4.5 Article

Transmission Electron Microscopy as an Orthogonal Method to Characterize Protein Aggregates

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 104, 期 2, 页码 750-759

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jps.24157

关键词

protein aggregation; IgG antibody; imaging methods; image analysis; particle sizing; microscopy

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NCATS 9R44TR000182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aggregation of protein-based therapeutics is a challenging problem in the biopharmaceutical industry. Of particular concern are implications for product efficacy and clinical safety because of potentially increased immunogenicity of the aggregates. We used transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to characterize biophysical and morphological features of antibody aggregates formed upon controlled environmental stresses. TEM results were contrasted with results obtained in parallel by independent methods, including size-exclusion chromatography, dynamic light scattering, microflow imaging, and nanoparticle tracking. For TEM, stressed samples were imaged by negative staining and in the frozen-hydrated state. In both cases, aggregates appeared amorphous but differed in fine structural detail. Specifically, negatively stained aggregates were compact and consisted of smaller globular structures that had a notable three-dimensional character. Elements of the native IgG structure were retained, suggesting that the aggregates were not assembled from denatured protein. In contrast, aggregates in frozen-hydrated samples appeared as extended, branched protein networks with large surface area. Using multiple scales of magnification, a wide range of particle sizes was observed and semiquantitatively characterized. The detailed information provided by TEM extended observations obtained with the independent methods, demonstrating the suitability of TEM as a complementary approach to submicron particle analysis. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 104:750-759, 2015

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