Ligand Binding Assays in the 21st Century Laboratory: Platforms

The 21st Century Bioanalytical Laboratory Platforms initiative in the BIOTEC section of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) began with a pre-conference workshop held in Seattle, WA in June of 2009. This workshop brought together members of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, with instrument and reagent manufacturers to discuss the current and potential future state of the bioanalytical laboratories supporting biologics development. At the conclusion of the workshop, four sub-teams were formed to further develop the ideas and concepts raised during the 2-day workshop. The sub-teams are reagents, automation, e-solutions, and platforms. This paper discusses the critical attributes of a research and development ligand binding assay (LBA) platform and the desired characteristics new platforms should strive to offer in the future. This paper is not intended to be a review and comparison of the current platforms on the market, as this has been done and published elsewhere (1–9). The platforms team consists of a balanced cross-section of the industry with representatives from pharmaceutical, biotechnology, contract research organizations, and instrument manufacturers. The Platforms team have collaborated to discuss and arrive at a consensus regarding the most useful characteristics of a bioanalytical platform for biologics. We present here the results of these discussions. A platform is the technology employed in an analytical method to transduce a biochemical event into a measureable output or signal. This signal allows the bioanalytical scientist to accurately and reproducibly make measurements to analyze different aspects of a specific biologic target (therapeutic, biomarker, and anti-drug antibody) such as its pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, potency, or effect of biomarkers. An instrument is the tool utilized minimally to measure a platform’s output and convert the resultant signal into interpretable information the analytical scientist can use but can incorporate other aspects such as liquid handling. Many platforms employ optical signals including the absorbance of light through a medium (10) or the emission of fluorescence (10) or luminescence (11). A variety of light detectors are used to measure these optical signals including photo diodes, charge-coupled device cameras, and photo-multiplier tubes (Table I). Sections in this paper provide details on the desirable analytical characteristics, multiplexing, platform flexibility and throughput, desirable instrument characteristics, and finally, life cycle management of the ideal LBA platform. Table I Commonly Used Platforms The analytical characteristics of today’s ligand binding assays are primarily influenced by three major factors—the quality of the reagents, assay format, and the choice of the analytical platform. This paper describes only those aspects derived from the analytical platform.

[1]  Wei Song,et al.  Comparison of four distinct detection platforms using multiple ligand binding assay formats. , 2011, Journal of immunological methods.

[2]  Michelle Vessels,et al.  Selecting the Detection System – Colorimetric , Fluorescent , Luminescent Methods for ELISA Assays Application Note , 2001 .

[3]  Binodh DeSilva,et al.  Recommendations for the Bioanalytical Method Validation of Ligand-Binding Assays to Support Pharmacokinetic Assessments of Macromolecules , 2003, Pharmaceutical Research.

[4]  Jennifer Yohrling,et al.  Ligand-binding assays: risk of using a platform supported by a single vendor. , 2009, Bioanalysis.

[5]  J Fraser Glickman,et al.  Comparison of Assay Technologies for a Nuclear Receptor Assay Screen Reveals Differences in the Sets of Identified Functional Antagonists , 2003, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[6]  John C. Anderson,et al.  Assessing Project Implementation Risk: A Methodological Approach , 1979 .

[7]  A. Armston The immunoassay handbook , 2014, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[8]  V T Covello,et al.  Decision analysis and risk management decision making: issues and methods. , 1987, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Lakshmi Amaravadi,et al.  Solution ELISA as a platform of choice for development of robust, drug tolerant immunogenicity assays in support of drug development. , 2011, Journal of immunological methods.

[10]  F. Legay,et al.  Improvement of drug tolerance in immunogenicity testing by acid treatment on Biacore. , 2008, Journal of immunological methods.

[11]  Eugen Koren,et al.  An acid dissociation bridging ELISA for detection of antibodies directed against therapeutic proteins in the presence of antigen. , 2005, Journal of immunological methods.

[12]  George Scott,et al.  Recommendations for the design and optimization of immunoassays used in the detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. , 2004, Journal of immunological methods.

[13]  Arunan Kaliyaperumal,et al.  Comparing ELISA and Surface Plasmon Resonance for Assessing Clinical Immunogenicity of Panitumumab , 2007, The Journal of Immunology.

[14]  Viswanath Devanarayan,et al.  Recommendations for the validation of immunoassays used for detection of host antibodies against biotechnology products. , 2008, Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis.

[15]  Ian C. MacMillan,et al.  Criteria Used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals , 1985 .

[16]  Jian Li,et al.  Detection of low-affinity anti-drug antibodies and improved drug tolerance in immunogenicity testing by Octet(®) biolayer interferometry. , 2011, Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis.

[17]  Michael Jay,et al.  Novel Ethanol-in-Fluorocarbon Microemulsions for Topical Genetic Immunization , 2004, Pharmaceutical Research.

[18]  Vinod P. Shah,et al.  Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation: Best Practices for Chromatographic and Ligand Binding Assays , 2007 .

[19]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies 1 , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  Michael Entzeroth,et al.  Overview of High‐Throughput Screening , 2009, Current protocols in pharmacology.

[21]  Binodh DeSilva,et al.  A strategy for improving comparability across sites for ligand binding assays measuring therapeutic proteins. , 2010, Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis.

[22]  Viswanath Devanarayan,et al.  Fit-for-Purpose Method Development and Validation for Successful Biomarker Measurement , 2006, Pharmaceutical Research.

[23]  Ray Yin,et al.  Comparison of the NIDS® rapid assay with ELISA methods in immunogenicity testing of two biotherapeutics. , 2011, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[24]  L. G. Thijs,et al.  Increased plasma levels of interleukin-6 in sepsis [see comments] , 1989 .

[25]  L A Aarden,et al.  Increased plasma levels of interleukin-6 in sepsis. , 1989, Blood.

[26]  Charles A. Wartchow,et al.  Luminescent oxygen channeling assay (LOCI): sensitive, broadly applicable homogeneous immunoassay method. , 1996, Clinical chemistry.

[27]  Meina Liang,et al.  Detection of high- and low-affinity antibodies against a human monoclonal antibody using various technology platforms. , 2007, Assay and drug development technologies.