Purifying biopharmaceuticals: Knowledge-based chromatographic process development

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 210-220

  Hanke, Alexander T ^a   Ottens, Marcel ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chromatography; High throughput; Host cell proteins; Mathematical modelling; Process development

Indexed keywords

CHROMATOGRAPHY; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

CHROMATOGRAPHIC PROCESS; DOWNSTREAM PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT; HOST CELL PROTEIN; MANUFACTURING PROCESS; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PURIFICATION PROCESS;

PURIFICATION;

BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT;

BIOPROCESS; CHROMATOGRAPHY; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG PURIFICATION; KNOWLEDGE; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; REVIEW;

CHROMATOGRAPHY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT; HOST CELL PROTEINS; MATHEMATICAL MODELLING; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CHROMATOGRAPHY, LIQUID; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; KNOWLEDGE BASES; PROTEINS;

EID: 84896549713     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.02.001     Document Type: Review

References (102)

1. Goodman M. Market Watch: pharma industry performance metrics: 2007-2012E. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2008, 7:795.
2. Osborne R. Fresh from the biotech pipeline - 2012. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31:100-103.
3. Guiochon G., Beaver L.A. Separation science is the key to successful biopharmaceuticals. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218:8836-8858.
4. Przybycien T.M., et al. Alternative bioseparation operations: life beyond packed-bed chromatography. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2004, 15:469-478.
5. Gottschalk U., et al. The need for innovation in biomanufacturing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30:489-492.
6. Cramer S.M., Holstein M.A. Downstream bioprocessing: recent advances and future promise. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2011, 1:27-37.
7. Shukla A.A., Thommes J. Recent advances in large-scale production of monoclonal antibodies and related proteins. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28:253-261.
8. Bolton G.R., et al. Addressing the challenges in downstream processing today and tomorrow. Biopharm Int. 2011, 24:S8-S15.
9. Ahmed I., et al. Biosimilars: impact of biologic product life cycle and European experience on the regulatory trajectory in the United States. Clin. Ther. 2012, 34:400-419.
10. Rathore A.S. Roadmap for implementation of quality by design (QbD) for biotechnology products. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27:546-553.
11. Bhambure R., et al. High-throughput process development for biopharmaceutical drug substances. Trends Biotechnol. 2011, 29:127-135.
12. Yu L.X. Pharmaceutical quality by design: product and process development, understanding, and control. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25:781-791.
13. Kirdar A.O., et al. Application of multivariate data analysis for identification and successful resolution of a root cause for a bioprocessing application. Biotechnol. Prog. 2008, 24:720-726.
14. Lacki K.M. High-throughput process development of chromatography steps: advantages and limitations of different formats used. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7:1192-1202.
15. Treier K., et al. Application of genetic algorithms and response surface analysis for the optimization of batch chromatographic systems. Biochem. Eng. J. 2012, 63:66-75.
16. Julien C., Whitford W. A new era for bioprocess design and control, part 1: the basic concepts. BioProcess Int. 2008, 6:16.
17. Julien C., Whitford W. A new era for bioprocess design and control, part 2: harmonizing concepts. BioProcess Int. 2008, 6:24.
18. Gernaey K.V., et al. Application of mechanistic models to fermentation and biocatalysis for next-generation processes. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28:346-354.
19. Westerberg K., et al. Model-assisted process development for preparative chromatography applications. BioProcess Int. 2011, 9:48-56.
20. Hamrang Z., et al. Proteins behaving badly: emerging technologies in profiling biopharmaceutical aggregation. Trends Biotechnol. 2013, 31:448-458.
21. Gritti F., Guiochon G. Mass transfer kinetics, band broadening and column efficiency. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1221:2-40.
22. Seidel-Morgenstern A. Experimental determination of single solute and competitive adsorption isotherms. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1037:255-272.
23. Nfor B.K., et al. Rational and systematic protein purification process development: the next generation. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27:673-679.
24. Dismer F., Hubbuch J. A novel approach to characterize the binding orientation of lysozyme on ion-exchange resins. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1149:312-320.
25. Asenjo J.A., Andrews B.A. Protein purification using chromatography: selection of type, modelling and optimization of operating conditions. J. Mol. Recognit. 2009, 22:65-76.
26. Asenjo J.A., Andrews B.A. Is there a rational method to purify proteins? From expert systems to proteomics. J. Mol. Recognit. 2004, 17:236-247.
27. Lienqueo M.E., Asenjo J.A. Use of expert systems for the synthesis of downstream protein processes. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2000, 24:2339-2350.
28. Ahamed T., et al. A generalized approach to thermodynamic properties of biomolecules for use in bioseparation process design. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2006, 241:268-282.
29. Guelat B., et al. Simulation model for overloaded monoclonal antibody variants separations in ion-exchange chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1253:32-43.
30. Su X.L., Sun Y. Thermodynamic model for nonlinear electrostatic adsorption equilibrium of protein. AIChE J. 2006, 52:2921-2930.
31. Zhang X., et al. Multi-dimensional liquid chromatography in proteomics-A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 664:101-113.
32. Aguilar O., et al. Coupled application of aqueous two-phase partitioning and 2D-electrophoresis for characterization of soybean proteins. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2010, 45:2210-2225.
33. Aguilar O., et al. Characterization of green-tissue protein extract from alfalfa (Medicago sativa) exploiting a 3-D technique. J. Sep. Sci. 2009, 32:3223-3231.
34. Swanson R.K., et al. Proteomics-based, multivariate random forest method for prediction of protein separation behavior during cation-exchange chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1249:103-114.
35. Grzeskowiak J.K., et al. Two-dimensional difference fluorescence gel electrophoresis to verify the scale-up of a non-affinity-based downstream process for isolation of a therapeutic recombinant antibody. Electrophoresis 2010, 31:1862-1872.
36. Tait A.S., et al. Host cell protein dynamics in the supernatant of a mAb producing CHO cell line. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012, 109:971-982.
37. Tscheliessnig A.L., et al. Host cell protein analysis in therapeutic protein bioprocessing - methods and applications. Biotechnol. J. 2013, 8:655-670.
38. Sandoval G., et al. Extension of the selection of protein chromatography and the rate model to affinity chromatography. J. Mol. Recognit. 2010, 23:609-617.
39. Xu L., Glatz C.E. Predicting protein retention time in ion-exchange chromatography based on three-dimensional protein characterization. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216:274-280.
40. Javeed S., et al. Analysis and numerical investigation of two dynamic models for liquid chromatography. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2013, 90:17-31.
41. Guiochon G. Preparative liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 965:129-161.
42. Du X., et al. Comparison of general rate model with a new model--artificial neural network model in describing chromatographic kinetics of solanesol adsorption in packed column by macroporous resins. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1145:165-174.
43. Gao H., Lin B. A simplified numerical method for the general rate model. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34:277-285.
44. von Lieres E., Andersson J. A fast and accurate solver for the general rate model of column liquid chromatography. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34:1180-1191.
45. Nfor B.K., et al. Model-based rational strategy for chromatographic resin selection. Biotechnol. Prog. 2011, 27:1629-1643.
46. Westerberg K., et al. Model-based process challenge of an industrial ion-exchange chromatography step. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2012, 35:183-190.
47. Shukla A.A., et al. Synthesis and characterization of high-affinity, low molecular weight displacers for cation-exchange chromatography. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1998, 37:4090-4098.
48. Miyabe K., et al. Peak parking-moment analysis: a strategy for the measurement of molecular diffusivity in liquid phase. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65:3859-3864.
49. Traylor S.J., et al. Shrinking-core modeling of binary chromatographic breakthrough. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218:2222-2231.
50. Lenhoff A.M. Multiscale modeling of protein uptake patterns in chromatographic particles. Langmuir 2008, 24:5991-5995.
51. Osberghaus A., et al. Determination of parameters for the steric mass action model-A comparison between two approaches. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1233:54-65.
52. To B.C., Lenhoff A.M. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography of proteins. I. The effects of protein and adsorbent properties on retention and recovery. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1141:191-205.
53. To B.C., Lenhoff A.M. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography of proteins. II. Solution thermodynamic properties as a determinant of retention. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1141:235-243.
54. Mollerup J.M., et al. Use of quality by the design for the modelling of chromatographic separations. J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 2009, 32:1577-1597.
55. Bowes B.D., Lenhoff A.M. Protein adsorption and transport in dextran-modified ion-exchange media. II. Intraparticle uptake and column breakthrough. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218:4698-4708.
56. Ishihara T., et al. Application of a chromatography model with linear gradient elution experimental data to the rapid scale-up in ion-exchange process chromatography of proteins. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1162:34-40.
57. Yamamoto S., Kita A. Rational design calculation method for stepwise elution chromatography of proteins. Food Bioprod. Process. 2006, 84:72-77.
58. Almodovar E.X.P., et al. Protein adsorption and transport in cation exchangers with a rigid backbone matrix with and without polymeric surface extenders. Biotechnol. Prog. 2011, 27:1264-1272.
59. Stone M.C., et al. Protein adsorption and transport in agarose and dextran-grafted agarose media for ion exchange chromatography: effect of ionic strength and protein characteristics. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216:4465-4474.
60. Treier K., et al. Examination of a genetic algorithm for the application in high-throughput downstream process development. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7:1203-1215.
61. Susanto A., et al. High throughput screening for the design and optimization of chromatographic processes: assessment of model parameter determination from high throughput compatible data. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31:1846-1855.
62. Carta G. Predicting protein dynamic binding capacity from batch adsorption tests. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7:1216-1220.
63. Bergander T., et al. High-throughput process development: determination of dynamic binding capacity using microtiter filter plates filled with chromatography resin. Biotechnol. Prog. 2008, 24:632-639.
64. Coffman J.L., et al. High-throughput screening of chromatographic separations: I. Method development and column modeling. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2008, 100:605-618.
65. Kelley B.D., et al. High-throughput screening of chromatographic separations: IV. Ion-exchange. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2008, 100:950-963.
66. Kramarczyk J.F., et al. High-throughput screening of chromatographic separations: II. Hydrophobic interaction. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2008, 100:707-720.
67. Wensel D.L., et al. High-throughput screening of chromatographic separations: III. Monoclonal antibodies on ceramic hydroxyapatite. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2008, 100:839-854.
68. Nfor B.K., et al. High-throughput isotherm determination and thermodynamic modeling of protein adsorption on mixed mode adsorbents. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217:6829-6850.
69. Wiendahl M., et al. High throughput screening for the design and optimization of chromatographic processes - miniaturization, automation and parallelization of breakthrough and elution studies. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31:893-903.
70. Hansen S.K., et al. A label-free methodology for selective protein quantification by means of absorption measurements. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108:2661-2669.
71. Osberghaus A., et al. Model-integrated process development demonstrated on the optimization of a robotic cation exchange step. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 76:129-139.
72. Shapiro M.S., et al. Design and characterization of a microfluidic packed bed system for protein breakthrough and dynamic binding capacity determination. Biotechnol. Prog. 2009, 25:277-285.
73. Shapiro M.S., et al. Microfluidic chromatography for early stage evaluation of biopharmaceutical binding and separation conditions. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2011, 46:185-194.
74. Wierling P.S., et al. High-throughput screening of packed-bed chromatography coupled with SELDI-TOF MS analysis: monoclonal antibodies versus host cell protein. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 98:440-450.
75. Hansen S.K., et al. Selective high throughput protein quantification based on UV absorption spectra. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110:448-460.
76. Nfor B.K., et al. Multi-dimensional fractionation and characterization of crude protein mixtures: toward establishment of a database of protein purification process development parameters. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012, 109:3070-3083.
77. Yang T., et al. Investigation of multi-modal high-salt binding ion-exchange chromatography using quantitative structure-property relationship modeling. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1175:96-105.
78. Guelat B., et al. Model-based prediction of monoclonal antibody retention in ion-exchange chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1298:17-25.
79. Guelat B., et al. Electrostatic model for protein adsorption in ion-exchange chromatography and application to monoclonal antibodies, lysozyme and chymotrypsinogen A. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217:5610-5621.
80. Dismer F., Hubbuch J. 3D structure-based protein retention prediction for ion-exchange chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217:1343-1353.
81. Osberghaus A., et al. Detection, quantification, and propagation of uncertainty in high-throughput experimentation by Monte Carlo methods. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2012, 35:1456-1464.
82. Borg N., et al. Effects of uncertainties in experimental conditions on the estimation of adsorption model parameters in preparative chromatography. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2013, 55:148-157.
83. Puttmann A., et al. Fast and accurate parameter sensitivities for the general rate model of column liquid chromatography. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2013, 56:46-57.
84. Nfor B.K., et al. Model-based high-throughput process development for chromatographic whey proteins separation. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7:1221-1232.
85. Karlsson D., et al. Model-based optimization of a preparative ion-exchange step for antibody purification. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1055:29-39.
86. Nagrath D., et al. Characterization and modeling of nonlinear hydrophobic interaction chromatographic systems. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218:1219-1226.
87. Sandoval G., et al. Elution relationships to model affinity chromatography using a general rate model. J. Mol. Recognit. 2012, 25:571-579.
88. Osberghaus A., et al. Optimizing a chromatographic three component separation: a comparison of mechanistic and empiric modeling approaches. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1237:86-95.
89. Close E., et al. A model based approach to an adaptive design space in chromatography. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 2013, 115-120. Elsevier. K. Andrzej, T. Ilkka (Eds.).
90. Nfor B.K., et al. Model-based rational methodology for protein purification process synthesis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2013, 89:185-195.
91. Degerman M., et al. A model-based approach to determine the design space of preparative chromatography. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2009, 32:1195-1202.
92. Hawe A., et al. Taylor dispersion analysis compared to dynamic light scattering for the size analysis of therapeutic peptides and proteins and their aggregates. Pharm. Res. 2011, 28:2302-2310.
93. Hausler E., et al. Microfluidic diffusion measurements: the optimal H-cell. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 72:45-50.
94. Salgado J.C., et al. Predicting the behaviour of proteins in hydrophobic interaction chromatography. 1: Using the hydrophobic imbalance (HI) to describe their surface amino acid distribution. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1107:110-119.
95. Salgado J.C., et al. Predicting the behaviour of proteins in hydrophobic interaction chromatography. 2. Using a statistical description of their surface amino acid distribution. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1107:120-129.
96. Trevino S.R., et al. Measuring and increasing protein solubility. J. Pharm. Sci. 2008, 97:4155-4166.
97. Nfor B.K., et al. High-throughput protein precipitation and hydrophobic interaction chromatography: salt effects and thermodynamic interrelation. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218:8958-8973.
98. Winzor D.J., et al. Nonequivalence of second virial coefficients from sedimentation equilibrium and static light scattering studies of protein solutions. Biophys. Chem. 2007, 128:46-55.
99. Rakel N., et al. Self-interaction chromatography in pre-packed columns: a critical evaluation of self-interaction chromatography methodology to determine the second virial coefficient. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1293:75-84.
100. Deshpande K.S., et al. Biofunctionalization and self-interaction chromatography in PDMS microchannels. Biochem. Eng. J. 2012, 67:111-119.
101. Haynes C.A., et al. Thermodynamic properties of aqueous.alpha.-chymotrypsin solution from membrane osmometry measurements. J. Phys. Chem. 1992, 96:905-912.
102. Kellner R., et al. Microcharacterization of proteins 1999, Wiley-VCH.