FcRn Half-Life Mechanism Screening Package
A focused FcRn study designed around pH 6.0 vs pH 7.4 comparisons and candidate ranking logic.
Fc Receptor & Complement Binding Assays (FcRn, FcγR, C1q)
When an antibody's half-life, effector function, or complement engagement becomes a decision point, antigen binding alone is not enough. Our FcRn binding assay (pH 6.0 vs pH 7.4), FcγR binding panel (FcγRI, FcγRIIa/IIb, FcγRIIIa), and C1q binding assay provide receptor-by-receptor binding kinetics (KD/kon/koff) or fit-for-purpose binding readouts to support Fc engineering, candidate ranking, and comparability decisions (RUO).
What this service helps you do
- FcRn pH-dependent binding profiling for half-life mechanism discussions and ranking
- FcγR binding panel to align Fc interactions with your intended effector profile
- C1q binding readouts to check complement engagement tendencies
- Comparability overlays across lots, process changes, Fc variants, and glycoforms
- Kinetics-grade outputs with curves, fits, and QC notes—ready for internal decision workflows
What Are Fc Receptor & Complement Binding Assays?
Fc receptor and complement binding assays measure how antibody-based therapeutics interact with key immune proteins through the Fc domain. While antigen-binding assays answer "does it hit the target," these assays profile Fc-driven interactions that shape half-life (FcRn), effector-function engagement (FcγRs), and complement recruitment (C1q).
We focus on three high-impact binding axes:
- FcRn binding assay (pH 6.0 vs pH 7.4) to capture pH-dependent receptor interactions relevant to IgG recycling.
- FcγR binding panel (e.g., FcγRI, FcγRIIa/IIb, FcγRIIIa) to compare receptor-specific binding patterns, with optional polymorphism variants when needed.
- C1q binding assay to assess complement engagement tendencies and confirm engineered reductions where applicable.
Together, these readouts form a receptor–drug affinity profile that supports Fc engineering, format selection, candidate ranking, and lot-to-lot comparability.
Typical Scientific Questions FcRn / FcγR / C1q Binding Assays Can Answer
- What is the FcRn binding profile at pH 6.0 vs pH 7.4 for my antibody or Fc-fusion?
- What are the binding kinetics (KD, kon, koff) for FcRn, FcγRs, or C1q under my project conditions?
- Which FcγR interactions (FcγRI, FcγRIIa/IIb, FcγRIIIa) are strengthened or reduced after Fc engineering?
- Do different glycoforms or process variants shift the FcγR binding panel pattern (rank ordering across receptors)?
- Is C1q binding present, reduced, or absent as intended for complement engagement control?
- Can multiple candidates be ranked by receptor-specific affinity/kinetics to support down-selection?
- Are FcRn/FcγR/C1q binding profiles comparable across lots (pre/post change, batch-to-batch overlays)?
- Do polymorphic receptors (e.g., FcγRIIIa V158/F158, FcγRIIa H131/R131) change candidate ranking?
Advantages of Our FcRn / FcγR / C1q Binding Assay Service
Receptor-by-Receptor Profiling — See patterns, not a single number
Get a structured FcγR binding panel plus FcRn and C1q readouts to reveal receptor-selective shifts across candidates, formats, and lots.
Kinetics-Grade Outputs — KD, kon, koff with curve-level evidence
When kinetics are required, we report KD/kon/koff along with sensorgrams/curves and fit context for confident ranking and comparison.
Comparability-Ready Reporting — Built for lot and process change decisions
Overlay views and receptor-by-receptor delta summaries make it easier to evaluate batch-to-batch or pre/post change consistency.
Optional Polymorphism Coverage — Address common real-world receptor variants
Add-on options like FcγRIIIa V158/F158 and FcγRIIa H131/R131 support projects where variant-dependent ranking matters.
Decision-Focused Deliverables — Tables that plug into internal reviews
Receive clear summary tables (per receptor), ranking views, and curated figures that fit slide decks and project documentation workflows.
Technical Services
Service Scope
Tech Comparison
WorkflowPlatform
Sample Requirements
Deliverables
FAQ
Get a Custom Proposal
Scope of Fc Receptor & Complement Binding Services
FcγR Effector-Profile Binding Package (FcγRI / FcγRIIa/IIb / FcγRIIIa Panel)
A panel-style FcγR profile used to compare Fc variants, glycoforms, and formats using the same receptor-by-receptor structure.
C1q Complement Engagement Check
A targeted C1q assessment to evaluate whether C1q binding patterns shift across constructs, glycoforms, or lots.
Fc Receptor Binding Kinetics Package (KD/kon/koff)
Kinetics-grade profiling across selected receptors to resolve close candidates and strengthen comparison narratives.
Fc Engineering Ranking Package (Enhance vs Silence)
Side-by-side comparison of engineered Fc designs with outputs organized for down-selection decisions.
Glycoform Sensitivity Package (FcγR/C1q)
A structured comparison plan to determine whether glycosylation differences drive meaningful receptor-profile changes.
Lot-to-Lot Comparability Package (Batches / Process Change)
Matched testing across lots with overlays and structured differences to support internal comparability reviews.
Polymorphism Add-On Package (Variant-Aware Ranking)
Optional receptor-variant testing when ranking may depend on polymorphisms (project-defined).
Assay Options & Add-ons for FcRn/FcγR/C1q Binding Studies
Core targets (FcRn, FcγRs, and C1q) are selected during project design. This section summarizes common options clients add to refine ranking, comparability, or cross-context interpretation.
- FcγR polymorphisms: FcγRIIIa V158/F158; FcγRIIa H131/R131
- Species variants: human / cyno / mouse receptors (as available and appropriate)
- Format support: IgG subclasses, Fc-fusions, and selected bispecific architectures (case-dependent)
- Competition / blocking formats: when inhibition or displacement is the key question
- Comparability setup: matched lots (pre/post change), consistent receptor set across all materials, overlay-ready reporting
How to Choose the Right FcγR Binding Panel and FcRn pH Design
Start from the decision you need to make:
Half-life strategy and FcRn-focused questions
Use a FcRn-centered design, then increase readout depth (e.g., kinetics) if candidates are close.
Effector-profile tuning and Fc engineering
Use a FcγR binding panel as the primary comparison structure; expand breadth or add variants only when needed for ranking confidence.
Complement engagement considerations
Add C1q evaluation when complement-related binding tendencies must be compared across constructs or lots.
Comparability / similarity
Keep the receptor set constant across all materials and request overlay-style reporting to support batch-to-batch or pre/post change decisions.
SPR vs BLI vs Plate-Based Assays for FcRn/FcγR/C1q: Choosing the Right Fc Receptor Binding Method
Selecting the right platform depends on whether you need kinetic resolution (KD/kon/koff), efficient panel screening, or high-throughput trending across many samples. Below is a practical comparison for FcRn binding, FcγR binding panels, and C1q binding assays.
| Criterion | SPR | BLI | Plate-based (ELISA-like) |
| Best when you need | Highest-resolution kinetics and overlays | Efficient kinetics across panels | Fast screening/trending |
| Typical outputs | KD/kon/koff + sensorgrams + fits | KD/kon/koff + sensorgrams + fits | Endpoint response + ranking |
| Resolves fast off-rate binders | Strong | Strong (setup-dependent) | Limited |
| Throughput | Moderate | Higher | Highest |
| Common use | Close candidates, comparability-style overlays | FcγR panel ranking at scale | Large screens, lot trending |
| Key limitation | Requires careful surface strategy | Sensor/format choices influence results | Less mechanistic detail |
How to choose (most common decision rules):
- Choose SPR/BLI when you must separate close candidates or document differences with KD/kon/koff.
- Choose BLI when you need kinetics across a broader FcγR binding panel with higher throughput.
- Choose plate-based when your goal is fast ranking or batch trending, then confirm shortlisted candidates with SPR/BLI if needed.
Workflow for FcRn / FcγR / C1q Binding Assays
1
Project goal and panel definition
We align the receptor set (FcRn/FcγR/C1q), variants (optional polymorphisms), and readout depth (kinetics vs screening) to the decision you need to make.
2
Method selection (SPR, BLI, or plate-based)
The platform is chosen based on resolution needs, number of candidates, and whether KD/kon/koff parameters are required.
3
Run design and controls
We define replicate strategy, reference materials, and acceptance checks appropriate to the method so comparisons across candidates and lots remain meaningful.
4
Data acquisition under defined conditions
Binding curves are generated for each receptor. FcRn testing includes pH-contrasted conditions when pH dependence is part of the question.
5
Data processing and fitting
For kinetics projects, KD/kon/koff are extracted with fit context. For screening projects, response metrics and rank ordering are compiled using a consistent analysis pipeline.
6
Reporting and comparison package
You receive receptor-by-receptor tables, ranking views, overlays across variants/lots, and clear notes on run context and interpretation boundaries.
Instrumentation & Technical Capabilities for Fc Receptor Binding
Typical Instrumentation
- SPR (Surface Plasmon Resonance): Biacore™-class systems; Carterra™ LSA-class systems (high-throughput kinetic screening)
- BLI (Bio-Layer Interferometry): Octet®-class systems
- Plate-based binding (optional): ELISA-like formats for screening/trending when kinetics is not required
Key Run Parameters We Control (Project-Defined)
| What clients care about | What we set / control | Why it matters |
| pH design for FcRn | pH blocks (e.g., pH 6.0 and/or pH 7.4) and condition sequence | Captures pH-dependent FcRn behavior without condition-mixing artifacts |
| Concentration series | Number of points + range strategy | Drives fitting robustness and confidence in close-candidate separation |
| Association / dissociation windows | Contact time + dissociation observation window | Determines whether differences are resolved by kon vs koff |
| Replicates & controls | Replicate plan + reference/control placement | Reduces false positives; improves ranking and lot-to-lot confidence |
| Surface / sensor strategy | Capture vs direct immobilization (format-dependent) | Minimizes orientation artifacts and improves interpretability |
| Surface stability / regeneration | Regeneration conditions + stability checks | Enables consistent multi-sample comparisons on the same surface |
Biacore T200 (fig from Cytiva)
Octet R2 (fig from Sartorius)
Sample Submission Requirements (FcRn / FcγR / C1q Binding Assays)
Recommended Amounts (per sample)
| Item | Screening-ready (ranking / trending) | Kinetics-ready (SPR/BLI; KD/kon/koff) | Notes |
| Recommended concentration | 0.05–0.5 mg/mL | 0.2–1.0 mg/mL | Kinetics designs typically require a concentration series for stable fitting |
| FcRn (single condition) | 10–30 µg | 20–60 µg | Use the higher end for tighter ranking confidence |
| FcRn (pH 6.0 vs pH 7.4) | 20–60 µg | 60–120 µg | Common request for pH-dependent FcRn profiling |
| FcγR binding panel (3–4 receptors) | 40–100 µg | 120–200 µg | More receptors/replicates push needs toward the upper end |
| C1q binding | 10–30 µg | 20–60 µg | Often added as a targeted complement engagement check |
| Full package (FcRn pH + FcγR panel + C1q) | 80–180 µg | 200–350 µg | Best fit for engineering verification and comparability reviews |
Practical rule of thumb: single-assay projects often start with 10–60 µg per sample; a full kinetics-ready package is most reliable with ≥200 µg per sample.
Sample Quality, Format, and Handling
| Item | Recommendation | Notes to avoid delays |
| Accepted molecule types | Purified mAbs, Fc-fusion proteins, selected bispecific formats | Please specify IgG subclass or construct architecture |
| Purity / aggregation | As high as practical; low aggregate content | Aggregation can distort binding curves and ranking; share SEC info if available |
| Buffer / formulation | Keep buffer consistent across all samples whenever possible | If formulation cannot be changed, provide full composition (excipients/additives) |
| Concentration reporting | Provide a measured concentration for each sample | Accurate concentration improves ranking and kinetics fitting confidence |
| Aliquoting | Aliquot to minimize freeze–thaw cycles | Repeated freeze–thaw may shift apparent binding behavior |
| Shipping / storage | Ship cold-chain based on stability; store as recommended | Include stability notes if known; label lot IDs clearly for comparability work |
| Required metadata | Format, key modifications, glyco notes (if known), lot IDs | Also note tags, conjugations, or modifications that may affect assay configuration |
| Receptor scope | Specify FcRn / FcγR panel / C1q needs | If variants are needed, request FcγRIIIa V158/F158 and/or FcγRIIa H131/R131 |
| Species needs (optional) | Human vs cyno vs mouse receptors (as available) | Only request if cross-species interpretation is part of the study plan |
Submission checklist: sample list + concentrations + buffer/formulation details + molecule format + receptor scope (FcRn/FcγR/C1q) + any required receptor variants + lot mapping (if comparability is needed).
Application Scenarios of Fc Receptor & Complement Binding Assays
Immuno-Oncology Research: Optimizing Antibody Effector Functions
Evaluate how antibodies interact with FcγRs (e.g., FcγRI, FcγRIIIa) to optimize immune-mediated responses like ADCC in preclinical cancer models, aiding in the development of immuno-oncology therapies.
Antibody Engineering: Optimizing Fc Variants
Rank and refine Fc variants using FcRn binding assays (pH 6.0 vs 7.4) and FcγR binding panels, improving half-life and effector function modulation for therapeutic applications.
Immunotherapy Development: Evaluating Complement Activation
Measure how antibodies engage C1q and activate complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) in research settings, ensuring optimized immune responses for preclinical immunotherapy development.
Biologic Consistency Across Batches
Ensure consistency across production lots by comparing Fc receptor binding and complement engagement in various lots or process changes during the development of biologics and biosimilars.
Glycoform Sensitivity in Antibody Development
Assess the impact of glycosylation variations on FcγR binding and C1q engagement, critical for optimizing antibody glycoforms in biologic development and biosimilar characterization.
Protein Engineering and Mutagenesis Studies
Use our assays to analyze the effect of structural modifications or amino acid substitutions on Fc receptor binding kinetics, aiding protein engineering for improved therapeutic candidates.
Deliverables: Binding Curves, Kinetic Parameters, and Receptor-by-Receptor Tables
- Receptor-by-receptor summary tables (FcRn/FcγR/C1q)
- Curves/sensorgrams with fit outputs (when applicable)
- KD/kon/koff for kinetics projects
- Candidate ranking views under matched conditions
- Overlay comparisons across variants/glycoforms/lots
- Concise run-context notes to support consistent interpretation
Real-time sensorgram illustrating the binding kinetics of an antibody interacting with FcγR (e.g., FcγRI or FcγRIIIa), showing association (kon) and dissociation (koff) phases to calculate KD.
Dose-response curves comparing antibody binding profiles across FcγR subtypes (FcγRI, FcγRIIa, FcγRIIIa), showing EC50 values and KD for each receptor subtype.
C1q binding assay results showing the binding intensity of different antibodies to C1q, demonstrating the effect of antibody concentration on complement activation.
Bar chart showing the effect of glycosylation variations on FcγR binding and C1q engagement, highlighting the role of glycoforms in optimizing immune response in therapeutics.
Fc Receptor & Complement Binding FAQ
Why is KD alone insufficient to predict effector function?
KD measures affinity but doesn't capture residence time (driven by koff), which often dictates the duration of immune signaling. Fc-mediated responses like ADCC depend on receptor clustering (avidity), which is not reflected by a single KD value. We analyze sensorgram morphology to distinguish between 1:1 binding and complex/non-specific interactions.
How do you resolve binding data for low-affinity receptors like FcγRIIIa (F158)?
Low-affinity receptors have rapid association and dissociation, making traditional fitting unreliable. We use Steady-State Equilibrium fitting, ensuring accurate KD values by measuring the saturation plateau with high-density sensor surfaces and broad concentration ranges.
What is the clinical significance of the pH 6.0/7.4 FcRn binding ratio?
FcRn recycling efficiency is key to therapeutic half-life. Ideal therapeutics should bind strongly at pH 6.0 (endosomal) and release at pH 7.4 (physiological). Residual binding at pH 7.4 may lead to degradation. We report the Binding/Release Ratio to predict pharmacokinetic (PK) success.
How do FcγRIIIa V158/F158 polymorphisms affect candidate ranking?
The V158 variant has higher affinity for IgG1 than F158. Strong binding to F158 suggests broader patient population efficacy. We provide parallel testing against both variants for precision medicine.
Does glycosylation impact all Fc receptor interactions equally?
No. Afucosylation increases affinity for FcγRIIIa (enhancing ADCC), while it has minimal impact on FcRn. Sialylation affects anti-inflammatory properties. Our glycoform sensitivity panels determine which Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) drive your drug's mechanism of action.
SPR vs. BLI: Which platform is preferred for regulatory submissions?
SPR (Biacore™) is the "gold standard" for regulatory filings (FDA/EMA) due to its high sensitivity and thermal stability. BLI (Octet®) is ideal for rapid, high-throughput screening in early-stage development. We offer both to align with your project needs.
How is the C1q binding assay used to evaluate CDC risk?
C1q binding is the first step for Complement-Dependent Cytotoxicity (CDC). The absence of binding reliably indicates complement silencing. We use this assay to confirm the success of Fc mutations (e.g., LALA-PG) designed to reduce unwanted inflammation.