Pharmaceutical Research

, 37:27 | Cite as

Surfaces Affect Screening Reliability in Formulation Development of Biologics

  • Mitja Zidar
  • Gregor Posnjak
  • Igor Muševič
  • Miha Ravnik
  • Drago KuzmanEmail author
Research Paper



The ability to predict an antibody’s propensity for aggregation is particularly important during product development to ensure the quality and safety of therapeutic antibodies. We demonstrate the role of container surfaces on the aggregation process of three mAbs under elevated temperature and long-term storage conditions in the absence of mechanical stress.


A systematic study of aggregation is performed for different proteins, vial material, storage temperature, and presence of surfactant. We use size exclusion chromatography and micro-flow imaging to determine the bulk concentration of aggregates, which we combine with optical and atomic force microscopy of vial surfaces to determine the effect of solid-liquid interfaces on the bulk aggregate concentration under different conditions.


We show that protein particles under elevated temperature conditions adhere to the vial surfaces, causing a substantial underestimation of aggregation propensity as determined by common methods used in development of biologics. Under actual long-term storage conditions at 5°C, aggregate particles do not adhere to the surface, causing an increase in bulk concentration of particles, which cannot be predicted from elevated temperature screening tests by common methods alone. We also identify specific protein – surface interactions which promote oligomer formation in the nanometre range.


Special care should be taken when interpreting size exclusion and particle count data from stability studies if different temperatures and vial types are involved. We propose a novel combination of methods to characterise vial surfaces and bulk solution for a full understanding of protein aggregation processes in a sample.

Key Words

adhesion aggregation monoclonal antibodies pharmaceutical development sedimentation solid-liquid interface 



Atomic force microscopy


Equivalent circular diameter


Guanidine hydrochloride


Monoclonal antibody


Micro-flow imaging


Molecular weight cutoff


Polyethylene terephthalate glycol


Polysorbate 80


Size exclusion chromatography


Ultrapure water



M.R. acknowledges funding from Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d. under contract BIO17/2016 and from Slovenian Research Agency ARRS grants L1-8135, P1-0099, and P1-0340. M.Z. and D.K. acknowledge funding from program BioPharm.Si project co-funded by Republic of Slovenia - Ministry of Education, Science and Sport - and European union - European regional development fund.


  1. 1.
    Vazquez-Rey M, Lang DA. Aggregates in monoclonal antibody manufacturing processes. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2011;108:1494–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kueltzo LA, Wang W, Randolph TW, Carpenter JF. Effects of Solution Conditions, Processing Parameters, and Container Materials on Aggregation of a Monoclonal Antibody during Freeze-Thawing. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97:1801–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sathish JG, Sethu S, Bielsky MC, de Haan L, French NS, Govindappa K, et al. Challenges and approaches for the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(4):306–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chi EY, Krishnan S, Randolph TW, Carpenter JF. Physical stability of proteins in aqueous solution: mechanism and driving forces in nonnative protein aggregation. Pharm Res. 2003;20(9):1325–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen SIA, Vendruscolo M, Dobson CM, Knowles TPJ. From macroscopic measurements to microscopic mechanisms of protein aggregation. J Mol Biol. 2012;421:160–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratanji KD, Derrick JP, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: Influence of aggregation. J Immunotoxicol. 2014;11(2):99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fathallah AM, Chiang M, Mishra A, Sandeep K, Xue L, Middaugh CR, et al. The Effect of Small Oligomeric Protein Aggregates on the Immunogenicity of Intravenous and Subcutaneous Administered Antibodies. Pharm Biotechnol. 2015;104:3691–702.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang X, Das KD, S. K S, Kumar S. Potential aggregation prone regions in biotherapeutics. mAbs. 2009;1(3):254–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arosio P, Rima S, Morbidelli M. Aggregation Mechanism of an IgG2 and two IgG1 Monoclonal Antibodies at low pH: From Oligomers to Larger Aggregates. Pharm Res. 2013;30:641–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brummitt RK, Nesta DP, Chang L, Chase SF, Laue TM, Roberts CJ. Nonnative Aggregation of an IgG1 Antibody in Acidic Conditions: Part 1. Unfolding, Colloidal Interactions, and Formation of High-Molecular-Weight Aggregates. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100:2087–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yageta S, Lauer TM, Trout BL, Honda S. Conformational and Colloidal Stabilities of Isolated Constant Domains of Human Immunoglobulin G and Their Impact on Antibody Aggregation under Acidic Conditions. Mol Pharm. 2015;12:1443–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barnett GV, Drenski M, Razinkov V, Reed WF, Roberts CJ. Identifying protein aggregation mechanisms and quantifying aggregation rates from combined monomer depletion and continuous scattering. Anal Biochem. 2016;511:80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim N, Remmele RL Jr, Liu D, Razinkov VI, Fernandez EJ, Roberts CJ. Aggregation of anti-streptavidin immunoglobulin gamma-1 involves Fab unfolding and competing growth pathways mediated by pH and salt concentration. Biophys Chem. 2013;172:26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Imamura H, Honda S. Kinetics of Antibody Aggregation at Neutral pH and Ambient Temperatures Triggered by Temporal Exposure to Acid. J Phys Chem B. 2016;120:9581–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicoud L, Arosio P, Sozo M, Yates A, Norrant E, Morbidelli M. Kinetic Analysis of the Multistep Aggregation Mechanism of Monoclonal Antibodies. J Phys Chem B. 2014;118:10595–10,606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smoluchowski M. Drei Vorträge über Diffusion, Brownsche Molekularbewegung und Koagulation von Kolloidteilchen. Zeitschrift für Physik. 1916;17:557–71, 585–599.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wattis JA. An introduction to mathematical models of coagulation–fragmentation processes: A discrete deterministic mean-field approach. Phys D. 2006;222:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kryven I, Lazzari S, Storti G. Population Balance Modeling of Aggregation and Coalescence in Colloidal Systems. Macromol Theory Simul. 2014;23:170–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koepf E, Schroeder R, Brezesinski G, Friess W. The film tells the story: Physical-chemical characteristics of IgG at the liguid-air interface. Euro J Pharm Biopharm. 2017;119:396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghazvini S, Kalonia C, Volkin DB, Dhar P. Evaluating the Role of the Air-Solution Interface on the Mechanism of Subvisible Particle Formation Caused by Mechanical Agitation for an IgG1 mAb. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105:1643–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shieh IC, Patel AR. Predicting the Agitation-Induced Aggregation of Monoclonal Antibodies Using Surface Tensiometry. Mol Pharm. 2015;12:3184–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mehta SB, Lewus R, Bee JS, Randolph TW, Carpenter JF. Gelation of a Monoclonal Antibody at the Silicone Oil-Water Interface and Subsequent Rupture of the Interfacial Gel Results in Aggregation and Particle Formation. Pharm Biotechnol. 2015;104:1282–90.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sediq AS, Duijvenvoorde RBV, Jiskoot W, Nejadnik MR. No Touching! Abrasion of adsorbed protein is the root cause of subvisible particle formation during stirring. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105:519–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. T, N. H, N. DP and R. CJ, “Protein Adsorption, Desorption, and Aggregation Mediated by Solid-Liquid Interfaces,” Pharm Biotechnol. 2015;104, (6), 1946–1959.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    X. H, Z. X, G. C and L. JR, “Orientation of a Monoclonal Antibody Adsorbed at the Solid/Solution Interface: A Combined Study Using Atomic Force Microscopy and Neutron Reflectivity,” Langmuir. 2006;22, (14), 6313–6320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. CW and W. ME, “Antibody adsorption and orientation on hydrophobic surfaces,” Langmuir. 2012; 28, (3), 1765–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Randolph TW, Schiltz E, Sederstrom D, Steinmann D, Mozziconacci O, Schoneich C, et al. Do not drop: mechanical schock in vials causes cavitation, protein aggregation, and particle formation. Pharm Biotechnol. 2015;104:602–11.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Torisu T, Maruno T, Hamaji Y, Ohkubo T. Synergistic Effect of Cavitation and Agitation on Protein Aggregation. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106:521–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang S, Wu G, Zhang X, Tian Z, Zhang N, Hu T, et al. Stabilizing two IgG1 monoclonal antibodies by surfactants: Balance between aggregation prevention and structure perturbation. Euro J Pharm Biopharm. 2017;114:263–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kalonia C, Kumru OS, Prajapati I, Mathaes R, Engert J, Zhou S, et al. Calculating the Mass of Subvisible Protein Particles with Improved Accuracy Using Microflow Imaging Data. Pharm Biotechnol. 2015;104(2):536–47.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Zidar, D. Kuzman and R. M, “Characterisation of protein aggregation with the Smoluchowski coagulation approach for use in biopharmaceuticals,” Soft Matter. 2018; 14, 6001–6012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Novartis Global Drug Development/Technical Research & Development, Technical Development BiosimilarsLek Pharmaceuticals d. d., Kolodvorska 27MengešSlovenia
  2. 2.Jožef Stefan InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations