Physicochemical Methods for Predicting the Biological Potency of Recombinant Follicle Stimulating Hormone: An International Collaborative Study of Isoelectric Focusing and Capillary Zone Electrophoresis

• Published in: Biologicals 2002-09, Vol.30 (3), p.217-234
• Main Authors: Storring, Patrick L., Gaines Das, Rose E., Mulders, J.W.M., Halder, Marlies
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Chemical Phenomena; Chemistry, Physical; Electrophoresis, Capillary - methods; Electrophoresis, Capillary - statistics & numerical data; Follicle Stimulating Hormone - analysis; Follicle Stimulating Hormone - pharmacology; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Isoelectric Focusing - methods; Isoelectric Focusing - statistics & numerical data; isoelectric focusing, capillary zone electrophoresis, biological activity, recombinant FSH, follitropin beta; Laboratories; Protein Isoforms - analysis; Protein Isoforms - pharmacology; Recombinant Proteins - analysis; Recombinant Proteins - pharmacology; Reproducibility of Results
• ISSN: 1045-1056; 1095-8320
• DOI: 10.1006/biol.2002.0333

Two methods for predicting the specific in vivo bioactivity of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), based on quantitative measures of isoform distribution by isoelectric focusing (IEF) 1 and by capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) 2 respectively, have been subjected to an international collaborative study by six laboratories from six countries. Both methods were used to estimate the predicted bioactivities of four preparations of follitropin beta, coded FSH A–D, differing widely in their isoform compositions and specific bioactivities. The mean predicted estimate of potency by IEF and CZE for each FSH preparation by each laboratory was within 80–125% of its potency estimated by bioassay, except for the mean estimates by CZE of that for FSH A by one laboratory and of that of FSH D by another. Each of the six laboratories using the IEF method, and each of the five laboratories using the CZE method were able to rank these FSHs according to their bioactivities, namely FSH B>FSH C>FSH A>FSH D. All laboratories were able to use both IEF and CZE to discriminate between FSH A and C, with bioactivities within 76–132% of one another. Four of six laboratories were able to use IEF, and two of five laboratories were able to use CZE, to discriminate between FSH B and C, with bioactivities within 89–112% of one another. This suggests that the accuracy and precision of both these methods should be sufficient to discriminate between FSHs which would meet or fail European Pharmacopoeia requirements for this type of hormone, since these stipulate that estimates of potency should fall between 80–125% of its stated potency. Using in most cases duplicate estimates in two independent assays, and excluding Laboratory 4, the pooled intra-laboratory geometric coefficient of variation (GCV) was about 4% for both IEF and CZE, and the inter-laboratory GCV was about 7% for IEF and about 10% for CZE. The use of one FSH preparation as a standard, with its specific activity as an assigned value, reduced the inter-laboratory variability of estimates for the remaining FSHs by both methods. This increased the accuracy of the predicted estimates of bioactivity for these remaining FSHs in terms of their approximation to the values for their bioactivities estimated by bioassay. These data therefore suggest that both these methods, and particularly IEF, are sufficiently accurate, precise and robust to be used for predicting the bioactivity of batches of follitropin beta, and especiall