Submitted:
03 June 2026
Posted:
08 June 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Method Validation
2.1.1. Method Validation Results
2.1.2. Recovery Result Evaluation
2.2. Method Application to In-Vivo PK Samples
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. ADC Molecule, Reagents and Reference Animal Plasma Matrix
4.2. Calibration Curves and Spiked Sample Preparation
4.3. Mag Sepharose Beads COATING for immunocapture
4.4. Immunocapture Protocol
4.5. Digestion by Rat Tritosome Protocol
4.6. Protein Precipitation and Concentration
4.7. LC-MS Detection
4.8. Method Validation
- -
- Linearity
- -
- Accuracy and Precision
- -
- Sensitivity
- -
- Selectivity
- -
- Carryover
- -
- Matrix Effect
- -
- Recovery
- -
- Effect of Dilution
4.9. Post Spike Solution Preparation for Recovery Evaluation Test and Matrix Effect
4.10. In-Vivo Tg32 PK Study
4.11. Total Antibody Quantitation
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| ADC | Antibody-drug conjugate |
| ALOQ | Above limit of quantitation |
| AN | Analyte |
| CAD | Collision activated dissociation gas |
| CE | Collison energy |
| CUR | Curtain gas |
| CV | coefficient of variation % |
| CXP | Collision cell exit potential |
| DAR | Drug to Antibody Ratio |
| Dil | Dilution |
| DP | Declustering potential |
| DTT | DL-Dithiothreitol |
| EP | Entrance potential |
| ESI | Electrospray ionization |
| FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
| H | High |
| HPLC | High pressure liquid chromatography |
| huFcRn | human neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor |
| ICH | International Council of Harmonization |
| IgG | Immunoglobuline G |
| IS | Internal standard |
| K2EDTA | dipotassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid |
| L | Low |
| LC-MS or LC-MS/MS | Liquid chromatography tandem Mass Spectrometry |
| LIMS | Laboratory information management system |
| LLOQ | Lower Limit of Quantitation |
| M | Medium |
| ME | Matrix effect |
| MRM | Multiple reaction monitoring |
| PBS | Phosphate-buffered saline |
| PK | Pharmacokinetics |
| PK/PD | Pharmakokinetic / Pharmacodynamic |
| QC | Quality control |
| rpm | round per minute |
| RT | Room temperature |
| SD | Sprague Dawley rat strain |
| SS | Spiked sample |
| SSH | Spiked sample high QC level |
| SSL | Spiked sample low QC level |
| SSLLOQ | Spiked sample lower Limit of Quantitation |
| SSM | Spiked sample medium QC level |
| SSULOQ | Spiked sample upper Limit of Quantitation |
| Tg32 | Tg32 human FcRn transgenic mouse model |
| ULOQ | Upper Limit of Quantitation |
| vcMMAE | valine-citrulline Mono-methyl Auristatin E |
References
- Ducry, L.; Stump, B. Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Linking Cytotoxic Payloads to Monoclonal Antibodies. Bioconjug. Chem. 2010, 21, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fu, Z.; Li, S.; Han, S.; Shi, C.; Zhang, Y. Antibody Drug Conjugate: The “Biological Missile” for Targeted Cancer Therapy. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Z.; Li, H.; Gou, L.; Li, W.; Wang, Y. Antibody–Drug Conjugates: Recent Advances in Payloads. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2023, 13, 4025–4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wen, M.; Yu, A.; Park, Y.; Calarese, D.; Gerber, H.P.; Yin, G. Homogeneous Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Dual Payloads: Potential, Methods and Considerations. MAbs 2025, 17, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tao, J.; Gu, Y.; Zhou, W.; Wang, Y. Dual-Payload Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Taking a Dual Shot. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2025, 281, 116995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, D.; Zhang, D. Linker Design Impacts Antibody-Drug Conjugate Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy via Modulating the Stability and Payload Release Efficiency. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rago, B.; Tumey, L.N.; Wei, C.; Barletta, F.; Clark, T.; Hansel, S.; Han, X. Quantitative Conjugated Payload Measurement Using Enzymatic Release of Antibody-Drug Conjugate with Cleavable Linker. Bioconjug. Chem. 2017, 28, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Ianni, Andrea; Cowan, Kyra; Federico Riccardi Sirtori, L.B. Unlocking the Complexity of Antibody-Drug Conjugates: A Cut-Ting-Edge LC-HRMS Approach to Refine Drug-to-Antibody Ratio Measurements with Highly Reactive Payloads 2025, Submitted.
- Barbero, L.M.; Di Ianni, A.; Molinaro, F.; Cowan, K.J.; Riccardi, F. Hybrid Liquid Chromatography High Resolution and Accuracy Mass Spectrometry Approach for Quantification of Antibody-Drug Conjugates at the Intact Protein Level in Biological Samples. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2023, 188, 106502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riccardi Sirtori, F.; Di Ianni, A.; Crosasso, C.; Bertotti, E.; Molinaro, F.; De Salve, I.; Barbero, L.; Cowan, K.J. Evolving Bioanalytical Strategies in the Wake of Pioneering Biotherapeutics. Bioanalysis 2025, 00, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beaumont, M.; Tomazela, D.; Hodges, D.; Ermakov, G.; Hsieh, E.; Figueroa, I.; So, O.-Y.; Song, Y.; Ma, H.; Antonenko, S.; et al. Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Integrated Bioanalytical and Biodisposition Assessments in Lead Optimization and Selection. AAPS Open 2018, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Luo, L.; Matta, M.; Helmy, R.; Vazvaei-smith, F.; Matta, M.; Helmy, R.; Vazvaei-smith, F. Strategy for Streamlining Antibody—Drug Conjugate Pharmacokinetic Assays ABSTRACT. Bioanalysis 2026, 18, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanderson, R.J.; Nicholas, N.D.; Lee, C.B.; Mae, S.; Lyon, R.P.; Benjamin, D.R.; Alley, S.C.; Sanderson, R.J.; Nicholas, N.D.; Lee, C.B.; et al. Antibody-Conjugated Drug Assay for Protease- Cleavable Antibody—Drug Conjugates Antibody-Conjugated Drug Assay for Protease-Cleavable Antibody—Drug Conjugates. 2016, 6180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Gu, C.; Gruenhagen, J.; Yehl, P.; Chetwyn, N.P.; Colin, D.; Li, Y.; Gu, C.; Gruenhagen, J.; Yehl, P.; et al. An Enzymatic Deconjugation Method for the Analysis of Small Molecule Active Drugs on Antibody-Drug Conjugates on Antibody-Drug Conjugates. 2016, 0862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorywalska, M.; Strop, P.; Melton-witt, J.A.; Hasa-moreno, A.; Farias, S.E.; Casas, M.G.; Delaria, K.; Lui, V.; Poulsen, K.; Loo, C.; et al. E Ff Ect of Attachment Site on Stability of Cleavable Antibody Drug Conjugates. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, T.; Shi, L.; Guo, H.; Li, R.; Cao, W.; Shen, L.; Zhu, M. Detection and Characterization of In Vitro Payload-Containing Catabolites of Noncleavable Antibody-Drug Conjugates by High- Resolution Mass Spectrometry and Multiple Data Mining Tools S. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2023, 51, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leighton, F.; Poole, B.; Beaufay, H.; Baudhuin, P.; Coffey, J.W.; Fowler, S.; Duve, C.D.E. THE LARGE-SCALE SEPARATION OF PEROXISOMES, MITOCHONDRIA, AND LYSOSOMES FROM THE LIVERS OF RATS INJECTED WITH TRITON WR-1339 Improved Isolation Procedures, Automated Analysis, Biochemical and Morphological Properties of Fractions. J. Cell Biol. Abstract. 1968, 37, 482–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wattiaux, R.; Wattiaux-De Coninck, S. Influence of the Injection of “Triton WR-1339” on Lysosomes of a Rat Transplantable Hepatoma. Nature 1967, 216, 1132–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.
- Title of Site. Available online: URL . (accessed on Day Month Year).




| Test | Parameter | Acceptance Criteria | payload A | payload B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method Linearity | Calibration curve | %Bias within ± 20.0% (± 25.0% at the LLOQ) | overall %BIAS: > -8.7, < 12.1 |
overall %BIAS: > -6.7, < 9.1 |
| 75% of all calibration samples must be within the accuracy range | 100% | 100% | ||
| Accuracy & Precision | Intra-run | Mean %Bias within ± 20.0% (±25.0% at the LLOQ) | Mean %BIAS: > -8.3, < 11.3 |
Mean %BIAS: > -13.1, < 14.4 |
| %CV ≤ 20.0% (≤ 25.0% at the LLOQ) | %CV: > 1.4, < 17.9 | %CV: > 2.4, < 15.9 | ||
| Inter-run | Mean %Bias within ± 20.0% (± 25.0% at the LLOQ) | Mean %BIAS: > -3.9, < -0.1 |
Mean %BIAS: > -7.4, < 1.5 |
|
| %CV ≤ 20.0% (≤ 25.0% at the LLOQ) | %CV: > 4.9, < 14.1 | %CV: > 6.8, < 16.9 | ||
| Sensitivity | Covered in intra-run accuracy & precision | SIGNAL to NOISE (average area LLOQ / average area Blank) > 5 |
24.9 | 15.3 |
| Sample Dilution | Effect of dilution | Exceeding sample: resulting ALOQ | Dilution 6: ALOQ | Dilution 6: ALOQ |
| dilution within the calibration range: Mean %Bias within ± 20.0% | Dil 22.5: 10.5% Dil 50: 7.3% |
Dil 22.5: 12.8% Dil 50: 7.7% |
||
| dilution within the calibration range: %CV ≤ 20.0% | Dil 22.5: 0.2% Dil 50: 1.8% |
Dil 22.5: 1.6% Dil 50: 5.4% |
||
| Carryover | Carryover | Analyte response after ULOQ must be ≤ 25.0% LLOQ peak area in the 3 Accuracy & Precision runs (n=3) | 5.1% | 9.1% |
| IS response after ULOQ must be ≤ 5.0% of IS area in Control Blank IS sample in the 3 Accuracy & Precision runs (n=3) | 0.0 | 0.1 | ||
| Selectivity | Matrix samples (matrix selectivity) | Analyte response in Blank samples (average) ≤ 20.0% analyte response in SSLLOQ (average) | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| IS response in blank samples (average) ≤ 5.0% average IS peak area in calibration curve | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Matrix fortified with IS | Analyte response in control Blank IS ≤ 20.0% mean analyte area in SSLLOQ | 2.7 | 9.3 | |
| Matrix Effect | Matrix Effect | AN and IS ME should be eliminated or minimized. %CV normalized IS ≤ 20.0% at each level. |
SSL = AN ME: 1.04, IS ME: 1.04 | SSL = AN ME: 0.98, IS ME: 0.97 |
| SSH =AN ME: 1.10, IS ME: 1.05 | SSH =AN ME: 1.03, IS ME: 1.00 | |||
| SSL = AN %CV: 1.0, IS %CV: 3.8 | SSL = AN %CV: 2.0, IS %CV: 3.1 | |||
| SSH = AN %CV: 10.0, IS %CV: 3.8 | SSH = AN %CV: 1.0, IS %CV: 1.0 | |||
| Recovery | Method Recovery | Analyte recovery should be consistent and reproducible. | L: 59.5% M: 62.5% H: 62.0% |
L: 24.9% M: 28.2% H: 34.6% |
| Payload A | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QC-level | Response Absolute reference (100%) |
Response Full protocol |
Recovery (%) | Response w/o immunocapture |
Recovery (%) | |||||||
| L | Mean | 1832349.83 | 1089799.60 | 59.5 | 430322.33 | 23.5 | ||||||
| n | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| %CV | 1.0 | 7.9 | 4.8 | |||||||||
| M | Mean | 39150336.17 | 24454063.73 | 62.5 | 9257682.97 | 23.6 | ||||||
| n | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| %CV | 3.5 | 15.8 | 5.6 | |||||||||
| H | Mean | 102123819.23 | 63292591.87 | 62.0 | 23984189.77 | 23.5 | ||||||
| n | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| %CV | 3.1 | 2.3 | 7.2 | |||||||||
| Overall (%) Recovery | Mean | 47702168.41 | 29612151.73 | 62.1 | 11224065.02 | 23.5 | ||||||
| n | 9 | 9 | 9 | |||||||||
| Payload B | ||||||||||||
| QC-level |
Response Absolute reference (100%) |
Response Full protocol |
Recovery (%) |
Response w/o immunocapture |
Recovery (%) | |||||||
| L | Mean | 1922602.1 | 478558.0 | 24.9 | 438528.9 | 22.8 | ||||||
| n | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| %CV | 0.37 | 1.40 | 3.34 | |||||||||
| M | Mean | 37055462.9 | 10466628.1 | 28.2 | 8774767.4 | 23.7 | ||||||
| n | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| %CV | 0.98 | 17.18 | 2.23 | |||||||||
| H | Mean | 95102277.8 | 32943762.8 | 34.6 | 21957249.7 | 23.1 | ||||||
| n | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| %CV | 3.3 | 1.94 | 3.26 | |||||||||
| Overall (%) Recovery | Mean | 44693447.6 | 14629649.63 | 32.7 | 10390182.00 | 23.2 | ||||||
| n | 9 | 9 | 9 | |||||||||
| ADC ID | Payload A | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLOQ (5 nM ADC) |
L (15 nM ADC) |
M (300 nM ADC) |
H (800 nM ADC) |
ULOQ (1000 nM ADC) |
||||||
| CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | |
| ADC-B | 10.8 | 15.3 | 5.0 | -1.9 | 1.4 | -0.7 | 2.0 | -3.8 | 2.1 | -6.5 |
| ADC-C | 0.8 | 4.9 | 7.3 | -9.0 | 1.5 | -2.9 | 1.8 | -0.7 | 4.1 | 1.3 |
| ADC-D | 2.8 | -4.8 | 1.2 | -6.3 | 6.1 | 8.7 | 5.0 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 2.5 |
| ADC ID | Payload B | |||||||||
|
LLOQ (5 nM ADC) |
L (15 nM ADC) |
M (300 nM ADC) |
H (800 nM ADC) |
ULOQ (1000 nM ADC) |
||||||
| CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | CV % | BIAS | |
| ADC-B | 9.2 | 14.7 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 0.1 | 2.2 | -2.2 |
| ADC-C | 4.3 | -9.3 | 2.5 | -7.5 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 2.7 | 0.7 |
| ADC-D | 4.1 | -2.7 | 3.6 | -0.4 | 2.3 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 0.7 |
| Test | Parameter | Batches | Concentration Levels | n | Acceptance Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method Linearity | Calibration curve | Included in each run | 10, additionally control blank and control blank IS | 1 | %Bias within ± 20.0% (± 25.0% at the LLOQ) |
| 75% of all calibration samples must be within the accuracy range | |||||
| Accuracy & Precision |
Intra-run | 1 | 5 (SSLLOQ, SSL, SSM, SSH, SSULOQ) | 5 | Mean %Bias within ± 20.0% (± 25.0% at the LLOQ) |
| %CV ≤ 20.0% (≤ 25.0% at the LLOQ) | |||||
| Inter-run | 3 (2+Intra-run) |
5 (SSLLOQ, SSL, SSM, SSH, SSULOQ) | 5 | Mean %Bias within ± 20.0% (± 25.0% at the LLOQ) | |
| %CV ≤ 20.0% (≤ 25.0% at the LLOQ) | |||||
| 3 runs passed. If one run failed, repeat it in a subsequent run | |||||
| Sensitivity | Covered in intra-run accuracy & precision | SIGNAL / NOISE (average area LLOQ / average area Blank) > 5 |
|||
| Carryover | Carryover | Included in each run (Control Blank next to ULOQ calibration standard, evaluated in each run) |
Analyte response after ULOQ must be ≤ 25.0% LLOQ peak area | ||
| IS response after ULOQ must be ≤ 5.0% of IS area in Control Blank IS sample | |||||
| Selectivity | Matrix samples (matrix selectivity) |
Covered with SSLLOQ, Control Blank and Control Blank IS in another test | Analyte response in Blank samples (average) ≤ 20.0% analyte response in SSLLOQ (average) | ||
| IS response in blank samples (average) ≤ 5.0% average IS peak area in calibration curve | |||||
| Matrix fortified with IS |
Covered with SSLLOQ, Control Blank and Control Blank IS in another test | Analyte response in control Blank IS ≤ 20.0% mean analyte area in SSLLOQ | |||
| Matrix Effect |
Matrix Effect | 1 | 2 (SSL and SSH) | 3 | Analyte and IS ME should be removed or minimized |
| %CV normalized IS ≤ 20.0% at each level | |||||
| Recovery | Method Recovery |
1 | 3 (SSL, SSM and SSH) | 3 | Analyte and internal standard recovery should be consistent and reproducible |
| Sample Dilution |
Effect of dilution |
1 | Stock 10000 nM. Dilutions applied: 1:6, 1:22.5, 1:50 |
3 | Exceeding sample: resulting ALOQ |
| Dilution within the calibration range: Mean %Bias within ± 20.0% | |||||
| Dilution within the calibration range: %CV ≤ 20.0% | |||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).