4.3 Article

Analytical subcloning of a clonal cell line demonstrates cellular heterogeneity that does not impact process consistency or robustness

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 602-612

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/btpr.2646

关键词

cell line development; clonality; sequence variant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During development of a cell line intended to support production of an IgG2 monoclonal antibody, a sequence variant caused by a genetic mutation was identified in the bulk drug substance. Gene copy number analysis together with the level of the observed variant in genomic DNA indicated that the master cell bank was a mixed population of cells; some harboring the variant copy and some mutation free. Since the cell bank had been single-cell cloned, this variant could be used as a biomarker to demonstrate either that the bank was not derived from a single cell, or that the variant was a result of a post-cloning genetic event, leading to a mixed population of cells. The sequence variant was only present in a small percentage of subclones, confirming the hypothesis that the cell bank was indeed a mixed population. Interrogation of subclones via Southern blot analysis revealed that almost all subclones had very similar transgene integrant structures, suggesting that the cell bank was likely derived from a single cell, and the cellular event that yielded the sequence variant was a post-cloning event. Further, there were likely several other post-cloning events that impacted transgene loci, leading to a population of related, yet genetically distinct cells comprising the cell bank. Despite this, the heterogeneous bank performed consistently in a bioprocess across generational age with comparable product quality. These results experimentally demonstrate the heterogeneity of a cell bank derived from a single cell, and its relationship to process consistency. (c) 2018 The Authors Biotechnology Progress published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 34:602-612, 2018

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

4.3
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