4.5 Article

Determination of Interaction Parameters for Reversibly Self-Associating Antibodies: A Comparative Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 107, 期 7, 页码 1820-1830

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.03.011

关键词

mAb; dynamic light scattering; analytical ultracentrifugation; interacting systems; nonideality

资金

  1. MedImmune, LLC, a member of the AstraZeneca Group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a major class of biotherapeutics and are the fastest growing category of biologic drugs on the market. However, mAb development and formulation are often impeded by reversible self-association (RSA), defined as the dynamic exchange of monomers with native-state oligomers. Here, we present a comparative analysis of the self-association properties for 5 IgG mAbs, under matched conditions and using orthogonal methods. Concentration-dependent dynamic light scattering and sedimentation velocity studies revealed that the majority of mAbs examined exhibited weak to moderate RSA. However, because these studies were carried out at mAb concentrations in the mg/mL range, we also observed significant nonideality. Noting that nonideality frequently masks RSA and vice versa, we conducted direct boundary fitting of the sedimentation velocity data to determine stoichiometric binding models, interaction affinities, and nonideality terms for each mAb. These analyses revealed equilibrium constants from micromolar to millimolar and stoichiometric models from monomer-dimer to isodesmic. Moreover, even for those mAbs described by identical models, we observed distinct kinetics of self-association. The accuracy of the models and their corresponding equilibrium constants were addressed using sedimentation equilibrium and simulations. Overall, these results serve as the starting point for the comparative dissection of RSA mechanisms in therapeutic mAbs. (C) 2018 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