Advertisement

The AAPS Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1300–1308 | Cite as

Feasibility of Singlet Analysis for Ligand Binding Assays: a Retrospective Examination of Data Generated Using the Gyrolab Platform

  • Tracey H. Clark
  • Phillip D. Yates
  • Allison Given Chunyk
  • Alison P. Joyce
  • Aidong Wu
  • Petar Pop-Damkov
  • Yiqun Zhang
  • Elizabeth A. Dreher
  • Laurie A. Tylaska
  • Jo-Ann A. Wentland
  • Kathleen B. Pelletier
  • Lindsay E. King
  • Chad A. Ray
Research Article

ABSTRACT

There are many sources of analytical variability in ligand binding assays (LBA). One strategy to reduce variability has been duplicate analyses. With recent advances in LBA technologies, it is conceivable that singlet analysis is possible. We retrospectively evaluated singlet analysis using Gyrolab data. Relative precision of duplicates compared to singlets was evaluated using 60 datasets from toxicokinetic (TK) or pharmacokinetic (PK) studies which contained over 23,000 replicate pairs composed of standards, quality control (QC), and animal samples measured with 23 different bioanalytical assays. The comparison was first done with standard curve and QCs followed by PK parameters (i.e., Cmax and AUC). Statistical analyses were performed on combined duplicate versus singlets using a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), a measurement used to assess agreement. Variance component analyses were conducted on PK estimates to assess the relative analytical and biological variability. Overall, 97.5% of replicate pairs had a %CV of <11% and 50% of the results had a %CV of ≤1.38%. There was no observable bias in concentration comparing the first replicate with the second (CCC of 0.99746 and accuracy value of 1). The comparison of AUC and Cmax showed no observable difference between singlet and duplicate (CCC for AUC and Cmax >0.99999). Analysis of variance indicated an AUC inter-subject variability 35.3-fold greater than replicate variability and 8.5-fold greater for Cmax. Running replicates from the same sample will not significantly reduce variation or change PK parameters. These analyses indicated the majority of variance was inter-subject and supported the use of a singlet strategy.

KEY WORDS

Gyrolab ligand binding assay pharmacokinetics singlet toxicokinetics 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge Boris Gorovits’s scientific review of this publication and appreciate the contributions that Greg Sjogren made to generating some of the data used in this retrospective analysis.

Supplementary material

12248_2016_9944_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Yalow RS, Berson SA. Immunoassay of endogenous plasma insulin in man. J Clin Invest. 1960;39(7):1157–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu AHB. A selected history and future of immunoassay development and applications in clinical chemistry. Clin Chim Acta. 2006;369(2):119–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banks P. The microplate market past, present and future microplates today—the global market. Drug Discovery World Spring 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R, Kelley M, Smolec J, Lee B, et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res. 2003;20(11):1885–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeSilva B, Garofolo F, Rocci M, Martinez S, Dumont I, Landry F, et al. 2012 White paper on recent issues in bioanalysis and alignment of multiple guidelines. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(18):2213–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hottenstein CS, Becker C, Asher C, Coleman J, Evans CA. Variance component analysis of singlicate versus duplicate ligand binding assay performance of a single bioanalytical method. Poster at AAPS NBC 2015.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall CM, Pearson JT, Patel V, Wienkers LC, Greene RJ. An extended range generic immunoassay for total human therapeutic antibodies in preclinical pharmacokinetic studies. J Immunol Methods. 2013;31(393):70–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roman J, Qiu J, Dornadula G, Hamuro L, Bakhtiar R, Verch T. Application of miniaturized immunoassays to discovery pharmacokinetic bioanalysis. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2011;63(3):227–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mora JR, Obenauer-Kutner L, Vimal PV. Application of the Gyrolab™ platform to ligand-binding assays: a user’s perspective. Bioanalysis. 2010;2(10):1711–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verch T, Bakhtiar R. Miniaturized immunoassays: moving beyond the microplate. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(2):177–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Given AM, Whalen PM, O’Brien PJ, Ray CA. Development and validation of an alpha fetoprotein immunoassay using Gyros technology. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2012;64–65:8–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shih JY, Patel V, Watson A, Hager T, Luan P, Salimi-Moosavi H, et al. Implementation of a universal analytical method in early-stage development of human antibody therapeutics: application to pharmacokinetic assessment for candidate selection. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(19):2357–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joyce AP, Wang M, Lawrence-Henderson R, Filliettaz C, Leung SS, Xu X, et al. One mouse, one pharmacokinetic profile: quantitative whole blood serial sampling for biotherapeutics. Pharm Res. 2014;31(7):1823–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin I-Kuei L. Measuring agreement (in Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics), 3rd edition, Shein-Chung Chow, editors. Informa Healthcare, London. 2010. p. 745-750Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lacey LF, Keene ON, Pritchard JF, Bye A. Common noncompartmental pharmacokinetic variables: are they normally or log-normally distributed? J Biopharm Stat. 1997;7(1):171–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stevenson L, Amaravadi L, Myler H, Salazar-Fontana L, Gorovits B, Kirshner S, et al. 2014 White paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: a full immersion in bioanalysis (part 3—LBA and immunogenicity). Bioanalysis. 2014;6(24):3355–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dudal S, Baltrukonis D, Crisino R, Goyal MJ, Joyce A, Osterland K, et al. Assay formats: recommendations for best practices and harmonization from the Global Bioanalytical Consortium Harmonization Team. AAPS J. 2014;16(2):194–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Booth B, Arnold ME, DeSilva B, Amaravadi L, Dudal S, Fluhler E, et al. Workshop report: crystal city V-quantitative bioanaytical method validation and implementation: the 2013 revised FDA guidance. AAPS J. 2015;17(2):227–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tracey H. Clark
    • 1
  • Phillip D. Yates
    • 2
  • Allison Given Chunyk
    • 3
  • Alison P. Joyce
    • 4
  • Aidong Wu
    • 3
  • Petar Pop-Damkov
    • 5
  • Yiqun Zhang
    • 4
  • Elizabeth A. Dreher
    • 6
  • Laurie A. Tylaska
    • 1
  • Jo-Ann A. Wentland
    • 1
  • Kathleen B. Pelletier
    • 1
  • Lindsay E. King
    • 1
  • Chad A. Ray
    • 3
  1. 1.Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and MetabolismPfizer Worldwide R&DGrotonUSA
  2. 2.PharmaTherapeutics Clinical ResearchPfizer Worldwide R&DCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and MetabolismPfizer Worldwide R&DLa JollaUSA
  4. 4.Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and MetabolismPfizer Worldwide R&DAndoverUSA
  5. 5.DMPK Oncology iScience, AstraZeneca R&DWalthamUSA
  6. 6.Protein Engineering, Kanyos BioCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations