ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
A quality evaluation strategy for residual host cell proteins based on orthogonal analysis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate quantification of host cell proteins (HCPs) is essential for the safety and quality control of biopharmaceuticals. Although enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) remains the current industry gold standard, heterogeneity among the polyclonal antibody repertoires of different commercial kits often results in substantial method-dependent bias. This study aimed to establish a novel strategy for the quality evaluation of HCP detection kits for biologics. Two Chinese hamster ovary cell-derived recombinant protein drug substances with different HCP burdens were utilized as model samples to functionally compare nine mainstream commercial kits. A quantitative metric, adjacent dilution-gradient back-calculation recovery, was introduced to comprehensively assess dilution linearity, sensitivity, and resistance to matrix interference. To eliminate evaluation bias, an unsupervised machine learning workflow utilizing hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) based on a 10-dimensional functional feature matrix was implemented for objective kit stratification. Functional assessment showed clear stratification among the nine kits. Kit A displayed the most robust analytical performance, with adjacent dilution-gradient back-calculation recovery strictly maintained within 80%-120% over dilution windows ranging from 16-fold to 128-fold, thereby overcoming the hook effect and false-negative risks, as mathematically validated by its unique branching under the HCA model. IMBS-MS/MS analysis demonstrated that although the mainstream kits evaluated (A and I) both achieved overall antibody coverage above 80%, only Kit A showed notable concordance between high coverage and superior functional performance. High antibody coverage is a necessary but insufficient condition for dependable ELISA performance. Pursuit of overall coverage alone cannot comprehensively reflect the quantitative reliability of a kit. Therefore, we recommend an orthogonal evaluation framework that combines functional verification, with priority given to robust dilution linearity, coupled with HCP coverage analysis during bioprocess development and quality control, to ensure scientifically sound and compliant impurity monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.