We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse this site, you accept our cookie policy.×
Skip main navigation
Open Drawer MenuClose Drawer Menu
Bioanalysis
BioTechniques
Future Drug Discovery
Future Medicinal Chemistry
Future Science OA
International Journal of Pharmacokinetics
Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst
Therapeutic Delivery
Perspective

Critical reagent generation, characterization, handling and storage workflows: impact on ligand binding assays

    Elisa Oquendo

    Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT 06877-0368, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    ,
    Jolaine Savoie

    Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT 06877-0368, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    ,
    Joyce M Swenson

    Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT 06877-0368, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    &
    Christine Grimaldi

    *Author for correspondence:

    E-mail Address: christine.grimaldi@boehringer-ingelheim.com

    Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT 06877-0368, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    Published Online:23 Apr 2021https://doi.org/10.4155/bio-2020-0252

    Abstract

    The foundation of pharmacokinetics and antidrug antibodies assay robustness relies on the use of high-quality reagents. Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest within the pharmaceutical industry, as well as regulators, on defining best practices and scientific approaches for generation, characterization and handling of critical reagents. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and practices on critical reagent workflows and state-of-the-art approaches for characterization, generation, stability and storage and how each of these steps can impact ligand-binding assay robustness.

    Lay abstract

    A critical part of clinical development for new biologic drugs is the use of tests known as ligand-binding assay. These assays must be able to accurately measure drug levels and to assess if the biologic drug interacts with the immune system in patients. In order to support patient efficacy and safety, scientists must use state-of-the-art approaches to develop and identify specific reagents for each new biologic drug. This review aims to cover all key steps that are needed to support the quality and performance of the unique components of ligand-binding assays from the beginning of assay development and throughout the entire life-cycle of the biologic drug.

    Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

    References

    • 1. ICH Expert Working Group. Bioanalytical Method Validation M10 draft version (2019). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/draft-ich-guideline-m10-bioanalytical-method-validation-step-2b_en.pdf
      Google Scholar
    • 2. King LE, Farley E, Imazato M et al. Ligand binding assay critical reagents and their stability: recommendations and best practices from the Global Bioanalysis Consortium Harmonization Team. AAPS J. 16(3), 504–515 (2014). •• Provides comprehensive overview on ligand-binding assay reagent life-cycle management. The authors present harmonized recommendations focused on the characterization, lot changes, stability, storage and documentation of critical reagents.
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Piccoli S, Mehta D, Vitaliti A et al. 2019 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: FDA immunogenicity guidance, gene therapy, critical reagents, biomarkers and flow cytometry validation (Part 3 - recommendations on 2019 FDA immunogenicity guidance, gene therapy bioanalytical challenges, strategies for critical reagent management, biomarker assay validation, flow cytometry validation & CLSI H62). Bioanalysis 11(24), 2207–2244 (2019).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Tiller T. Single B cell antibody technologies. N. Biotechnol. 28(5), 453–457 (2011).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Dessain SK, Adekar SP, Stevens JB et al. High efficiency creation of human monoclonal antibody-producing hybridomas. J. Immunol. Methods 291(1–2), 109–122 (2004).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Schmitz U, Versmold A, Kaufmann P, Frank HG. Phage display: a molecular tool for the generation of antibodies – a review. Placenta 21, S106–S112 (2000).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. O'Hara DM, Theobald V. Life cycle management of critical ligand-binding reagents. Bioanalysis 5(21), 2679–2696 (2013). • Authors describe the critical importance of maintaining supply and quality of reagents potentially over several decades and steps to ensure lot-to-lot consistency.
      Google Scholar
    • 8. O'Hara DM, Theobald V, Egan AC et al. Ligand binding assays in the 21st century laboratory: recommendations for characterization and supply of critical reagents. AAPS J. 14(2), 316–328 (2012).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Rup B, O'Hara D. Critical ligand binding reagent preparation/selection: when specificity depends on reagents. AAPS J. 9(2), E148–E155 (2007). • Authors discuss reagents generation from assay concept through immunization and functional characterization, and highlight need to adapt reagents and monitor changes as drug programs advance into late stages.
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Staack RF, Stracke JO, Stubenrauch K, Vogel R, Schleypen J, Papadimitriou A. Quality requirements for critical assay reagents used in bioanalysis of therapeutic proteins: what bioanalysts should know about their reagents. Bioanalysis 3(5), 523–534 (2011). •• Excellent review highlighting the impact of key steps from reagent generation through storage stability and key parameters for analytical characterization.
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Geist BJ, Egan AC, Yang TY, Dong Y, Shankar G. Characterization of critical reagents in ligand-binding assays: enabling robust bioanalytical methods and lifecycle management. Bioanalysis 5(2), 227–244 (2013). •• Excellent resource for when considering impact of biophysical properties on reagent performance and options for use of higher resolution biophysical characterization.
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Smith PK, Krohn RI, Hermanson GT et al. Measurement of protein using bicinchoninic acid. Anal. Biochem. 150(1), 76–85 (1985).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193(1), 265–275 (1951).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Amaravadi L, Song A, Myler H et al. 2015 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on new technologies and biomarkers (Part 3–LBA, biomarkers and immunogenicity). Bioanalysis 7(24), 3107–3124 (2015).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Stevenson L, Richards S, Pillutla R et al. 2018 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on flow cytometry, gene therapy, cut points and key clarifications on BAV (Part 3 – LBA/cell-based assays: immunogenicity, biomarkers and PK assays). Bioanalysis 10(24), 1973–2001 (2018).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 16. US FDA. Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products – Developing and Validating Assays for Anti-Drug Antibody Detection (2019). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/immunogenicity-testing-therapeutic-protein-products-developing-and-validating-assays-anti-drug
      Google Scholar
    • 17. Mahler HC, Friess W, Grauschopf U, Kiese S. Protein aggregation: pathways, induction factors and analysis. J. Pharm. Sci. 98(9), 2909–2934 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Berkowitz SA. Role of analytical ultracentrifugation in assessing the aggregation of protein biopharmaceuticals. AAPS J. 8(3), E590–E605 (2006).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Coller HA, Coller BS. Poisson statistical analysis of repetitive subcloning by the limiting dilution technique as a way of assessing hybridoma monoclonality. Methods Enzymol. 121, 412–417 (1986).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Lerner EA. How to make a hybridoma. Yale J. Biol. Med. 54(5), 387–402 (1981).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Zhang Z, Pan H, Chen X. Mass spectrometry for structural characterization of therapeutic antibodies. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 28(1), 147–176 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Miller PL, Wolfert RL, Diedrich G. Epitope binning of murine monoclonal antibodies by a multiplexed pairing assay. J. Immunol. Methods 365(1–2), 118–125 (2011).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Markwalter CF, Jang IK, Burton RA, Domingo GJ, Wright DW. Biolayer interferometry predicts ELISA performance of monoclonal antibody pairs for Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2. Anal. Biochem. 534, 10–13 (2017).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Ditto NT, Brooks BD. The emerging role of biosensor-based epitope binning and mapping in antibody-based drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 11(10), 925–937 (2016).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Abdiche YN, Miles A, Eckman J et al. High-throughput epitope binning assays on label-free array-based biosensors can yield exquisite epitope discrimination that facilitates the selection of monoclonal antibodies with functional activity. PLoS ONE 9(3), e92451 (2014).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Sultana A, Lee JE. Measuring protein-protein and protein-nucleic acid interactions by biolayer interferometry. Curr. Protoc. Protein Sci. 79, 19.25.11–19.25.26 (2015).
      Google Scholar
    • 27. Oquendo E, Lin X, Ye S et al. Using multiple platforms for critical reagents selection process to support PK ligand-binding assay development. Bioanalysis 13(10), 769–769 (2021).
      Google Scholar
    • 28. Abdiche YN, Yeung AY, Ni I et al. Antibodies targeting closely adjacent or minimally overlapping epitopes can displace one another. PLoS ONE 12(1), e0169535 (2017).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Rocha AG, Krynski K, Mancino A, Sciscione M, Beaver CJ. New insights on critical reagent optimization for antidrug antibody assays. Bioanalysis 11(9), 815–823 (2019).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Hermanson GT. Chapter 2 – functional targets for bioconjugation. In: Bioconjugate Techniques (3rd Edition). Academic Press (Ed.). Elsevier, MA, USA, 127–228 (2013).
      Google Scholar
    • 31. Hermanson GT. Chapter 18 – PEGylation and synthetic polymer modification. In: Bioconjugate Techniques (3rd Edition). Academic Press (Ed.). Elsevier, MA, USA, 787–838 (2013).
      Google Scholar
    • 32. Warden-Rothman R, Caturegli I, Popik V, Tsourkas A. Sortase-tag expressed protein ligation: combining protein purification and site-specific bioconjugation into a single step. Anal. Chem. 85(22), 11090–11097 (2013).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Hermanson GT. Chapter 17 – chemoselective ligation; bioorthogonal reagents. In: Bioconjugate Techniques (3rd Edition). Academic Press (Ed.). Elsevier, MA, USA, 757–785 (2013).
      Google Scholar
    • 34. Le Basle Y, Chennell P, Tokhadze N, Astier A, Sautou V. Physicochemical stability of monoclonal antibodies: a review. J. Pharm. Sci. 109(1), 169–190 (2020).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Thiagarajan G, Semple A, James JK, Cheung JK, Shameem M. A comparison of biophysical characterization techniques in predicting monoclonal antibody stability. MAbs 8(6), 1088–1097 (2016).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Good NE, Izawa S. Hydrogen ion buffers. Methods Enzymol. 24, 53–68 (1972).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Mensink MA, Frijlink HW, van der Voort Maarschalk K, Hinrichs WL. How sugars protect proteins in the solid state and during drying (review): mechanisms of stabilization in relation to stress conditions. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 114, 288–295 (2017).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Bajaj S, Singla D, Sakhuja N. Stability testing of pharmaceutical products. J.Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2(3), 129–138 (2012).
      Google Scholar
    • 39. Anderson G, Scott M. Determination of product shelf life and activation energy for five drugs of abuse. Clin. Chem. 37(3), 398–402 (1991).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Tingstad JE. The theory and practice of industrial pharmacy. Second Ed. Lachman L, Lieberman HA, Kanig JL. (Eds). Lea & Febiger, 600 Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106, 1976. 787pp. 18.5 × 26.5 cm. Price $38.50. J. Pharm. Sci. 65(8), 1267 (1976).
      Google Scholar
    • 41. Pihl S, van der Strate BW, Golob M et al. EBF recommendation on practical management of critical reagents for PK ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis 10(19), 1557–1565 (2018).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Pihl S, van der Strate BW, Golob M et al. EBF recommendation on practical management of critical reagents for antidrug antibody ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis 11(19), 1787–1798 (2019).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Garofolo W, Savoie N. The decennial index of the White Papers in Bioanalysis: ‘a decade of recommendations (2007–2016)’. Bioanalysis 9(21), 1681–1702 (2017).
      Google Scholar