ArticlemAbs
Identification of critical chemical modifications and paratope mapping by size exclusion chromatography of stressed antibody-target complexes.
Article in mAbs. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developability Evaluation of Single-Domain Antibody-Chelator Conjugates for Diagnostic Radiotracers.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing the Impact of CDR Deamidation and Isomerization on mAb Target Binding Using Affinity-Resolved 2D-SEC-SCX-MS Analysis.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025Article
- Affinity-Resolved Size Exclusion Chromatography Coupled to Mass Spectrometry: A Novel Tool to Study the Attribute-and-Function Relationship in Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Hydrogen Deuterium Exchange and other Mass Spectrometry-based Approaches for Epitope Mapping.Frontiers in analytical science · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic proteins including antibodies and Fc-fusion proteins undergo a large number of chemical modifications during cell culture, purification, storage and in human circulation. They are also exposed to harsh conditions during stress studies, including elevated temperature, extremes of pH, forced oxidation, physiological pH, UV light to assess the possible degradation pathways and suitability of methods for detecting them. Some of these modifications are located on residues in binding regions, leading to loss of binding and potency and classified as critical quality attributes. Currently, criticality of modifications is assessed by a laborious process of collecting antibody fractions from the soft chromatography techniques ion exchange and hydrophobic interaction chromatography and characterizing the fractions one-by-one for potency and chemical modifications. Here, we describe a method for large-scale, parallel identification of all critical chemical modifications in one experiment. In the first step, the antibody is stressed by one or several stress methods. It is then mixed with target protein and separated by size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) on bound antibody-target complex and unbound antibody. Peptide mapping of fractions and statistical analysis are performed to identify modifications on amino acid residues that affect binding. To identify the modifications leading to slight decreases in binding, competitive SEC of antibody and antigen mixtures was developed and described in a companion study by Shi et al, where target protein is provided at lower level, below the stoichiometry. The newly described method was successfully correlated to crystallography for assessing criticality of chemical modifications and paratope mapping. It is more sensitive to low-level modifications, better streamlined and platform ready.
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.