The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Critical Review of Methods for Size Characterization of Non-Particulate Protein Aggregates
Abstract
Although size exclusion chromatography (SEC) has been, and will continue to be, the primary analytical tool for characterization of the content and size distribution of non-particulate aggregates in protein pharmaceuticals, regulatory concerns are driving increased use of alternative and complementary methods such as analytical ultracentrifugation and light scattering techniques. This review will highlight and critically review the capabilities, advantages, and drawbacks of SEC, analytical ultracentrifugation, and light scattering methods for characterizing aggregates with sizes below about 0.3 microns. The physical principles of the biophysical methods are briefly described and examples of data for real samples and how that data is interpreted are given to help clarify capabilities and weaknesses.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Used on HPLC systems with UV, FS, or differential refractive index (dRI) detectors to quantify the eluting species, it is the primary method to assess aggregates in the biopharmaceutical industry due to its simplicity, throughput, and speed.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [92]
In the citing paper
“A major challenge for accuracy and precision of SLS/DLS remains high sensitivity to the refractive index of the sample that must be known a priori.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [92]
In the citing paper
“Reliability is especially poor due to the difference in refractive index between samples of empty and full capsids, leading to errors of up to 33% if the refractive index is incorrectly assigned.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [92]
In the citing paper
“DLS quantifies aggregate content and estimates the capsid titer of purified rAAV samples without prior sample preparation, within <5 min.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [92]
In the citing paper
“They are generally more accurate and precise than orthogonal methods, e.g., AUC or DLS, but accuracy for large aggregates is limited by the SEC separation mechanism: filtration of aggregates by the stationary phase, nonspecific interactions between aggregates and the column frit, and dissociation of reversible aggregates due to dilution in the mobile phase are common.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [92]
Citations
Cites
Techniques in Protein Chemistry
(1993) · Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · doi:10.1016/1044-0305(93)80012-n · Cited by 1,298
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Filipe, V., Hawe, A., & Jiskoot, W. (2010) · Pharmaceutical Research · doi:10.1007/s11095-010-0073-2 · Cited by 1,885
Protein aggregation—Pathways and influencing factors
Wang, W., Nema, S., & Teagarden, D. L. (2010) · International Journal of Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.02.025 · Cited by 842
Characterization of Therapeutic Antibodies and Related Products
Beck, A., Wagner‐Rousset, E., Ayoub, D., DORSSELAER, A. V., & Cianférani, S. (2012) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac3032355 · Cited by 616
Analytical tools for characterizing biopharmaceuticals and the implications for biosimilars
Berkowitz, S. A., Engen, J. R., Mazzeo, J. R., & Jones, G. B. (2012) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3746 · Cited by 550
Immunogenicity of Therapeutic Protein Aggregates
Moussa, E. M., Panchal, J. P., Moorthy, B. S., Blum, J. S., Joubert, M. K., Narhi, L. O., & Topp, E. M. (2016) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2015.11.002 · Cited by 525
Metadata
- Authors
- Philo, J.
- Affiliations
- Alliance Protein Laboratories (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Philo, John
- ORCID
- Philo, John
- Venue
- Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
- Publisher
- Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
- Published
- 2009-06-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-372
- ISSN
- 1389-2010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007228224
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 6.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein purification and stability
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
- Keywords
- protein aggregates, size exclusion chromatography, analytical ultracentrifugation, light scattering, pharmaceutical proteins, regulatory compliance, biophysical characterization
- MeSH terms
- Biopharmaceutics, Chromatography, Gel, Chemical Fractionation, Nephelometry and Turbidimetry, Particle Size, Proteins, Technology, Pharmaceutical, Ultracentrifugation, Multiprotein Complexes
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
