Cargando…

Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress

Polysorbates (PS) are nonionic surfactants that are commonly included in protein formulations to mitigate the formation of interfacial stress-induced protein particles and thus increase their long-term storage stability. Nonetheless, factors that dictate the efficiency of different polysorbates in m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaclaw, Coleman, Merritt, Kimberly, Griffin, Valerie P., Whitaker, Neal, Gokhale, Madhushree, Volkin, David B., Ogunyankin, Maria O., Dhar, Prajnaparamita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10118229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37081185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1208/s12249-023-02561-4
_version_ 1785028765134356480
author Vaclaw, Coleman
Merritt, Kimberly
Griffin, Valerie P.
Whitaker, Neal
Gokhale, Madhushree
Volkin, David B.
Ogunyankin, Maria O.
Dhar, Prajnaparamita
author_facet Vaclaw, Coleman
Merritt, Kimberly
Griffin, Valerie P.
Whitaker, Neal
Gokhale, Madhushree
Volkin, David B.
Ogunyankin, Maria O.
Dhar, Prajnaparamita
author_sort Vaclaw, Coleman
collection PubMed
description Polysorbates (PS) are nonionic surfactants that are commonly included in protein formulations to mitigate the formation of interfacial stress-induced protein particles and thus increase their long-term storage stability. Nonetheless, factors that dictate the efficiency of different polysorbates in mitigating protein particle formation, especially during the application of interfacial stresses, are often ill defined. Here, we used a Langmuir trough to determine the surface activity of two IgG1 monoclonal antibodies formulated with two different polysorbates (PS20 and PS80) when subjected to interfacial dilatational stress. Interfacial properties of these formulations were then correlated with characterization of subvisible protein particles measured by micro-flow imaging (MFI). Both mAbs, when formulated in PS20, demonstrate faster adsorption kinetics and higher surface activity compared to PS80 or surfactant-free formulations. Compression/expansion results suggest that when exposed to interfacial dilatational stresses, both mAb/PS20 formulations display interfacial properties of PS20 alone. In contrast, interfacial properties of both mAb/PS80 formulations suggest mAbs and PS80 are co-adsorbed to the air–water interface. Further, MFI analysis of the interface and the bulk solution confirms that PS20 is more effective than PS80 at mitigating the formation of larger particles in the bulk solution in both mAbs. Concomitantly, the efficiency of PS to prevent interface-induced protein particle formation also depended on the protein’s inherent tendency to aggregate at a surfactant-free interface. Together, the studies presented here highlight the importance of determining the interfacial properties of mAbs, surfactants, and their combinations to make informed formulation decisions about the choice of surfactant. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1208/s12249-023-02561-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10118229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101182292023-04-25 Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress Vaclaw, Coleman Merritt, Kimberly Griffin, Valerie P. Whitaker, Neal Gokhale, Madhushree Volkin, David B. Ogunyankin, Maria O. Dhar, Prajnaparamita AAPS PharmSciTech Research Article Polysorbates (PS) are nonionic surfactants that are commonly included in protein formulations to mitigate the formation of interfacial stress-induced protein particles and thus increase their long-term storage stability. Nonetheless, factors that dictate the efficiency of different polysorbates in mitigating protein particle formation, especially during the application of interfacial stresses, are often ill defined. Here, we used a Langmuir trough to determine the surface activity of two IgG1 monoclonal antibodies formulated with two different polysorbates (PS20 and PS80) when subjected to interfacial dilatational stress. Interfacial properties of these formulations were then correlated with characterization of subvisible protein particles measured by micro-flow imaging (MFI). Both mAbs, when formulated in PS20, demonstrate faster adsorption kinetics and higher surface activity compared to PS80 or surfactant-free formulations. Compression/expansion results suggest that when exposed to interfacial dilatational stresses, both mAb/PS20 formulations display interfacial properties of PS20 alone. In contrast, interfacial properties of both mAb/PS80 formulations suggest mAbs and PS80 are co-adsorbed to the air–water interface. Further, MFI analysis of the interface and the bulk solution confirms that PS20 is more effective than PS80 at mitigating the formation of larger particles in the bulk solution in both mAbs. Concomitantly, the efficiency of PS to prevent interface-induced protein particle formation also depended on the protein’s inherent tendency to aggregate at a surfactant-free interface. Together, the studies presented here highlight the importance of determining the interfacial properties of mAbs, surfactants, and their combinations to make informed formulation decisions about the choice of surfactant. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1208/s12249-023-02561-4. Springer International Publishing 2023-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10118229/ /pubmed/37081185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1208/s12249-023-02561-4 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vaclaw, Coleman
Merritt, Kimberly
Griffin, Valerie P.
Whitaker, Neal
Gokhale, Madhushree
Volkin, David B.
Ogunyankin, Maria O.
Dhar, Prajnaparamita
Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress
title Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress
title_full Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress
title_fullStr Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress
title_short Comparison of Protein Particle Formation in IgG1 mAbs Formulated with PS20 Vs. PS80 When Subjected to Interfacial Dilatational Stress
title_sort comparison of protein particle formation in igg1 mabs formulated with ps20 vs. ps80 when subjected to interfacial dilatational stress
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10118229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37081185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1208/s12249-023-02561-4
work_keys_str_mv AT vaclawcoleman comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT merrittkimberly comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT griffinvaleriep comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT whitakerneal comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT gokhalemadhushree comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT volkindavidb comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT ogunyankinmariao comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress
AT dharprajnaparamita comparisonofproteinparticleformationinigg1mabsformulatedwithps20vsps80whensubjectedtointerfacialdilatationalstress