Bioengineered Protein A Polymer Beads for High-Affinity Antibody Purification - The authors discuss an alternative to traditional Protein A resins. - BioPharm International

ADVERTISEMENT

Bioengineered Protein A Polymer Beads for High-Affinity Antibody Purification
The authors discuss an alternative to traditional Protein A resins.


BioPharm International
Volume 24, Issue 5, pp. 36-42

POLYBIND–Z PRODUCTION COSTS AND DISPOSABLE USE


Table II: Projected relative cost savings: PolyBind–Z used as a single use resin in a cross-flow membrane system versus a leading Protein A sepharose used in a traditional packed bed column system.
One of the value propositions we seek to develop is the overall cost reduction of using PolyBind–Z beads in antibody capture. It is estimated that 60%–80% of the buffer cost comes from cleaning of the purification resins. These costs are eliminated if disposable media are incorporated into the process. For comparison we modelled the PolyBind–Z as a single use resin in a cross-flow membrane system versus traditional packed bed methods (see Table II). What is not reflected in the relative costs is the cost of buffer preparation and storage. In the interest of consistency, we have only compared consumables and not the hardware required.

We assume the cost of buffers and time saved in regeneration, sterilization, and validation represent the primary cost savings in the process. Fraud et al presented data comparing ion exchange resin chromatography to membrane adsorber chromatography (13). In their case study, they demonstrated that up to 95% of the buffer and water used for cleaning and sterilization are saved in disposable systems. Combined with other factors, such as smaller footprint for buffer storage, and shorter process times due to convective versus diffusive binding, the argument for shifting to a disposable system is compelling.

Bernd Rehm, PhD,* is CSO, Tracy Thompson is CEO and Matthew Plassmeyer, PhD, is project manager, R&D, all at PolyBatics, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

REFERENCES

1. R.L. Fahrner et. al., Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 18, 301–327 (2001).

2. A.A. Shukla et. al., J. Chromatogr. B. 848 (1), 28–39 (2007).

3. D. Low, R. O'Leary, and N.S. Pujar, J. Chromatogr. B, 848 (1), 48–63 (2007).

4. G. Jagschies et. al., BioPharm Int. 19 (6, suppl), 10–19 (2006).

5. V. Anicetti, BioProcess Int. 7 (S1), s4–s11 (2009).

6. J.A. Brockelbank, V. Peters, and B.H.A. Rehm, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72 (11), 7394–7397 (2006).

7. B.H.A. Rehm, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 578–592 (2010).

8. J. Lewis, and B.H.A. Rehm, J Immunol. Methods 346 (1–2), 71–74 (2009).

9. G.Q. Chen, Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 2434–2446 (2009).

10. J. Shiloach, and R. Fass, Biotechnol. Adv. 23 (5), 345–357 (2005).

11. S.Y. Lee, J. Choi, and H.H. Wong, Int. J. of Biol. Macromol. 25, 31–36 (1999).

12. J. Glynn et. al., BioPharm Int. 22 (10, suppl), 15–19 (2009).

13. N.Fraud, U. Gottschalk, J. Lim, and A. Sinclair, GREENBiopharma conference (2010).


blog comments powered by Disqus

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Harnessing the Power of Modified T Cells to Treat Cancer
October 17, 2014
Lilly to Close Manufacturing Facility in Puerto Rico
October 17, 2014
BioReliance Introduces New Predictive Assays
October 17, 2014
Industry Stakeholders Tackle the Use of Biological Qualifiers at WHO Naming Session
October 16, 2014
Pfizer Ireland Plant Receives ISPE Award
October 16, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here