Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39912529›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology and bioengineering2025

Systematic Development of a Detergent Toolbox as an Alternative to Triton X-100.

Varsha Yadav, Mary Lunson, Hannah Shore, Jean Aucamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Varsha YadavResearch and Development, Lonza Biologics, Slough, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-8980-0197
Mary LunsonResearch and Development, Lonza Biologics, Slough, UK.
Hannah ShoreViral Clearance, Lonza Biologics, Slough, UK.
Jean AucampResearch and Development, Lonza Biologics, Slough, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detergents are routinely included in protein purification processes to inactivate enveloped viruses that may arise from adventitious or endogenous contamination. The detergent Triton X-100 (TX-100) has been widely used as part of the production process for therapeutic proteins. However, recent ecological studies indicate that TX-100 and its metabolites detrimentally impact aquatic organisms, thus alternative detergents for viral inactivation are required. The overall aim of this study was to identify one or more detergents that are a suitable replacement for TX-100 in the viral inactivation step. In stage one, 16 potential alternatives were identified and screened against TX-100 using multiple criteria such as solubility, feasibility of virus inactivation, critical micelle concentration, and storage conditions. The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methodology was used to identify four candidates for the second stage assessment. In stage two, a detailed evaluation was undertaken and two candidates C16-AO, and C11/15-sEO9, were found to be practical alternatives to TX-100 for use in protein therapeutic production processes for inactivating enveloped viruses. In addition, C13-EO8 demonstrated good viral inactivation capability and warrants further investigation in detergent clearance and impact on product quality.

Indexed as

DetergentsOctoxynolVirus InactivationAnimalsDetergentsOctoxynolcritical micelle concentrationdetergent toolboxenveloped virus inactivationprotein purificationTriton X‐100 replacement

Identifiers

PMID39912529
PMCPMC11975162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.