Biophysical Signatures of Monoclonal Antibodies

  • N. Harn
  • T. Spitznagel
  • M. Perkins
  • C. Allan
  • S. Shire
  • C. R. Middaugh
Part of the Biotechnology: Pharmaceutical Aspects book series (PHARMASP, volume XI)


Monoclonal antibodies are the most common protein that is being developed by many companies as therapies against a wide range of diseases (Andreakos et al. 2002; Campbell and Marcus 2003; Trikha et al. 2002; Untch et al. 2003). With increasing interest in the use of monoclonal antibodies therapeutics, it is apparent that the combination of specificity and safety offered by these proteins will continue to drive the biotechnology industry forward in the coming years (Gelfand 2001; Brekke and Sandlie 2003). As is the case with any drug, a successful MAb formulation is dependant upon many factors, including understanding their biophysical properties to help describe their behavior and physical stability. While a wide variety of physical characterizations of monoclonal antibodies are routinely performed from basic research through their pharmaceutical development, little systematic information exists regarding the range of values commonly encountered during such studies. A new investigator is thus faced with some uncertainty concerning what might be considered “normal” values for the many different types of measurements. As will be shown below, despite the primary structure similarity of IgG molecules (with the exception of heavy chain subtype and hyper-variable regions, of course), generally, there is significant variation in the results of such studies. The primary purpose of this study is to establish the range of values obtained from a variety of biophysical measurements and not to examine in depth the origin or nature of such differences, although a brief discussion of these issues will be provided. Therefore, the identity of the 12 IgG molecules that were obtained from three of the leading producers of IgG monoclonal antibodies will not be provided. Rather, they are each moved into and maintained in identical buffer conditions (pH 7.4 PBS) and are identified by a simple letter designation. Spectroscopic, calorimetric, electrophoretic and solubility methods are employed for the analysis of MAbs and illustrate the diversity of their biophysical characteristics which pertain to a wide variety of pharmaceutically relevant structural, physical, and thermal stability parameters. Secondary structure is probed employing both FTIR and far-UV CD spectroscopy. Tertiary structure is examined using intrinsic fluorescence and high-resolution second derivative UV absorbance spectroscopy, while DLS is performed to gather information pertaining to protein hydrodynamic size. Other physical parameters of immediate pharmaceutical interest such as thermal unfolding temperatures, isoelectric point and heterogeneity and apparent solubility are obtained from DSC, capillary isoelectric focusing and PEG precipitation methods, respectively.


Apparent Solubility Emission Peak Maximum Thermal Stability Parameter Primary Structure Similarity Derivative Absorbance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank MedImmune, Human Genome Sciences, and Genentech for the generous gift of the large quantities of monoclonal antibodies used in these studies.


  1. Andreakos E, Taylor PC, Feldmann M (2002) Monoclonal antibodies in immune and inflammatory diseases. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13:615–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong JK, Wenby RB, Meiselman HJ, Fisher TC (2004) The hydrodynamic radii of macromolecules and their effect on red blood cell aggregation. Biophys J 87:4259–4270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brekke OH, Sandlie I (2003) Therapeutic antibodies for human diseases at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:52–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burstein EA, Vedenkina NS, Ivkova MN (1973) Fluorescence and the location of tryptophan residues in protein molecules. Photochem Photobiol 18:263–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byler DM, Susi H (1986) Examination of the secondary structure of proteins by deconvolved FTIR spectra. Biopolymers 25:469–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell P, Marcus R (2003) Monoclonal antibody therapy for lymphoma. Blood Rev 17:143–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fan H, Ralston J, Dibiase M, Faulkner E, Russell Middaugh C (2005) Solution behavior of IFN-beta-1a: an empirical phase diagram based approach. J Pharm Sci 94:1893–1911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelfand EW (2001) Antibody-directed therapy: past, present, and future. J Allergy Clin Immunol 108:S111–S116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kueltzo LA, Middaugh CR (2003) Structural characterization of bovine granulocyte colony stimulating factor: effect of temperature and pH. J Pharm Sci 92:1793–1804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kueltzo LA, Middaugh CR (2005) Ultraviolet absorption spectroscopy. In: Wim Jiskoot DJAC (ed) Methods for structural analysis of protein pharmaceuticals, vol 3. AAPS Press, Arlington, VA, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  11. Kueltzo LA, Ersoy B, Ralston JP, Middaugh CR (2003) Derivative absorbance spectroscopy and protein phase diagrams as tools for comprehensive protein characterization: a bGCSF case study. J Pharm Sci 92:1805–1820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lakowicz JR (1999) Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, p 698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lawson EQ, Brandau DT, Trautman PA, Middaugh CR (1988) Electrostatic properties of cryoimmunoglobulins. J Immunol 140:1218–1222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu J, Nguyen MD, Andya JD, Shire SJ (2005) Reversible self-association increases the viscosity of a concentrated monoclonal antibody in aqueous solution. J Pharm Sci 94:1928–1940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mach H, Middaugh CR (1994) Simultaneous monitoring of the environment of tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine residues in proteins by near-ultraviolet second-derivative spectroscopy. Anal Biochem 222:323–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mach H, Volkin DB, Burke CJ, Middaugh CR (1995) Ultraviolet absorption spectroscopy. Methods Mol Biol 40:91–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Martsev SP, Dubnovitsky AP, Vlasov AP, Hoshino M, Hasegawa K, Naiki H, Goto Y (2002) Amyloid fibril formation of the mouse V(L) domain at acidic pH. Biochemistry 41:3389–3395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Middaugh CR, Tisel WA, Haire RN, Rosenberg A (1979) Determination of the apparent thermodynamic activities of saturated protein solutions. J Biol Chem 254:367–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mimura Y, Kabat EA, Tanaka T, Fujimoto M, Takeo K, Nakamura K (1995) Microheterogeneity of mouse antidextran monoclonal antibodies. Electrophoresis 16:116–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Minton AP (2005) Influence of macromolecular crowding upon the stability and state of association of proteins: predictions and observations. J Pharm Sci 94:1668–1675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Narhi LO, Rosenfeld R, Talvenheimo J, Prestrelski SJ, Arakawa T, Lary JW, Kolvenbach CG, Hecht R, Boone T, Miller JA et al (1993) Comparison of the biophysical characteristics of human brain-derived neurotrophic factor, neurotrophin-3, and nerve growth factor. J Biol Chem 268:13309–13317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohage E, Steipe B (1999) Intrabody construction and expression. I. The critical role of VL domain stability. J Mol Biol 291:1119–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perkins M, Theiler R, Lunte S, Jeschke M (2000) Determination of the origin of charge heterogeneity in a murine monoclonal antibody. Pharm Res 17:1110–1117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Philo JS, Rosenfeld R, Arakawa T, Wen J, Narhi LO (1993) Refolding of brain-derived neurotrophic factor from guanidine hydrochloride: kinetic trapping in a collapsed form which is incompetent for dimerization. Biochemistry 32:10812–10818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Radziejewski C, Robinson RC, DiStefano PS, Taylor JW (1992) Dimeric structure and conformational stability of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neurotrophin-3. Biochemistry 31:4431–4436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shire SJ, Shahrokh Z, Liu J (2004) Challenges in the development of high protein concentration formulations. J Pharm Sci 93:1390–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Souillac PO (2005) Biophysical characterization of insoluble aggregates of a multi-domain protein: an insight into the role of the various domains. J Pharm Sci 94:2069–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sukumar M, Doyle BL, Combs JL, Pekar AH (2004) Opalescent appearance of an IgG1 antibody at high concentrations and its relationship to noncovalent association. Pharm Res 21:1087–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Susi H, Byler DM (1986) Resolution-enhanced Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy of enzymes. Methods Enzymol 130:290–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trikha M, Yan L, Nakada MT (2002) Monoclonal antibodies as therapeutics in oncology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13:609–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tsai PK, Bruner MW, Irwin JI, Ip CC, Oliver CN, Nelson RW, Volkin DB, Middaugh CR (1993) Origin of the isoelectric heterogeneity of monoclonal immunoglobulin h1B4. Pharm Res 10:1580–1586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Untch M, Ditsch N, Hermelink K (2003) Immunotherapy: new options in breast cancer treatment. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 3:403–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van de Weert M, Haris PI, Hennink WE, Crommelin DJ (2001) Fourier transform infrared spectrometric analysis of protein conformation: effect of sampling method and stress factors. Anal Biochem 297:160–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Stokkum IH, Linsdell H, Hadden JM, Haris PI, Chapman D, Bloemendal M (1995) Temperature-induced changes in protein structures studied by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and global analysis. Biochemistry 34:10508–10518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Venyaminov S, Kalnin NN (1990a) Quantitative IR spectrophotometry of peptide compounds in water (H2O) solutions. I. Spectral parameters of amino acid residue absorption bands. Biopolymers 30:1243–1257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venyaminov S, Kalnin NN (1990b) Quantitative IR spectrophotometry of peptide compounds in water (H2O) solutions. II. Amide absorption bands of polypeptides and fibrous proteins in alpha-, beta-, and random coil conformations. Biopolymers 30:1259–1271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vermeer AW, Norde W (2000) The thermal stability of immunoglobulin: unfolding and aggregation of a multi-domain protein. Biophys J 78:394–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Harn
    • 1
  • T. Spitznagel
    • 2
  • M. Perkins
    • 2
  • C. Allan
    • 3
  • S. Shire
  • C. R. Middaugh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical ChemistryUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Human Genome SciencesRockvilleUSA
  3. 3.RegeneRx BiopharmaceuticalsBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations