A simple procedure for selecting the correct weighting factors for linear and quadratic calibration curves with least-squares regression algorithm in bioanalytical LC-MS/MS assays is reported. The correct weighting factor is determined by the relationship between the standard deviation of instrument responses (σ) and the concentrations (x). The weighting factor of 1, 1/x, or 1/x(2) should be selected if, over the entire concentration range, σ is a constant, σ(2) is proportional to x, or σ is proportional to x, respectively. For the first time, we demonstrated with detailed scientific reasoning, solid historical data, and convincing justification that 1/x(2) should always be used as the weighting factor for all bioanalytical LC-MS/MS assays. The impacts of using incorrect weighting factors on curve stability, data quality, and assay performance were thoroughly investigated. It was found that the most stable curve could be obtained when the correct weighting factor was used, whereas other curves using incorrect weighting factors were unstable. It was also found that there was a very insignificant impact on the concentrations reported with calibration curves using incorrect weighting factors as the concentrations were always reported with the passing curves which actually overlapped with or were very close to the curves using the correct weighting factor. However, the use of incorrect weighting factors did impact the assay performance significantly. Finally, the difference between the weighting factors of 1/x(2) and 1/y(2) was discussed. All of the findings can be generalized and applied into other quantitative analysis techniques using calibration curves with weighted least-squares regression algorithm.
ABSTRACT. This paper represents the consensus views of a cross-section of companies and organizations from the USA and Canada regarding the validation and application of liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods for bioanalysis of protein biotherapeutics in regulated studies. It was prepared under the auspices of the AAPS Bioanalytical Focus Group's Protein LC-MS Bioanalysis Subteam and is intended to serve as a guide to drive harmonization of best practices within the bioanalytical community and provide regulators with an overview of current industry thinking on applying LC-MS/MS technology for protein bioanalysis. For simplicity, the scope was limited to the most common current approach in which the protein is indirectly quantified using LC-MS/MS measurement of one or more of its surrogate peptide(s) produced by proteolytic digestion. Within this context, we considered a range of sample preparation approaches from simple in-matrix protein denaturation and digestion to complex procedures involving affinity capture enrichment. Consideration was given to the method validation experiments normally associated with traditional LC-MS/MS and ligand-binding assays. Our collective experience, thus far, is that LC-MS/MS methods for protein bioanalysis require different development and validation considerations than those used for small molecules. The method development and validation plans need to be tailored to the particular assay format being established, taking into account a number of important factors: the intended use of the assay, the test species or study population, the characteristics of the protein biotherapeutic and its similarity to endogenous proteins, potential interferences, as well as the nature, quality, and availability of reference and internal standard materials.KEY WORDS: affinity capture mass spectrometry; industry white paper; method validation; protein LC-MS/MS quantification; regulated bioanalysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.