4.6 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 174, Issue -, Pages 460-470

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2019.05.058

Keywords

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

Funding

  1. Georg-Lichtenberg fellowship of Niedersachsen Gendered configurations of humans and machines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Charge heterogeneity is an important critical quality attribute for the analysis of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). For this, (imaged) capillary isoelectric focusing ((i)clEF), 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)clEF 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%). (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available