ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2026
Impact of Amino Acid Excipients on icIEF Method Development in Protein Therapeutics: A Formulation-Aware Analytical Framework.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Accurate assessment of charge heterogeneity and isoelectric point (pI) is essential for ensuring the quality, stability, and safety of biotherapeutics throughout development and commercialization. Imaged capillary isoelectric focusing (icIEF) is the industry‑standard technique for this purpose, using a stable, linear pH gradient to accurately localize analyte peaks relative to calibrant pI markers. Although amino acids are widely used as formulation excipients for physicochemical stabilization, their potential to interfere with icIEF analyses has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we investigated the influence of amino acids, with varying pI values and physicochemical properties, on the pH‑gradient linearity, peak focusing, and experimental pI determination of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Using a six-pI marker ladder and two representative mAbs (Immunoglobulin-G1: IgG1 and Immunoglobulin-G4: IgG4), our findings demonstrated that amino acids with pI values outside the analyte's focusing region (e.g., arginine, glutamic acid) can shift peak positions within the capillary window without disrupting calibration linearity, thereby preserving the consistent determination of pI values. In contrast, amino acids with pI values within the focusing region (e.g., glycine, histidine, alanine, leucine) induced localized gradient distortion and generated concentration‑dependent pI shifts. Our case studies highlight conditions under which rational pI marker selection mitigated these effects, as well as a scenario with histidine‑containing IgG4 formulations, in which co‑focusing of IgG4 and histidine could not be simply corrected by calibration adjustments. Based on these findings, we propose a formulation design space that quantitatively relates protein concentration, amino acid excipient levels, and assay dilution requirements to minimize analytical interference. This framework provides practical guidance for integrating formulation strategy to support more reliable icIEF method development to ensure high-quality data throughout the biotherapeutic lifecycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42091782What 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.