Composite nanofiber chromatography membrane for fast LV purification: Comparison with contemporary m

Page 1

Composite nanofiber chromatography membrane for fast LV purification: Comparison with contemporary methods Daniella Steel, Emma Burman, Ian Scanlon, Joseph Fletcher, Adam Pinnock, Ben Wallis, Marc Hummersone, Sujeong Yang. Astrea Bioseparations Ltd, Horizon Park, Barton Road, Comberton, Cambridge, CB23 7AJ, UK

3

1

A

Method

LentiHERO® is a weak anion exchange composite nanofiber membrane housed in a spin column device. Wash, load and elution steps were performed using a benchtop centrifuge at 1000 x g for 2 minutes. Product A is a bead-based adsorbent, where the process steps were gravity fed. Product B is a strong anion exchange membrane adsorbent, where process steps were performed with a syringe. Each device was loaded with unconcentrated, GFP-packaged lentiviral feedstock (LV-sffv-GFP). The feedstock was generated in adherent HEK293T cells in DMEM with 2% FBS, and had been clarified through 0.45 µm PES filtration prior to loading. The final concentration and buffer exchange of the eluates from each product was performed with an ultrafiltration device, 100kDa MWCO using OptiMem™ reduced serum medium. These concentrated LV samples were analysed for LV titers (physical titer, infectivity titer, viral genome copies titer) and contaminant levels of host cell proteins and total residual DNA.

Centrifugation

16

2

Product A

Bead-based resin

Syringe/Gravity

42

Product B

AEX membrane

Syringe/Gravity

45

Washing Elution *Volume(mL) 2

15

10

12

5

20

5

2

NaCl

2

0.6M

5

3

1.2M

15

4

1.2M

* Not including diluents or buffer exchange volume

Table 1. The operation time of LentiHERO® and Product A were measured by the same operator while Product B operation time was referenced as written in the manufacture’s protocol. All 3 methods had recommendations in common to further process the eluate with buffer exchange and concentration, therefore these additional steps were excluded from the operation time. Furthermore, the LentiHERO® eluate volume was 50% smaller and the eluate salt concentrations were lower compared to the alternative methods. Figure 1.

Operation Time

Product A

0%

Product B

LentiHERO®

Product A

Product B

60% 40% 20% 0%

LentiHERO®

Product A

Product B

Total Infectious LV recovery (TU) Product A

Product B

2.16E+09

*1.46E+09

2.16E+09

Elution

1.3E+09

5.55E+08

1.1E+09 * Reached the maximum load

Table 2. Total Infectious LV recovery (TU/mL) of the load and eluate after purification with LentiHERO®, Product A and Product B. Product A load was restricted by the capacity advised by the product manual.

LentiHERO® process removed host cell proteins and Total Residual DNA contaminants LentiHERO® showed higher than 95% removal of HCP and total residual DNA from the load challenge Contaminant

Product

80%

Host Cell Protein

Total Residual DNA

LentiHERO

97.6 ± 0.12%

95.0 ± 1.99%

Product A

99.8 ± 0.01%

98.7 ± 0.9%

Product B

97.1 ± 0.2%

95.5 ± 2.42%

®

60%

40%

20%

0%

Host cell proteins LV input

LentiHERO®

dsDNA Product A

Product B

Figure 3. HEK293 host cell protein (HCP) levels were measured by HEK HCP ELISA, and total dsDNA quantified by PicoGreen assay.

Summary

50 45

Total LV particle recovery, vector genome recovery and infectious recovery were significantly improved using the LentiHERO® spin columns without compromising on the purity afforded by the resin or the membrane adsorbents, as measured by reduction in host cell proteins and total residual DNA. Using the LentiHERO® spin columns resulted in approximately 60% reduction in processing time.

40 35

Time (min)

LentiHERO®

HCP and total DNA in the eluates

Elution

10

0%

20%

80%

Load

HCP and dsDNA recovery (%)

AEX membrane

20%

40%

Table. 3

Operation time (min)

LentiHERO®

40%

60%

100%

Equipment Loading

80%

60%

Vector genome recovery

LentiHERO®

LentiHERO® LV purification system is 60% faster than alternative methods

Total Time Equilibration

80%

C 100%

Table. 2

Operational process time can be significantly reduced when using the LentiHERO® protocol

Platform

LV particle recovery 100%

Product

4

Table 1.

B

Figure 2. LV recovery yield of the concentrated eluates was measured by infectious LV recovery (A), LV particle recovery (B) and vector genome recovery (C). Infectious LV (TU/mL) was tested by transduction assay in Jurkat cells measured by flow cytometry. Optimal infection range was 1-20% GFP positive cells, and only those data sets were used for calculation. LV particle recovery (VP/mL) was measured by P24 ELISA (ZeptoMetrix kit). LV viral vector genome was quantified by qPCR targeting Psi sequence. The graph represented the relative percentage (%) of recovery against LV load following a mass balance. N=3/group.

Each purification was performed using either LentiHERO®, Product A or Product B, following the manufacturer’s instructions.

2

Infectious LV recovery 100%

Viral genome recovery (%)

Here, we demonstrate the LV recovery and purification of a novel spin column, Nereus LentiHERO®. This is an electrospun composite nanofiber membrane, functionalized with a weak anion exchange chemistry. The performance of Nereus LentiHERO® was compared to two commonly used lab-scale chromatography methods; a gravity fed bead-based adsorbent, and an anion exchange membrane adsorber operated in accordance with the supplier’s instructions. As processing speed can also be a concern, operation times were also examined.

Increased LV recovery yield purified by LentiHERO®

Figure 2.

P24 recovery (%)

The development of therapeutic assets that use lentiviral vectors (LV), including ex-vivo and in vivo gene therapy, is growing rapidly. To keep pace with this increasing demand for LV, the bottlenecks regarding low LV recovery and poor contamination removal must be addressed. Purification steps with chromatographybased methods often have poor step yield recovery, and so during lab-scale development purity is often compromised to reduce LV loss during feedstock processing. As a consequence, therapeutic candidates may not be representative of the therapeutic assets during downstream processing stages where chromatography is used at larger scale bioprocessing.

Transduction Unit recovery (%)

Introduction

30

In summary, the composite nanofiber membrane LentiHERO® spin column provides increased yield and faster LV processing, without compromising on purity at lab-scale. The use of chromatographical tools during lab-scale vector development will enable candidates that are more representative of largescale manufacturing to progress through the development pipeline faster.

25 20 15 10 5 0

Product A

LentiHERO® Equilibration

Loading

Washing

Product B Elution

Figure 1. represents the cumulative operation time of the three methods, as outlined in Table 1. The LentiHERO® process is 64% faster than Product B, and 62% faster that Product A.

Search: Astrea Bioseparations Any data or results provided are only examples and do not provide any guarantee of similar results in future. The products of Astrea Bioseparations may be covered by or for use under one or more patents: www.astreabioseparations.com/patents All trademarks, trade names, trade dress, product names and logos are the property of Astrea UK Services Ltd or their respective owners. Opti-MEM™ is a trademark of Thermo Fisher Scientific. © 2023 Astrea Bioseparations Ltd. All rights reserved


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
Composite nanofiber chromatography membrane for fast LV purification: Comparison with contemporary m by astreabioseparations - Issuu