Published in

MDPI, Antioxidants, 5(9), p. 441, 2020

DOI: 10.3390/antiox9050441

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Protein Formulations Containing Polysorbates: Are Metal Chelators Needed at All?

Journal article published in 2020 by Ema Valentina Brovč ORCID, Stane Pajk ORCID, Roman Šink, Janez Mravljak ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Proteins are prone to post-translational modifications at specific sites, which can affect their physicochemical properties, and consequently also their safety and efficacy. Sources of post-translational modifications include oxygen and reactive oxygen species. Additionally, catalytic amounts of Fe(II) or Cu(I) can promote increased activities of reactive oxygen species, and thus catalyse the production of particularly reactive hydroxyl radicals. When oxidative post-translational modifications are detected in the biopharmaceutical industry, it is common practice to add chelators to the formulation. However, the resultant complexes with metals can be even more damaging. Indeed, this is supported here using an ascorbate redox system assay and peptide mapping. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) addition strongly accelerated the formation of hydroxyl radicals in an iron-ascorbate system, while diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) addition did not. When Fe(III) was substituted with Cu(II), EDTA addition almost stopped hydroxyl radical production, whereas DTPA addition showed continued production, but at a reduced rate. Further, EDTA accelerated metal-catalysed oxidation of proteins, and thus did not protect them from Fe-mediated oxidative damage. As every formulation is unique, justification for EDTA or DTPA addition should be based on experimental data and not common practice.