Exploiting mAb structure characteristics for a directed QbD implementation in early process development

References

• Ecker DM, Jones SD, Levine HL. The therapeutic monoclonal antibody market. MAbs. 2015;7:9–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer S, Handrick R, Otte K. The art of CHO cell engineering: a comprehensive retrospect and future perspectives. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:1878–1896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain E, Kumar A. Upstream processes in antibody production: evaluation of critical parameters. Biotechnol Adv. 2008;26:46–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira AP, Oliveira R, Alves PM, et al. Advances in on-line monitoring and control of mammalian cell cultures: supporting the PAT initiative. Biotechnol Adv. 2009;27:726–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammerschmidt N, Tscheliessnig A, Sommer R, et al. Economics of recombinant antibody production processes at various scales: Industry-standard compared to continuous precipitation. Biotechnol J. 2014;9:766–775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou Y, Jiang CP, Shukla AA, et al. Improved process analytical technology for protein a chromatography using predictive principal component analysis tools. Biotechnol Bioeng.. 2011;108:59–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rathore AS. QbD/PAT for bioprocessing: moving from theory to implementation. Curr Opin Chem Eng. 2014;6:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurdo J, Arnell A, Obrezanova O, et al. Early implementation of QbD in biopharmaceutical development: a practical example. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:605427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rathore AS, Winkle H. Quality by design for biopharmaceuticals. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:26–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rathore AS. Roadmap for implementation of quality by design (QbD) for biotechnology products. Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27:546–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski MI, Grant C, Fell TS. Harnessing QbD, programming languages, and automation for reproducible biology. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34:214–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassey J, Gernaey KV, Clemens C, et al. Process analytical technology (PAT) for biopharmaceuticals. Biotechnol J. 2011;6:369–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon LL, Pataki H, Marosi G, et al. Assessment of recent process analytical technology (PAT) trends: a multiauthor review. Organic Process Res Dev. 2015;19:3–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier SM, Diepenbroek B, Wijffels RH, et al. Multivariate PAT solutions for biopharmaceutical cultivation: current progress and limitations. Trends Biotechnol. 2014;32:329–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eon-Duval A, Broly H, Gleixner R. Quality attributes of recombinant therapeutic proteins: an assessment of impact on safety and efficacy as part of a quality by design development approach. Biotechnol Progress. 2012;28:608–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd PN, Lines AC, Patel AK. The effect of the removal of sialic acid, galactose and total carbohydrate on the functional activity of Campath-1H. Mol Immunol. 1995;32:1311–1318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raju TS, Jordan RE. Galactosylation variations in marketed therapeutic antibodies. Mabs. 2012;4:385–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa AR, Rodrigues ME, Henriques M, et al. Glycosylation: impact, control and improvement during therapeutic protein production. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2014;34:281–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummen L. Lessons learned from two case studies in the FDA QBD Biotech Pilot. Case study presentation at CMC Forum Europe 2013, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kildegaard HF, Fan YZ, Sen JW, et al. Glycoprofiling effects of media additives on IgG produced by CHO cells in fed-batch bioreactors. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2016;113:359–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rathore AS, Kumar Singh S, Pathak M, et al. Fermentanomics: relating quality attributes of a monoclonal antibody to cell culture process variables and raw materials using multivariate data analysis. Biotechnol Progress. 2015;31:1586–1599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green A, Glassey J. Multivariate analysis of the effect of operating conditions on hybridoma cell metabolism and glycosylation of produced antibody. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2015;90:303–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Val IJ, Kontoravdi C, Nagy JM. Towards the implementation of quality by design to the production of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies with desired glycosylation patterns. Biotechnol Progress. 2010;26:1505–1527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhambure R, Kumar K, Rathore AS. High-throughput process development for biopharmaceutical drug substances. Trends Biotechnol. 2011;29:127–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouiller Y, Bielser JM, Bruhlmann D, et al. Screening and assessment of performance and molecule quality attributes of industrial cell lines across different fed-batch systems. Biotechnol Progress. 2016;32:160–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouiller Y, Perilleux A, Collet N, et al. A high-throughput media design approach for high performance mammalian fed-batch cultures. MAbs. 2013;5: 501–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouiller Y, Perilleux A, Vesin MN, et al. Modulation of mAb quality attributes using microliter scale fed-batch cultures. Biotechnol Progress. 2014;30:571–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tai M, Ly A, Leung I, et al. Efficient high-throughput biological process characterization: Definitive screening design with the Ambr250 bioreactor system. Biotechnol Progress. 2015;31:1388–1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalaf R, Heymann J, LeSaout X, et al. Model-based high-throughput design of ion exchange protein chromatography. J Chromatogr A. 2016;1459:67–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhambure R, Rathore AS. Chromatography process development in the quality by design paradigm I: Establishing a high-throughput process development platform as a tool for estimating “characterization space” for an ion exchange chromatography step. Biotechnol Progress. 2013;29:403–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leardi R. Experimental design in chemistry: A tutorial. Anal Chim Acta. 2009;652:161–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommeregger W, Sissolak B, Kandra K, et al. Quality by control: Towards model predictive control of mammalian cell culture bioprocesses. Biotechnol J. 2017;12. DOI:10.1002/biot.201600546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann HF, Hentschel N. Proposal on how to conduct a biopharmaceutical process failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) as a risk assessment tool. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2011;65:506–512.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zurdo J. Surviving the valley of death. Eur Biopharm Rev. 2013;195:50–54.
   Google Scholar
• Dehmer M, Varmuza Bonchev KD, et al. Statistical modelling of molecular descriptors in QSAR/QSPR, in Quantitative and network biology v 2. 2012, Weinheim: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Dudek AZ, Arodz T, Galvez J. Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): a review. CCHTS. 2006;9:213–228.
   Google Scholar
• Du QS, Huang RB, Chou KC. Recent advances in QSAR and their applications in predicting the activities of chemical molecules, peptides and proteins for drug design. CPPS. 2008;9:248–259.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou P, Chen X, Wu YQ, et al. Gaussian process: an alternative approach for QSAM modeling of peptides. Amino Acids. 2010;38:199–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladiwala A, Rege K, Breneman CM, et al. A priori prediction of adsorption isotherm parameters and chromatographic behavior in ion-exchange systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:11710–11715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang T, Breneman CM, Cramer SM. Investigation of multi-modal high-salt binding ion-exchange chromatography using quantitative structure-property relationship modeling. J Chromatogr A. 2007;1175:96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang T, Sundling MC, Freed AS, et al. Prediction of pH-dependent chromatographic behavior in ion-exchange systems. Anal Chem. 2007;79:8927–8939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Insaidoo FK, Rauscher MA, Smithline SJ, et al. Targeted purification development enabled by computational biophysical modeling. Biotechnol Progress. 2015;31:154–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyel JF, Woo JA, Cramer SM, et al. The use of quantitative structure-activity relationship models to develop optimized processes for the removal of tobacco host cell proteins during biopharmaceutical production. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1322:18–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma VK, Patapoff TW, Kabakoff B, et al. In silico selection of therapeutic antibodies for development: viscosity, clearance, and chemical stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:18601–18606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydow JF, Lipsmeier F, Larraillet V, et al. Structure-based prediction of asparagine and aspartate degradation sites in antibody variable regions. PLoS One. 2014;9:e100736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hechinger M, Leonhard K, Marquardt W. What is wrong with quantitative structure-property relations models based on three-dimensional descriptors? J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52:1984–1993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou P, Tian FF, Wu YQ, et al. Quantitative Sequence-Activity Model (QSAM): applying qsar strategy to model and predict bioactivity and function of peptides, proteins and nucleic acids. CAD. 2008;4:311–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneath PH. Relations between chemical structure and biological activity in peptides. J Theor Biol. 1966;12:157–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidera A, Konishi Y, Oka M, et al. Statistical-analysis of the physical-properties of the 20 naturally-occurring amino-acids. J Protein Chem. 1985;4:23–55.
   Google Scholar
• Hellberg S, Sjostrom M, Wold S. The prediction of bradykinin potentiating potency of pentapeptides. An example of a peptide quantitative structure-activity relationship. Acta Chem Scand. 1986;40:135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Hellberg S, Sjostrom M, Skagerberg B, et al. Peptide quantitative structure-activity-relationships, a multivariate approach. J Med Chem. 1987;30:1126–1135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandberg M, Eriksson L, Jonsson J, et al. New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides. A multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. J Med Chem. 1998;41:2481–2491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian FF, Zhou P, Li ZL. T-scale as a novel vector of topological descriptors for amino acids and its application in QSARs of peptides. J Mol Struct. 2007;830:106–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collantes ER, Dunn WJ. Amino-acid side-chain descriptors for quantitative structure-activity relationship studies of peptide analogs. J Med Chem. 1995;38:2705–2713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Westen GJP, Swier RF, Cortes-Ciriano I, et al. Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets. J Cheminf. 2013;5:42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Westen GJP, Swier RF, Wegner JK, et al. Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 1): comparative study of 13 amino acid descriptor sets. J Cheminf. 2013;5:41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obrezanova O, Arnell A, de la Cuesta RG, et al. Aggregation risk prediction for antibodies and its application to biotherapeutic development. Mabs. 2015;7:352–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doytchinova IA, Walshe V, Borrow P, et al. Towards the chemometric dissection of peptide - HLA-A*0201 binding affinity: comparison of local and global QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2005;19:203–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasteiger E, Hoogland C, Gattiker CA, et al. Protein identification and analysis tools on the ExPASy server. In: Walker JM, editor. The proteomics protocols handbook. New York (NY): Humana Press; 2005. p. 571–607.
   Google Scholar
• Li W, Cowley A, Uludag M, et al. The EMBL-EBI bioinformatics web and programmatic tools framework. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:W580–W584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao C, Sitzmann M, Pugliese A, et al. Software and resources for computational medicinal chemistry. Future Med Chem. 2011;3:1057–1085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breneman CM, Thompson TR, Rhem M, et al. Electron-density modeling of large systems using the transferable atom equivalent method. Comput Chem. 1995;19:161.
   Google Scholar
• Tugcu N, Song MH, Breneman CM, et al. Prediction of the effect of mobile-phase salt type on protein retention and selectivity in anion exchange systems. Anal Chem. 2003;75:3563–3572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breneman CM, Sundling CM, Sukumar N, et al. New developments in PEST shape/property hybrid descriptors. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2003;17:231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson JR, Karkov HS, Woo JA, et al. QSAR models for prediction of chromatographic behavior of homologous Fab variants. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017;114:1231–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt JP, Patapoff TW, Aragon SR. Construction, MD simulation, and hydrodynamic validation of an all-atom model of a monoclonal IgG antibody. Biophys J. 2010;99:905–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kortkhonjia E, Brandman R, Zhou JZ, et al. Probing antibody internal dynamics with fluorescence anisotropy and molecular dynamics simulations. MAbs. 2013;5:306–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahlaei M. Descriptor selection methods in quantitative structure-activity relationship studies: a review study. Chem Rev. 2013;113:8093–8103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanczyk U, Jain LC. Feature selection for data and pattern recognition. 2014, New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Yousefinejad S, Hemmateenejad B. Chemometrics tools in QSAR/QSPR studies: a historical perspective. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst. 2015;149:177–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer RD. III. Partial least squares (PLS): its strengths and limitations. Perspect Drug Discov Design. 1993;1:269–278.
   Google Scholar
• Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, et al. Feature selection and classifier performance in computer-aided diagnosis: the effect of finite sample size. Med Phys. 2000;27:1509–1522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty ER, Hua J, Sima C. Performance of feature selection methods. Curr Genomics. 2009;10:365–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sima C, Dougherty ER. What should be expected from feature selection in small-sample settings. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2430–2436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue L, Godden J, Gao H, et al. Identification of a preferred set of molecular descriptors for compound classification based on principal component analysis. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1999;39:699–704.
   Google Scholar
• Pirhadi S, Shiri F, Ghasemi JB. Multivariate statistical analysis methods in QSAR. Rsc Adv. 2015;5:104635–104665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell JB. Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci. 2014;4:468–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu L, Zhang W-J. Comparison of different methods for variable selection. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2001;446:475–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Yang T, Luo Q, et al. Investigation of protein retention in hydrophobic interaction chromatographic (HIC) systems using the preferential interaction theory and quantitative structure property relationship models. Reactive Funct Polym. 2007;67:1561–1569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudnicki WR, Wrzesień M, Paja W. All relevant feature selection methods and applications. In: Stańczyk U, Jain LC, editors. Feature selection for data and pattern recognition. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 11–28.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins DM, Basak SC, Mills D. Assessing model fit by cross-validation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:579–586.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Molinaro AM, Simon R, Pfeiffer RM. Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3301–3307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tropsha A. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inf. 2010;29:476–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racz A, Bajusz D, Heberger K. Consistency of QSAR models: Correct split of training and test sets, ranking of models and performance parameters. Sar Qsar Environ Res. 2015;26:683–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramatica P. Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. Qsar Comb Sci. 2007;26:694–701.
   Google Scholar
• Golbraikh A, Shen M, Xiao ZY, et al. Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2003;17:241–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellberg S, Eriksson L, Jonsson J, et al. Minimum analogue peptide sets (MAPS) for quantitative structure-activity relationships. Int J Pept Protein Res. 1991;37:414–424.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Kennedy RD. Multivariate analysis of biological additives for growth media and feeds. BioProcess Int. 2016;14:18–29.
   Google Scholar
• Cawley GC, Talbot NL. On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. J Mach Learn Res. 2010;11:2079–2107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B. Bootstrap methods - another look at the jackknife. Ann Statist. 1979;7:1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beleites C, Neugebauer U, Bocklitz T, et al. Sample size planning for classification models. Anal Chim Acta. 2013;760:25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty ER, Sima C, Hanczar B, et al. Performance of error estimators for classification. CBIO. 2010;5:53–67.
   Google Scholar
• Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Mach Learn. 1996;24:123–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beleites C, Salzer R. Assessing and improving the stability of chemometric models in small sample size situations. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2008;390:1261–1271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Yang T, Cramer SM. Prediction of protein retention times in gradient hydrophobic interaction chromatographic systems. J Chromatogr A. 2008;1177:207–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastie T, Friedman J, Tibshirani R. The elements of statistical learning. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 2009. Chapter 7, Model assessment and selection; p. 219–260.
   Google Scholar
• Ballabio D, Consonni V. Classification tools in chemistry. Part 1: linear models. PLS-DA. Anal Methods. 2013;5:3790–3798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurman G, Riccadonna S, Furlanello C. A comparison of MCC and CEN error measures in multi-class prediction. PloS One. 2012;7:e41882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rücker C, Rücker G, Meringer M. y-Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47:2345–2357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem. 2014;57:4977–5010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang WL, Kim S, Zhang XY, et al. The role of predictive biopharmaceutical modeling and simulation in drug development and regulatory evaluation. Int J Pharm. 2011;418:151–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladiwala A, Xia F, Luo Q, et al. Investigation of protein retention and selectivity in HIC systems using quantitative structure retention relationship models. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006;93:836–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo J, Parimal S, Brown MR, et al. The effect of geometrical presentation of multimodal cation-exchange ligands on selective recognition of hydrophobic regions on protein surfaces. J Chromatogr A. 2015;1412:33–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farid SS. Process economics of industrial monoclonal antibody manufacture. J Chromatogr B Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2007;848:8–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues de Azevedo C, von Stosch M, Costa MS, et al. Modeling of the burst release from PLGA micro- and nanoparticles as function of physicochemical parameters and formulation characteristics. Int J Pharm. 2017;532:229–240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brennan FR, Morton LD, Spindeldreher S, et al. Safety and immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies. Mabs. 2010;2:233–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vazquez-Rey M, Lang DA. Aggregates in monoclonal antibody manufacturing processes. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2011;108:1494–1508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu HF, Ma J, Winter C, et al. Recovery and purification process development for monoclonal antibody production. MAbs. 2010;2:480–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzer AR, Perraud X, Halley J, et al. Protein A chromatography increases monoclonal antibody aggregation rate during subsequent low pH virus inactivation hold. J Chromatogr A. 2015;1415:83–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li W, Prabakaran P, Chen WZ, et al. Antibody aggregation: insights from sequence and structure. Antibodies. 2016;5:19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg RA, Hoefsloot HC, Westerhuis JA, et al. Centering, scaling, and transformations: improving the biological information content of metabolomics data. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar