Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 405, Issue 10, pp 3137–3151 | Cite as

Comparative study of recent wide-pore materials of different stationary phase morphology, applied for the reversed-phase analysis of recombinant monoclonal antibodies

  • Szabolcs Fekete
  • Jean-Luc Veuthey
  • Sebastiaan Eeltink
  • Davy Guillarme
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Various recent wide-pore reversed-phase stationary phases were studied for the analysis of intact monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) of 150 kDa and their fragments possessing sizes between 25 and 50 kDa. Different types of column technology were evaluated, namely, a prototype silica-based inorganic monolith containing mesopores of ∼250 Å and macropores of ∼ 1.1 μm, a column packed with 3.6 μm wide-pore core-shell particles possessing a wide pore size distribution with an average around 200 Å and a column packed with fully porous 1.7 μm particles having pore size of ∼300 Å. The performance of these wide-pore materials was compared with that of a poly(styrene–divinyl benzene) organic monolithic column, with a macropore size of approximately 1 μm but without mesopores (stagnant pores). A systematic investigation was carried out using model IgG1 and IgG2 mAbs, namely rituximab, panitumumab, and bevacizumab. Firstly, the recoveries of intact and reduced mAbs were compared on the two monolithic phases, and it appeared that adsorption was less pronounced on the organic monolith, probably due to the difference in chemistry (C18 versus phenyl) and the absence of mesopores (stagnant zones). Secondly, the kinetic performance was investigated in gradient elution mode for all columns. For this purpose, peak capacities per meter as well as peak capacities per time unit and per pressure unit (PPT) were calculated at various flow rates, to compare performance of columns with different dimensions. In terms of peak capacity per meter, the core-shell 3.6 μm and fully porous 1.7 μm columns outperformed the two monolithic phases, at a temperature of 60 °C. However, when considering the PPT values, the core-shell 3.6 μm column remained the best phase while the prototype silica-based monoliths became very interesting, mostly due to a very high permeability compared with the organic monolith. Therefore, these core-shell and silica-based monolith provided the fastest achievable separation. Finally, at the maximal working temperature of each column, the core-shell 3.6 μm column was far better than the other one, because it is the only one stable up to 90 °C. Lastly, the loading capacity was also measured on these four different phases. It appeared that the organic monolith was the less interesting and rapidly overloaded, due to the absence of mesopores. On the other hand, the loading capacity of prototype silica-based monolith was indeed reasonable.

Keywords

Monolith Core-shell Sub-2 μm Column efficiency Monoclonal antibody 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr. Karin Cabrera (Merck KGaA) for providing the new wide-pore silica-based monolithic research samples (C18, 100 × 4.6 mm, KN2229, VNr. 4463.06).

References

  1. 1.
    Guiochon G (2007) J Chromatog A 1168:101–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cabrera K (2004) J Sep Sci 27:843–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hjerten S, Liao JL, Zhang R (1989) J Chromatogr 473:273–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Svec F, Frechet JMJ (1992) Anal Chem 64:820–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minakuchi H, Nakanishi K, Soga N, Ishizuka N, Tanaka N (1996) Anal Chem 68:3498–3501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eeltink S, Wouters B, Desmet G, Ursem M, Blinco D, Kemp GD, Treumann A (2011) J Chromatog A 1218:5504–5511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detobel F, Broeckhoven K, Wellens J, Wouters B, Swart R, Ursem M, Desmet G, Eeltink S (2010) J Chromatog A 1217:3085–3090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hormann K, Müllner T, Bruns S, Höltzel A, Tallarek U (2012) J Chromatog A 1222:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knox JH (1977) J Chromatogr Sci 15:352–364Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poppe H (1997) J Chromatogr A 778:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giddings JC (1965) Anal Chem 37:60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacNair JE, Lewis KC, Jorgenson JW (1997) Anal Chem 69:983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jerkovich AD, Mellors JS, Jorgenson JW (2003) LC-GC Europe 16:20–23Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mazzeo JR, Neue UD, Kele M, Plumb RS (2005) Anal Chem 77:460–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guillarme D, Nguyen DTT, Rudaz S, Veuthey JL (2006) J Sep Sci 29:1836–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eugster PJ, Guillarme D, Rudaz S, Veuthey JL, Carrupt PA, Wolfender JL (2011) AOAC Int 94:51–70Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Novakova L, Vlckova H (2009) Anal Chim Acta 656:8–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Staub A, Guillarme D, Schappler J, Veuthey JL, Rudaz S (2011) J Pharm Biomed Anal 55:810–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fekete S, Berky R, Fekete J, Veuthey JL, Guillarme D (2012) J Chromatogr A 1236:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krull IS, Rathore A (2011) LCGC North Am 29:838–852Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fekete S, Fekete J, Ganzler K (2009) J Pharm Biomed Anal 49:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruta J, Zurlino D, Grivel C, Heinisch S, Veuthey JL, Guillarme D (2012) J Chromatogr A 1228:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guiochon G, Gritti F (2011) J Chromatogr A 1218:1915–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirkland JJ (1992) Anal Chem 64:1239–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liekens A, Denayer J, Desmet G (2011) J Chromatogr A 1218:4406–4416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Olah E, Fekete S, Fekete J, Ganzler K (2010) J Chromatogr A 1217:3642–3653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fanigliulo A, Cabooter D, Bellazzi G, Tramarin D, Allieri B, Rottigni A, Desmet G (2010) J Sep Sci 33:3655–3665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Staub A, Zurlino D, Rudaz S, Veuthey JL, Guillarme D (2011) J Chromatogr A 1218:8903–8914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fekete S, Rudaz S, Fekete J, Guillarme D (2012) J Pharm Biomed Anal 70:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fekete S, Rudaz S, Veuthey JL, Guillarme D (2012) J Sep Sci. doi: 10.1002/jssc.201200297
  31. 31.
    Snyder LR (1980) In: Horvath C (ed) Gradient elution in HPLC: advances and perspectives, vol. 1. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Snyder LR, Kirkland JJ, Glajch JL (1997) Practical HPLC method development, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Giddings JC (1967) Anal Chem 39:1027–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Horvath C, Lipsky SR (1967) Anal Chem 39:1893–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Neue UD (2005) J Chromatogr A 1079:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang X, Stoll DR, Schellinger AP, Carr PW (2006) Anal Chem 78:3406–3416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dolan JW, Snyder LR, Djordjevic NM, Hill DW, Waeghe TJ (1999) J Chromatogr A 857:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neue UD, Mazzeo JR (2001) J Sep Sci 24:921–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Neue UD, Carmody JL, Cheng YF, Lu Z, Phoebe CH, Wheat TE (2001) Adv Chromatogr 41:93–136Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Neue UD, Cheng YF, Lu Z (2006) In: Kromidas S (ed) HPLC made to measure: a practical handbook for optimization. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schuster SA, Boyes BE, Wagner BM, Kirkland JJ (2012) J Chromatogr A 1228:232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Neue UD (2008) J Chromatogr A 1184:107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang X, Stoll DR, Carr PW, Schoenmakers PJ (2006) J Chromatogr A 1125:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang Y, Wang X, Mukherjee P, Petersson P (2009) J Chromatogr A 1216:4597–4605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Causon TJ, Hilder EF, Shellie RA, Haddad PR (2010) J Chromatogr A 1217:5063–5068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ruta J, Guillarme D, Rudaz S, Veuthey JL (2010) J Sep Sci 33:2465–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Broeckhoven K, Cabooter D, Lynen F, Sandra P, Desmet G (2010) J Chromatogr A 1217:2787–2795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Broeckhoven K, Cabooter D, Eeltink S, Desmet G (2012) J Chromatogr A 1228:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bristow PA, Knox JH (1977) Chromatographia 10:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fekete S, Fekete J (2011) Talanta 84:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang X, Barber WE, Carr PW (2006) J Chromatogr A 1107:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McCalley DV (2006) Anal Chem 78:2532–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fekete S, Berky R, Fekete J, Veuthey JL, Guillarme D (2012) J Chromatogr A 1252:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lundell N, Schreitmuller T (1999) Anal Biochem 266:31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Williams KR, Stone KL (1995) Methods Mol Biol 40:157–175Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yan B, Valliere-Douglass J, Brady L, Steen S, Han M, Pace D, Elliott S, Yates Z, Balland A, Wang W, Pettit D (2007) J Chromatogr A 1164:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kleemann G, Beierle J, Nichols A, Dillon T, Pipes G, Bondarenko P (2008) Anal Chem 80:2001–2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dillon TM, Bondarenko PV, Rehder DS, Pipes GD, Kleemann GR, Ricci MS (2006) J Chromatogr A 1120:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yang J, Wang S, Liu J, Raghani A (2007) J Chromatogr A 1156:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yan B, Eris T, Yates Z, Hong RW, Steen S, Kleemann G, Wang W, Liu JL (2009) J Chromatogr B 877:1613–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szabolcs Fekete
    • 1
  • Jean-Luc Veuthey
    • 1
  • Sebastiaan Eeltink
    • 2
  • Davy Guillarme
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of Geneva, University of LausanneGeneva 4Switzerland
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringVrije Universiteit Brussel14 BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations