| Literature DB >> 36015197 |
Busra Gurel1, Melike Berksoz2, Eda Capkin2,3, Ayhan Parlar3, Meltem Corbacioglu Pala2, Aylin Ozkan2, Yılmaz Capan2, Duygu Emine Daglikoca2, Meral Yuce1.
Abstract
Avastin® is a humanized recombinant monoclonal antibody used to treat cancer by targeting VEGF-A to inhibit angiogenesis. SIMAB054, an Avastin® biosimilar candidate developed in this study, showed a different charge variant profile than its innovator. Thus, it is fractionated into acidic, main, and basic isoforms and collected physically by Cation Exchange Chromatography (CEX) for a comprehensive structural and functional analysis. The innovator product, fractionated into the same species and collected by the same method, is used as a reference for comparative analysis. Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) ESI-QToF was used to analyze the modifications leading to charge heterogeneities at intact protein and peptide levels. The C-terminal lysine clipping and glycosylation profiles of the samples were monitored by intact mAb analysis. The post-translational modifications, including oxidation, deamidation, and N-terminal pyroglutamic acid formation, were determined by peptide mapping analysis in the selected signal peptides. The relative binding affinities of the fractionated charge isoforms against the antigen, VEGF-A, and the neonatal receptor, FcRn, were revealed by Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) studies. The results show that all CEX fractions from the innovator product and the SIMAB054 shared the same structural variants, albeit in different ratios. Common glycoforms and post-translational modifications were the same, but at different percentages for some samples. The dissimilarities were mostly originating from the presence of extra C-term Lysin residues, which are prone to enzymatic degradation in the body, and thus they were previously assessed as clinically irrelevant. Another critical finding was the presence of different glyco proteoforms in different charge species, such as increased galactosylation in the acidic and afucosylation in the basic species. SPR characterization of the isolated charge variants further confirmed that basic species found in the CEX analyses of the biosimilar candidate were also present in the innovator product, although at lower amounts. The charge variants' in vitro antigen- and neonatal receptor-binding activities varied amongst the samples, which could be further investigated in vivo with a larger sample set to reveal the impact on the pharmacokinetics of drug candidates. Minor structural differences may explain antigen-binding differences in the isolated charge variants, which is a key parameter in a comparability exercise. Consequently, such a biosimilar candidate may not comply with high regulatory standards unless the binding differences observed are justified and demonstrated not to have any clinical impact.Entities:
Keywords: avastin; bevacizumab; biosimilars; cation exchange chromatography; charge variants; fractionation; mass spectrometry; monoclonal antibodies; surface plasmon resonance
Year: 2022 PMID: 36015197 PMCID: PMC9415858 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14081571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.525
Figure 1CEX results of AVT and SIMAB054. Overlay of CEX results of AVT and SIMAB054 and a comparative table of acidic, basic, and main charge variant percentages.
Figure 2Each fraction was analyzed by CEX to confirm the presence of targeted charge variants. (A) CEX fractions collected from the innovator, AVT. (B) CEX fractions collected from SIMAB054.
Figure 3SEC-HPLC analysis results of each fraction. (A) Overlay chromatograms of AVT08 charge variant fractions. (B) Overlay chromatograms of SIMAB054 charge variant fractions.
Figure 4Intact protein analysis of charge variant fractions obtained from AVT and SIMAB054. (A) The list of the molecular mass of the dominant mass peak in each fraction. Each fraction was injected three times, and the mass ranges represent the minimum–maximum observed mass values. A, M, and B represent acidic, main, and basic fractions. (B) Illustration of glycoforms assigned for each molecular mass.
The post-translational modification alterations of selected peptides in all charge variant fractions. The results were obtained by peptide mapping analysis of AVT and SIMAB054. The percentage values were calculated by averaging three separate injections, indicating standard deviations. A, M, and B represent acidic, main, and basic fractions. HC, heavy chain; LC, light chain; TX, tryptic peptide number in the indicated chain.
| Charge Variant | Sample Type | Oxidation M | Deamidation N | Isomerization | Succinimide N | N-Term Cyclization | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC/T1 | HC/T19 | LC/T9 | HC/T8 | HC/T21 | LC/T9 | HC/T2 | HC/T34 | HC/T1 | ||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| ND | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| ND | ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Figure 5The VEGF-binding characteristics of the fractionated charge variants using the SPR using the Langmuir 1:1 binding model. The samples fractionated by the CEX method were obtained from the innovator (AVT) and the biosimilar candidate (SIMAB054) under the same operational conditions. A, M, and B, respectively, represent acidic, main, and basic fractions. The KD data were presented as the mean value obtained from at least five measurements. The inset (top-left) is a representative illustration of the prepared SPR chip surface. The inset (top-right) shows the proposed mechanism of action for Avastin®, adapted from reference [91].
Figure 6The VEGF-binding characteristics of the fractionated charge variants using the SPR using the Langmuir 1:1 binding model. The samples fractionated by the CEX method were obtained from the innovator (AVT) and the biosimilar candidate (SIMAB054) under the same operational conditions. A, M, and B, respectively, represent acidic, main, and basic fractions. The means of KD values were obtained from at least five measurements, and an equivalence test was used to compare each charge variant of SIMAB054 with those of AVT.
Figure 7The FcRn-binding characteristics of the fractionated charge variants were revealed by the SPR, using steady-state (A) and two-state binding models (B). The samples fractionated by the CEX method were obtained from the innovator (AVT08) and the biosimilar candidate (SIMAB054) under the same operational conditions. The A, M, and B represent acidic, main, and basic fractions. A lower KD value represents a better binding. The KD data were given as the mean value obtained from at least five measurements. The inset (top-left) is a representative illustration of the prepared SPR chip surface. The inset (top-right) shows the proposed mechanism of action for FcRn, adapted from reference [108].
A summary of the results obtained by chemical and biological activity characterization studies was represented.
| CEX Peak (%) | AVT | SIMAB054 | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| AVT: 4.71% | Glycoforms could not be characterized. | Predominant glycoform is G1F: G1F with truncated Lys. |
Glycoforms could not be compared. Similar PTM profiles. Similar in VEGF binding. Similar in FcRn binding. |
|
| AVT: 8.24% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G1F: G1F with truncated Lys. |
Difference in predominant glycoform. Similar PTM profiles. Different in VEGF binding ( Similar in FcRn binding. |
|
| AVT: 12.24% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. |
No difference in predominant glycoform. Both contain PyroGlu at N-term. Different in VEGF binding. Similar in FcRn binding. |
|
| AVT: 65.30% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. |
No difference in predominant glycoform. Similar PTM profiles. Similar in VEGF binding. Similar in FcRn binding. |
|
| AVT: NA% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0: G1F with truncated Lys. |
Difference in predominant glycoform. Similar PTM profiles. Similar in VEGF binding. Similar in FcRn binding |
|
| AVT: 3.52% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with 1 Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with 1 Lys. |
No difference in predominant glycoform. Same PTMs with variable ratios. Similar in VEGF binding. Similar in FcRn binding. |
|
| AVT: 1.56% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0: G0F with 1 Lys. |
The difference in predominant glycoform. Same PTMs with variable ratios. Different in VEGF binding ( Different in FcRn binding ( |
|
| AVT: 0.91% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with 2 Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with 2 Lys. |
No difference in predominant glycoform. Same PTMs with variable ratios. Different in VEGF binding ( Different in FcRn binding ( |
|
| AVT: 1.35% | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. | Predominant glycoform is G0F: G0F with truncated Lys. |
No difference in predominant glycoform. Same PTMs with variable ratios. Similar in VEGF binding. Similar in FcRn binding. |