Method development workflow for quantifying protein biomarkers by hybrid LC–MS/MS

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

References

• 1. Zhao Y, Gu H, Postelnek J et al. Fit-for-purpose protein biomarker assay validation strategies using hybrid immunocapture–liquid chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry platform: quantitative analysis of total soluble cluster of differentiation 73. Anal. Chim. Acta 1126, 144–153 (2020). •• Method validation workflow for protein biomarker analysis by hybrid LC–MS/MS.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2. Zhao Y, Gu H, Zeng J. Opportunities and challenges for hybrid immunoaffinity LC–MS approach for quantitative analysis of protein biomarkers. Future Sci. OA 4(3), FSO281 (2018). •• Summary of the advantages offered by hybrid LC–MS/MS over ligand-binding assays, and the challenges associated with the technique that must be accounted for during method development and validation.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Valentin M-A, Ma S, Zhao A, Legay F, Avrameas A. Validation of immunoassay for protein biomarkers: bioanalytical study plan implementation to support pre-clinical and clinical studies. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 55(5), 869–877 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4. Sugimoto H, Wei D, Dong L, Ghosh D, Chen S, Qian MG. Perspectives on potentiating immunocapture-LC–MS for the bioanalysis of biotherapeutics and biomarkers. Bioanalysis 10(20), 1679–1690 (2018).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. Zhao Y, Liu G, Kwok S et al. Highly selective and sensitive measurement of active forms of FGF21 using novel immunocapture enrichment with LC–MS/MS. Bioanalysis 10(1), 23–33 (2018).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Neubert H, Alley SC, Lee A et al. 2020 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: BMV of hybrid assays, acoustic MS, HRMS, data integrity, endogenous compounds, microsampling and microbiome (Part 1 – recommendations on industry/regulators consensus on BMV of biotherapeutics by LCMS, advanced application in hybrid assays, regulatory challenges in mass spec, innovation in small molecules, peptides and oligos). Bioanalysis 13(4), 203–238 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Neubert H, Olah T, Lee A et al. 2018 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on immunogenicity assays by hybrid LBA/LCMS and regulatory feedback (Part 2 – PK, PD and ADA assays by hybrid LBA/LCMS and regulatory agencies’ inputs on bioanalysis, biomarkers and immunogenicity). Bioanalysis 10(23), 1897–1917 (2018).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Neubert H, Song A, Lee A et al. 2017 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: rise of hybrid LBA/LCMS immunogenicity assays (Part 2: hybrid LBA/LCMS biotherapeutics, biomarkers and immunogenicity assays and regulatory agencies’ inputs). Bioanalysis 9(23), 1895–1912 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Jian W, Edom RW, Weng N. Important considerations for quantitation of small-molecule biomarkers using LC–MS. Bioanalysis 4(20), 2431–2434 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 10. Jones BR, Schultz GA, Eckstein JA, Ackermann BL. Surrogate matrix and surrogate analyte approaches for definitive quantitation of endogenous biomolecules. Bioanalysis 4(19), 2343–2356 (2012). • Implementation and interpretation of standard addition methodologies to assess parallelism in endogenous small-molecule bioanalysis using surrogate matrix and surrogate analyte approaches.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. van de Merbel NC. Quantitative determination of endogenous compounds in biological samples using chromatographic techniques. Trends Anal. Chem. 27(10), 924–933 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 12. Ciotti S, Purushothama S, Ray S. What is going on with my samples? A general approach to parallelism assessment and data interpretation for biomarker ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis 5(16), 1941–1943 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Lee JW, Devanarayan V, Barrett YC et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm. Res. 23(2), 312–328 (2006). • Design and implementation of parallelism assessments in ligand-binding assays.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Stevenson LF, Purushothama S. Parallelism: considerations for the development, validation and implementation of PK and biomarker ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis 6(2), 185–198 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Tu J, Bennett P. Parallelism experiments to evaluate matrix effects, selectivity and sensitivity in ligand-binding assay method development: pros and cons. Bioanalysis 9(14), 1107–1122 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Andreasson U, Perret-Liaudet A, van Waalwijk van Doorn LJC et al. A practical guide to immunoassay method validation. Front. Neurol. 6, 179 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17. US Food and Drug Administration. Bioanalytical method validation guidance for industry (2018). www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Bioanalytical-Method-Validation-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 18. Marcelletti JF, Evans CL, Saxena M, Lopez AE. Calculations for adjusting endogenous biomarker levels during analytical recovery assessments for ligand-binding assay bioanalytical method validation. AAPS J. 17(4), 939–947 (2015). • Comparison of approaches to assess recovery in endogenous large-molecule biomarker assays.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. King LE. Parallelism experiments in biomarker ligand-binding assays to assess immunological similarity. Bioanalysis 8(23), 2387–2391 (2016). • Experimental design and summary of statistical tests and acceptance criteria for the assessment of parallelism with a focus on ligand-binding assays.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49(D1), D480–D489 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21. Buchwalow I, Samoilova V, Boecker W, Tiemann M. Non-specific binding of antibodies in immunohistochemistry: fallacies and facts. Sci. Rep. 1, 28 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22. Kenna JG, Major GN, Williams RS. Methods for reducing non-specific antibody binding in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. J. Immunol. Methods 85(2), 409–419 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar