Editorial
First draft submitted: 3 March 2018; Accepted for publication: 12 March 2018; Published online:
11 July 2018
Keywords: assay matrix effects • bioanalytical selectivity • bioanalytical validation • digestion efficiency • GXP
bioanalysis • hybrid bioanalysis • immunocapture • LC–MS bioanalysis of protein drugs • protein bioanalysis •
protein drug validation • regulated bioanalysis • sequential protein peptide immunocapture
10.4155/bio-2018-0090
C 2018 Newlands Press Bioanalysis (2018) 10(13), 983–986 ISSN 1757-6180 983
Editorial Duggan
Recent studies have demonstrated that specific spike recovery experiments can help elucidate the nature of these
interferences [11,12]. One such experiment, called the immunocapture efficiency (ICE) experiment has been applied
to a IC PrD-LC–MS assay to help determine the effects of disease state vs normal matrices on the immunocapture
portion of the assay, comparing the relative amount of analyte measured after capture by the immunoaffinity
step as compared with that from a blank sample processed the same way but spiked with analyte downstream
from the immunocapture step [11]. In cases where competing ligands or other matrix components inhibit analyte
immunocapture, there will be a decrease in ICE. For a clinical study, ICE testing can be expanded to include disease
state individuals, pre-dose samples and blanks containing ADA if available [11].
Conclusion
Great advances have been made in protein LC–MS bioanalytical assays in recent years. Some newly-developed IC
PrD-LC–MS hybrid assays can quantify protein analytes at ng/ml levels and some of the recent PrD-LC–MS IC
SC assays can measure pg/ml concentrations in plasma. Along with these dramatic gains comes the potential for
ligand-binding interferences to impact the assay’s performance. Developers are employing newer procedures with
the ability to specifically probe immunocapture steps in the presence and absence of specific matrices or matrix
components that may inhibit analyte ligand binding. Special care must be taken with IC PrD-LC–MS SC assays as
they contain two distinct ligand-binding steps using two different immunocapture reagents, each with the potential
for some form of matrix interference. In addition to thorough testing and validation of these high sensitivity
methods, attention needs to be paid to life-cycle management of the critical immunocapture reagents for both IC
PrD-LC–MS and IC PrD-LC–MS SC methods, governing their storage, stability, testing and documentation.
As hybrid PrD-LC–MS assays continue to grow in sensitivity, selectivity and complexity; new validation tech-
niques will be co-developed to help ensure reliable in-study performance. It is also expected that the continued
proliferation of hybrid PrD-LC–MS assays with established reliability will also be accompanied by official validation
references in upcoming regulatory guidances.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the efforts of Lin-Zhi Chen, David Roos, Elsy Philip, Shirin Pagels, Shan Jiang, John Yu, Yan Mao, Bailuo
Ren, Jennifer Bleecker, Meghan Mimnaugh, David Dube, Nicole Riolo and Helen Luo of my former lab at Boehringer-Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Ridgefield, CT for their pioneering contributions in developing, validating and applying new PrD-LC-MS methods.
References
1. Li F, Fast D, Michael S. Absolute quantitation of protein therapeutics in biological matrices by enzymatic digestion and LC–MS.
Bioanalysis 3(21), 2459–2480 (2011).
2. Jones B, Schultz G. Adaptation of hybrid immunoaffinity LC–MS methods for protein bioanalysis in a contract research organization.
Bioanalysis 8(15), 15–45 (2016).
3. Neubert H, Muirhead D, Kabir M et al. Sequential protein and peptide immunoaffinity capture for mass-spectrometry-based
quantification of total human Beta-nerve growth factor. Anal. Chem. 85(3), 1719–1726 (2013).
4. Chen L, Roos D, Philip E, Pagels S. Sequential immunoaffinity LC/MS assay for quantitation of a therapeutic protein in monkey
plasma. J. Appl. Bioanalysis 3(5), 127–138 (2017).
5. Palandra J, Finelli A, Zhu M et al. Highly specific and sensitive measurements of human interleukin 21 using sequential protein and
tryptic peptide immunoaffinity LC–MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 85(11), 5522–5529 (2013)
6. US FDA. Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation (2001).
7. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation
(2011). www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidance/ucm070107.pdf
8. Jenkins R, Duggan J, Aubry A et al. Recommendations for validation of LC–MS/MS bioanalytical methods for protein
biotherapeutics. AAPS J. 17(1), 1–16 (2015).
9. Duggan J, Vazvaei F, Jenkins R. Bioanalytical method validation considerations for LC–MS/MS assays of therapeutic proteins.
Bioanalysis 7(11), 1389–1395 (2015).
10. Vazvaie F, Duggan J. Validation of LC–MS/MS bioanalytical methods for protein therapeutics. Bioanalysis 6(13), 1739–1742 (2014).
11. Duggan J, Ren B, Mao Y et al. LC–MS quantification of protein drugs: validating protein LC–MS methods with predigestion
immunocapture. Bioanalysis 8(18), 1951–1964 (2016).
12. Jiang H, Zeng J, Titsch C et al. Fully validated LC–MS/MS assay for thesimultaneous quantification of co-administered therapeutic
antibodies incynomolgus monkey serum. Anal. Chem. 85(20), 9859–9867 (2013).
13. King L, Farley E, Imazato M et al. Ligand binding assay critical reagents and their stability: recommendations and best practices from the
global bioanalysis consortium harmonization team. AAPS J. 16(3), 504–515 (2014).