| Title |
A View on the Importance of “Multi-Attribute Method” for Measuring Purity of Biopharmaceuticals and Improving Overall Control Strategy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AAPS Journal, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1208/s12248-017-0168-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard S. Rogers, Michael Abernathy, Douglas D. Richardson, Jason C. Rouse, Justin B. Sperry, Patrick Swann, Jette Wypych, Christopher Yu, Li Zang, Rohini Deshpande |
| Abstract |
Today, we are experiencing unprecedented growth and innovation within the pharmaceutical industry. Established protein therapeutic modalities, such as recombinant human proteins, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), and fusion proteins, are being used to treat previously unmet medical needs. Novel therapies such as bispecific T cell engagers (BiTEs), chimeric antigen T cell receptors (CARTs), siRNA, and gene therapies are paving the path towards increasingly personalized medicine. This advancement of new indications and therapeutic modalities is paralleled by development of new analytical technologies and methods that provide enhanced information content in a more efficient manner. Recently, a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) multi-attribute method (MAM) has been developed and designed for improved simultaneous detection, identification, quantitation, and quality control (monitoring) of molecular attributes (Rogers et al. MAbs 7(5):881-90, 2015). Based on peptide mapping principles, this powerful tool represents a true advancement in testing methodology that can be utilized not only during product characterization, formulation development, stability testing, and development of the manufacturing process, but also as a platform quality control method in dispositioning clinical materials for both innovative biotherapeutics and biosimilars. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 181 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 44 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Unknown | 48 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 35 | 19% |
| Chemistry | 28 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 7% |
| Chemical Engineering | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 53 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2023.
All research outputs
#3,183,328
of 23,372,207 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#130
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,438
of 440,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,372,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.