Cited by 65Glycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsProtein purification and stability

Monoclonal antibody N-glycosylation profiling using capillary electrophoresis – Mass spectrometry: Assessment and method validation

Open access
Giorgetti, Jérémie, D’Atri, Valentina, Canonge, Julie, Lechner, Antony, Guillarme, Davy, Colas, Olivier, Wagner-Rousset, Elsa, Beck, Alain +2 more·2018·Talanta

Abstract

Characterization of therapeutic proteins represents a major challenge for analytical sciences due to their heterogeneity caused by post-translational modifications (PTM). Among these PTM, glycosylation which is possibly the most prominent, require comprehensive identification because of their major influence on protein structure and effector functions of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As a consequence, glycosylation profiling must be deeply characterized. For this application, several analytical methods such as separation-based or MS-based methods, were evaluated. However, no CE-ESI-MS approach has been assessed and validated. Here, we illustrate how the use of CE-ESI-MS method permits the comprehensive characterization of mAbs N-glycosylation at the glycopeptide level to perform relative quantitation of N-glycan species. Validation of the CE-ESI-MS method in terms of robustness and reproducibility was demonstrated through the relative quantitation of glycosylation profiles for ten different mAbs produced in different cell lines. Glycosylation patterns obtained for each mAbs were compared to Hydrophilic Interaction Chromatography of 2-aminobenzamide labelled glycans with fluorescence detector (HILIC-FD) analysis considered as a reference method. Very similar glycoprofiling were obtained with the CE-ESI-MS and HILIC-FD demonstrating the attractiveness of CE-ESI-MS method to characterize and quantify the glycosylation heterogeneity of a wide range of therapeutic mAbs with high accuracy and precision.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.09.083

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CZE separation has frequently been used to analyze glycosylated peptides and glycans, and CZE via TDMS has been used for glycosylation characterization.

    “CZE separation has frequently been used to analyze glycosylated peptides and glycans49,57,80,81 and CZE separation via TDMS was used for glycosylation characterization82.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giorgetti, J., D’Atri, V., Canonge, J., Lechner, A., Guillarme, D., Colas, O., Wagner-Rousset, E., Beck, A., Leize-Wagner, E., & François, Y.-N.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • Center of Immunology Pierre Fabre (FR)
Corresponding author
François, Yannis-Nicolas
Venue
Talanta
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
178
Pages
530-537
ISSN
0039-9140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2763901610
Cited by
65
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Talanta (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • univOAK (4 institutions : Université de Strasbourg, Université de Haute Alsace, INSA Strasbourg, Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (UMR 7140)
  • Université de Strasbourg
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (31003A_159494)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Glycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein purification and stability
Keywords
monoclonal antibodies, N-glycosylation, glycopeptide profiling, capillary electrophoresis, electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, method validation, therapeutic proteins, post-translational modification, glycosylation heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Chromatography, Glycopeptides, Glycosylation, Reproducibility of Results, Electrophoresis, Capillary, Spectrometry, Mass, Electrospray Ionization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review