Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T00:12:38.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2025

Myrthe Alexandra Maria van Delft
Affiliation:
JJP Biologics, Warsaw, Poland Abyra BV, Leiden, Netherlands Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam institute for Immunology and Infectious diseases, Immunology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Aleksandra Cegiel
Affiliation:
JJP Biologics, Warsaw, Poland
Marjolein van Egmond
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam institute for Immunology and Infectious diseases, Immunology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Surgery, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Louis Boon*
Affiliation:
JJP Biologics, Warsaw, Poland Abyra BV, Leiden, Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Louis Boon; Email: louis.boon@jjp.bio
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of personalized medicine and its significant benefits for patients and society was introduced over three decades ago. The Human Genome Project (initiated in 1990 and completed in 2003) greatly accelerated the development of precision medicine. In many cancers, defined biomarkers are used to select patients for therapy. For example, KRAS mutations are used to guide treatment with Sotorasib, while tumor expression of (wild type) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and 3 (HER2 and HER3) are used to select patients for trastuzumab and cetuximab, respectively. Nonetheless, the clinical adoption of companion diagnostics to facilitate a patient-centric approach in inflammatory diseases remains disappointing. One key reason why the development of companion diagnostics may be delayed autoimmune and fibrotic diseases can be the timing when clinical development teams inform R&D teams about relevant biomarkers or companion diagnostic to select patients, disease monitoring or treatment termination decisions. For clinical practicality, it is highly preferred to measure a biomarker in the systemic circulation, as blood samples can be obtained relatively easily in most diseases. However, discovering systemic biomarkers during clinical development has proven extremely challenging. Here, we describe an alternative approach, which we have used to select the most appropriate target for IgA driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases. In this specific context, autoantigen-specific assays to determine autoantibody serum levels are widely available for a variety of indications. A detailed analysis of the biological pathways that affect the biomarker can uncover multiple potential therapeutic targets, allowing selection of the most optimal target from a clinical development perspective. Identification of a relevant biomarker before clinical development is initiated, enabling patient stratification in early clinical studies. Selection of the appropriate patient population based on biomarker presence reduces the number of patients needed and consequently, clinical development costs. Moreover, such a patient stratification approach minimizes the risk of including patients who are unlikely to respond, thereby avoiding unnecessary adverse events. This approach was applied during the selection of an anti-CD89 antagonist monoclonal antibody for IgA-mediated autoimmune and fibrotic diseases, serving as an illustrative example of this novel strategy.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Approved drugs (EU/US) & phase 3 therapies

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematic model of effects of IgA autoantibodies in inducing neutrophil (myeloid cell) activation and tissue damage in linear IgA dermatosis. IgA antibodies directed to Collagen type 17 (Col-17), or Collagen type 7 (Col-7) bind to the dermal/epidermal junction in the skin (1). These IgA-antigen complexes crosslink the FcαRI on neutrophils, resulting in cell activation and release of the potent neutrophil chemoattractant leukotriene B4 (LTB4) and interleuking-8 (IL-8) as well as myeloperoxidase and neutrophilic elastase (2). The LTB4 gradient leads to neutrophil attraction from the bloodstream and migration to site of inflammation (3). Neutrophil swarming and mass-activation leads to destruction of dermal-epidermal junction integrity and formation of blisters (4). Increased LTB4 production/gradient leads to the inflammatory amplification loop (5). Anti-CD89 binds to CD89 on neutrophils, displacing prebound IgA and preventing IgA mediated neutrophil activation (6). This will result in neutrophil apoptosis after their lifecycle, resolution of neutrophil swarming and subsequent restoration of dermal-epidermal junction integrity.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Schematic model of effects of IgA autoantibodies in inducing neutrophil (myeloid cell) activation and tissue damage in rheumatoid arthritis joints. IgA autoantibodies directed against citrullinated, carbamylated, human IgG Fc or dsDNA bind to carbamylated/citrullinated bone/cartilage, human IgG, DNA or NETs and form immune complexes. These IgA-antigen complexes crosslink the FcαRI on neutrophils resulting in cell activation, NETs release and release of the potent neutrophil chemoattractant leukotriene B4 (LTB4) and interleuking-8 (IL-8) (1). This way, a neutrophil migration loop is initiated (2), more neutrophils get activated (3) resulting in a massive influx of neutrophils in the synovium/synovial fluid (4), tissue damage and swollen joints in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Picture made by Biorender.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Schematic model of potential effects of IgA autoantibodies in inducing neutrophil (myeloid cell) activation and tissue damage in cystic fibrosis or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Neutrophils migrate into the alveolar cavity where they get activated (1). After activation, neutrophils release NETs, which consists of DNA, citrullinated proteins, proteases and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the mucus layer (2). NET proteases and ROS will lead to epithelial damage (4). IgA autoantibodies directed against dsDNA, citrullinated proteins or antinuclear antibodies bind to DNA and citrullinated epitopes thereby forming immune complexes (3). These IgA-antigen complexes crosslink the FcαRI on neutrophils resulting in cell activation, NETs release and release of the potent neutrophil chemoattractant leukotriene B4 (LTB4) and interleuking-8 (IL-8). This way, a neutrophil migration loop is initiated, resulting in tissue damage and fibrosis in cystic fibrosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Picture made by Biorender.

Figure 4

Table 2. Disease indications and IgA’s role in it

Author comment: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R0/PR1

Comments

n.a.

Review: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

<b>Abstract, 30-32</b>

“Here, we present an alternative approach to facilitate and secure biomarker development before clinical development is initiated, enabling patient stratification in early clinical studies.”

Alternative to what? Many cancer drugs do in fact have a defined biomarker and select patients based on the biomarker right from early phase trials. E.g. drugs targeting KRAS mutation- cancer somatic mutations can be detected in the blood using CDx assay.

The authors might be coming at this from an indication specific context, so it might be helpful to narrow down the scope from the beginning. I fully agree that in non-cancer diseases, biomarker first approaches are very uncommon, and it is likely the intention of this manuscript to call attention to IgA-mediated inflammatory diseases. It would give the paper much credit to set the stage by acknowledging and contrast the different degrees to which precision/personalized treatment has progressed for different disease types, and then call attention to their diseases of interest.

The words “facilitate and secure” also made me think that the paper was going to present pre-clinical or clinical trial data from their work, but the bulk of the manuscript is a review of IgA mediated diseases. Suggest to re-word this part.

I understand that the authors are trying to justify their concept of starting out on the drug development path by first understanding their biomarker of interest. This should be embedded in the title and abstract.

<b>p.3, 4-8 </b>

The use of the GPS metaphor seems a bit far fetched and lengthy for a scientitic paper. If this metaphor resurfaces throughout the review, it could be warranted, but this is not the case. Suggest to shorten or remove.

<b>p.3, 21-22 </b>

“Moreover, the use of companion diagnostics to facilitate a patient-centric approach remains disappointing (3). This is mainly caused by the timing…”

It is not clear what context the authors are referring to by “Patient centric approach” - Is this referring to in the real-world clinic setting? In drug development?

Suggest to narrow or specify your scope to “in the context of drug development”.

lag time and/or failure to utilize CDx in clinical practice setting is multifactorial, many regulatory and real-world /practical challenges also exist.

<b>P3, 29-31</b>

Again the paper is a lit review of disease indications and does not really describe how biomarker development was “facilitated and secured”. For example, is there going to be efforts to develop auto-antigen specific IgA assays for the indications that do not alread have a test? Have authors characterized and validated the threshold / cutoff for auto-IgA titre?

Will the clinical trials then aim to select patients based on their auto-antibody titre?

If IgA titre is the clinical “biomarker”, then based on FDA definition, one would expect the analytical and clinical utility of this to be assessed and validated. Therefore I am not comforatble with the phrase “facilitate and secure biomarker development before clinical development is initiated”. The content of this manuscript does not cover this adequately.

<b>

Overall comment about disease animal models –</b>

It is not clear from language if these were a review of literature or if this was talking about authors own work. From a look at some of the the references it seems like this is describing their own work, so this should be made more clear by using pronouns like “we”.

<b>Overall comment about the review of each disease type</b>

Would be highly valuable to the reader if authors could summarize what the drug development landscape for these conditions look like – perhaps in a table – what drugs are approved, what is under clinical development, what pathways these drugs target, then highlight that IgA-CD89 axis as a potential novel addition to the space.

The current textual content is a bit lengthy for me and takes me away from the main point of the review.

<b>

Conclusion, p15, 57-58</b>

Would give the paper merit to summarize the current landscape of therapeutic drugs targeting IgA-mediated inflammatory conditions. Seems to be some drugs out there for IgAN. I feel that authors should be aware that immune diseases can be very heterogenous, and exercise caution in their wording.

Statements should preferably be made with an underlying appreciation of the (most likely) fact that targeting 1 single pathway will most likely NOT treat or restore equlibrium to diseases of complex dysregulation, for all patients (precisely and further highlighting the concept of inter-individual differences).

<b>P16, 4-5</b>

Do authors consider writing about a basket trial to concurrently evaluate their candidate in multiple disease conditions?

<b>P16, 8-10</b>

This is repetitive, definition of precision medicine should already be clear in the intro.

<b>P16, 13-15</b>

Can the authors reveal more about how they are validating their biomarker of interest target in the many indications they have reviewed?

Review: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This review has a relevant concept, however, there are several comments that should be addressed to improve its scientific rigor:

Major points:

Please include a short paragraph describing your literature retrieval strategy. For guidance on structuring this section, you may use Gasparyan AY, et al. (2011). Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatology International. 2011;31(11):1409–1417. doi:10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3.

Please consider adding one summary table comparing IgA’s role, biomarker evidence, and therapeutic implications across diseases.

The reference list requires an update.

Please include the COI statement and Author Contribution in line with CrediT.

Minor points:

Please carefully recheck reference formatting (some citations are missing years or having inconsistent styles)

Recommendation: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R0/PR4

Comments

The reviewers have seen merit in your work and suggested some changes that are relevant and will improve the manuscript. The suggested changes should be straightforward to address.

Decision: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Editor,

Thank you for sending our manuscript to the reviewers. We appreciate the time and effort the reviewers spent evaluating our manuscript and highly value their comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered the comments and questions raised by the reviewers and addressed them as thoroughly as possible in the revised manuscript. We think that the manuscript has improved significantly as a result of these changes and hope that the reviewers will agree and find our answers and adaptations satisfactory.

Kind regards,

Drs. Myrthe van Delft and Louis Boon

Review: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I thank the authors for considering my feedback and applaud their effort in summarizing the literature. I loved the addition of the tables as it provides a birds eye view of their targeted landscape. I support their concept and hope this article will contribute to advocating for precision medicine.

Review: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The reference list still contains several outdated sources that should be replaced with more recent publications.

Recommendation: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R1/PR9

Comments

Thank you for submitting a revised manuscript. The comments of the reviewers have been addressed.

One additional comment from me relating to the introduction: ERBB3 (the correct symbol for HER3) expression is not used to select pts for cetuximab therapy; please change text to: “...while tumor expression of (wild type) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2) is used to select patients for trastuzumab and other ERBB2-directed therapies.” Along with the KRAS example, this will suffice to illustrate use of biomarkers in cancer.

Decision: Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.