This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Stems what I've made up is: murine hybrids: -exomab, -ixomab, -oxomab, and -uxomab. Two-letter combinations for targets: -o(s). Three-letter combinations for targets: -mu(l)- (muscular). Four-letter combinations for targets: -neu(r)- (nervous system), -tox(a)- (
toxin), -fu(ng)- (
fungal). -xomab means a murine hybrid.
BlakeCS05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Examples
I think this page might be more accessible to beginners if several more examples were given and analyzed. This nomenclature is unique, and it takes a while to get your mind around it.
A linguist might say that these words are agglutinative, with a string of components but no definite stem (if -mab is viewed as a stem, then words might be called synthetic). Whole languages can be agglutinative, like spoken French or like the Algonkian languages of North America, or synthetic like Latin, Sanskrit, or Turkish.
Either way, they don't work like English, and the learner needs all the help he can get.
Or maybe this elderly physician just needs to retire!
The reader who doesn't know what monoclonal antibodies are should perhaps be introduced to the concept in 2-3 brief sentences. Difficult, but not impossible.
In the table, some items in the list are under discussion "as of February 2010". Have any conclusions been reached, or is this still the state of affairs?
There don't seem to be any publications newer than ref #2 which is from Dec 2009; so it should actually be "as of December 2009" unless anything new crops up. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Components:
Antibodies from hamsters (theoretically -e-) and primates (-i-) have never been assigned INNs. This might benefit from rephrasing, such as: "No INN has ever been requested for antibodies from hamsters [...]". Do any sources explain why they were anticipated, and why none were assigned?
Tough one. These animals are more or less closely related to humans (see
Euarchontoglires), making immunogenicity less of a problem, and they are easy to keep as laboratory animals. But this doesn't explain why there is no substem for rabbits. Regarding your second question: Mice seem to be the most commonly used hosts, presumably for practical reasons (small, breed quickly, well known biological properties). It isn't impossible, though, that primate mabs will receive INNs in the future. However, that's all guesswork; I didn't find any good sources. Will ask at
WT:PHARM. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
19:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)reply
It might help if the image were modified to show the CDRs more clearly, as not all readers will know what these are and why they matter.
Draft looks OK but would need to be modified for each subtype as in the current version. Perhaps it's just the caption that needs to be clearer where the CDRs are.
JFW |
T@lk15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
With regards to the "prefix" section, it could be pointed out that different commercial antibodies for exactly the same target (don't know if this has happened) would have different prefixes to distinguish them. Unsure if the sources might help here.
With regards to "additional words", I think a few examples would be immensely helpful here.
Done. The last two "Old convention" bullets are now somewhat redundant. Do you think I can remove them? (An example of the type isotope + mab [Technetium (99mTc) pintumomab] could be added to the "additional words" section"). --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
17:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)reply
History:
Should there be a sentence or two about the history of monoclonal antibodies an sich? This will place the nomenclature discussions in historical context. Stern & Herrmann seems a reasonable source for this.
An interesting article! Let me know how you get on with the above points. I expect there might be one or two other small things, on the whole it looks good.
JFW |
T@lk23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Done, more or less. I am still looking for a source saying that mabs were discovered in multiple myeloma (nothing found, removed sentence --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
10:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)), and have more or less given up on the question why there are no hamster mabs.reply
Things definitely looking good. You have clearly followed up my recommendations. I think that despite the slight redundancy, the "examples" section still enhances the article, and should probably remain.
The use of the {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} templates means that it is slightly more different to force all references into a consistent format (e.g. spaces vs semicolons between authors). I have no immediate solution for this, and it is one of the reasons why I personally generate my citations templates by other means. I don't think this is a breaking point for
WP:WIAGA.
If you are going to rely on {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}, would it be possible to make all other references consistent? By this I mean using the same style for the names of the authors (comma after the surname, semicolon after the initials). I personally favour the Surname IN, Othersurname AB. format, but as long as things are consistent it's fine. Hate to harp on about this, but it technically falls under
WP:WIAGA 1b.
I don't think the format has something to do with {{cite doi}} vs {{citation}} but rather with the use of parameters (authors= vs last1= | first1= etc). I prefer using the latter, resulting in Surname, IN; Othersurname, AB, because it's better machine readable and I can see no disadvantage for human readers. Hope that's fine with you.
That's fine. I think both the templates use the citation bot, which formats references differently from Diberri's template filler. As long as things are consistent, it's all good.
JFW |
T@lk20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Ref #18 only gives "AGN" as an author, and I'm not sure whether I've placed the "Jr." correctly in #4, but apart from that I think I've caught everything. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
11:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your review! I enjoyed your constructive suggestions, and the article is now definitely better and more complete than two weeks ago. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
21:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Misleading article title
Could I just point out that this article is not about the nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies? It is about the nomenclature of *therapeutic* monoclonal antibodies. A monoclonal antibody can be called anything you like. It is only when a monoclonal antibody which is intended to become a drug reaches the stage of development where an INN is required that the system so tortuously described in the article kicks in.
Target substem
The
USAN 2019 Naming Policy states that "[t]he target infix places information about the action or use of the antibody in the name", which is in conflict with the currently unsourced text in the article. I have yet to find any information from WHO literature. I will remove those paragraph if there are no evidence otherwise. -
Mys_721tx (
talk)
18:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Editorializing
"These are officially called substems and sometimes erroneously infixes, even by the USAN Council itself." is an assertion not existing in the source and should be removed. -
Mys_721tx (
talk)
19:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply