Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36775837›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology progress

Depth filter material process interaction in the harvest of mammalian cells.

Maria Parau, James Pullen, Daniel G Bracewell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria ParauDepartment of Biochemical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6100-1299
James PullenResearch and Development, FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies (FDB), Billingham, UK.
Daniel G BracewellDepartment of Biochemical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3866-3304
University College London · GBFujifilm (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Upstream advances have led to increased mAb titers above 5 g/L in 14-day fed-batch cultures. This is accompanied by higher cell densities and process-related impurities such as DNA and Host Cell Protein (HCP), which have caused challenges for downstream operations. Depth filtration remains a popular choice for harvesting CHO cell culture, and there is interest in utilizing these to remove process-related impurities at the harvest stage. Operation of the harvest stage has also been shown to affect the performance of the Protein A chromatography step. In addition, manufacturers are looking to move away from natural materials such as cellulose and Diatomaceous Earth (DE) for better filter consistency and security of supply. Therefore, there is an increased need for further understanding and knowledge of depth filtration. This study investigates the effect of depth filter material and loading on the Protein A resin lifetime with an industrially relevant high cell density feed material (40 million cells/ml). It focuses on the retention of process-related impurities such as DNA and HCP through breakthrough studies and a novel confocal microscopy method for imaging foulant in-situ. An increase in loading of the primary-synthetic filter by a third, led to earlier DNA breakthrough in the secondary filter, with DNA concentration at a throughput of 50 L/m

Indexed as

Batch Cell Culture TechniquesFiltrationAnimalsCell CountCHO CellsCricetinaeCricetulusStaphylococcal Protein AStaphylococcal Protein Aconfocal imagingdepth filterharvestmAbsprotein A chromatography

Identifiers

PMID36775837
PMCPMC10909467
OpenAlexW4320495389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.