Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38168161›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Precipitation and Extraction Methods for Protein Purification: A Meta-Analysis of Purification Performance and Cost-Effectiveness.

John S Decker, Utsuki Yano, Romel Menacho Melgar, Michael D Lynch

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

John S Decker
Utsuki Yano
Romel Menacho Melgar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For protein drug purification, packed-bed chromatography often remains both the predominant method and a bottleneck for cost and scalability. Accordingly, extensive efforts have been made to develop alternatives, such as precipitation and liquid-liquid extraction. Despite decades of development, such methods have been slow to see adoption in commercial processes. To diagnose the key barriers to implementation and guide future work, we have systematically reviewed studies of protein precipitation and liquid-liquid extraction. We classify the products, methods, and results of 168 publications representing 290 unique purification operations and analyze these operations in terms of both process economics and purification performance. Whereas it is generally assumed that precipitation and extraction methods will have lower costs than chromatography, we find that this is only the case under specific process conditions such as at a large manufacturing scale and low initial sample purity. Furthermore, we find that only a small number of the many precipitation and extraction methods reported to date have shown readiness for implementation in protein drug purification processes. Finally, we identify key factors governing both the economic and purification performance of this class of methods: first, that operating costs are almost entirely predictable by the ratio between the mass of phase-forming materials used and the mass of product protein yielded; second, that use of modern optimization techniques such as Design of Experiments is associated with significantly better purification performance and cost-effectiveness. Highlights: Alternative separation purification methods are not always cheaper than chromatographyThe use of a combination of phase separating agents remains largely underexplored/underutilizedLower initial purity and increasing production scale favor phase-separation over chromatographyThe direct material usage rate is an important predictor of alternative separation cost-effectivenessCurrent alternative separation method development has largely ignored optimization of direct material usage rate.

Identifiers

PMID38168161
PMCPMC10760113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.