4.5 Article

Determination of Protein-Protein Interactions at High Co-Solvent Concentrations Using Static and Dynamic Light Scattering

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 109, 期 9, 页码 2699-2709

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2020.05.023

关键词

Osmotic second virial coefficients; Excipients; Biopharmaceuticals; Arginine; Urea; Guanidine hydrochloride; Lysozyme

资金

  1. BBSRC iCASE studentship award
  2. AstraZeneca (MedImmune)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein-protein interactions are commonly measured in terms of the second osmotic virial coefficient, B-22 from static light scattering (SLS) or the interaction parameter, k(D) from dynamic light scattering (DLS). Often these measurements are carried out at high co-solvent compositions, where correction factors are required for the light scattering analysis. For lysozyme in aqueous solutions containing the co-solvents NaCl, arginine chloride, urea, sucrose or guanidine chloride, we show that B-22 determination requires using in the light scattering equation the refractive index increment of the protein measured at constant solvent chemical potential. Because the increment decreases with increasing co-solvent composition, using a constant value can lead to mis-interpretation of protein-protein interaction trends deduced from the B-22 measurements. Furthermore, there is a contribution to the intensity auto-correlation function measured by dynamic light scattering due to co-solvents. This effect is removed by including longer delay times when fitting the cumulant analysis to determine the diffusion coefficients. We show that an experimentally observed correlation between B-22 and k(D )is recovered once these correction factors have been applied. The findings are particularly relevant to biopharmaceutical industry, where B-22 and kip measurements are used for screening excipient effects in liquid formulations. (C) 2020 American Pharmacists Association (R) . Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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