2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.07.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigating the utility of minimized sample preparation and high-resolution mass spectrometry for quantification of monoclonal antibody drugs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A stable isotope-labeled (SIL)peptide of the signature peptide is most commonly used as an internal standard, which has been widely used in quantitative proteomics. However, there is no clear consensus regarding when the SIL-peptide should be added; the SIL-peptide was reported to be added before sample preparation 33,34 , before reduction 35,36 , before digestion 37,38 , or after digestion 39,40 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A stable isotope-labeled (SIL)peptide of the signature peptide is most commonly used as an internal standard, which has been widely used in quantitative proteomics. However, there is no clear consensus regarding when the SIL-peptide should be added; the SIL-peptide was reported to be added before sample preparation 33,34 , before reduction 35,36 , before digestion 37,38 , or after digestion 39,40 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A stable isotope-labeled (SIL)-peptide of the signature peptide is most commonly used as an internal standard, which has been widely used in quantitative proteomics. However, there is no clear consensus regarding when the SIL-peptide should be added; the SIL-peptide was reported to be added before sample preparation 33,34 , before reduction 35,36 , before digestion 37,38 , or after digestion 39,40 . Moreover, the use of SIL-peptide may not correct for variations in LC-MS detection especially during steps before mAb digestion as the physical and chemical behavior of the signature peptide within the intact mAb and the SIL-peptide can be different.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sample preparation is influenced by matrix effect from lipids, proteins, and salts and the protease must be optimized to the total protein concentration in the sample for optimal digestion efficiency [17,18]. This method is applied on a routine basis for mAb in plasma samples [19][20][21][22][23], and though CSF appears as a cleaner matrix with less proteins and lipids (Table 1), some key differences must be noted, namely the low sample volume and complicated sample collection. While approximately 15 mL CSF can be collected from humans during a single sampling event [24], the situation is much different for animal species commonly used in preclinical drug development.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the development of human mAb therapeutics often requires robust mouse models for early stage screening and evaluation. , More recently, assessing pharmacokinetics (PK) and target mediated clearance as well as understanding PK/PD/E relationship of surrogate mouse mAb (a mouse antibody against the mouse counterpart of a human target) in immunocompetent mice have been deemed highly valuable in the translation of preclinical results and predicting human pharmacologically active dose and advancing discovery programs. , Accordingly, the demand of measuring such surrogates in circulation is expected to rise over time. However, the limited differences between surrogates and endogenous mouse immunoglobulins pose major challenges to the bioanalytical community because highly specific reagents, such as target antigens or anti-idiotypic antibodies, may not be readily available in the early discovery stage.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike LBA, if a unique surrogate peptide with good ionization efficiency and selectivity can be identified from the surrogate antibody (mouse counterpart) sequence, pellet digestion coupled with high resolution mass spectrometry 18 or immunoaffinity LC/MS/MS of unit resolution may provide another opportunity to distinguish analyte responses from the high immunoglobulin background. Immunoaffinity enrichment using protein A/G or antiframework antibodies can be viable options due to the better sample cleanup and potentially improved sensitivity compared to the pellet digestion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%