4.7 Article

Comparing different domains of analysis for the characterisation of N-glycans on monoclonal antibodies

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 23-34

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpha.2019.11.008

Keywords

N-Glycans; Biopharmaceuticals; Monoclonal antibodies; Intact mass analysis; Mass spectrometry; Native mass spectrometry; Glycan analysis; Peptide mapping; Glycopeptide analysis

Funding

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [13/CDA/2196]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [13/CDA/2196] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the size of the biopharmaceutical market exponentially increasing, there is an aligned growth in the importance of data-rich analyses, not only to assess drug product safety but also to assist drug development driven by the deeper understanding of structure/function relationships. In monoclonal antibodies, many functions are regulated by N-glycans present in the constant region of the heavy chains and their mechanisms of action are not completely known. The importance of their function focuses analytical research efforts on the development of robust, accurate and fast methods to support drug development and quality control. Released N-glycan analysis is considered as the gold standard for glycosylation characterisation; however, it is not the only method for quantitative analysis of glycoform heterogeneity. In this study, ten different analytical workflows for N-glycan analysis were compared using four monoclonal antibodies. While observing good comparability between the quantitative results generated, it was possible to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of each technique and to summarise all the observations to guide the choice of the most appropriate analytical workflow according to application and the desired depth of data generated. (C) 2019 Xi'an Jiaotong University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available