The AAPS Journal

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp E260–E267 | Cite as

Appropriate calibration curve fitting in ligand binding assays

Article

Abstract

Calibration curves for ligand binding assays are generally characterized by a nonlinear relationship between the mean response and the analyte concentration. Typically, the response exhibits a sigmoidal relationship with concentration. The currently accepted reference model for these calibration curves is the 4-parameter logistic (4-PL) model, which optimizes accuracy and precision over the maximum usable calibration range. Incorporation of weighting into the model requires additional effort but generally results in improved calibration curve performance. For calibration curves with some asymmetry, introduction of a fifth parameter (5-PL) may further improve the goodness of fit of the experimental data to the algorithm. Alternative models should be used with caution and with knowledge of the accuracy and precision performance of the model across the entire calibration range, but particularly at upper and lower analyte concentration areas, where the 4-and 5-PL algorithms generally outperform alternative models. Several assay design parameters, such as placement of calibrator concentrations across the selected range and assay layout on multiwell plates, should be considered, to enable optimal application of the 4- or 5-PL model. The fit of the experimental data to the model should be evaluated by assessment of agreement of nominal and model-predicted data for calibrators.

Keywords

Ligand-binding assay nonlinear calibration 4/5-parameter logistic models assay design parameters 

References

  1. 1.
    2006 report, Medicines in development, biotechnology. PhRMA Website. 2006; Available at: http://www.phrma.org/files/Biotech%202006.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Findlay JWA, Smith WC, Lee JW, et al. Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective.J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2000;21:1249–1273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R, et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules.Pharm Res. 2003;20:1885–1900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah VP, Midha KK, Dighe S, et al. Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies.Pharm Res. 1992;9:588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller KJ, Bowsher RR, Celniker A, et al. Workshop on bioanalytical methods validation for macromolecules: summary report.Pharm Res. 2001;18:1373–1383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah VP, Midha KK, Findlay JWA, et al. Bioanalytical method validation—a revisit with a decade of progress.Pharm Res. 2000;17:1551–1557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vishwanathan CT Bansal S, Booth B, et al. Quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays.AAPS J [serial online]. 2007;9:E30-E42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Food and Drug Administration.Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical. Method Validation. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodbard D, Frazier GR. Statistical analysis of radioligand assay data.Methods Enzymol. 1975;37:3–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haven MC, Orsulak PJ, Arnold LL, et al. Data-reduction methods for immunoradiometric assays of thyrotropin compared.Clin Chem. 1987;33:1207–1210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dudley RA, Edwards P, Ekins RP, et al. Guidelines for immunoassay data processing.Clin Chem. 1985;31:1264–1271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gottschalk PG, Dunn JR. The five-parameter logistic: a characterization and comparison with the four-parameter logistic.Anal Biochem. 2005;343:54–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS, eds.Statistics for Experimenters. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons: 1978.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finney DJ, Phillips P. The form and estimation of a variance function, with particular reference to radioimmunoassay.Appl Stat. 1977;26:312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finney DJ, ed.Statistical Methods in Biological Assay. 3rd ed. London, UK: Charles Griffith; 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, eds.Transformation and Weighting in Regression. London, UK: Chapman Hall; 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rocke DM, Jones G. Optimal design for ELISA and other forms of immunoassay.Technometrics. 1997;39:162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karpinski KF. Optimality assessment in the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).Biometrics. 1990;46:381–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singer R, Lansky DM, Hauck WW. Bioassay glossary.Pharmacopeial Forum. 2006;32:1359–1365.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karnes HT, March C. Calibration and validation of linearity in chromatographic biopharmaceutical analysis.J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1991;9:911–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith WC, Sittampalam GS. Conceptual and statistical issues in the validation of analytic dilution assays for pharmaceutical applications.J Biopharm Stat. 1998;8:509–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and MetabolismPfizer Global Research and DevelopmentGroton
  2. 2.BioStatistics and Data ManagementTakeda Pharmaceuticals North America, IncDeerfield

Personalised recommendations