The identities of some of the constituents of the hair-cell transduction apparatus have been elucidated only recently. The molecular motor myosin-1c (Myo1c) functions in adaptation of the hair-cell response to sustained mechanical stimuli and is therefore an integral part of the transduction complex. Recent data indicate that Myo1c interacts in vitro with two other molecules proposed to be important for transduction: cadherin 23 (Cdh23), a candidate for the stereociliary tip link, and phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP 2 ), which is abundant in the membranes of hair-cell stereocilia. It is not known, however, whether these interactions occur in hair cells. Using an in situ binding assay on saccular hair cells, we demonstrated previously that Myo1c interacts with molecules at stereociliary tips, the site of transduction, through sequences contained within its calmodulin (CaM)-binding neck domain, which can bind up to four CaM molecules. In the current study, we identify the second CaM-binding IQ domain as a region of Myo1c that mediates CaM-sensitive binding to stereociliary tips and to PIP 2 immobilized on a solid support. Binding of Myo1c to stereociliary tips of cochlear and vestibular hair cells is disrupted by treatments that break tip links. In addition, Myo1c does not bind to stereocilia from mice whose hair cells lack Cdh23 protein despite the presence of PIP 2 in the stereociliary membranes. Collectively, our data suggest that Myo1c and Cdh23 interact at the tips of hair-cell stereocilia and that this interaction is modulated by CaM.

The bioanalytical strategy for monoclonal antibody therapeutics, intended for multiple oncology indications, includes multiple integrated measurements of pharmacologically relevant therapeutics from discovery through development. Three ligand binding assays were cohesively developed and validated, as applicable, using the Gyrolab microfluidic system for the measurement of a free monoclonal antibody BMS-986207. Accuracy and precision demonstrate %bias from -6.3 to 4.4%, percent coefficient of variation (%CV) from 2.6 to 9.8%, and total error from 4.2 to 13.4% in the nonclinical assay; %bias from -0.3 to 3.3%, %CV from 3.5 to 18.2%, and total error from 6.1 to 19.7% in the clinical assay; and >97% of the sample meeting incurred sample reanalysis criteria. The clinical assay was validated using singlicate wells after gaining significant data in the early phase studies to support this cost-effective and efficient strategy. Each assay met fit-for-purpose and/or regulated bioanalytical method validation criteria including stability, selectivity, dilutional linearity, carryover, and specificity criteria with no interference from co-administered monoclonal antibody.

No abstract

This long-term pharmacokinetic program provides a good example of the dynamic clinical environment and adaptation requirements of ligand-binding assays.

Evolving immunogenicity assay performance expectations and a lack of harmonized anti-drug antibody validation testing and reporting tools have resulted in significant time spent by health authorities and sponsors on resolving filing queries. Following debate at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences National Biotechnology Conference, a group was formed to address these gaps. Over the last 3 years, 44 members from 29 organizations (including 5 members from Europe and 10 members from FDA) discussed gaps in understanding immunogenicity assay requirements and have developed harmonization tools for use by industry scientists to facilitate filings to health authorities. Herein, this team provides testing and reporting strategies and tools for the following assessments: (1) pre-study validation cut point; (2) in-study cut points, including procedures for applying cut points to mixed populations; (3) system suitability control criteria for in-study plate acceptance; (4) assay sensitivity, including the selection of an appropriate low positive control; (5) specificity, including drug and target tolerance; (6) sample stability that reflects sample storage and handling conditions; (7) assay selectivity to matrix components, including hemolytic, lipemic, and disease state matrices; (8) domain specificity for multi-domain therapeutics; (9) and minimum required dilution and extraction-based sample processing for titer reporting. Graphical Abstract