4.6 Article

Improved HCP Reduction Using a New, All-Synthetic Depth Filtration Media Within an Antibody Purification Process

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/biot.201700771

关键词

antibodies; bioprocess development; bioprocess engineering; depth filtration; downstream processing; protein purification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biologic manufacturing processes typically employ clarification technologies like depth filtration to remove insoluble and soluble impurities. Conventional depth filtration media used in these processes contain naturally-derived components like diatomaceous earth and cellulose. These components may introduce performance variability and contribute extractable/leachable components like beta-glucans that could interfere with limulus amebocyte lysate endotoxin assays. Recently a novel, all-synthetic depth filtration media is developed (Millistak+((R)) HC Pro X0SP) that may improve process consistency, efficiency, and drug substance product quality by reducing soluble process impurities. This new media is evaluated against commercially available benchmark filters containing naturally-derived components (Millistak+((R)) HC X0HC and B1HC). Using model proteins, the synthetic media demonstrates increased binding capacity of positively charged proteins (72-126 mg g(-1) media) compared to conventional media (0.3-8.6 mg g(-1) media); and similar values for negatively charged species (1.3-5.6 mg g(-1) media). Several CHO-derived monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or mAb-like molecules are also evaluated. The X0SP filtration performance behaves similarly to benchmarks, and exhibits improved HCP reduction (at least 50% in 55% of cases tested). X0SP filtrates contained increased silicon extractables relative to benchmarks, but these were readily removed downstream. Finally, the X0SP devices demonstrates suitable lot-to-lot robustness when specific media components are altered intentionally to manufacturing specification limits.

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