4.6 Article

Identification of cell culture conditions to control protein aggregation of IgG fusion proteins expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 69-75

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2011.10.009

关键词

Protein aggregation; IgC fusion protein; Cell culture conditions; CHO; Mammalian cell culture

资金

  1. Process Analytical Services group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of aggregated forms of proteins can be problematic for therapeutics due to the potential for immunogenic and pharmacokinetic issues. Although downstream processing can remove the aggregated forms, inhibiting aggregate formation upstream during the cell culture stage could reduce the burden on downstream processing and potentially improve process yields. This study first examined the effects of environmental factors (temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen) and medium components (bivalent copper ion, cysteine, and cystine) on the aggregation of two different recombinant fusion proteins expressed by Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Any strategy to reduce protein aggregation upstream during cell culture must also consider potential effects on critical upstream parameters such as cell growth, harvest titer, and protein sialylation levels. Manipulating the culture temperature shift and cystine concentration in the medium were both identified as effective and practical strategies for reducing protein aggregation in both CHO-cell expression systems. Furthermore, a combination of both strategies was more effective in reducing protein aggregation levels compared to either approach individually; and without any negative effects on harvest titer and protein sialylation. This study demonstrates a practical methodology for decreasing protein aggregation during upstream processing and emphasizes the importance of process understanding to ensure production of recombinant glycoprotein therapeutics with consistent product quality. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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