| Literature DB >> 30925730 |
Deepak Kumar1, Jyoti Batra2, Claire Komives3, Anurag S Rathore4.
Abstract
Ranibizumab is a biotherapeutic Fab fragment used for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration and macular oedema. It is currently expressed in the gram-negative bacterium, Escherichia coli. However, low expression levels result in a high manufacturing cost. The protein expression can be increased by manipulating nutritional requirements (carbon source, nitrogen source, buffering agent), process parameters (pH, inducer concentration, agitation, temperature), and the genetic make-up of the producing strain. Further, understanding the impact of these factors on product quality is a requirement as per the principles of Quality by Design (QbD). In this paper, we examine the effect of various media components and process parameters on the expression level and quality of the biotherapeutic. First, risk analysis was performed to shortlist different media components based on the literature. Next, experiments were performed to screen these components. Eight components were identified for further investigation and were examined for their effect and interactions using a Fractional Factorial experimental design. Sucrose, biotin, and pantothenate were found to have the maximum effect during Fab production. Furthermore, cyanocobalamin glutathione and biotin-glutathione were the most significant interactions observed. Product identification was performed with Liquid Chromatography⁻Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS), the expression level was quantified using Bio-layer Interferometry, Reverse Phase-HPLC, and SDS-PAGE, and product quality were measured by RP-HPLC. Overall, a five-fold enhancement of the target protein titer was obtained (from 5 mg/L to 25 mg/L) using the screened medium components vis-a-vis the basal medium, thereby demonstrating the efficacy of the systematic approach purported by QbD.Entities:
Keywords: Ranibizumab; design of experiments; media development; quality by design
Year: 2019 PMID: 30925730 PMCID: PMC6631317 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering6020029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
The key attributes of different media that were screened for Fab production.
| Medium | Components |
|---|---|
| Cossins Medium | (NH4)2SO4 (5.2 g/L), NaH2PO4 (4.15 g/L), KCl (4.025 g/L), Citric Acid (5.2 g/L), Glycerol (93.33 g/L), MgSO4.7H2O (1.04 g/L), Thiamine Hydrochloride (6.67 mM) and Trace Elements * |
| Sletta Medium | KH2PO4 (16.6 g/L), (NH4)2HPO4 (4.0 g/L), Citric Acid (2.1 g/L), Glucose (20 g/L), MgSO4.7H2O (1.04 g/L) and Trace Elements * |
| King Medium | (NH4)2SO4 (5.2 g/L) NaH2PO4 (4.15 g/L) Yeast Extract (5 g/L), Glycerol, MgSO4.7H2O (1.04 g/L) and Trace Elements * |
| Zhang Medium | Glycerol (20 g/L), KH2PO4 (20 g/L), (NH4)2HPO4 (5 g/L), Na (Pyruvate) (5 g/L), MgSO4.7H2O (1.04 g/L), Thiamine Hydrochloride (6.67 mM) and Trace Elements * |
| Champion Medium | (NH4)2SO4 (55.7 mM), NaH2PO4 (13.9 mM), K2HPO4 (21.9 mM), Sodium Citrate (5 mM), KCl (29.6 mM), MgSO4.7H2O (14.7 mM), NZ Amine AS (1.11%), Yeast Extract (1.11%), Glucose (0.11%) and Trace Elements * |
| Riesenberg Medium | Glucose (27.5 g/L), KH2PO4 (13.3 g/L), (NH4)2HPO4 (4.0 g/L), Citric Acid (1.7 g/L), MgSO4.7H2O (1.04 g/L), Thiamine Hydrochloride (4.5 mg/L) and Trace Elements * |
* Trace elements include Na-EDTA, MnCl2, CoCl2, CuCl2, H3BO4, Na2MoO4, Zinc acetate, and Ferric ammonium citrate.
The assigned concentrations of variables at different levels in the Fractional factorial design for Fab production.
| S. No. | Variables | Lower Level | Higher Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | K2HPO4 (%) | 0.5 | 1.2 |
| 2 | Biotin (mg/L) | 0.5 | 2 |
| 3 | Glutathione (mM) | 5 | 20 |
| 4 | Sucrose (%) | 0.5 | 2 |
| 5 | Potassium Sulfate (%) | 0.09 | 0.36 |
| 6 | Calcium Sulfate (%) | 0.05 | 0.2 |
| 7 | Panthothenic Acid (mg/L) | 0.5 | 2 |
| 8 | Cyanocobalamin (mg/L) | 0.7 | 2.8 |
Figure 1The cell density as a function of time plotted for different basal media.
Figure 2(A) Chromatogram of preparative scale purification of the Fab using Capto L affinity chromatography: absorbance (black trace) and conductivity (grey trace) (B) Confirmation of Fab molecule by SDS PAGE. Lane M: Protein Marker, Lane 1: Uninduced, Lane 2: Uninduced, Lane 3: Periplasmic extract, Lane 4: Concentrated periplasmic extract, Lane 5: Concentrated periplasmic extract (C) RP-HPLC chromatogram of the standard molecule, (D) RP-HPLC chromatogram of Fab molecule.
Figure 3The LC/MS analysis of fab (A) Mass spectrum (B) De-convoluted mass spectrum. The circled peaks show the parent molecules, heavy chain and light chain respectively.
Figure 4(A) The real-time binding data of the standard Fab molecule, (B) a graph depicting the binding rate of the standard as well as target Fab protein, (C) the comparison of Fab protein measured by Octet and RP-HPLC methods.
Figure 5The optimization of various physiochemical parameters to enable higher biomass production, (A) temperature (B) pH (C) inducer concentration and (D) agitation.
The protein titre obtained as a result of the addition of various nutrient additives as found by the one factor at a time (OFAT) approach.
| S. No. | Media Additives | Concentration | Protein Titre (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CoSO4 (g/L) | 0.75 | 1.24 |
| 2 | Di-sodium succinate (%) | 1.00 | 2.10 |
| 3 | NaEDTA (mg/L) | 10.50 | 2.21 |
| 4 | Nickel sulphate (%) | 0.25 | 2.35 |
| 5 | Al2(SO4)3 (g/L) | 2.00 | 2.75 |
| 6 | NaCl (%) | 1.00 | 3.34 |
| 7 | Yeast extract (%) | 1.00 | 4.50 |
| 8 | Peptone (%) | 2.00 | 4.79 |
| 9 | Glycine (%) | 0.20 | 4.90 |
| 10 | NH4CI (%) | 0.20 | 5.22 |
| 11 | FeSO4 (%) | 0.10 | 5.73 |
| 12 | (NH4)2SO4 (%) | 0.40 | 5.95 |
| 13 | L-Isoleucine (g/L) | 0.20 | 6.75 |
| 14 | FeCl2 (%) | 2.70 | 6.95 |
| 15 | L-Proline (g/L) | 0.20 | 7.30 |
| 16 | NaHCO3 (%) | 1.00 | 7.65 |
| 17 | ZnCl2 (%) | 0.20 | 7.80 |
| 18 | Panthothenic Acid (mg/L) | 1.00 | 8.30 |
| 19 | Calcium sulfate (%) | 0.10 | 8.86 |
| 20 | Potassium sulfate (%) | 0.18 | 8.88 |
| 21 | Biotin (mg/L) | 1.00 | 10.05 |
| 22 | Sucrose (%) | 1.00 | 10.65 |
| 23 | Cyanocobalamin (mg/L) | 1.40 | 12.54 |
| 24 | K2HPO4 (%) | 0.12 | 13.80 |
| 25 | Glutathione (mM) | 10.00 | 16.80 |
| 26 | Control (no additive) | - | 8.00 |
Figure 6The results of the design of experiment (DOE) study showing (A) the actual vs. predicted plot for Fab production; (B) the estimates of the interactions amongst the sorted parameters, * P < 0.05; (C) the prediction profiles for Fab production; (D) the comparison of Fab titer vs. purity.