ArticlemAbs
Charge heterogeneity of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies by different cIEF systems: views on the current situation.
Article in mAbs. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Amino Acid Excipients on icIEF Method Development in Protein Therapeutics: A Formulation-Aware Analytical Framework.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Article
- Analytical Physicochemical and Functional Studies to Compare AryoTrust, a Follow-On Biologics, with the Originator Trastuzumab (Herceptin).Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Recent Developments in Capillary and Microchip Electroseparations of Peptides (2023-mid 2025).Electrophoresis · 2026Review
- A Design of Experiments and Risk Management-Driven Analytical Platform for Charge Variant Analysis of Therapeutic Antibodies by Imaged Capillary Isoelectric Focusing.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring imaged capillary isoelectric focusing parameters for enhanced charge variants quality control.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Review
- An Imaged Capillary Isoelectric Focusing Separation of the Linear and Cyclic Variants of a Mimotope of the Cancer-Related CD20 Antigen-Validation and Statistical Evaluation.Journal of separation science · 2025Article
- A new paradigm for optimized experimental design in cIEF platforms aimed at an accurate robust and reliable mAbs charge-variant assessment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic mAbs show a specific "charge fingerprint" that may affect safety and efficacy, and, as such, it is often identified as a critical quality attribute (CQA). Capillary iso-electric focusing (cIEF), commonly used for the evaluation of such CQA, provides an analytical tool to investigate mAb purity and identity across the product lifecycle. Here, we discuss the results of an analysis of a panel of antibody products by conventional and whole-column imaging cIEF systems performed as part of European Pharmacopoeia activities related to development of "horizontal standards" for the quality control of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). The study aimed at designing and verifying an independent and transversal cIEF procedure for the reliable analysis of mAbs charge variants. Despite the use of comparable experimental conditions, discrepancies in the charge profile and measured isoelectric points emerged between the two cIEF systems. These data suggest that the results are method-dependent rather than absolute, an aspect known to experts in the field and pharmaceutical industry, but not suitably documented in the literature. Critical implications from analytical and regulatory perspectives, are herein thoughtfully discussed, with a special focus on the context of market surveillance and identification of falsified medicines.
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.