| Literature DB >> 30121316 |
Masato Kiyoshi1, Hiroko Shibata2, Akira Harazono1, Tetsuo Torisu3, Takahiro Maruno4, Michiko Akimaru5, Yuuka Asano6, Mai Hirokawa7, Keisuke Ikemoto7, Yukari Itakura8, Takafumi Iwura9, Aya Kikitsu10, Takashi Kumagai11, Naoki Mori7, Hiroaki Murase6, Hirotaka Nishimura12, Atsushi Oda13, Taiichiro Ogawa14, Takuma Ojima5, Shinji Okabe6, Shuntaro Saito5, Satoshi Saitoh15, Hiroyuki Suetomo9, Kazuhiro Takegami14, Momoko Takeuchi10, Hidehito Yasukawa6, Susumu Uchiyama16, Akiko Ishii-Watabe1.
Abstract
The evaluation of subvisible particles, including protein aggregates, in therapeutic protein products has been of great interest for both pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulatory agencies. To date, the flow imaging (FI) method has emerged as a powerful tool instead of light obscuration (LO) due to the fact that (1) protein aggregates contain highly transparent particles and thereby escape detection by LO and (2) FI provides detailed morphological characteristics of subvisible particles. However, the FI method has not yet been standardized nor listed in any compendium. In an attempt to assess the applicability of the standardization of the FI method, we conducted a collaborative study using FI and LO instruments in a Japanese biopharmaceutical consortium. Three types of subvisible particle preparations were shared across 12 laboratories and analyzed for their sizes and counts. The results were compared between the methods (FI and LO), inter-laboratories, and inter-instruments (Micro Flow Imaging and FlowCam). We clarified the marked difference between the detectability of FI and LO when counting highly transparent protein aggregates in the preparations. Although FlowCam provided a relatively higher number of particles compared with MFI, consistent results were obtained using the instrument from the same manufacturer in all 3 samples.Keywords: image analysis; microparticle(s); particle size; protein aggregation; standards
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30121316 DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.08.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm Sci ISSN: 0022-3549 Impact factor: 3.534