Multi‐Attribute Method for Quality Control of Therapeutic Proteins
Abstract
Recent advances in high resolution mass spectrometry (MS) instrumentation and semi-automated software have led to a push toward the use of MS-based methods for quality control (QC) testing of therapeutic proteins in a cGMP environment. The approach that is most commonly being proposed for this purpose is known as the multi-attribute method (MAM). MAM is a promising approach that provides some distinct benefits compared to conventional methods currently used for QC testing of protein therapeutics, such as CEX, HILIC, and CE-SDS. Because MS-based methods have not been regularly used in this context in the past, new scientific and regulatory questions should be addressed prior to the final stages of implementation. We have categorized these questions into four major aspects for MAM implementation in a cGMP environment for both new and existing products: risk assessment, method validation, capabilities and specificities of the New Peak Detection (NPD) feature, and comparisons to conventional methods. This perspective outlines considerations for each of these main points and suggests approaches to help address potential issues.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
MAM has become a valuable tool for the quality control of biotherapeutics.
“MAM has become a valuable tool for the quality control of biotherapeutics [90].”
From Current PAT Landscape in the Downstream Processing of Biopharmaceuticals (2025) · cites this paper as [90]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wasalathanthri, D. P., Rehmann, M. S., Song, Y., Gu, Y., Mi, L., Shao, C., Chemmalil, L., Lee, J., Ghose, S., Borys, M. C., et al. (2020) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.27461 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Sawyer, W. S., Srikumar, N., Carver, J., Chu, P. Y., Shen, A., Xu, A., Williams, A. J., Spiess, C., Wu, C., Liu, Y., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1917383117 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Current PAT Landscape in the Downstream Processing of Biopharmaceuticals
Sathiyapriyan, P., Mukherjee, S., Vogel, T., Essen, L., Boerema, D., Vey, M., & Kalina, U. (2025) · Analytical Science Advances · doi:10.1002/ansa.70013 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rogstad, S., Yan, H., Wang, X., Powers, D., Brorson, K., Damdinsuren, B., & Lee, S.
- Affiliations
- Office of Testing and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, CDER, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, United States
- Office of Biotechnology Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, CDER, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, United States
- ORCID
- Rogstad, Sarah
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2019-10-16
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 14170-14177
- ISSN
- 0003-2700
- 1520-6882
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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