4.5 Article

Taylor Dispersion Analysis Compared to Dynamic Light Scattering for the Size Analysis of Therapeutic Peptides and Proteins and Their Aggregates

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 2302-2310

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-011-0460-3

关键词

dynamic light scattering; hydrodynamic size; protein aggregation; protein characterization; Taylor dispersion analysis

资金

  1. Dutch Technology Foundation STW
  2. Applied Science Division of NWO
  3. Ministry of Economic Affairs
  4. EPSRC [DT/F002564/1]
  5. EPSRC [DT/F002564/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [DT/F002564/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate Taylor dispersion analysis (TDA) as a novel method for determination of hydrodynamic radius of therapeutic peptides and proteins in non-stressed and stressed formulations and to compare it with dynamic light scattering (DLS). The hydrodynamic radius of oxytocin, bovine serum albumin, various monoclonal antibodies (type IgG) and etanercept at concentrations between 0.05 and 50 mg/ml was determined by TDA and DLS. IgGs and etanercept were stressed (elevated temperatures) and analyzed by TDA, DLS and HP-SEC. TDA and DLS were comparable in sizing non-stressed peptides and proteins in a concentration range of about 0.5 to 50 mg/ml. TDA performed well even at lower concentrations, where DLS tends to provide theoretically high values of the Z-average radius. However, because of differences in the detection physics, DLS was more weighted towards the detection of aggregates in stressed formulations than TDA. Advantageously, TDA was also able to size the small peptide oxytocin, which was not feasible by DLS. TDA allows the accurate determination of the hydrodynamic radius of peptides and proteins over a wide concentration range, with little interference from excipients present in the sample. It is marginally less sensitive than DLS in detecting size increase for stressed protein samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据