Thomas Skamris1, Xinsheng Tian1, Matthias Thorolfsson2, Hanne Sophie Karkov2, Hanne B Rasmussen2, Annette E Langkilde1, Bente Vestergaard3. 1. Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Global Research Unit, Novo Nordisk A/S, Novo Nordisk Park 1, 2760, Måløv, Denmark. 3. Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. bente.vestergaard@sund.ku.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aggregation aspects of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are of common concern to the pharmaceutical industry. Low pH treatment is applied during affinity purification and to inactivate endogenous retroviruses, directing interest to the mechanisms of acid-induced antibody aggregation. METHODS: We characterized the oligomerization kinetics at pH 3.3, as well as the reversibility upon neutralization, of three model mAbs with identical variable regions, representative of IgG1, IgG2 and IgG4 respectively. We applied size-exclusion high performance liquid chromatography and orthogonal analytical methods, including small-angle X-ray scattering and dynamic light scattering and supplemented the experimental data with crystal structure-based spatial aggregation propensity (SAP) calculations. RESULTS: We revealed distinct solution behaviors between the three mAb models: At acidic pH IgG1 retained monomeric, whereas IgG2 and IgG4 exhibited two-phase oligomerization processes. After neutralization, IgG2 oligomers partially reverted to the monomeric state, while on the contrary, IgG4 oligomers tended to aggregate. Subclass-specific aggregation-prone motifs on the Fc fragments were identified, which may lead to two distinct pathways of reversible and irreversible aggregation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that subtle variations in mAb sequence greatly affect responses towards low-pH incubation and subsequent neutralization, and demonstrate how orthogonal biophysical methods distinguish between reversible and irreversible mAb aggregation pathways at early stages of acidic treatment.
PURPOSE: Aggregation aspects of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are of common concern to the pharmaceutical industry. Low pH treatment is applied during affinity purification and to inactivate endogenous retroviruses, directing interest to the mechanisms of acid-induced antibody aggregation. METHODS: We characterized the oligomerization kinetics at pH 3.3, as well as the reversibility upon neutralization, of three model mAbs with identical variable regions, representative of IgG1, IgG2 and IgG4 respectively. We applied size-exclusion high performance liquid chromatography and orthogonal analytical methods, including small-angle X-ray scattering and dynamic light scattering and supplemented the experimental data with crystal structure-based spatial aggregation propensity (SAP) calculations. RESULTS: We revealed distinct solution behaviors between the three mAb models: At acidic pH IgG1 retained monomeric, whereas IgG2 and IgG4 exhibited two-phase oligomerization processes. After neutralization, IgG2 oligomers partially reverted to the monomeric state, while on the contrary, IgG4 oligomers tended to aggregate. Subclass-specific aggregation-prone motifs on the Fc fragments were identified, which may lead to two distinct pathways of reversible and irreversible aggregation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that subtle variations in mAb sequence greatly affect responses towards low-pH incubation and subsequent neutralization, and demonstrate how orthogonal biophysical methods distinguish between reversible and irreversible mAb aggregation pathways at early stages of acidic treatment.
Authors: Charlotte Rode Mosbæk; Petr V Konarev; Dmitri I Svergun; Christian Rischel; Bente Vestergaard Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Naresh Chennamsetty; Vladimir Voynov; Veysel Kayser; Bernhard Helk; Bernhardt L Trout Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Thomas F Lerch; Penelope Sharpe; Stephen J Mayclin; Thomas E Edwards; Eunhee Lee; Hugh D Conlon; Sharon Polleck; Jason C Rouse; Yin Luo; Qin Zou Journal: MAbs Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 5.857
Authors: Chang-Ai Xu; Andrew Z Feng; Charan K Ramineni; Matthew R Wallace; Elizabeth K Culyba; Kevin P Guay; Kinjal Mehta; Robert Mabry; Stephen Farrand; Jin Xu; Jianwen Feng Journal: MAbs Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 5.857
Authors: Leon F Willis; Amit Kumar; John Dobson; Nicholas J Bond; David Lowe; Richard Turner; Sheena E Radford; Nikil Kapur; David J Brockwell Journal: Biotechnol Bioeng Date: 2018-02-04 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Talia A Shmool; Laura K Martin; Liem Bui-Le; Ignacio Moya-Ramirez; Pavlos Kotidis; Richard P Matthews; Gerhard A Venter; Cleo Kontoravdi; Karen M Polizzi; Jason P Hallett Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 9.825