4.7 Article

Fast, robust and high-resolution glycosylation profiling of intact monoclonal IgG antibodies using nanoLC-chip-QTOF

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 461, 期 -, 页码 90-97

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.07.015

关键词

Monoclonal Gammopathy; Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies; Cryoglobulin; QTOF high resolution mass spectrometry; Intact protein analysis

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-Veni grant) [016.136.101]
  2. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-Medium Investment Grant) [40-00506-98-9001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal glycosylation of immunoglobulins is essential in the generation of therapeutic biologicals with respect to efficacy, pharmacokinetics and immunogenic properties. This challenge in the field of biopharmaceuticals requires technologies for fast, robust and quantitative analysis of glycosylation. Current analyses of monoclonal antibody glycosylation are proteolysis-based mass spectrometry methods, which provide detailed structural information, but suffer a number of drawbacks such as lengthy sample preparation with the possibility to introduce artifacts. Here, we describe a fast, robust and high-resolution nanoLC-chip-QTOF method for quantitative analysis of intact monoclonal IgG glycosylation profiling. The method is able to detect hypoglycosylation, i.e. the lack of whole glycans, which is an important advantage over the well-established methods for free N-glycan or glycopeptide analysis. Moreover, the method is highly amenable to automation and because no digestion steps are involved, it provides direct relative quantitative information of both glycans on each IgG attachment site. We demonstrate that the ease and robustness make this technique ideally suited for quality control of the production process of mAb biopharmaceuticals, and provides new opportunities to study the clinical impact of mAb-glycosylation in patients with monoclonal gammopathies. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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