4.8 Article

An Online Four-Dimensional HICxSEC-IMxMS Methodology for Proof-of-Concept Characterization of Antibody Drug Conjugates

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 90, 期 3, 页码 1578-1586

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02110

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)
  2. French Proteomic Infrastructure (ProFI) [ANR-10-INBS-08-03]
  3. GIS IBiSA
  4. Region Alsace
  5. Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie (ANRT)
  6. Syndivia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are currently two main techniques allowing the analytical characterization of interchain cysteine-linked antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) under native conditions, namely, hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) and native mass spectrometry (MS). HIC is a chromatographic technique allowing the evaluation of drug load profile and calculation of average drug-to-antibody ratio (DAR) in quality control laboratories. Native MS offers structural insights into multiple ADC critical quality attributes, thanks to accurate mass measurement. However, both techniques can lead to misinterpretations or incomplete characterization when used as standalone methods. Online coupling of both techniques can thus potentially be of great interest, but the presence of large amounts of nonvolatile salts in HIC mobile phases makes it not easily directly compatible with native MS. Here, we present an innovative multidimensional analytical approach combining comprehensive online two-dimensional (2D)-chromatography that consists of HIC and size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), to ion mobility and mass spectrometry (IM-MS) for performing analytical characterization of ADCs under nondenaturing conditions. This setup enabled comprehensive and streamlined characterization of both native and forced degraded ADC samples. The proposed 4D methodology might be more generally adapted for online all-in-one HICXSEC-IMXMS analysis of single proteins or analysis of protein complexes in nondenaturing conditions.

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

4.8
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