$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
An endotoxin is a building block of the Gram-negative bacterial cell wall1,2. It can activate the immune cells at very low (picogram) concentrations1,2. The proinflammatory mediators (cytokines, leukotrienes, eicosanoids, etc.) produced by the cells in response to an endotoxin are responsible for fever, hypotension, hypertension, and more severe health problems including multiple organ failure1,2,3. The severity of the immune-mediated side-effects triggered by the endotoxin depends on its potency determined by the endotoxin composition and structure and measured in international endotoxin units (IUs or EUs)3. The number of these units per kilogram of body weight is used to set a threshold pyrogenic dose of endotoxin. This dose is 5 EU/kg for drug products administered via all routes but the intrathecal route. Drugs dosed per square meter of body surface, intraocular fluids, radiopharmaceuticals, and products administered via intrathecal route have a different threshold pyrogenic dose, which is 100 EU/m2, 0.2 EU/mL, 175 EU/V (where V is the volume of the product intended for administration), and 0.2 EU/kg, respectively4. More details about the threshold pyrogenic dose for various drug products and devices are provided and discussed elsewhere4,5,6.
Animals vary widely in their sensitivity to endotoxin-mediated reactions. Humans, non-human primates, and rabbits are among the species most extremely sensitive to endotoxins3. To avoid endotoxin-mediated side effects in patients and prevent inaccurate conclusions of preclinical toxicity and efficacy studies, it is essential to accurately detect and quantify endotoxins in both clinical and pre-clinical grade formulations. Several currently available methods can achieve this task. One of them is the Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) assay, which is commonly used worldwide to screen biomedical products for the potential endotoxin contamination as well as to detect bacterial infections7,8,9. The lysate is prepared from amoebocytes, the cells present in the blood of horseshoe crabs Limulus polyphemus residing in the east shore of the continent of North America7. Interestingly, there are a few different species of horseshoe crabs (Tachypleus gigas and Tachypleus tridentatus) in Asia10. The Tachypleus Amoebocyte Lysate (TAL) is used in several Asian countries for the detection of endotoxin similar to how the LAL is used in other cuntries10. The lysates (LAL and TAL) contain a group of proteins that upon activation confer protease activity. One of these proteins, the so-called Factor C is activated upon contact with endotoxin. Activated Factor C cleaves Factor B, which in turn also becomes a protease and cleaves a pro-clotting enzyme to produce a clotting enzyme. The result of this chain of reactions is the formation of a gel, an increase in the sample turbidity and, in the presence of a chromogenic substrate, the appearance of a colored product, which serve as a foundation for gel-clot, turbidity, and chromogenic assays, respectively. While there is no mandatory LAL format, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explains in the guidance for industry document, that in case of discrepancy in the test results between different LAL formats, the decision is made based on the gel-clot assay5.
Many commonly used laboratory chemicals (e.g., EDTA) and known drug products (e.g., penicillin) interfere with LAL assays11. The interference is usually identified by assessing the recovery of the endotoxin standard spiked at a known concentration into a solution containing the test material. If the spike recovery is less than 50% or more than 200%, then the result of the LAL assay for the given test material is invalid due to the inhibition or enhancement, respectively4. Nanotechnology-based formulations are often complex and interfere with the LAL through a variety of mechanisms12,13,14. Many approaches have been described to overcome the interference: sample reconstitution in specific buffers and surfactants, protein inactivation by heating, destruction of lipid-based hollow materials by heating and supplementing the sample with excess divalent cations5,12,13,14,15. Alternative methods for situations when LAL interference cannot be overcome have also been described: ELISA, a HEK-TLR4 reporter cell line assay, and mass spectrometry16,17,18,19.
Herein, experimental procedures for conducting gel-clot, turbidity, and chromogenic LAL assays are described. These assays are also available on the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab (NCL) website20 in protocols STE1.2 (turbidity LAL), STE1.3 (gel-clot LAL) and STE1.4 (chromogenic LAL). It is recommended to conduct at least two different formats to characterize the same nano-formulation. When results of the turbidity and chromogenic LAL disagree, the gel-clot results are considered5. When results of two LAL formats disagree, additional studies using either monocyte activation test (MAT) or rabbit pyrogen test (RPT) to verify LAL findings are conducted21. It is important to note that each method used for endotoxin detection and pyrogenicity assessment has advantages and limitations21,22,23,24. Recognizing limitations of the procedure used to characterize a given nanotechnology formulation is essential to obtain scientific justification for the use of the procedure optimal for that nano-formulation.
In this study, PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin was used as a model nanoparticle formulation. This formulation has been approved by the US FDA in 1995 and used for treating cancer patients worldwide25.