Medical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 229–233 | Cite as

Glycosylated and non-glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF)—what is the difference?

  • Martin HöglundEmail author


Two forms of recombinant human G-CSF (rhG-CSF) are available for clinical use: filgrastim is expressed inE coli and non-glycosylated, whereas lenograstim is derived from Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells and glycosylated. The function of the sugar chain, accounting for approximately 4% of the molecular weight of lenograstim (and native G-CSF), is not known. Glycosylation of the G-CSF molecule does not prolong its circulation half life. Lenograstim is more active than filgrastim (and research-use deglycosylated G-CSF) on a weight-by-weight basis inin vitro colony-forming and cell line assays. An international potency standard assigns a specific activity of 100 000 IU/μg to filgrastim and 127 760 IU/μg to lenograstim. Correspondingly, two randomised crossover studies in normal subjects, comparingmass equivalent doses of the two rhG-CSFs, have demonstrated a 25–30% higher concentration of blood stem cells (CD34+, CFU-GM) during lenograstim administration. No difference in side effects was observed. Results from a prospective, randomised, non-crossover trial in breast cancer patients suggest thatbioequivalent doses of filgrastim and lenograstim have a similar effect on mobilisation of CD34+ cells and immature CD34+ cell subsets, respectively. Although comparisons outside the setting of stem cell mobilisation are lacking, the clinical relevance of the greater specific activity of lenograstim may thus be limited. The difference in potency between μg identical doses of the two rhG-CSFs makes dosing in biological units (IU) rather than mass units (μg) more appropriate.


G-CSF glycosylation filgrastim lenograstim comparative study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Asano S. Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: its basic aspects and clinical applications.Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1991;13: 400–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Demetri GD, Griffin JD. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and its receptor.Blood 1991;78: 2791–2808.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Souza Let al. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: Effects on normal and leukemic myeloid cells.Science 1986;232: 61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nagata Set al. Molecular cloning and expression of cDNA for human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.Nature 1986;319: 415–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welte K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud MH, Platzer E, Morstyn G. Filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): the first 10 years.Blood 1996;88: 1907–1929.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    To LB, Haylock DN, Simmons PJ, Juttner CA. The biology and clinical uses of blood stem cells.Blood 1997;89: 2233–2258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Höglund Met al. Mobilisation of CD34+ cells by glycosylated and nonglycosylated G-CSF in healthy volunteers—a comparative study.Eur J Haematol 1997;59: 177–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watts MJ, Addison I, Long SG, Hartley S, Warrington S, Boyce M, Linch DC. Crossover study of the haematological effects and pharmacokinetics of glycosylated and non-glycosylated G-CSF in healthy volunteers.Br J Haematol 1997;98: 474–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Arriba Fet al. Prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy of bioequivalent doses of glycosylated and nonglycosylated rG-CSF for mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor cells.Br J Haematol 1997;96: 418–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linch DCet al. Randomised vehicle-controlled dose finding study of glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after bone marrow transplantation.Bone Marrow Transplant 1993;11: 307–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weaver CHet al. Mobilization and harvesting of peripheral blood stem cells: randomised evaluations of different doses of filgrastim.Br J Haematol 1998;100: 338–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kroger Net al. 10 μg Versus 2×5μg Versus 2×5 μg G-CSF in steady state mobilization of CD34+ progenitor cells in high risk breast cancer patients: higher yield by splitting the dose.Blood 1997;90(suppl 1): 592a.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metcalf D. The colony stimulating factors.Cancer 1990;65: 2185–2195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kolvenbach CG, Langley KE, Strickland TW, Kenney WC, Arakawa T. Densimetric determination of carbohydrate content in glycoproteins.J Biochem Biophys Meth 1991;23: 295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang C, Eufemi M, Turano C, Giartosio A. Influence of the carbohydrate moiety on the stability of glycoproteins.Biochemistry 1996;35: 7299–7307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukuda MN, Sasaki H, Lopez L, Fukuda M. Survival of recombinant erythropoietin in the circulation: the role of carbohydrates.Blood 1989;73: 84–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hovgaard D, Mortensen BT, Schifter S, Nissen NI. Comparative pharmacokinetics of single-dose administration of mammalian and bacterially-derived recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.Eur J Haematol 1993;50: 32–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cebon Jet al. Granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor from human lymphocytes. The effect of glycosylation on receptor binding and biological activity.J Biol Chem 1990;265: 4483–4491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gribben JGet al. Development of antibodies to unprotected glycosylation sites on recombinant human GM-CSF [see comments].Lancet 1990;335: 434–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ragnhammar Pet al. Induction of anti-recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Escherichia coli-derived) antibodies and clinical effects in nonimmuno-compromised patients.Blood 1994;84: 4078–4087.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moonen P, Mermod JJ, Ernst JF, Hirschi M, DeLamarter JF. Increased biological activity of deglycosylated recombinant human granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor produced by yeast or animal cells.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1987;84: 4428–4431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kubota Net al. Structural characterization of natural and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.J Biochem (Tokyo) 1990;107: 486–492.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arakawa T, Prestrelski SJ, Narhi LO, Boone TC, Kenney WC. Cysteine 17 of recombinant human granulocytecolony stimulating factor is partially solvent-exposed.J Protein Chem 1993;12: 525–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill CP, Osslund TD, Eisenberg D. The structure of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor and its relationship to other growth factors.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993;90: 5167–5171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oh-eda M, Hase S, Ono M, Ikenaka T. Structures of the sugar chains of recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor produced by Chinese hamster ovary cells.J Biochem (Tokyo) 1988;103: 544–546.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Christi L, Clogston CL, Hu S, Boone TC, Lu HS. Glycosidase digestion, electrophoresis and chromatographic analysis of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor glycoforms produced in Chinese hamster ovary cells.J Chromatogr 1993;637: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oh-eda Met al. Preparation of pyridylaminated O-linked sugar chains from glycoproteins blotted on a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane and application to human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.Analytical Biochemistry 1996;236: 369–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nissen C, Dalle-Carbonare Y, Moser Y.In vitro comparison of the biological potency of glycosylated versus non-glycosylated rG-CSF.Drug Invest 1994;7: 346–352.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stute Net al. Pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children.Blood 1992;79: 2849–2854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pedrazzoli Pet al. Effects of glycosylated and non-glycosylated G-CSFs, alone and in combination with other cytokines, on the growth of human progenitor cells.Anticancer Res 1996;16: 1781–1785.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Decleva E, Cramer R, Zabucchi G. Glycosylation improves the priming effect exerted by recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (lenograstim) on human neutrophil superoxide production.Int J Tissue React 1995;17: 191–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mire-Sluis AR, Das RG, Thorpe R. The international standard for granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Evaluation in an international collaborative study.J Immunol Methods 1995;179: 117–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Okabe Met al. In vitro andin vivo hematopoietic effect of mutant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.Blood 1990;75: 1788–1793.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gisselbrecht Cet al. A phase III randomised placebo-controlled study of lenograstim (glycosylated rHu-G-CSF) in 315 paediatric and adult autologous or allogeneic bone marrow transplant patients.Lancet 1994;343: 696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tanaka Het al. Three types of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor have equivalent biological activities in monkeys.Cytokine 1997;9: 360–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nohynek GJ, Plard JP, Wells MY, Zerial A, Roquet F. Comparison of the potency of glycosylated and non-glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in neutropenic and non-neutropenic CD rats.Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1997;39: 259–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts AWet al. Broad inter-individual variations in circulating progenitor cell numbers induced by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy.Stem Cells 1995;13: 512–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stroncek Det al. Treatment of normal individual with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor: Donor experiences and the effects on peripheral blood CD34+ cell counts on the collection of peripheral blood stem cells.Transfusion 1996;36: 601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Denzlinger Cet al. Differential activation of the endogenous leukotriene biosynthesis by two different preparations of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in healthy volunteers.Blood 1993;81: 2007–2013.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bonilla MAet al. Long-term safety of treatment with recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (r-metHuG-CSF) in patients with severe congenital neutropenias.Br J Haematol 1994;88: 723–730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Donadieu Jet al. A European phase II study of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (lenograstim) in the treatment of severe chronic neutropenia in children.Eur J Pediatr 1997;156: 693–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oh-Eda Met al. O-linked sugar chain of human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor protects against polymerization and denaturation allowing it to retain its biological activity.J Biol Chem 1990;265: 11432–11435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kishita Met al. Stability of G-CSF in serum.Clin Rep 1992;26: 1–4.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mire-Sluis AR. Activity on cell lines: Stability of rG-CSFs in human serum.Int J Hematol 1996;64: S11-S12.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gervais V, Zerial A, Oschkinat H. NMR investigations of the role of the sugar moiety in glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor.Eur J Biochem 1997;247: 386–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Höglund M, Smedmyr B, Simonsson B, Tötterman T, Bengtsson M. Dose-dependent mobilisation of haematopoietic progenitor cells in healthy volunteers receiving glycosylated rHuG-CSF.Bone Marrow Transplant 1996;18: 19–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kulkarni Set al. Comparison of equal doses of lenograstim and filgrastim for mobilization of blood stem cells in patients with hematologic malignancies.Blood 1997;90 (suppl 1): 4226a.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saccardi R, Avanci G, Bezzini R. Mobilization of PBSC for hematological rescue: comparison between glycosylated and non-glycosylated G-CSF.Bone Marrow Transplant 1997;19 (Suppl. 1): S11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stockton Press 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations