Skip to main content
Log in

Analyzing Subvisible Particles in Protein Drug Products: a Comparison of Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) and Resonant Mass Measurement (RMM)

  • Research Article
  • Theme: Aggregation and Interactions of Therapeutic Proteins
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aggregation is common in protein drug manufacture, and while the effects of protein particulates are under investigation, many techniques applicable for their characterization have been recently developed. Among the methods available to characterize and quantify protein aggregates, none is applicable over the full size range and different methods often give conflicting results. The studies presented here compare two such methods: dynamic light scattering (DLS) and resonant mass measurement (RMM). The performance of each method was first characterized using polystyrene particle size standards (20, 60, 100, 200, 400, and 1,000 nm) over a range of concentrations. Standard particles were measured both singly and in binary mixtures containing 20 nm particles at a fixed concentration (1014 particles/mL) and various concentrations of one of the other particle sizes (i.e., 60, 100, 200, 400, or 1,000 nm). DLS and RMM were then used to detect unknown aggregate content in stressed samples of IgG. Both instruments were shown to have a working range that depends on particle size and concentration. In binary mixtures and polydisperse solutions, DLS was able to resolve two species in a manner dependent on both concentration and particle size. RMM was able to resolve particles above 200 nm (150 nm for protein) at concentrations below 109 particles/mL. In addition, dilution was evaluated as a technique to confirm and quantify the number of particles in solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Wang W, Singh SK, Li N, Toler MR, King KR, Nema S. Immunogenicity of protein aggregates—concerns and realities. Int J Pharm. 2012;431(1–2):1–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mahler HC, Friess W, Grauschopf U, Kiese S. Protein aggregation: pathways, induction factors and analysis. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98(9):2909–34. PubMed PMID: 18823031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnard JG, Babcock K, Carpenter JF. Characterization and quantitation of aggregates and particles in interferon-β products: potential links between product quality attributes and immunogenicity. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(3):915–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tatford OC, Gomme PT, Bertolini J. Analytical techniques for the evaluation of liquid protein therapeutics. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2004;40(Pt 1):67–81. PubMed PMID: 15270709.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. den Engelsman J, Garidel P, Smulders R, Koll H, Smith B, Bassarab S, et al. Strategies for the assessment of protein aggregates in pharmaceutical biotech product development. Pharm Res. 2011;28(4):920–33. PubMed PMID: 20972611. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3063870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carpenter J, Cherney B, Lubinecki A, Ma S, Marszal E, Mire-Sluis A, et al. Meeting report on protein particles and immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: filling in the gaps in risk evaluation and mitigation. Biologicals. 2010;38(5):602–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Philo J. Is any measurement method optimal for all aggregate sizes and types? AAPS J. 2006;8(3):E564–71. English.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carpenter JF, Randolph TW, Jiskoot W, Crommelin DJA, Middaugh CR, Winter G, et al. Overlooking subvisible particles in therapeutic protein products: gaps that may compromise product quality. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98(4):1201–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bootz A, Vogel V, Schubert D, Kreuter J. Comparison of scanning electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering and analytical ultracentrifugation for the sizing of poly(butyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2004;57(2):369–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Das T. Protein particulate detection issues in biotherapeutics development—current status. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2012;13(2):732–46. English.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Burg TP, Godin M, Knudsen SM, Shen W, Carlson G, Foster JS, et al. Weighing of biomolecules, single cells and single nanoparticles in fluid. Nature. 2007;446(7139):1066–9. PubMed PMID: 17460669.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Malvern. Dynamic light scattering. Common terms defined http://www.biophysics.bioc.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DLS_Terms_defined_Malvern.pdf. Malvern Instruments Limited.

  13. Voros J. The density and refractive index of adsorbing protein layers. Biophys J. 2004;87(1):553–61. PubMed PMID: 15240488. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1304376.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sidebottom D. Dynamic light scattering. Characterization of materials. New York: Wiley; 2002.

  15. Maret G, Wolf PE. Multiple light scattering from disordered media. The effect of Brownian motion of scatterers. Z Phy B Condens Matter. 1987;65(4):409–13. English.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pusey PN, Fijnaut HM, Vrij A. Mode amplitudes in dynamic light scattering by concentrated liquid suspensions of polydisperse hard spheres. J Chem Phys. 1982;77(9):4270–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Michael Kaszuba MC, Kevin Mattison. High concentration particle size measurements using dynamic light scattering http://www.atomikateknik.com/pdf/High%20Concentration%20PSA%20by%20PCS.pdf. 2004.

  18. Baalousha M, Lead JR. Rationalizing nanomaterial sizes measured by atomic force microscopy, flow field-flow fractionation, and dynamic light scattering: sample preparation, polydispersity, and particle structure. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(11):6134–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aragon SR, Pecora R. Theory of dynamic light scattering from polydisperse systems. J Chem Phys. 1976;64(6):2395–404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Georgalis Y, Starikov EB, Hollenbach B, Lurz R, Scherzinger E, Saenger W, et al. Huntingtin aggregation monitored by dynamic light scattering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(11):6118–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Filipe V, Hawe A, Jiskoot W. Critical evaluation of nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) by NanoSight for the measurement of nanoparticles and protein aggregates. Pharm Res. 2010;27(5):796–810. English.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahl D, Diendorf J, Meyer-Zaika W, Epple M. Possibilities and limitations of different analytical methods for the size determination of a bimodal dispersion of metallic nanoparticles. Colloids Surf A. 2011;377(1–3):386–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Weinbuch D, Zölls S, Wiggenhorn M, Friess W, Winter G, Jiskoot W, et al. Micro-flow imaging and resonant mass measurement (Archimedes)—complementary methods to quantitatively differentiate protein particles and silicone oil droplets. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(7):2152–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zölls S, Gregoritza M, Tantipolphan R, Wiggenhorn M, Winter G, Friess W, et al. How subvisible particles become invisible—relevance of the refractive index for protein particle analysis. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(5):1434–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank M. Christine Anderson, Dorothy Scott, Christine Stuart, and Nancy Eller, all of CBER, for helpful comments and suggestions. This work was supported by a grant to the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education (NIPTE) sponsored by the FDA (“Critical path manufacturing sector research initiative”, U01 FD004275) and also by an appointment (for JK) to the Research Participation Program at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Disclaimer

This article reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA’s views or policies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth M. Topp.

Additional information

Guest Editor: Craig Svensson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panchal, J., Kotarek, J., Marszal, E. et al. Analyzing Subvisible Particles in Protein Drug Products: a Comparison of Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) and Resonant Mass Measurement (RMM). AAPS J 16, 440–451 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-014-9579-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-014-9579-6

KEY WORDS

Navigation