| Literature DB >> 32823092 |
Patricia Pereira Aguilar1, Katrin Reiter2, Viktoria Wetter2, Petra Steppert3, Daniel Maresch3, Wai Li Ling4, Peter Satzer5, Alois Jungbauer1.
Abstract
Downstream processing (DSP) of large bionanoparticles is still a challenge. The present study aims to systematically compare some of the most commonly used DSP strategies for capture and purification of enveloped viruses and virus-like particles (eVLPs) by using the same staring material and analytical tools. As a model, Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) gag VLPs produced in CHO cells were used. Four different DSP strategies were tested. An anion-exchange monolith and a membrane adsorber, for direct capture and purification of eVLPs, and a polymer-grafted anion-exchange resin and a heparin-affinity resin for eVLP purification after a first flow-through step to remove small impurities. All tested strategies were suitable for capture and purification of eVLPs. The performance of the different strategies was evaluated regarding its binding capacity, ability to separate different particle populations and product purity. The highest binding capacity regarding total particles was obtained using the anion exchange membrane adsorber (5.3 × 1012 part/mL membrane), however this method did not allow the separation of different particle populations. Despite having a lower binding capacity (1.5 × 1011 part/mL column) and requiring a pre-processing step with flow-through chromatography, Heparin-affinity chromatography showed the best performance regarding separation of different particle populations, allowing not only the separation of HIV-1 gag VLPs from host cell derived bionanoparticles but also from chromatin. This work additionally shows the importance of thorough sample characterization combining several biochemical and biophysical methods in eVLP DSP.Entities:
Keywords: Affinity chromatography; Convective media; Downstream processing; Enveloped VLP; Ion exchange chromatography; Polymer-grafted media
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32823092 DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Chromatogr A ISSN: 0021-9673 Impact factor: 4.601