Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, 20:246 | Cite as

Development and Qualification of a Scale-Down Mammalian Cell Culture Model and Application in Design Space Development by Definitive Screening Design

  • Lei Nie
  • Dong Gao
  • Haiyan Jiang
  • Jinxia Gou
  • Lei Li
  • Feng Hu
  • Tingting Guo
  • Haibin WangEmail author
  • Haibin QuEmail author
Research Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Scale-down models are indispensable and crucial tools for process understanding and continuous process improvement in product life-cycle management. In this study, a scale-down model representing commercial-scale cell culture process of adalimumab biosimilar HS016 was first developed based on constant power per volume (P/V) principle and then qualified by multivariate data analysis (MVDA) and equivalence test method. The trajectories of the bench-scale process lie in the middle of the control range of large-scale process, built by multivariate evolution model based on nutrients, metabolites, and process performance datasets. This indicates that the small-scale process performance is comparable with that of the full-scale process. The final product titer, integrated viable cell density (iVCD), viability, aggregates, acid peak content, total afucosylation level, and high mannose content recognized as key process attributes (KPAs) or critical quality attributes (CQAs) were equivalent across the scales upon comparison using equivalence test method. The qualified scale-down model was then used for process characterization using a definitive screening design (DSD) where five independent variables including pH, shifted temperature, inoculation seeding density, viable cell density (VCD) at first feeding, VCD at temperature shift were evaluated. Three quadratic polynomial models for final product titer, aggregation, and high mannose were then established using the DSD results. The design space was finally developed using a probability-based Monte Carlo simulation method and was verified with the operation setpoint and worst-case condition. The case study presented in this report shows a feasible roadmap for cell culture process characterization.

KEY WORDS

scale-down model cell culture multivariate data analysis equivalence test definitive screening design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Khursheed Anwer from Celsion Corporation for manuscript review.

Funding Information

This study was supported by National Science and Technology Major Projects for “Major New Drugs Innovation and Development” (Grant No. 2018ZX09736008) and Science Program of Zhejiang province, China (Grant No. 2017C03003).

References

  1. 1.
    ICH Q8 (R2). Pharmaceutical development. 2009. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality /article/quality-guidelines.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
  2. 2.
    Hakemeyer C, McKnight N, St John R, Meier S, Trexler-Schmidt M, Kelley B, et al. Process characterization and design space definition. Biologicals. 2016;44(5):306–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2016.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ICH Q11. Pharmaceutical quality system. 2012. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/ quality/article/quality-guidelines.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
  4. 4.
    Amadeo I, Mauro L, Orti E, Forno G. Establishment of a design space for biopharmaceutical purification processes using DoE. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1129:11–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-977-2_2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li F, Hashimura Y, Pendleton R, Harms J, Collins E, Lee B. A systematic approach for scale-down model development and characterization of commercial cell culture processes. Biotechnol Prog. 2006;22(3):696–703.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bp0504041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DiCesare C, Yu M, Yin J, Zhou W, Hwang C, Tengtrakool J, et al. Development, qualification, and application of a bioreactor scale-down process: modeling large-scale microcarrier perfusion cell culture. BioProcess Int. 2016;14(1):18–29.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tescione L, Lambropoulos J, Paranandi MR, Makagiansar H, Ryll T. Application of bioreactor design principles and multivariate analysis for development of cell culture scale down models. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015;112(1):84–97.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsang VL, Wang AX, Yusuf-Makagiansar H, Ryll T. Development of a scale down cell culture model using multivariate analysis as a qualification tool. Biotechnol Prog. 2014;30(1):152–60.  https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.1819.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;15(6):657–80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    US FDA. Statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. 2001. https://www.fda.gov/ downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm070244.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
  11. 11.
    Tsong Y, Dong X, Shen M. Development of statistical methods for analytical similarity assessment. J Biopharm Stat. 2017;27(2):197–205.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2016.1272606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rathore AS, Pathak M, Jain R, Jadaun GPS. Monitoring quality of biotherapeutic products using multivariate data analysis. AAPS J. 2016;18(4):793–800.  https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-016-9908-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horvath B, Mun M, Laird MW. Characterization of a monoclonal antibody cell culture production process using a quality by design approach. Mol Biotechnol. 2010;45(3):203–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-010-9267-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones B, Nachtsheim CJ. A class of three-level designs for definitive screening in the presence of second-order effects. J Qual Technol. 2011;43(1):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2011.11917841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones B, Nachtsheim CJ. Definitive screening designs with added two-level categorical factors. J Qual Technol. 2013;45(2):121–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2013.11917921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tai M, Ly A, Leung I, Nayar G. Efficient high-throughput biological process characterization: definitive screening design with the ambr250 bioreactor system. Biotechnol Prog. 2015;31(5):1388–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.2142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erler A, de Mas N, Ramsey P, Henderson G. Efficient biological process characterization by definitive-screening designs: the formaldehyde treatment of a therapeutic protein as a case study. Biotechnol Lett. 2013;35(3):323–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-012-1089-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herzer S, Bhangale A, Barker G, Chowdhary I, Conover M, O’Mara BW, et al. Development and scale-up of the recovery and purification of a domain antibody Fc fusion protein-comparison of a two and three-step approach. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015;112(7):1417–28.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pan X, Streefland M, Dalm C, Wijffels RH, Martens DE. Selection of chemically defined media for CHO cell fed-batch culture processes. Cytotechnology. 2017;69(1):39–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-016-0036-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bailey JE, Ollis DF. Biochemical engineering fundamentals. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill College; 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ju LK, Chase GG. Improved scale-up strategies of bioreactors. Bioprocess Eng. 1992;8(1):49–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00369263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burdick RK, LeBlond DJ, Pfahler LB, Quiroz J, Sidor L, Vukovinsky K, et al. Statistical applications for chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) in the pharmaceutical industry. New York: Springer international publishing; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fidaleo M, Lavecchia R, Petrucci E, Zuorro A. Application of a novel definitive screening design to decolorization of an azo dye on boron-doped diamond electrodes. Int J Environ Sci Technol (Tehran). 2016;13(3):1735–472.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0933-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    CMC BiotechWorking Group. A-Mab Case Study. 2009. http://www.casss.org/associations/9165/ files/A-Mab Case Study Version 2-1.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
  25. 25.
    Ratanji KD, Derrick JP, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: influence of aggregation. J Immunotoxicol. 2014;11(2):99–109.  https://doi.org/10.3109/1547691X.2013.821564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shields RL, Lai J, Keck R, O’Connell LY, Hong K, Meng YG, et al. Lack of fucose on human IgG1 N-linked oligosaccharide improves binding to human Fcgamma RIII and antibody-dependent cellular toxicity. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(30):26733–40.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M202069200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu M, Brown D, Reed C, Chung S, Lutman J, Stefanich E, et al. Production, characterization, and pharmacokinetic properties of antibodies with N-linked mannose-5 glycans. mAbs. 2012;4(4):475–87.  https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.20737.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levin AD, Wildenberg ME, van den Brink GR. Mechanism of action of anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(8):989–97.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw053.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Nie
    • 1
  • Dong Gao
    • 2
  • Haiyan Jiang
    • 2
  • Jinxia Gou
    • 2
  • Lei Li
    • 2
  • Feng Hu
    • 2
  • Tingting Guo
    • 2
  • Haibin Wang
    • 2
    Email author
  • Haibin Qu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Informatics Institute, College of Pharmaceutical SciencesZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical CO., LTDTaizhouChina

Personalised recommendations