| Literature DB >> 30008506 |
Sofia B Carvalho1,2, A Raquel Fortuna3, Michael W Wolff3,4, Cristina Peixoto1,2, Paula M Alves1,2, Udo Reichl3,5, Manuel Jt Carrondo1,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccines based on virus-like particles (VLPs) are an alternative to inactivated viral vaccines that combine good safety profiles with strong immunogenicity. In order to be economically competitive, efficient manufacturing is required, in particular downstream processing, which often accounts for major production costs. This study describes the optimization and establishment of a chromatography capturing technique using sulfated cellulose membrane adsorbers (SCMA) for purification of influenza VLPs.Entities:
Keywords: downstream processing; membrane adsorption chromatography; sulfated cellulose; vaccine production; virus‐like particles
Year: 2017 PMID: 30008506 PMCID: PMC6033026 DOI: 10.1002/jctb.5474
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Chem Technol Biotechnol ISSN: 0268-2575 Impact factor: 3.174
Factors investigated, and respective levels, for the optimization of influenza virus‐like particles (VLPs) using sulfated cellulose membrane adsorbers (SCMA)
| Factors | Abbreviation | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | center | high | ||
| Ligand density (µmol cm−2) | LD | 7.9 | 11.8 | 15.4 |
| Salt concentration for load (mmol L‐1) | [NaCl]load | 20 | 40 | 60 |
| Salt concentration for elution (mmol L‐1) | [NaCl]elution | 200 | 600 | 1000 |
| Flow rate for load (mL min−1) | Qload | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Flow rate for elution (mL min−1) | Qelution | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
Set point predicted by Monte Carlo simulation (resolution 16, 10 000 simulations per point, 95% confidence level) and experimentally implemented. The predicted values are presented as average ± standard deviation
|
| Predicted | Experimental |
|---|---|---|
| LD (µmol cm−2) | 14.7 ± 1.2 | 15.4 |
| [NaCl]load (mmol L‐1) | 24 ± 16 | 24 |
| [NaCl]elution (mmol L‐1) | 920 ± 307 | 920 |
| Qload (mL min−1) | 0.24 ± 0.15 | 0.24 |
| Qelution (mL min−1) | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.4 |
Figure 1Contour plots generated with MODDE Pro 11, according to the model predicted (Equations S‐2 and S‐3, in Supporting information) for HA loss in the flowthrough (A) and yield in terms of HA (B). Membrane ligand density (LD), salt concentration for loading and elution (respectively NaClload and NaClelution) and flow rate in the load and elution steps (respectively Qload and Qelution).
Figure 2Representative chromatogram (n = 3) of the purification of influenza VLPs using SCMA. Red line denotes conductivity, blue line UV signal measured at 280 nm, and the green line DLS signal.
Figure 3Transmission electron microscopy micrograph of influenza VLPs from the initial bulk sample (A) and from the elution step of the SCMA purification process (B). Scale bar indicates 100 nm.
Comparison between VLPs purification with Sartobind® Q and S and SCMA and between VLPs and virus purification using SCMA
| Product | Matrix | HA in flowthrough (%) | Yield HA (%) | DNA (µgDNA µgHA −1) | Total protein (mgtot.prot. µgHA −1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLPs | Sartobind® Q | 0.0 ± 0.0 (<LOD) | 47.4 ± 0.0 | <LOD | 0.26 ± 0.03 |
| Sartobind® S | 23.8 ± 7.8 | 45.9 ± 4.0 | <LOD | 0.18 ± 0.05 | |
| SCMA |
|
|
|
| |
| Whole virus | SCMA | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 64.0 ± 0.1 | 0.0038 ± 0.0003 | 0.013 ± 0.001 |