4.6 Article

Direct real-time quantitative PCR for measurement of host-cell residual DNA in therapeutic proteins

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2014.07.032

关键词

Residual DNA; Real-time qPCR; CHO; Therapeutic proteins; Biologics

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) is important for quantification of residual host cell DNA (resDNA) in therapeutic protein preparations. Typical qPCR protocols involve DNA extraction steps complicating sample handling. Here, we describe a direct qPCR approach without DNA extraction. To avoid interferences of DNA polymerase with a therapeutic protein, proteins in the samples were digested with proteinase K (PK) in the presence of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). Tween 20 and NaCl were included to minimize precipitation of therapeutic proteins in the PK/SDS mix. After PK treatment, the solution was applied directly for qPCR. Inhibition of DNA polymerase by SDS was prevented by adding 2% (v/v) of Tween 20 to the final qPCR mix. The direct qPCR approach was evaluated for quantification of resDNA in therapeutic proteins manufactured in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) host cells. First, direct qPCR was compared with qPCR applied on purified DNA (extraction qPCR). For both qPCRs, the same CHO-specific primers and probes were used. Comparable residual DNA levels were detected with both PCR approaches in purified and highly concentrated drug proteins as well as in in-process-control samples. Finally, the CHO-specific direct qPCR protocol was validated according to ICH guidelines and applied for 25 different therapeutic proteins. The specific limits of quantification were 0.1-0.8 ppb for 24 proteins, and 2.0 ppb for one protein. General applicability of the direct qPCR was demonstrated by applying the sample preparation protocol for quantification of resDNA in therapeutic proteins manufactured in other hosts such as Escherichia coli and mouse cells. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据