The AAPS Journal

, 10:481 | Cite as

A Bayesian Approach for Quantifying Trace Amounts of Antibody Aggregates by Sedimentation Velocity Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Research Article

Abstract

Sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation (SV-AUC) has become an important tool for the characterization of the purity of protein therapeutics. The work presented here addresses a need for methods orthogonal to size-exclusion chromatography for ensuring the reliable quantitation of immunogenic oligomers, for example, in antibody preparations. Currently the most commonly used approach for SV-AUC analysis is the diffusion-deconvoluted sedimentation coefficient distribution c(s) method, previously developed by us as a general purpose technique and implemented in the software SEDFIT. In both practical and theoretical studies, different groups have reported a sensitivity of c(s) for trace oligomeric fractions well below the 1% level. In the present work we present a variant of c(s) designed for the purpose of trace detection, with customized Bayesian regularization. The original c(s) method relies on maximum entropy regularization providing the most parsimonious distribution consistent with the data. In the present paper, we use computer simulations of an antibody system as example to demonstrate that the standard maximum entropy regularization, due to its design, leads to a theoretical lower limit for the detection of oligomeric traces and a consistent underestimate of the trace populations by ∼0.1% (dependent on the level of regularization). This can be overcome with a recently developed Bayesian extension of c(s) (Brown et al., Biomacromolecules, 8:2011–2024, 2007), utilizing the known regions of sedimentation coefficients for the monomer and oligomers of interest as prior expectation for the peak positions in the distribution. We show that this leads to more clearly identifiable and consistent peaks and lower theoretical limits of quantization by approximately an order of magnitude for some experimental conditions. Implications for the experimental design of SV-AUC and practical detection limits are discussed.

Key words

analytical ultracentrifugation Bayesian analysis hydrodynamic separation sedimentation velocity size-distribution trace aggregates 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NIBIB. The authors wish to thank A. Pekar and his colleagues for providing access to preprints of their recent publication concerning trace detection during the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    A. S. Rosenberg. Effects of protein aggregates: an immunologic perspective. AAPS J. 8(3):E501–E507 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. J. Chirino, and A. Mire-Sluis. Characterizing biological products and assessing comparability following manufacturing changes. Nat Biotechnol. 22(11):1383–1391 (2004). Nov.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. L. Cleland, M. F. Powell, and S. J. Shire. The development of stable protein formulations: a close look at protein aggregation, deamidation, and oxidation. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 10(4):307–377 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. E. Cromwell, E. Hilario, and F. Jacobson. Protein aggregation and bioprocessing. AAPS J. 8(3):E572–E579 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. J. Howlett, A. P. Minton, and G. Rivas. Analytical ultracentrifugation for the study of protein association and assembly. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 10(5):430–436 (2006). Oct.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Kowalkowski, B. Buszewski, C. Cantado, and F. Dondi. Field-flow fractionation: Theory, techniques, applications and the challenges. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. [Rev.]. 36(2):129–135 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Lebowitz, M. S. Lewis, and P. Schuck. Modern analytical ultracentrifugation in protein science: a tutorial review. Protein Sci. 11(9):2067–2079 (2002). Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Litzen, J. K. Walter, H. Krischollek, and K. G. Wahlund. Separation and quantitation of monoclonal antibody aggregates by asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation and comparison to gel permeation chromatography. Anal Biochem. 212(2):469–480 (1993). Aug 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Fraunhofer, and G. Winter. The use of asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation in pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 58(2):369–383 (2004). Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. P. Gabrielson, M. L. Brader, A. H. Pekar, K. B. Mathis, G. Winter, J. F. Carpenter, and T. W. Randolph. Quantitation of aggregate levels in a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody formulation by size-exclusion chromatography, asymmetrical flow field flow fractionation, and sedimentation velocity. J Pharm Sci. 96(2):268–279 (2007). Feb.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Pekar, and M. Sukumar. Quantitation of aggregates in therapeutic proteins using sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation: practical considerations that affect precision and accuracy. Anal Biochem. 367(2):225–237 (2007). Aug 15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. P. Gabrielson, T. W. Randolph, B. S. Kendrick, and M. R. Stoner. Sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation and SEDFIT/c(s): Limits of quantitation for a monoclonal antibody system. Anal Biochem. 361(1):24–30 (2007). Feb 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. A. Berkowitz. Role of analytical ultracentrifugation in assessing the aggregation of protein biopharmaceuticals. AAPS J. 8(3):E590–E605 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Svedberg, and K. O. Pedersen. The ultracentrifuge, Oxford University Press, London, 1940.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Schuck, and B. Demeler. Direct sedimentation analysis of interference optical data in analytical ultracentrifugation. Biophys J. 76:2288–2296 (1999).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Schuck. Sedimentation velocity in the study of reversible multiprotein complexes. In P. Schuck (ed.), Biophysical approaches for the study of complex reversible systems, Springer, New York, 2007, pp. 469–518.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Dam, and P. Schuck. Calculating sedimentation coefficient distributions by direct modeling of sedimentation velocity profiles. Methods Enzymol. 384:185–212 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Schuck. Size distribution analysis of macromolecules by sedimentation velocity ultracentrifugation and Lamm equation modeling. Biophys J. 78:1606–1619 (2000).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Schuck. Measuring size-and-shape distributions of protein complexes in solution by sedimentation and dynamic light scattering. Autrans, France: Euroconference “Advances in Analytical Ultracentrifugation and Hydrodynamics”; 2002 8–11, June 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    J. Liu, J. D. Andya, and S. J. Shire. A critical review of analytical ultracentrifugation and field flow fractionation methods for measuring protein aggregation. AAPS J. 8(3):E580–E589 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Philo. Characterizing the Aggregation and Conformation of Protein Therapeutics. Am Biotechnol Lab. 23:22–24 (2003). October.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. P. Gabrielson, K. K. Arthur, B. S. Kendrick, T. W. Randolph, and M. R. Stoner. Common excipients impair detection of protein aggregates during sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation. J Pharm Sci. in press (2008) Apr 18.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Schuck. A model for sedimentation in inhomogeneous media. I. Dynamic density gradients from sedimenting co-solutes. Biophys Chem. 108:187–200 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Schuck. Diffusion-deconvoluted sedimentation coefficient distributions for the analysis of interacting and non-interacting protein mixtures. In D. J. Scott, S. E. Harding, and A. J. Rowe (eds.), Modern analytical ultracentrifugation: techniques and methods, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 26–50.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. K. Livesey, M. Delaye, P. Licinio, and J.-C. Bronchon. Maximum entropy analysis of dynamic parameters via the Laplace transform. Faraday Discuss Chem Soc. 83:247–258 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. K. Livesey, P. Licinio, and M. Delaye. Maximum entropy analysis of quasielastic light scattering from colloidal dispersions. J Chem Phys. 84:5102–5107 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Mohommad-Djafari. Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering, American Institute of Physics, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Narayan, and R. Nityananda. Maximum entropy image restoration in astronomy. Ann Rev Astron Astrophys. 24:127–170 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    C. R. Smith, and W. T. Grandy Jr. Maximum-entropy and Bayesian methods in inverse problems, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Brown, A. Balbo, and P. Schuck. Using prior knowledge in the determination of macromolecular size-distributions by analytical ultracentrifugation. Biomacromolecules. 8:2011–2024 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    P. Schuck, M. A. Perugini, N. R. Gonzales, G. J. Howlett, and D. Schubert. Size-distribution analysis of proteins by analytical ultracentrifugation: strategies and application to model systems. Biophys J. 82(2):1096–1111 (2002). Feb.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    O. Lamm. Die Differentialgleichung der Ultrazentrifugierung. Ark Mat Astr Fys. 21B(2):1–4 (1929).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. Brown, and P. Schuck. A new adaptive grid-size algorithm for the simulation of sedimentation velocity profiles in analytical ultracentrifugation. Comp Phys Comm. 178:105–120 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. W. Provencher. A constrained regularization method for inverting data represented by linear algebraic or integral equations. Comp Phys Comm. 27:213–227 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. S. Sivia. Data analysis. A Bayesian tutorial, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Y. Lu, S. E. Harding, A. J. Rowe, K. G. Davis, B. Fish, P. Varley, C. Gee, and S. Mulot. The effect of a point mutation on the stability of IgG4 as monitored by analytical ultracentrifugation. J Pharm Sci. 97(2):960–969 (2008). Feb.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dynamics of Macromolecular Assembly Section, Laboratory of Bioengineering and Physical Science, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations