ArticleBiotechnology progress2021
Quantification of glycated IgG in CHO supernatants: A practical approach.
Article in Biotechnology progress, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mass Spectrometry-Based Comparative Evaluation of Forced Glycation Profiles of Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- [Recent progress of chromatographic techniques for antibody purification].Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2024Review
- A Novel 3D-Printed and Miniaturized Periodic Counter Current Chromatography System for Continuous Purification of Monoclonal Antibodies.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Native Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry to Structurally and Functionally Characterize Endo-Xylanase Proteoforms.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Quantification of glycated IgG in CHO supernatants: A practical approach.Biotechnology progress · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-translational, nonenzymatic glycation of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the presence of reducing sugars (in bioprocesses) is a widely known phenomenon, which affects protein heterogeneity and potentially has an impact on quality, safety, and efficacy of the end product. Quantification of individual glycation levels is compulsory for each mAb therapeutically applied in humans. We therefore propose an analytical method for monitoring glycation levels of mAb products during the bioprocess. This is a useful tool for process-design considerations, especially concerning glucose-feed strategies and temperature as major driving factors of protein glycation. In this study, boronate affinity chromatography (BAC) was optimized for determination of the glycation level of mAbs in supernatants. In fact, the complex matrix found in supernatants is an underlying obstacle to use BAC, but with a simple clean-up step, we found that the elution profile could be significantly improved so that qualitative and quantitative determination could be reached. Complementary analytical methods confirmed the performance quality, including the correctness and specificity of the results. For quantitative determination of mAb glycation in supernatants, we established a calibration procedure for the retained mAb peak, identified as glycated antibody monomers. For this approach, an available fully characterized mAb standard, Humira®, was successfully applied, and continuous monitoring of mAbs across three repetitive fed-batch processes was finally performed. With this practical, novel approach, an insight was obtained into glycation levels during bioprocessing, in conjunction with glucose levels and product titer over time, facilitating efficient process development and batch-consistency monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.