| Literature DB >> 35655779 |
Tihana Kurtović1,2, Sanda Ravlić1,2, Adela Štimac1,2, Sanja Mateljak Lukačević1,2, Ana Hećimović3, Saša Kazazić4, Beata Halassy1,2.
Abstract
During the pre-vaccine era of the COVID-19 pandemic convalescent plasma has once again emerged as a major potential therapeutic form of passive immunization that in specific cases still represents irreplaceable treatment option. There is a growing concern that variable concentration of neutralizing antibodies, present in convalescent plasma which originates from different donors, apparently affects its effectiveness. The drawback can be overcome through the downstream process of immunoglobulin fraction purification into a standardized product of improved safety and efficacy. All modern procedures are quite lengthy processes. They are also based on fractionation of large plasma quantities whose collection is not attainable during an epidemic. When outbreaks of infectious diseases are occurring more frequently, there is a great need for a more sustainable production approach that would be goal-oriented towards assuring easily and readily available immunoglobulin of therapeutic relevance. We propose a refinement strategy for the IgG preparation achieved through simplification and reduction of the processing steps. It was designed as a small but scalable process to offer an immediately available treatment option that would simultaneously be harmonized with an increased availability of convalescent plasma over the viral outbreak time-course. Concerning the ongoing pandemic status of the COVID-19, the proof of concept was demonstrated on anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma but is likely applicable to any other type depending on the current needs. It was guided by the idea of persistent keeping of IgG molecules in the solution, so that protection of their native structure could be assured. Our manufacturing procedure provided a high-quality IgG product of above the average recovery whose composition profile was analyzed by mass spectrometry as quality control check. It was proved free from IgA and IgM as mediators of adverse transfusion reactions, as well as of any other residual impurities, since only IgG fragments were identified. The proportion of S protein-specific IgGs remained unchanged relative to the convalescent plasma. Undisturbed IgG subclass composition was accomplished as well. However, the fractionation principle affected the final product's capacity to neutralize wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infectivity, reducing it by half. Decrease in neutralization potency significantly correlated with the amount of IgM in the starting material.Entities:
Keywords: IgG subclass; caprylic acid precipitation; convalescent plasma processing; ion-exchange chromatography; mass spectrometry; passive immunotherapy; polyclonal anti-COVID-19 IgG; wild-type SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35655779 PMCID: PMC9152316 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.889736
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Preliminary determination of optimal caprylic acid concentration for precipitation step of the purification protocol. SDS-PAGE (A) and densitometric analysis (B) of samples obtained by 0-7% (V/V) caprylic acid. Results (IgG purity and yield) are given as mean +/- 95% CI (n = 2).
Share of IgG, IgA and IgM isotypes within total protein or immunoglobulin content in the intermediate fractions and the final product of developed downstream processing protocol, together with their recoveries in every fractionation step.
| IgG | IgA | IgM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Share in total proteins [%] | 72.5 ± 4.9 | 9.8 ± 2.6 | 4.8 ± 3.2 |
| Share in immunoglobulins [%] | 83.2 ± 2.2 | 11.8 ± 3.3 | 5.2 ± 3.4 | |
| Recovery in relation to CCP [%] | 84.6 ± 6.7 | 77.4 ± 11.2 | 42.6 ± 7.4 | |
|
| Share in total proteins [%] | 79.2 ± 7.6 | 10.7 ± 3.0 | 4.9 ± 3.5 |
| Share in immunoglobulins [%] | 83.6 ± 2.6 | 12.9 ± 4.0 | 4.8 ± 3.3 | |
| Recovery in relation to CCP [%] | 81.8 ± 8.0 | 73.8 ± 9.6 | 40.1 ± 7.5 | |
| Recovery in relation to previous step [%] | 96.5 ± 3.2 | 95.9 ± 4.5 | 83.0 ± 12.1 | |
|
| Share in total proteins (immunoglobulins) [%] | 99.2 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.6 × 10-3 ± 0.4 × 10-3 |
| Recovery in relation to CCP [%] | 75.1 ± 1.8 | 4.1 ± 1.5 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | |
| Recovery in relation to previous step [%] | 93.0 ± 7.1 | 5.6 ± 2.0 | 1.0 ± 0.8 |
Samples were submitted to at least three total protein/immunoglobulin concentration measurements for purity and yield calculations. Results are given as a mean from eight independently performed COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) fractionations +/- 95% CI.
Figure 2Purity profiling by size-exclusion chromatography. Analysis was performed on TSK-Gel G3000SWXL column (7.8 × 300 mm) with 0.1 M phosphate-sulphate running buffer, pH 6.6, at a flow rate of 1 mL min-1. Heat-treated COVID-19 convalescent plasma (A). IgG fraction obtained by caprylic acid precipitation before (B) and after diafiltration using a 100 kDa membrane (C). Final product — flow-through fraction from anion-exchange chromatography performed at pH 5.0 (D). Detection: UV at 280 nm.
Figure 3SDS-PAGE analysis of representative samples from purification process. 1D gel electrophoresis (A). Lane 1, COVID-19 convalescent plasma; lane 2, IgG fraction obtained by caprylic acid precipitation; lane 3, IgG fraction after diafiltration; lane 4, flow-through fraction from anion-exchange chromatography (final product); lane 5, elution fraction from anion-exchange chromatography; lane 6, molecular weight standards. The analysis was done on 4-12% Bis-Tris gel under non-reducing conditions. Staining was performed with CBB R250. 2D gel electrophoresis of the final product (B). In the first dimension IgG (m = 250 μg) was focused using IPG strip under denaturing conditions (linear pH 3-10). Prior second dimension IPG strip was reduced, alkylated and loaded to a 4-12% gel. Proteins were detected with CBB R250 and identified by MS/MS analysis (LC, light chain; HC, heavy chain). Molecular mass markers are at left side.
Removal of caprylic acid during diafiltration step with indicated recoveries in the filtrates following every cycle and the final preparation (retentate) in relation tostarting, undiafiltrated sample.
| Filtrate 1 | Filtrate 2 | Filtrate 3 | Retentate | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 84.77 ± 3.10 | 10.66 ± 1.89 | 2.46 ± 1.26 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 97.98 ± 4.71 |
Results are given as a mean from eight experiments +/- 95% CI.
Final product’s properties. Results are given as a mean from eight experiments +/- 95% CI.
| SEC-determined purity [%] | SEC-determined aggregate content [%] | ELISA-determined purity [%] | ELISA-determined yield [%] | ED50 assay-determined yield [%] | Average purification factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0 | 99.2 ± 0.1 | 75.1 ± 1.8 | 51.0 ± 16.2 | 3.3 |
Comparison of neutralization potencies of the COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP A-C) and the corresponding pure IgG preparations determined by the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 ED50 assay, together with their specific activities.
| Neutralization potency [IU mL-1] |
|
| IU mg-1 of IgG content | IU mg-1 of protein content | Purification fold | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 151.8 ± 47.6 ( | 9.36 | 45.25 | 16.2 ± 5.1 | 3.4 ± 1.1 | |
|
| 176.0 ± 44.8 ( | 9.54 | 9.64 | 18.4 ± 4.7 | 18.3 ± 4.7 | 5.4 |
|
| 145.8 ± 38.7 ( | 9.70 | 9.80 | 15.0 ± 4.0 | 14.9 ± 4.0 | 4.4 |
|
| 153.0 ± 32.6 ( | 10.04 | 10.14 | 15.2 ± 3.3 | 15.1 ± 3.2 | 4.5 |
|
| 86.5 ± 13.1 ( | 8.64 | 43.47 | 10.0 ± 1.5 | 2.0 ± 0.3 | |
|
| 36.9 ± 7.6 ( | 10.71 | 10.82 | 3.4 ± 0.7 | 3.4 ± 0.7 | 1.7 |
|
| 32.8 ± 7.8 ( | 9.31 | 9.40 | 3.5 ± 0.8 | 3.5 ± 0.8 | 1.8 |
|
| 30.4 ± 6.0 ( | 9.52 | 9.62 | 3.2 ± 0.6 | 3.2 ± 0.6 | 1.6 |
|
| 575.9 ± 83.2 ( | 12.87 | 67.88 | 44.7 ± 6.5 | 8.5 ± 1.2 | |
|
| 244.6 ± 21.1 ( | 10.60 | 10.71 | 23.1 ± 2.0 | 22.8 ± 2.0 | 2.7 |
|
| 396.8 ± 39.0 ( | 10.38 | 10.49 | 38.2 ± 3.8 | 37.8 ± 3.7 | 4.5 |
Purification fold is expressed through specific activities of CCP and IgG product from downstream processing exit point, that were calculated as a ratio of neutralization potency and total protein concentration (IU mg-1 of protein content). Results are given as a mean from n measurements +/- 95% CI. Specific activity was calculated as a ratio of neutralization potency and IgG (IU mg-1 of IgG content) or total protein concentration (IU mg-1 of protein content).
Figure 4Relationship between factor of the final product’s specific activity decrease in comparison to the COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) and IgM share in the immunoglobulin pool of the starting material. Correlation was assessed by Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) using a significance level of 5%. Specific activity was expressed as neutralization potency, determined by the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 ED50 assay, per mg of IgG. The results are given as (geo)mean from eight independently performed refinement procedures ± standard deviation (denoted by error bars).
Final product’s IgG subclass distribution.
| IgG1 | IgG2 | IgG3 | IgG4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.10 ± 0.05 | 1.07 ± 0.11 | 1.05 ± 0.13 | 1.04 ± 0.11 |
Ratio of A492 nm values obtained for the final product and the COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was used a measure of IgG subclass quantity change. Results are given as mean from four experiments +/- 95% CI. Two plasma units and the corresponding preparations obtained by their independently performed fractionations were adjusted to the same total IgG concentration and analyzed simultaneously by ELISA measuring SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG1, IgG2, IgG3 and IgG4 antibodies.