ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2026
Practical Pipetting Optimization Strategies for Accurate Concentration Measurement of High-Concentration Protein Formulations.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-concentration protein formulations for subcutaneous administration have developed rapidly, while viscosity-related pipetting errors remain a key bottleneck for accurate protein concentration quantification, with commercial detection instruments showing significant limitations in direct measurement of these samples. Here, we developed two pipetting-optimized quantification strategies using two high-concentration monoclonal antibody formulations with distinct viscosities as models: a motorized continuous pipette-based direct measurement method and a weight-corrected method. We validated the high accuracy and repeatability of the motorized continuous pipette for high-viscosity liquid handling, and systematically compared the performance of our optimized methods with the traditional manual pipetting method and three mainstream commercial protein analyzers. Direct measurements using the three evaluated analyzers showed formulation-dependent deviations under the tested conditions. Both optimized workflows improved pipetting precision and provided concentration estimates with improved repeatability for the two high-concentration mAb formulations examined. These findings support motorized pipetting and weight correction as practical options when viscosity compromises volumetric transfer, while their applicability to other protein modalities and formulations with intermediate viscosity requires further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42778828What 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.