Recombinant human interferon-β (rhIFN-β) therapy is the first-line treatment in relapsing-remitting forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). The mechanism of action underlying its therapeutic activity is only partially understood as IFN-βs induce the expression of over 1000 genes modifying multiple immune pathways. Currently, assessment of potency for IFN-β products is based on their antiviral effect, which is not linked to its therapeutic effect. Here, we explore the use of a multiplexed gene expression system to more broadly characterize IFN-β bioactivity. We find that MM6 cells stimulated with US-licensed rhIFN-βs induce a dose-dependent and reproducible pattern of gene expression. This pattern of gene expression was used to compare the bioactivity profile of biosimilar candidates with the corresponding US-licensed rhIFN-β products, Rebif and Betaseron. While the biosimilar candidate for Rebif matched the pattern of gene expression, there were differences in the expression of a subset of interferon-inducible genes including CXCL-10, CXCL-11, and GBP1 induced by the biosimilar candidate for Betaseron. Assessment of product impurities in both products suggested that the difference was rooted in the presence of innate immune response modulating impurities (IIRMIs) in the licensed product. These studies indicate that determining the expression levels for an array of reporter genes that monitor different pathways can be informative as part of the demonstration of biosimilarity or comparability for complex immunomodulatory products such as IFN-β, but the sensitivity of each gene to potential impurities in the product should be examined to fully understand the results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The assertions herein are the private ones from the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views or policies of the Food and Drug Administration. This study was supported in part by a Senior Postgraduate Research Fellowship Award to S.P. from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. EM and ME are members of Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. We thank Dr. Steven Kozlowski, Dr. Gerry Feldman, Dr. Amy Rosenberg, and Dr. Susan Kirshner for helpful discussions and careful review of the manuscript.
This work was partially supported by a CDER Critical Path grant.
Meager A, Dolman C, Dilger P, Bird C, Giovannoni G, Schellekens H, et al. An assessment of biological potency and molecular characteristics of different innovator and noninnovator interferon-beta products. J Interf Cytokine Res. 2011;31(4):383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroncek DF, Jin P, Wang E, Jett B. Potency analysis of cellular therapies: the emerging role of molecular assays. J Transl Med. 2007;5(1):24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank T, Prinz M. Type I interferon pathway in CNS homeostasis and neurological disorders. Glia. 2017;65(9):1397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comabella M, Lunemann JD, Rio J, Sanchez A, Lopez C, Julia E, et al. A type I interferon signature in monocytes is associated with poor response to interferon-beta in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2009;132(Pt 12):3353–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henig N, Avidan N, Mandel I, Staun-Ram E, Ginzburg E, Paperna T, et al. Interferon-beta induces distinct gene expression response patterns in human monocytes versus T cells. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e62366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz CE. Interferon-beta: mechanism of action and dosing issues. Neurology. 2007;68(24 Suppl 4):S8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakimovski D, Kolb C, Ramanathan M, Zivadinov R, Weinstock-Guttman B. Interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(11).Google Scholar
Barbero P, Bergui M, Versino E, Ricci A, Zhong JJ, Ferrero B, et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (INCOMIN trial) II: analysis of MRI responses to treatment and correlation with Nab. Mult Scler. 2006;12(1):72–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossberg SE, Oger J, Grossberg LD, Gehchan A, Klein JP. Frequency and magnitude of interferon β neutralizing antibodies in the evaluation of interferon β immunogenicity in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Interf Cytokine Res. 2011;31(3):337–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertolotto A, Deisenhammer F, Gallo P, Sölberg SP. Immunogenicity of interferon beta: differences among products. J Neurol. 2004;251(2):ii15–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Haile LA, Polumuri SK, Rao R, Kelley-Baker L, Kryndushkin D, Rajaiah R, et al. Cell based assay identifies TLR2 and TLR4 stimulating impurities in interferon beta. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):10490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haji Abdolvahab M, Mofrad MRK, Schellekens H. Interferon beta: from molecular level to therapeutic effects. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol. 2016;326:343–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel SN, Friedman RM, Hogan MM. Measurement of antiviral activity induced by interferons alpha, beta, and gamma. Curr Protoc Immunol. 2001;Chapter 6:Unit 6.9.Google Scholar
Burgi Mde L, Prieto C, Etcheverrigaray M, Kratje R, Oggero M, Bollati-Fogolin M. WISH cell line: from the antiviral system to a novel reporter gene assay to test the potency of human IFN-alpha and IFN-beta. J Immunol Methods. 2012;381(1–2):70–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nistal-Villan E, Poutou J, Rodriguez-Garcia E, Bunuales M, Carte-Abad B, Prieto J, et al. A versatile vector for in vivo monitoring of type I interferon induction and signaling. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler-Heitbrock HW, Thiel E, Futterer A, Herzog V, Wirtz A, Riethmuller G. Establishment of a human cell line (Mono Mac 6) with characteristics of mature monocytes. Int J Cancer. 1988;41(3):456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haile LA, Puig M, Kelley-Baker L, Verthelyi D. Detection of innate immune response modulating impurities in therapeutic proteins. PLoS One. 2015;10(4).Google Scholar
Taniguchi T, Takaoka A. A weak signal for strong responses: interferon-alpha/beta revisited. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001;2:378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nafissi S, Azimi A, Amini-Harandi A, Salami S, Shahkarami MA, Heshmat R. Comparing efficacy and side effects of a weekly intramuscular biogeneric/biosimilar interferon beta-1a with Avonex in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a double blind randomized clinical trial. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012;114(7):986–989.Google Scholar
Declerck P, Danesi R, Petersel D, Jacobs I. The language of biosimilars: clarification, definitions, and regulatory aspects. Drugs. 2017;77(6):671–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koike F, Satoh J, Miyake S, Yamamoto T, Kawai M, Kikuchi S, et al. Microarray analysis identifies interferon beta-regulated genes in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol. 2003;139(1–2):109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zula JA, Green HC, Ransohoff RM, Rudick RA, Stark GR, van Boxel-Dezaire AHH. The role of cell type-specific responses in IFN-β therapy of multiple sclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011;108(49):19689–19694.Google Scholar
Amirkhani A, Rajda C, Arvidsson B, Bencsik K, Boda K, Seres E, et al. Interferon-beta affects the tryptophan metabolism in multiple sclerosis patients. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12(8):625–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Boxel-Dezaire AH, Zula JA, Xu Y, Ransohoff RM, Jacobberger JW, Stark GR. Major differences in the responses of primary human leukocyte subsets to IFN-beta. J Immunol 2010;185(10):5888–5899.Google Scholar
Taheri M, Ghafouri-Fard S, Solgi G, Sayad A, Mazdeh M, Omrani MD. Determination of cytokine levels in multiple sclerosis patients and their relevance with patients’ response to Cinnovex. Cytokine. 2017;96:138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haile LA, Puig M, Polumuri SK, Ascher J, Verthelyi D. In vivo effect of innate immune response modulating impurities on the skin milieu using a macaque model: impact on product immunogenicity. J Pharm Sci. 2016;106(3):751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verthelyi D, Wang V. Trace levels of innate immune response modulating impurities (IIRMIs) synergize to break tolerance to therapeutic proteins. PLoS One. 2010;5(12):e15252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar