Literature DB >> 31228849

Comparative charge-based separation study with various capillary electrophoresis (CE) modes and cation exchange chromatography (CEX) for the analysis of monoclonal antibodies.

Julia Kahle1, Holger Zagst2, Rebecca Wiesner3, Hermann Wätzig4.   

Abstract

Charge heterogeneity is an important critical quality attribute for the analysis of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). For this, (imaged) capillary isoelectric focusing ((i)cIEF), ion exchange chromatography (IEC) and, recently, capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) are the predominantly used techniques. In order to investigate which one is most suitable to answer a specific analytical question, here, the four aforementioned separation techniques were systematically evaluated using NISTmAb and Infliximab as test molecules. The performance parameters (precision, separation efficiency, linearity and sensitivity) were determined under comparable conditions. Moreover, important aspects for daily routine such as speed and ease of use were considered. Each technique has its own pros and cons. The (i)cIEF methodology is distinguished by its excellent separation efficiency. In addition, the native fluorescence mode in icIEF is a good tool to analyze small sample amounts (LOQ: 2.8 mg/l for Infliximab). Nevertheless, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) still has superior precision. CZE, and also micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC), have emerged as further interesting alternatives. For all techniques, variations connected to the sample preparation strongly influence precision. Looking at the relative standard deviation (RSD) values of the relative peak areas, all techniques provide acceptable performance (RSD: 0.6-1.6%).
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Capillary electrophoresis; Cation exchange; Charge heterogeneity; Charge variants; Isoelectric focusing; Monoclonal antibody

Year:  2019        PMID: 31228849     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2019.05.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Biomed Anal        ISSN: 0731-7085            Impact factor:   3.935


  3 in total

1.  Biosimilar or Not: Physicochemical and Biological Characterization of MabThera and Its Two Biosimilar Candidates.

Authors:  Hong Wang; Linping Wu; Can Wang; Jin Xu; Hongrui Yin; Huaizu Guo; Luxia Zheng; Hong Shao; Gang Chen
Journal:  ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci       Date:  2021-03-12

Review 2.  Process- and Product-Related Foulants in Virus Filtration.

Authors:  Solomon Isu; Xianghong Qian; Andrew L Zydney; S Ranil Wickramasinghe
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-04

3.  Structural and Functional Analysis of CEX Fractions Collected from a Novel Avastin® Biosimilar Candidate and Its Innovator: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Busra Gurel; Melike Berksoz; Eda Capkin; Ayhan Parlar; Meltem Corbacioglu Pala; Aylin Ozkan; Yılmaz Capan; Duygu Emine Daglikoca; Meral Yuce
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 6.525

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.