Ligand-Binding Assay Development: What Do You Want to Measure Versus What You Are Measuring?
Journal Title: The AAPS Journal - Year 2016, Vol 18, Issue 2
Abstract
The analysis of biotherapeutics by ligand-binding assay (LBA) is associated with some unique challenges that are unlike those commonly encountered in chromatographic methods for chemically based small molecule drugs. While small molecule drugs are typically highly protein bound, the use of an extraction procedure disrupts these interactions and thus allows for measurement of total drug concentrations; modeling is subsequently required to estimate the amount of free drug based upon protein-binding data. Protein-binding interactions for small molecule drugs are typically low affinity and high capacity in nature (i.e., albumin binding). In contrast, LBAs are most often used for the quantitation of large molecule proteins or peptides, where the use of an extraction procedure is replaced by sample dilution. Interferences in ligand-binding assays are typically of high affinity and low capacity and include target, receptors, anti-drug antibodies, and binding proteins (1,2), however some are typically low affinity such as anti-drug antibodies. While ligand-binding assays are traditionally the methodology of choice for the quantification of biotherapeutics in biological matrices, there is a trend towards increased use of chromatographic methods. Immunoenrichment and enzymatic digestion followed by the LC-MS/MS monitoring of specific biotherapeutic peptide fragments for use as a surrogate to quantify the whole molecule are becoming emergent techniques in the bioanalyst toolbox (3,4). This diversity in analytical technology often times leads to good-natured debate among bioanalytical scientists who tend to gravitate towards one of the two technological approaches. Yet, during assay development, there are two critical questions that often go unanswered; what do you want to measure and what are you measuring?
Authors and Affiliations
Andrew P. Mayer, Charles S. Hottenstein
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP680838
- DOI 10.1208/s12248-015-9855-0
- Views 68
- Downloads 0
The Poorly Membrane Permeable Antipsychotic Drugs Amisulpride and Sulpiride Are Substrates of the Organic Cation Transporters from the SLC22 Family
The online version of this article (doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9649-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Prediction of Drug Clearance in Children: an Evaluation of the Predictive Performance of Several Models
The online version of this article (doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9667-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Meeting Report: Applied Biopharmaceutics and Quality by Design for Dissolution/Release Specification Setting: Product Quality for Patient Benefit
The online version of this article (doi:10.1208/s12248-010-9206-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Improper Selection of a Pre-specified Primary Dose–Response Analysis Delays Regulatory Drug Approval
Dose–response analysis is one of the accepted efficacy endpoints to establish effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to inform selection of an appropriate pre-specified primary dose–response anal...
Current status of immunologic approaches to treating tobacco dependence: Vaccines and nicotine-specific antibodies
In contrast to current pharmacotherapies, immunologic approaches to treating tobacco dependence target the drug itself rather than the brain. This approach involves the use of nicotine-specific antibodies that bind nicot...