Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 32, Issue 9, pp 2863–2876 | Cite as

A Flow-Cytometry-Based Approach to Facilitate Quantification, Size Estimation and Characterization of Sub-visible Particles in Protein Solutions

  • Christian Lubich
  • Mantas Malisauskas
  • Thomas Prenninger
  • Thomas Wurz
  • Peter Matthiessen
  • Peter L. Turecek
  • Friedrich Scheiflinger
  • Birgit M. Reipert
Research Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Sub-visible particles were shown to facilitate unwanted immunogenicity of protein therapeutics. To understand the root cause of this phenomenon, a comprehensive analysis of these particles is required. We aimed at establishing a flow-cytometry-based technology to analyze the amount, size distribution and nature of sub-visible particles in protein solutions.

Methods

We adjusted the settings of a BD FACS Canto II by tuning the forward scatter and the side scatter detectors and by using size calibration beads to facilitate the analysis of particles with sizes below 1 μM. We applied a combination of Bis-ANS (4,4′-dianilino-1,1′-binaphthyl-5,5′-disulfonic acid dipotassium salt) and DCVJ (9-(2,2-dicyanovinyl)julolidine) to identify specific characteristics of sub-visible particles.

Results

The FACS technology allows the analysis of particles between 0.75 and 10 μm in size, requiring relatively small sample volumes. Protein containing particles can be distinguished from non-protein particles and cross-β-sheet structures contained in protein particles can be identified.

Conclusions

The FACS technology provides robust and reproducible results with respect to number, size distribution and specific characteristics of sub-visible particles between 0.75 and 10 μm in size. Our data for number and size distribution of particles is in good agreement with results obtained with the state-of-the-art technology micro-flow imaging.

KEY WORDS

cross-β-sheet structures flow cytometry protein aggregates protein therapeutics sub-visible particles 

ABBREVIATIONS

Aβ 1–40

Amyloid beta 1–40 peptide

Bis-ANS

4,4′-dianilino-1,1′-binaphthyl-5,5′-disulfonic acid dipotassium salt

DCVJ

9-(2,2-dicyanovinyl)julolidine

DMSO

Dimethyl sulfoxide

D-PBS

Dulbecco’s Phosphate-Buffered Saline

preparation Non-Prot

Non-protein particles

preparation Prot

Protein particles without cross-ß-sheet structures

preparation Prot-Crossß

Protein particles containing cross-ß-sheet structures

rFVIII

Recombinant human factor VIII

TEM

Transmission Electron Microscopy

ThT

Thioflavin T

WFI

Water For Injection

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURES

The authors thank Elise Langdon-Neuner and Karima Benamara for editing the manuscript.

This work was supported by Baxter Innovation GmbH. C.L., M.M., T.P., T.W., P.M., P.L.T., F.S. and B.M.R. are employees of Baxter Innovation GmbH.

Authors Contribution

C. L. designed research, performed flow cytometric analysis, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote the paper; M.M. designed research, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote the paper; T.P. performed flow cytometric analysis, and analyzed and interpreted data, T.W. performed flow cytometric analysis of the method validation; P.M. performed, analyzed and interpreted micro flow imaging data; P.L.T. interpreted data; F.S. interpreted data; B.M.R. designed research, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote the paper.

Supplementary material

11095_2015_1669_MOESM1_ESM.docx (124 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 124 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Leader B, Baca QJ, Golan DE. Protein therapeutics: a summary and pharmacological classification. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7(1):21–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Büttel IC, Chamberlain P, Chowers Y, Ehmann F, Greinacher A, Jefferis R, et al. Taking immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins to the next level. Biologicals. 2011;39(2):100–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker MP, Reynolds HM, Lumicisi B, Bryson CJ. Immunogenicity of protein therapeutics: the key causes, consequences and challenges. Self Nonself. 2010;1(4):314–22.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schellekens H. The immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. Discov Med. 2010;9:560–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casadevall N, Nataf J, Viron B. Pure red-cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with recombinant erythropoietin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:469–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Everds NE, Tarrant JM. Unexpected hematologic effects of biotherapeutics in nonclinical species and in humans. Toxicol Pathol. 2013;41:280–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farrell RA, Marta M, Gaeguta AJ. Development of resistance to biologic therapies with reference to IFNb. Rheumatology. 2012;51:590–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ratanji KD, Derrick JP, Dearman RJ, Kimber IJ. Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: influence of aggregation. J Immunotoxicol. 2014;11(2):99–109.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenberg AS. Effects of protein aggregates: an immunologic perspective. AAPS J. 2006;8:501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sauerborn M, Brinks V, Jiskoot W, Schellekens H. Immunological mechanism underlying the immune response to recombinant human protein therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2010;31:53–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aguzzi A, O’Connor T. Protein aggregation diseases: pathogenicity and therapeutic perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(3):237–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sawaya MR, Sambashivan S, Nelson R, Ivanova MI, Sievers SA, Apostol MI, et al. Atomic structures of amyloid cross-beta spines reveal varied steric zippers. Nature. 2007;447(7143):453–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maas C, Hermeling S, Bouma B, Jiskoot W, Gebbink MF. A role for protein misfolding in immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(4):2229–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gustot A, Raussens V, Dehousse M, Dumoulin M, Bryant CE, Ruysschaert JM, et al. Activation of innate immunity by lysozyme fibrils is critically dependent on cross-β sheet structure. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2013;70(16):2999–3012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salminen A, Ojala J, Kauppinen A, Kaarniranta K, Suuronen T. Inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease: amyloid-beta oligomers trigger innate immunity defence via pattern recognition receptors. Prog Neurobiol. 2009;87(3):181–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang W, Singh SK, Li N, Toler MR, King KR, Nema S. Immunogenicity of protein aggregates–concerns and realities. Int J Pharm. 2012;431(1–2):1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Engelsman J, Garidel P, Smulders R, Koll H, Smith B, Bassarab S, et al. Strategies for the assessment of protein aggregates in pharmaceutical biotech product development. Pharm Res. 2011;28:920–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiesbauer J, Prassl R, Nidetzky B. Renewal of the air-water interface as a critical system parameter of protein stability: aggregation of the human growth hormone and its prevention by surface-active compounds. Langmuir. 2013;29(49):15240–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang W. Lyophilization and development of solid protein pharmaceuticals. Int J Pharm. 2000;203(1–2):1–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stathopulos PB, Scholz GA, Hwang YM, Rumfeldt JA, Lepock JR, Meiering EM. Sonication of proteins causes formation of aggregates that resemble amyloid. Protein Sci. 2004;13(11):3017–27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruiz L, Reyes N, Aroche K, Tolosa V, Simanca V, Rogríguez T, et al. Influence of packaging material on the liquid stability of interferon-alpha2b. J Pharm Sci. 2005;8(2):207–16.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gerhardt A, Mcgraw NR, Schwartz DK, Bee JS, Carpenter JF, Randolph TW. Protein aggregation and particle formation in prefilled glass syringes. J Pharm Sci. 2014;103(6):1601–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chi EY, Weickmann J, Carpenter JF, Manning MC, Randolph TW. Heterogeneous nucleation-controlled particulate formation of recombinant human platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase in pharmaceutical formulation. J Pharm Sci. 2005;94(2):256–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Akers MJ, Vasudevan V, Stickelmyer M. Formulation development of protein dosage forms. In: Nail SL, Akers MJ, editors. Development and manufacture of protein pharmaceuticals. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press; 2002. p. 47–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tyagli AK, Randolph TW, Dong A, Maloney KM, Hitscherich Jr C, Carpenter JF. IgG particle formation during filling pump operation: a case study of heterogeneous nucleation on stainless steel nanoparticles. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerwin BA, Akers MJ, Apostol I, Moore-Einsel C, Etter JE, Hess E, et al. Acute and long-term stability studies of deoxy hemoglobin and characterization of ascorbate-induced modifications. J Pharm Sci. 1999;88:79–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hawe A, Friess W. Stabilization of a hydrophobic recombinant cytokine by human serum albumin. J Pharm Sci. 2007;96:2987–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jones LS, Kaufmann A, Middaugh CR. Silicone oil induced aggregation of proteins. J Pharm Sci. 2005;94:918–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thirumangalathu R, Krishnan S, Ricci MS, Brems DN, Randolph TW, Carpenter JF. Silicone oil- and agitation-induced aggregation of a monoclonal antibody in aqueous solution. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:3167–81.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carpenter JF, Randolph TW, Jiskoot W. Overlooking subvisible particles in therapeutic protein products: gaps that may compromise product quality. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:1201–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Palutke M, KuKuruga D, Wolfe D, Roher A. Flow cytometric purification of Alzheimer’s disease amyloid plaque core protein using thioflavin T. Cytometry. 1987;8(5):494–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mach H, Bhambhani A, Meyer BK, Burek S, Davis H, Blue JT, et al. The use of flow cytometry for the detection of subvisible particles in therapeutic protein formulations. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100(5):1671–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ludwig DB, Trotter JT, Gabrielson JP, Carpenter JF, Randolph TW. Flow cytometry: a promising technique for the study of silicone oil-induced particulate formation in protein formulations. Anal Biochem. 2011;410(2):191–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ostman J, Darinskas A, Zamotin V, Liutkevicius E, Lundgren E, Morozova-Roche LA. Does the cytotoxic effect of transient amyloid oligomers from common equine lysozyme in vitro imply innate amyloid toxicity? J Biol Chem. 2005;280(8):6269–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lindgren M, Sörgjerd K, Hammarström P. Detection and characterization of aggregates, prefibrillar amyloidogenic oligomers, and protofibrils using fluorescence spectroscopy. Biophys J. 2005;88(6):4200–12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bertoncini CW, Celej MS. Small molecule fluorescent probes for the detection of amyloid self-assembly in vitro and in vivo. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2011;12(3):205–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paslawski W, Andreasen M, Nielsen SB, Lorenzen N, Thomsen K, Kaspersen JD, et al. High stability and cooperative unfolding of α-synuclein oligomers. Biochemistry. 2014;53(39):6252–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    EMA, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009 Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation. February 2012.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Draft guidance for industry: assay development for immunogenicity testing of therapeutic proteins. December 2009.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nolan JP, Stoner SA. A trigger channel threshold artifact in nanoparticle analysis. Cytometry A. 2013;83:301–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Vlist EJ, Nolte-’t Hoen EN, Stoorvogel W, Arkesteijn GJ, Wauben MH. Fluorescent labeling of nano-sized vesicles released by cells and subsequent quantitative and qualitative analysis by high-resolution flow cytometry. Nat Protoc. 2012;7:1311–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wen ZQ, Torraca G, Yee CY, Li G. Investigation of contaminants in protein pharmaceuticals in pre-filled syringes by multiple micro-spectroscopies. Am Pharm Rev. 2007;10:101–7.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nishi H, Mathäs R, Fürst R, Winter G. Label-free flow cytometry analysis of subvisible aggregates in liquid IgG1 antibody formulations. J Pharm Sci. 2014;103(1):90–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van der Pol E, Coumans FA, Grootemaat AE, Gardiner C, Sargent IL, Harrison P, et al. Particle size distribution of exosomes and microvesicles determined by transmission electron microscopy, flow cytometry, nanoparticle tracking analysis, and resistive pulse sensing. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(7):1182–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shapiro HM. Practical flow cytometry, 4th edition. Vienna, Austria:Wiley-Liss; 2003.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jahn TR, Radford SE. The Yin and Yang of protein folding. FEBS J. 2005;272(23):5962–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wuchner K, Büchler J, Spycher R, Dalmonte P, Volkin DB. Development of a microflow digital imaging assay to characterize protein particulates during storage of a high concentration IgG1 monoclonal antibody formulation. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99:3343–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zölls S, Gregoritza M, Tantipophan R, Wiggenhom M, Winter G, Friess W, et al. How subvisible particles become invisible—relevance of the refractive index for protein particle analyses. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102:1434–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fries A. Drug delivery of sensitive biopharmaceuticals with prefilled syringes. Drug Deliv Technol. 2009;9:22–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Lubich
    • 1
  • Mantas Malisauskas
    • 1
  • Thomas Prenninger
    • 1
  • Thomas Wurz
    • 1
  • Peter Matthiessen
    • 1
  • Peter L. Turecek
    • 1
  • Friedrich Scheiflinger
    • 1
  • Birgit M. Reipert
    • 1
  1. 1.Baxter Innovation GmbHViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations