and pharmacokinetics of monoclonal antibodies and Fc fusion proteins. European Journal of

Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2016 Mar;100:94–100. PMID: 26775146

8. Olivova P, Chen W, Chakraborty AB, Gebler JC. Determination of N-glycosylation sites and site

heterogeneity in a monoclonal antibody by electrospray quadrupole ion-mobility time-of-flight mass

spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry. 2008 Jan;22(1):29–40. PMID: 18050193

9. Chung AW, Kumar MP, Arnold KB, Yu WH, Schoen MK, Dunphy LJ, Suscovich TJ, Frahm N, Linde

C, Mahan AE, Hoffner M, Streeck H, Ackerman ME, McElrath MJ, Schuitemaker H, Pau MG, Baden LR,

Kim JH, Michael NL, Barouch DH, Lauffenburger DA, Alter G. Dissecting Polyclonal Vaccine-Induced

Humoral Immunity against HIV Using Systems Serology. Cell. 2015 Nov;163(4):988–998. PMCID:

PMC5490491

10. Mahan AE, Jennewein MF, Suscovich T, Dionne K, Tedesco J, Chung AW, Streeck H, Pau

M, Schuitemaker H, Francis D, Fast P, Laufer D, Walker BD, Baden L, Barouch DH, Alter G. Antigenspecific antibody glycosylation is regulated via vaccination. PLOS Pathogens. 2016;12(3):1–18. PMCID: PMC4794126

11. Bruhns P. Properties of mouse and human IgG receptors and their contribution to disease

models. Blood. 2012 Jun;119(24):5640–5649. PMID: 22535666

12. Macken CA, Perelson AS. Branching processes applied to cell surface aggregation phenomena.

Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1985.

13. Stockmayer WH. Theory of Molecular Size Distribution and Gel Formation in Branched-chain

Polymers. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1943;11(2):45–55.

14. Kolda TG, Bader BW. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM Review. 2009;51(3):455– 

500.

15. Anandkumar A, Foster DP, Hsu DJ, Kakade SM, Liu Y-K. Two SVDs Suffice: Spectral decompositions for probabilistic topic modeling and latent Dirichlet allocation. arXiv. 2012;abs/1204.6703.

16. Perelson AS. Receptor clustering on a cell surface. III. Theory of receptor cross-linking by

multivalent ligands: Description by ligand states. Mathematical Biosciences. 1981;53(1-2):1–39.

17. Hlavacek WS, Posner RG, Perelson AS. Steric Effects on Multivalent Ligand-Receptor Binding:

Exclusion of Ligand Sites by Bound Cell Surface Receptors. Biophysical Journal. 1999 Jun;76(6):3031– 

3043. PMCID: PMC1300273

18. Hlavacek WS, Perelson AS, Sulzer B, Bold J, Paar J. Quantifying aggregation of IgE-FcεRI by

multivalent antigen. Biophysical Journal. 1999;76(5):2421–2431. PMCID: PMC1300214

19. Perelson AS, DeLisi C. Receptor clustering on a cell surface. I. Theory of receptor cross-linking
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 56

References Cited

by ligands bearing two chemically identical functional groups. Mathematical Biosciences. 1980;48(1- 

2):71–110.

20. Perelson AS. Receptor clustering on a cell surface. II. Theory of receptor cross-linking by ligands

bearing two chemically distinct functional groups. Mathematical Biosciences. 1980 May;49(1):87–110.

21. Stone JD, Cochran JR, Stern LJ. T-cell activation by soluble MHC oligomers can be described

by a two-parameter binding model. Biophysical Journal. 2001 Nov;81(5):2547–2557. PMCID:

PMC1301723

22. Salvatier J, Wiecki TV, Fonnesbeck C. Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3. PeerJ

Computer Science. 2016 Apr;2:e55.

23. Greco WR, Bravo G, Parsons JC. The search for synergy: A critical review from a response

surface perspective. Pharmacol Rev. Department of Biomathematics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute,

Buffalo, New York, USA. 47(2):331–385. PMID: 7568331

24. Palmer AC, Sorger PK. Combination cancer therapy can confer benefit via patient-to-patient

variability without drug additivity or synergy. Cell. 171(7):1678–1691. PMCID: PMC5741091

25. Roybal KT, Rupp LJ, Morsut L, Walker WJ, McNally KA, Park JS, Lim WA. Precision Tumor

Recognition by T Cells With Combinatorial Antigen-Sensing Circuits. Cell. 2016;164(4):770–779. PMCID: PMC4752902

26. Cho JH, Collins JJ, Wong WW. Universal chimeric antigen receptors for multiplexed and logical

control of T cell responses. Cell. 2018;173(6):1426–1438.e11. PMCID: PMC5984158

27. Gonnord P, Angermann BR, Sadtler K, Gombos E, Chappert P, Meier-Schellersheim M, Varma R.

A hierarchy of affinities between cytokine receptors and the common gamma chain leads to pathway

cross-talk. Science Signaling. 2018;11(524). PMID: 29615515

28. Antebi YE, Linton JM, Klumpe H, Bintu B, Gong M, Su C, McCardell R, Elowitz MB. Combinatorial Signal Perception in the BMP Pathway. Cell. 2017 Sep;170(6):1184–1196.e24. PMCID:

PMC5612783

29. Lee S, Choi J, Mohanty J, Sousa LP, Tome F, Pardon E, Steyaert J, Lemmon MA, Lax I, Schlessinger J. Structures of β-klotho reveal a ’zip code’-like mechanism for endocrine FGF signalling.

Nature. 2018;553(7689):501–505. PMID: 29342135

30. Simons M, Gordon E, Claesson-Welsh L. Mechanisms and regulation of endothelial VEGF receptor signalling. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2016;17:611–625. PMID: 27461391

31. Belov AA, Mohammadi M. Molecular mechanisms of fibroblast growth factor signaling in

physiology and pathology. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology. 2013;5(6):10.1101/cshperspect.a015958 a015958. PMCID: PMC3660835

32. Lux A, Yu X, Scanlan CN, Nimmerjahn F. Impact of immune complex size and glycosylation

on IgG binding to human FcγRs. The Journal of Immunology. 2013 Apr;190(8):4315–4323. PMID:

23509345

33. Bruhns P, Iannascoli B, England P, Mancardi DA. Specificity and affinity of human Fcγ receptors

and their polymorphic variants for human IgG subclasses. Blood. 2009; PMID: 19018092

34. Shields RL, Lai J, Keck R, O’Connell LY, Hong K, Gloria Meng Y, Weikert SH, Presta LG.

Lack of fucose on human IgG1 N-linked oligosaccharide improves binding to human FcγRIII and

antibody-dependent cellular toxicity. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2002;277(30):26733–26740.

PMID: 11986321

35. Schrier SB, Hill AS, Plana D, Lauffenburger DA. Synergistic Communication between CD4+ T

Cells and Monocytes Impacts the Cytokine Environment. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:34942. PMCID:

PMC5056362

36. Li C, Levin M, Kaplan DL. Bioelectric modulation of macrophage polarization. Scientific Reports.

2016;6:21044. PMCID: PMC4751571

37. Genin M, Clement F, Fattaccioli A, Raes M, Michiels C. M1 and M2 macrophages derived

from THP-1 cells differentially modulate the response of cancer cells to etoposide. BMC Cancer.

2015;15(1):577. PMCID: PMC4545815

38. Biburger M, Trenkwald I, Nimmerjahn F. Three blocks are not enough—Blocking of the murine
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 57

References Cited

IgG receptor FcγRIV is crucial for proper characterization of cells by FACS analysis. European Journal

of Immunology. 2015;45(9):2694–2697. PMID: 26138319

39. Brandsma AM, Schwartz SL, Wester MJ, Valley CC, Blezer GLA, Vidarsson G, Lidke KA, Leusen

JHW. Mechanisms of inside-out signaling of the high-affinity IgG receptor FcγRI. Science Signaling.

2018;12. PMID: 30042128

40. Lehmann B, Biburger M, Brückner C, Ipsen-escobedo A, Gordan S, Lehmann C, Voehringer

D, Winkler T, Schaft N, Dudziak D, Sirbu H, Weber GF, Nimmerjahn F. Tumor location determines

tissue-specific recruitment of tumor-associated macrophages and antibody-dependent immunotherapy response. Science Immunology. 2017;2(January):eaah6413. PMID: 28783667

41. Tucker LR. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1966

Sep 1;31(3):279–311. PMID: 5221127

42. Yang Z, Michailidis G. A non-negative matrix factorization method for detecting modules in

heterogeneous omics multi-modal data. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(1):1–8. PMCID: PMC5006236

43. Kao D, Danzer H, Collin M, Groß A, Eichler J, Stambuk J, Lauc G, Lux A, Nimmerjahn F. A

monosaccharide residue is sufficient to maintain mouse and human IgG subclass activity and directs

IgG effector functions to cellular Fc receptors. Cell Reports. 2015;13(11):2376–2385. PMID: 26670049

44. Hamaguchi Y, Xiu Y, Komura K, Nimmerjahn F, Tedder TF. Antibody isotype-specific engagement of Fcγ receptors regulates B lymphocyte depletion during CD20 immunotherapy. The Journal of

Experimental Medicine. 2006 Mar;203(3):743–753. PMCID: PMC2118227

45. Efron B. The Jacknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. SIAM; 1982.

46. Schwab I, Lux A, Nimmerjahn F. Pathways Responsible for Human Autoantibody and Therapeutic Intravenous IgG Activity in Humanized Mice. Cell Reports. 2015 Oct;13(3):610–620. PMID:

26456831

47. Lux A, Seeling M, Baerenwaldt A, Lehmann B, Schwab I, Repp R, Meidenbauer N, Mackensen A,

Hartmann A, Heidkamp G, Dudziak D, Nimmerjahn F. A Humanized Mouse Identifies the Bone Marrow

as a Niche with Low Therapeutic IgG Activity. Cell Reports. 2014 Apr;7(1):236–248. PMID: 24685130

48. Patnaik SK, Stanley P. Lectin-resistant cho glycosylation mutants. Methods Enzymol.

2006;416:159–82. PMID: 17113866

49. Zhu EF, Gai SA, Opel CF, Kwan BH, Surana R, Mihm MC, Kauke MJ, Moynihan KD, Angelini A,

Williams RT, Stephan MT, Kim JS, Yaffe MB, Irvine DJ, Weiner LM, Dranoff G, Wittrup KD. Synergistic

innate and adaptive immune response to combination immunotherapy with anti-tumor antigen antibodies and extended serum half-life IL-2. Cancer Cell. 2015 Apr;27(4):489–501. PMCID: PMC4398916

50. Berenbaum MC. What is synergy? Pharmacological Reviews. American Society for Pharmacology; Experimental Therapeutics; 1989;41(2):93–141. PMID: 2692037
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Consortium/Contractual Arrangements

We have chosen UCLA as the primary institution because Aaron Meyer (co-PI) is

directing the modeling and data analysis, and integration of these with experiments

across the project. These tasks encompass all aims of the proposal and are key to

interpreting and later directing the experimental efforts. Dr. Meyer has a long-standing

collaboration with the other co-PI Falk Nimmerjahn, including joint publication. Dr.

Meyer will take primary responsibility for communications with the NIH and other

administrative functions. With that said, the proposed project is a close collaboration

that brings together joint expertise in immunology of effector response, receptor

signaling, modeling, and data analysis, as represented by the co-PI’s at FriedrichAlexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and UCLA.

The appropriate programmatic and administrative personnel of each organization

involved in this grant application are aware of the agency’s consortium agreement policy

and are prepared to establish the necessary inter-organizational agreements consistent

with that policy.

Consortium/Contractual Arrangements

Page 58
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Resource Sharing Plan

The investigators of this proposal are aware of and agree to abide by the principles for

sharing research resources as described by the NIH in "Final Statement on Sharing

Research Data” [http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html] 

and in the application RFA. Resources developed within the scope of this application

will be made fully available to the scientific community. This includes publications

(through PubMed Central and/or publication in open-access journals), raw data, and

reagents. All plasmids used in the course of the study will be made available through a

repository such as AddGene. Mass spectrometry data will be deposited in a repository

such as PRIDE. The associated source code for all analyses will be made available in

full on or before publication. Other forms of raw data will be made available alongside

our analysis code and deposited in ImmPort before publication. We do not anticipate the

development of any model organisms from this study, and this study does not involve

generation of GWAS or genomic data.

Resource Sharing Plan(s)

Page 59
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 60

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources

Authentication of Key Resources

General. Largely standard laboratory agents will be used and purchased from

established commercial sources, i.e. Thermo-Fisher, Sigma-Aldrich, Tocris, Abcam, etc. 

Cell Lines. We have and will continue to use conventional short-tandem repeat (STR)

assessments as our gold-standard for ensuring the provenance of each individual

model. This will be performed regularly (at least annually) for each cell line model during

their use. Mycoplasma testing will also be carried out periodically (at least every six

months).

To verify stable FcψR expression, we will quantify the absolute abundance of

each receptor in each CHO cell line prior to binding experiments. These measurements

are performed using by staining with FITC-coupled Abs directed against FcψRIA (CD64;

clone 10.1; BD Pharmingen), FcψRIIA/IIB (CD32; clone 3D3; BD Pharmingen), and

FcψRIIIA (CD16; clone 3G8; BD Pharmingen). Absolute quantitation is obtained by

comparison to a panel of beads with defined numbers of antibody binding sites in each

experiment.

IgG Expression. We will perform MALDI-TOF analysis to verify the glycosylation

profiles of each IgG, as we have done previously (Lux et al, 2013). We will verify (1) that

there are no qualitative changes between batches of expressed IgG, and (2) that the

expected changes occur in the glycosylation profiles we observe with either EndoS or

PNGaseF treatment.

TNP-IgG Complexes. To ensure TNP-IgG complexes are formed with the expected

differences in valency the complexes will be subjected to polyethylene glycol (PEG

6000) precipitation, as we have performed previously (Lux et al, 2013). We expect and

will verify that this shows qualitatively similar differences in molecular weight between

TNP-26-BSA complexes, TNP-4-BSA complexes, and free IgG.

Antibodies. All antibodies used in the proposed studies are reagents we have

previously used and validated in published work (referenced throughout the proposal).

All antibodies will be aliquoted upon receipt and stored at –80°C for long-term storage.

Lot number for all antibodies will be logged as part of the experimental records. Where

noted, matched knockout or antigen-absent controls are used to verify the antibody

specificity within each experiment.

Data Analysis and Archive. All raw and processed data is backed up and stored in a

versioned manner on network attached storage. The remote backup device is

additionally backed up off-site. This arrangement ensures all data is retained, and that a

permanent record of modified data is kept. To ensure reproducibility, in-house analysis

routines are stored using version control with the entire pipeline of analysis from raw

data to analysis products documented. The entirety of this source code and analysis

pipeline will be made publicly available with or before publication of its results.
Contact PD/PI: Meyer, Aaron

Page 61

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources

Mice. All employed transgenic mouse lines have been previously characterized and

described in peer-reviewed publications. Genotype as well as transgene expression and

its pattern will be monitored through each generation using standard techniques (PCR,

in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry). Each mouse line will be continuously

backcrossed to C57BL/6 to maintain genetic stability. Additional breeders will be

obtained from established repositories such as Jackson Laboratory and Mutant Mouse

Resource and Research Center. Spermatozoa of non-commercially available mouse

lines will be cryopreserved for rederivation in case of genetic instability and natural

disasters. Each mouse will be ear-tagged; genotype records will be printed and filed for

each mouse identified.