Mapping the binding sites of antibodies utilized in programmed cell death ligand-1 predictive immunohistochemical assays for use with immuno-oncology therapies

Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression levels in patient tumor samples have proven clinical utility across various cancer types. Several independently developed PD-L1 immunohistochemical (IHC) predictive assays are commercially available. Published studies using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay, Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, Dako PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx assay, and laboratory-developed tests utilizing the E1L3N antibody (Cell Signaling Technology), have demonstrated differing levels of PD-L1 staining between assays, resulting in conjecture as to whether antibody-binding epitopes could be responsible for discordance between assays. Therefore, to understand the performance of different PD-L1 predictive immunohistochemistry assays, we aimed to distinguish the epitopes within the PD-L1 protein responsible for antibody binding. The sites at which antibody clones SP263, SP142, 22C3, 28-8, and E1L3N bind to recombinant PD-L1 were assessed using several methods, including conformational peptide array, surface plasmon resonance, and/or hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry. Putative binding sites were confirmed by site-directed mutagenesis of PD-L1, followed by western blotting and immunohistochemical analysis of cell lines expressing mutant constructs. Our results demonstrate that clones SP263 and SP142 bind to an identical epitope in the cytoplasmic domain at the extreme C-terminus of PD-L1, distinct from 22C3 and 28-8. Using mutated PD-L1 constructs, an additional clone, E1L3N, was also found to bind to the cytoplasmic domain of PD-L1. The E1L3N binding epitope overlaps considerably with the SP263/SP142 binding site but is not identical. Clones 22C3 and 28-8 have binding profiles in the extracellular domain of PD-L1, which differ from one another. Despite identifying epitope binding variance among antibodies, evidence indicates that only the SP142 assay generates significantly discordant immunohistochemical staining, which can be resolved by altering the assay protocol. Therefore, inter-assay discordances are more likely attributable to tumor heterogeneity, assay, or platform variables rather than antibody epitope.