[RASMB] Precision of c(s) method

Arthur Rowe arthur.rowe at nottingham.ac.uk
Fri Mar 24 09:30:15 PST 2006


Hi Matt

I think that Tom has put things very nicely, but here are just one or two
extra points.

We do an awful lot of analyses for a range of bio/pharma products, and
whilst mostly this is done 'in confidence' I have no problems about drawing
and stating a few general conclusions based upon our experience. Needless to
say, antibodies of one sort or another are not unknown as samples provided
to us for analysis, the issue of 'what sort of aggregates if any are
present' forms a good 50% of our commercial work,, and as you say there is a
growing interest in the regulatory bodies in having formulations controlled
and validated in these terms.

The issue of aggregation is complex. I agree with Tom that you can, on a
good day work to around 1%. By which I mean that you can under favourable
circumstances say that a preparation is 99% monomeric, rather than 100%.
Antibodies are actually quite good to work with, their s value is higher
than that of smaller proteins, and their shape does to some extent limit
diffusion and hence improve resolution. BUT - resolution with respect to
what? If we are talking dimer, then that 1% limit is believable. If what is
present at the 1% level - other than monomer - is a broad range of higher
oligomers, then you will have an uphill task in saying whether such material
is there or not. You really cannot distinguish a range of species each
present in miniscule amount from baseline in a c(s) plot. I personally do
like to compute a ls-g(s) profile when looking for small amounts of perhaps
poorly defined dimer (not so much with Ab's) - but this offers no
improvement at all for broad spectrum oligomers. The best you can do is to
state that "this was a SEC-purified prep - it must have been stripped of
these things"! But that assumes that no changes occur between column and
AUC.

It may be that high precision sedimentation equilibrium can help here - that
technique can 'see' a bit of higher M stuff in a way that SV does not. We
have some new approaches going in this area, which I will be talking about
at the London Meeting in 2 weeks time.

The lack of any real theoretical (or even solidly empirical) knowledge base
concerning aggregation is appalling. 'Experts' tend to be people who stroke
their beards and murmur things like 'adding a bit of trehalose/whatever
often works . . . . ' Big bits of ill-defined material are a major pain in
bio/pharma formulations, yet how do they form? Is the presence of small
amounts of higher oligomers a sign of their incipient formation? And 100
other question. But no funding body will touch such questions ('too
applied'). 

Actually, I will stop here before I really get onto one of my soap-boxes.

Arthur


--
*******************************************************
Arthur J Rowe
Professor of Biomolecular Technology
NCMH Business Centre
University of Nottingham
School of Biosciences
Sutton Bonington
Leicestershire LE12 5RD   UK

Tel:        +44 (0)115 951 6156
           +44 (0)116 271 4502
Fax:        +44 (0)115 951 6157
email:      arthur.rowe at nottingham.ac.uk
Web:        www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/business
*******************************************************




Hi Matt-
This is an excellent, but difficult, question. I expect there will be a
good discussion. Here's my two cents:
Sedimentation velocity is a technique of *accuracy* and not merely
precision. The x-axis of a c(s) plot has real physical meaning, and the
data from an experiment stand on their own (no standards are needed).
Size exclusion is a technique of precision- reproducibility is all that
is required, and the reproducibility is relative to a set of standards.
Hence, SV and SEC are truly orthogonal methods.
Since SV is a technique of accuracy, reproducibility depends on
everything being the same. While much of an experiment is under your
control, and thus can be made reproducible, some aspects are hard for
you to control. For example, small differences in centerpieces and how
they are assemble can make a difference. Certainly the reproducible
alignment of the centerpieces is important. Most importantly, c(s) is
curve fitting and can ONLY tell you about precision and not accuracy.
Changes to the fitting parameters will affect the result returned by the
analysis.
That said, careful work typically can get you to the 1% range.
If you want to be sure that you have 1% of an aggregate (an accuracy
question), however, you must do repeated experiments- you will never be
able to be certain by reanalyzing the same set of data (which can only
tell you about precision).
Best wishes,
Tom


Parker, Matthew wrote:

> Hi folks.
>
> I was wondering if people could give their views on the degree of
> precision that can be expected from the c(s) method, or other methods
> for fitting SV data, for assessing the degree of aggregate formation
> in a protein sample. (Monoclonal antibodies, in particular.) The FDA
> is starting to ask for ³orthogonal methods² to back up SEC data on
> aggregate formation. Is it reasonable to expect that SV can give the
> same degree of reproducibility when dealing with, say, 1 to 5%
> aggregated species? Has anybody done any systematic determinations of
> the precision of the method? (Subjective impressions are also welcome!)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> Matthew Parker, Ph.D.
>
> Analytical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
>
> Immunogen, Inc.
>
> 128 Sydney St.
>
> Cambridge, MA 02139
>
> (617) 444-2028
>
> (617) 995-2544 fax
>
> matthew.parker at immunogen.com <mailto:matthew.parker at immunogen.com>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>RASMB mailing list
>RASMB at rasmb.bbri.org
>http://rasmb.bbri.org/mailman/listinfo/rasmb
>  
>

-- 
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3544
Phone: 603-862-2459
FAX:   603-862-0031
E-mail: Tom.Laue at unh.edu
www.bitc.unh.edu
www.camis.unh.edu

_______________________________________________
RASMB mailing list
RASMB at rasmb.bbri.org
http://rasmb.bbri.org/mailman/listinfo/rasmb



This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.rasmb.org/pipermail/rasmb-rasmb.org/attachments/20060324/e89b78b5/attachment.htm>


More information about the RASMB mailing list