Micro-Flow Imaging multi-instrument evaluation for sub-visible particle detection.

Sub-visible particles (SVPs) in pharmaceutical products are a critical quality attribute, and therefore should be monitored during development. Although light obscuration (LO) and microscopic particle count tests are the primary pharmacopeial methods used to quantify SVPs, flow imaging methods like Micro-Flow Imaging (MFI™) appear to overcome shortcomings of LO such as limited sensitivity concerning smaller translucent SVPs in the size range <10 µm. Nowadays, MFI™ is routinely utilized during development of biologicals. Oftentimes multiple devices are distributed across several laboratories and departments. This poses challenges in data interpretation and consistency as well as in the use of multiple devices for one purpose. In this study, we systematically evaluated seven MFI™ instruments concerning their counting and size precision and accuracy, using an inter-comparable approach to mimic daily working routine. Therefore, we investigated three different types of particles (i) NIST certified counting standards, (ii) protein-coated particles, and (iii) stress-induced particles from a monoclonal antibody. We compared the results to alternative particle detection methods: LO and backgrounded membrane imaging (BMI). Our results showed that the precision and accuracy of particle count and size, as well as the comparability of instruments, depended on the particle source and its material properties. The various MFI™ instruments investigated showed high precision (less than 15%) and data generated on different instruments were of the same order of magnitude within pharmacopeial relevant size ranges for NIST certified counting standards. However, we found limitations in the upper and lower detection limits, contrary to the limits claimed by the manufacturer. In addition, proteinaceous and protein-containing particles show statistically significant differences in particle counts, while the measured particle diameters of all sizes are quite consistent.

[1]  A. Levačić,et al.  Combining Machine Learning and Backgrounded Membrane Imaging: A case Study in Comparing and Classifying Different types of Biopharmaceutically Relevant Particles , 2022, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[2]  Melissa S. Murphy,et al.  Qualitative high-throughput analysis of subvisible particles in biological formulations using backgrounded membrane imaging. , 2022, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[3]  Patrick Garidel,et al.  Particle Detection and Characterization for Biopharmaceutical Applications: Current Principles of Established and Alternative Techniques , 2020, Pharmaceutics.

[4]  M. Xia,et al.  Interactions between polystyrene particles with diameters of several tens to hundreds of micrometers at the oil-water interface. , 2019, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[5]  S. Im,et al.  Direct measurement of electrostatic interactions between poly(methyl methacrylate) microspheres with optical laser tweezers. , 2019, Soft matter.

[6]  A. Koulov,et al.  Variance Between Different Light Obscuration and Flow Imaging Microscopy Instruments and the Impact of Instrument Calibration. , 2019, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[7]  S. Uchiyama,et al.  Collaborative Study for Analysis of Subvisible Particles Using Flow Imaging and Light Obscuration: Experiences in Japanese Biopharmaceutical Consortium. , 2019, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[8]  T. Menzen,et al.  Backgrounded Membrane Imaging (BMI) for High-Throughput Characterization of Subvisible Particles During Biopharmaceutical Drug Product Development. , 2019, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[9]  Liling Zhang,et al.  Closing the Gap: Counting and Sizing of Particles Across Submicron Range by Flow Cytometry in Therapeutic Protein Products. , 2017, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[10]  Lars V. Schäfer,et al.  High‐concentration protein formulations: How high is high? , 2017, European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics : official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V.

[11]  C. Probst,et al.  Characterization of Protein Particles in Therapeutic Formulations Using Imaging Flow Cytometry. , 2017, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[12]  Nathaniel R Maddux,et al.  Microflow Imaging Analyses Reflect Mechanisms of Aggregate Formation: Comparing Protein Particle Data Sets Using the Kullback-Leibler Divergence. , 2017, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[13]  Zuben E. Sauna,et al.  Recent advances in (therapeutic protein) drug development , 2017, F1000Research.

[14]  M. A. Neelakantan,et al.  Synthesis, structure information, DNA/BSA binding affinity and in vitro cytotoxic studies of mixed ligand copper(II) complexes containing a phenylalanine derivative and diimine co-ligands. , 2016, Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. B, Biology.

[15]  J. Gross,et al.  Nanoparticle tracking analysis of particle size and concentration detection in suspensions of polymer and protein samples: Influence of experimental and data evaluation parameters. , 2016, European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics : official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V.

[16]  A. Koulov,et al.  Factors Governing the Precision of Subvisible Particle Measurement Methods – A Case Study with a Low-Concentration Therapeutic Protein Product in a Prefilled Syringe , 2016, Pharmaceutical Research.

[17]  Tony Lubiniecki,et al.  Subvisible (2-100 μm) particle analysis during biotherapeutic drug product development: Part 2, experience with the application of subvisible particle analysis. , 2015, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[18]  Hanns-Christian Mahler,et al.  Sterile Filtration of Highly Concentrated Protein Formulations: Impact of Protein Concentration, Formulation Composition, and Filter Material. , 2015, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[19]  Tony Lubiniecki,et al.  Subvisible (2-100 μm) Particle Analysis During Biotherapeutic Drug Product Development: Part 1, Considerations and Strategy. , 2015, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[20]  Zhishang Hu,et al.  An interlaboratory comparison of sizing and counting of subvisible particles mimicking protein aggregates. , 2015, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[21]  Samir Mitragotri,et al.  Overcoming the challenges in administering biopharmaceuticals: formulation and delivery strategies , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[22]  W. Jiskoot,et al.  Flow Imaging Microscopy for Protein Particle Analysis—A Comparative Evaluation of Four Different Analytical Instruments , 2013, The AAPS Journal.

[23]  W. Jiskoot,et al.  Micro-flow imaging and resonant mass measurement (Archimedes)--complementary methods to quantitatively differentiate protein particles and silicone oil droplets. , 2013, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[24]  G. Winter,et al.  How subvisible particles become invisible-relevance of the refractive index for protein particle analysis. , 2013, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[25]  T. Das Protein Particulate Detection Issues in Biotherapeutics Development—Current Status , 2012, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[26]  Wim Jiskoot,et al.  Particles in therapeutic protein formulations, Part 1: overview of analytical methods. , 2012, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[27]  Linda O Narhi,et al.  Classification of protein aggregates. , 2012, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[28]  P. Garidel,et al.  Microscopic Methods for Particle Characterization in Protein Pharmaceuticals , 2012 .

[29]  A. Koulov,et al.  Discrimination Between Silicone Oil Droplets and Protein Aggregates in Biopharmaceuticals: A Novel Multiparametric Image Filter for Sub-visible Particles in Microflow Imaging Analysis , 2012, Pharmaceutical Research.

[30]  J. Vermant,et al.  Heterogeneity of the electrostatic repulsion between colloids at the oil–water interface , 2010 .

[31]  Patrick Garidel,et al.  Strategies for the Assessment of Protein Aggregates in Pharmaceutical Biotech Product Development , 2010, Pharmaceutical Research.

[32]  S. Shire,et al.  Characterization of Particles in Protein Solutions: Reaching the Limits of Current Technologies , 2010, The AAPS Journal.

[33]  S. Singh,et al.  An industry perspective on the monitoring of subvisible particles as a quality attribute for protein therapeutics. , 2010, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[34]  D. K. Sharma,et al.  Micro-Flow Imaging: Flow Microscopy Applied to Sub-visible Particulate Analysis in Protein Formulations , 2010, The AAPS Journal.

[35]  M. Sukumar,et al.  Quantification and characterization of subvisible proteinaceous particles in opalescent mAb formulations using micro-flow imaging. , 2010, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[36]  Wei Wang,et al.  Protein aggregation--pathways and influencing factors. , 2010, International journal of pharmaceutics.

[37]  Vasco Filipe,et al.  Critical Evaluation of Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) by NanoSight for the Measurement of Nanoparticles and Protein Aggregates , 2010, Pharmaceutical Research.

[38]  P. Garidel,et al.  Protein Therapeutics and Aggregates Characterized By Photon Correlation Spectroscopy An Application for High-Concentration Liquid Formulations , 2010 .

[39]  Chi-Ting Huang,et al.  Quantitation of protein particles in parenteral solutions using micro-flow imaging. , 2009, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[40]  Hanns-Christian Mahler,et al.  Protein aggregation: pathways, induction factors and analysis. , 2009, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[41]  L. Narhi,et al.  A critical review of analytical methods for subvisible and visible particles. , 2009, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[42]  T. Arakawa,et al.  Mechanisms of protein aggregation. , 2009, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[43]  E. Thormann,et al.  Interactions between a polystyrene particle and hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in aqueous solutions. , 2008, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[44]  Fred Jacobson,et al.  Protein aggregation and bioprocessing , 2006, The AAPS Journal.

[45]  A. Rosenberg,et al.  Effects of protein aggregates: An immunologic perspective , 2006, The AAPS Journal.

[46]  David E. Golan,et al.  Protein therapeutics: a summary and pharmacological classification , 2008, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[47]  G. Fuller,et al.  Mechanical properties and structure of particle coated interfaces: influence of particle size and bidisperse 2D suspensions. , 2007, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[48]  D. Forciniti,et al.  Aggregation and denaturation of antibodies: a capillary electrophoresis, dynamic light scattering, and aqueous two-phase partitioning study. , 2004, Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences.

[49]  Huub Schellekens,et al.  Structure-Immunogenicity Relationships of Therapeutic Proteins , 2004, Pharmaceutical Research.

[50]  A. Fernandez-Barbero,et al.  The aggregation behaviour of protein-coated particles: a light scattering study , 2003, European Biophysics Journal.

[51]  Stavros Kromidas,et al.  Handbuch Validierung in der Analytik , 2000 .

[52]  A. Takahara,et al.  Bovine serum albumin adsorption onto immobilized organotrichlorosilane surface: influence of the phase separation on protein adsorption patterns. , 1998, Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition.