Advertisement

Development and Validation of Salt Gradient CEX Chromatography Method for Charge Variants Separation and Quantitative Analysis of the IgG mAb-Cetuximab

  • Afsaneh Farjami
  • Mohammadreza Siahi-Shadbad
  • Parvin Akbarzadehlaleh
  • Ommoleila Molavi
Original
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Ion exchange chromatography is widely used for charge variant analysis of proteins, including monoclonal antibodies. In this study, a simple and robust salt gradient cation exchange chromatography was developed and validated for quantitative determination of cetuximab in biopharmaceutical formulations. For this purpose, we investigated the effect of various parameters including buffer composition, column temperature, pH, gradient volume and flow rate on chromatographic separation of charge variants to achieve the acceptable peak separation, and the optimum condition was selected. Validation of the method was done in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines. The developed method was found to provide a linear regression over the concentration range of 0.06–2.00 mg mL−1 yielding a correlation coefficient of 0.9972. The limits of detection and quantification for the developed method were 0.02 and 0.06 mg mL−1, respectively. The intra-day and inter-day precision had relative standard deviation values ≤ 2.7%. The robustness of the method was assessed by changes in the applied pH range of buffer, temperature, mobile phase composition, and flow rate. Specificity of the method was confirmed by evaluation of baseline resolution of the mAb variants from product excipients, which showed no interference between excipients and cetuximab. The stability indicating capability of this method was determined using photodegraded, and mechanically and thermally stressed samples. The proposed method could be applied as a simple, precise, and robust quantitative technique which can be reproduced in any labs for the high-throughput quality control and stability assessment of in-process and final product samples.

Keywords

Cation exchange chromatography Charge heterogeneity Method validation Monoclonal antibody Cetuximab 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is a part of A. farjami thesis, submitted for Ph.D. degree (no. 117) and supported by Research Council, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences and we would like to thank the CinnaGen Medical Biotechnology Center for kindly providing all of the cetuximab medicinal samples.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors state no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Beck A, Sanglier-Cianférani S, Van Dorsselaer A (2012) Biosimilar, biobetter, and next generation antibody characterization by mass spectrometry. ACS Publications, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nicolaides NC, Sass PM, Grasso L (2006) Monoclonal antibodies: a morphing landscape for therapeutics. Drug Dev Res 67(10):781–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rea JC, Moreno GT, Lou Y, Farnan D (2011) Validation of a pH gradient-based ion-exchange chromatography method for high-resolution monoclonal antibody charge variant separations. J Pharm Biomed Anal 54(2):317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fekete S, Gassner A-L, Rudaz S, Schappler J, Guillarme D (2013) Analytical strategies for the characterization of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 42:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck A, Wagner-Rousset E, Bussat M-C, Lokteff M, Klinguer-Hamour C, Haeuw J-F, Goetsch L, Wurch T, Dorsselaer AV, Corvaïa N (2008) Trends in glycosylation, glycoanalysis and glycoengineering of therapeutic antibodies and Fc-fusion proteins. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 9(6):482–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vlasak J, Ionescu R (2008) Heterogeneity of monoclonal antibodies revealed by charge-sensitive methods. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 9(6):468–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khawli LA, Goswami S, Hutchinson R, Kwong ZW, Yang J, Wang X, Yao Z, Sreedhara A, Cano T, Tesar DB (2010) Charge variants in IgG1: isolation, characterization, in vitro binding properties and pharmacokinetics in rats. MAbs 2(6):613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tang L, Sundaram S, Zhang J, Carlson P, Matathia A, Parekh B, Zhou Q, Hsieh M-C (2013) Conformational characterization of the charge variants of a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody using H/D exchange mass spectrometry. MAbs 5(1):114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flatman S, Alam I, Gerard J, Mussa N (2007) Process analytics for purification of monoclonal antibodies. J Chromatogr B 848(1):79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu H, Gaza-Bulseco G, Faldu D, Chumsae C, Sun J (2008) Heterogeneity of monoclonal antibodies. J Pharm Sci 97(7):2426–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fekete S, Beck A, Fekete J, Guillarme D (2015) Method development for the separation of monoclonal antibody charge variants in cation exchange chromatography, part II: pH gradient approach. J Pharm Biomed Anal 102:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talebi M, Nordborg A, Gaspar A, Lacher NA, Wang Q, He XZ, Haddad PR, Hilder EF (2013) Charge heterogeneity profiling of monoclonal antibodies using low ionic strength ion-exchange chromatography and well-controlled pH gradients on monolithic columns. J Chromatogr A 1317:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fekete S, Beck A, Veuthey J-L, Guillarme D (2015) Ion-exchange chromatography for the characterization of biopharmaceuticals. J Pharm Biomed Anal 113:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Urmann M, Graalfs H, Joehnck M, Jacob LR, Frech C (2010) Cation-exchange chromatography of monoclonal antibodies: Characterisation of a novel stationary phase designed for production-scale purification. MAbs 2(4):395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giacometti J, Josić D (2013) Protein and peptide separations. In: Fanali S, Haddad PR, Poole CF, Lloyd D (eds) Liquid chromatography, 1 edn. Elsevier, New York, pp 149–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Müller-Späth T, Aumann L, Melter L, Ströhlein G, Morbidelli M (2008) Chromatographic separation of three monoclonal antibody variants using multicolumn countercurrent solvent gradient purification (MCSGP). Biotechnol Bioeng 100(6):1166–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Subramanian G (2012) Biopharmaceutical production technology, 2 volume set, vol 1. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farnan D, Moreno GT (2009) Multiproduct high-resolution monoclonal antibody charge variant separations by pH gradient ion-exchange chromatography. Anal Chem 81(21):8846–8857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rozhkova A (2009) Quantitative analysis of monoclonal antibodies by cation-exchange chromatofocusing. J Chromatogr A 1216(32):5989–5994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shan L, Anderson DJ (2002) Gradient chromatofocusing. Versatile pH gradient separation of proteins in ion-exchange HPLC: characterization studies. Anal Chem 74(21):5641–5649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martínez-Ortega A, Herrera A, Salmerón-García A, Cabeza J, Cuadros-Rodríguez L, Navas N (2016) Study and ICH validation of a reverse-phase liquid chromatographic method for the quantification of the intact monoclonal antibody cetuximab. J Pharm Anal 6(2):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sundaram S, Matathia A, Qian J, Zhang J, Hsieh M-C, Liu T, Crowley R, Parekh B, Zhou Q (2011) An innovative approach for the characterization of the isoforms of a monoclonal antibody product. MAbs 3(6):505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ayoub D, Jabs W, Resemann A, Evers W, Evans C, Main L, Baessmann C, Wagner-Rousset E, Suckau D, Beck A (2013) Correct primary structure assessment and extensive glyco-profiling of cetuximab by a combination of intact, middle-up, middle-down and bottom-up ESI and MALDI mass spectrometry techniques. MAbs 5(5):699–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Müller-Späth T, Krättli M, Aumann L, Ströhlein G, Morbidelli M (2010) Increasing the activity of monoclonal antibody therapeutics by continuous chromatography (MCSGP). Biotechnol Bioeng 107(4):652–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hintersteiner B, Lingg N, Janzek E, Mutschlechner O, Loibner H, Jungbauer A (2016) Microheterogeneity of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies is governed by changes in the surface charge of the protein. Biotechnol J 11(12):1617–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fekete S, Beck A, Fekete J, Guillarme D (2015) Method development for the separation of monoclonal antibody charge variants in cation exchange chromatography, part I: salt gradient approach. J Pharm Biomed Anal 102:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Konieczka P (2007) The role of and the place of method validation in the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) system. Crit Rev Anal Chem 37(3):173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guideline IHT (2005) Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology Q2 (R1). In: International conference on harmonization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 11–12Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bakshi M, Singh S (2002) Development of validated stability-indicating assay methods—critical review. J Pharm Biomed Anal 28(6):1011–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guidance for industry: Analytical procedures and methods validation for drugs and biologics, US Department of Health and Human Services (2014). https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm386366.pdf. Accessed July 2018
  31. 31.
    ICH: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Topic Q1B: Stability testing: photostability testing of new drug substances and products (1996). https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q1B/Step4/Q1B_Guideline.pdf. Accessed July 2018
  32. 32.
    Biacchi M, Gahoual R, Said N, Beck A, Leize-Wagner E, François Y-N (2015) Glycoform separation and characterization of cetuximab variants by middle-up off-line capillary zone electrophoresis-UV/electrospray ionization-MS. Anal Chem 87(12):6240–6250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ICH: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Topic Q5C: Stability testing of biotechnological/biological products (1995). http://www.ich.org/fleadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q5C/Step4/Q5C_Guideline.pdf. Accessed July 2018
  34. 34.
    Tonnesen HH (2004) Photostability of drugs and drug formulations. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wei Z, Feng J, Lin H-Y, Mullapudi S, Bishop E, Tous GI, Casas-Finet J, Hakki F, Strouse R, Schenerman MA (2007) Identification of a single tryptophan residue as critical for binding activity in a humanized monoclonal antibody against respiratory syncytial virus. Anal Chem 79(7):2797–2805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pattison DI, Rahmanto AS, Davies MJ (2012) Photo-oxidation of proteins. Photochem Photobiol Sci 11(1):38–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kerwin BA, Remmele RL (2007) Protect from light: photodegradation and protein biologics. J Pharm Sci 96(6):1468–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vanhooren A, Devreese B, Vanhee K, Van Beeumen J, Hanssens I (2002) Photoexcitation of tryptophan groups induces reduction of two disulfide bonds in goat α-lactalbumin. Biochemistry 41(36):11035–11043CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Afsaneh Farjami
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mohammadreza Siahi-Shadbad
    • 1
    • 2
  • Parvin Akbarzadehlaleh
    • 1
  • Ommoleila Molavi
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
  2. 2.Food and Drug Safety Research CenterTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
  3. 3.Student Research CommitteeTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations