Multi-column capture processes show several advantages compared to batch capture. It is however not evident how many columns one should use exactly. To investigate this issue, twin-column CaptureSMB, 3- and 4-column periodic counter-current chromatography (PCC) and single column batch capture are numerically optimized and compared in terms of process performance for capturing a monoclonal antibody using protein A chromatography. Optimization is carried out with respect to productivity and capacity utilization (amount of product loaded per cycle compared to the maximum amount possible), while keeping yield and purity constant. For a wide range of process parameters, all three multi-column processes show similar maximum capacity utilization and performed significantly better than batch. When maximizing productivity, the CaptureSMB process shows optimal performance, except at high feed titers, where batch chromatography can reach higher productivity values than the multi-column processes due to the complete decoupling of the loading and elution steps, albeit at a large cost in terms of capacity utilization. In terms of trade-off, i.e. how much the capacity utilization decreases with increasing productivity, CaptureSMB is optimal for low and high feed titers, whereas the 3-column process is optimal in an intermediate region. Using these findings, the most suitable process can be chosen for different production scenarios.

Comparison of batch and continuous multi-column protein A capture processes by optimal design

MORBIDELLI, MASSIMO
2016-01-01

Abstract

Multi-column capture processes show several advantages compared to batch capture. It is however not evident how many columns one should use exactly. To investigate this issue, twin-column CaptureSMB, 3- and 4-column periodic counter-current chromatography (PCC) and single column batch capture are numerically optimized and compared in terms of process performance for capturing a monoclonal antibody using protein A chromatography. Optimization is carried out with respect to productivity and capacity utilization (amount of product loaded per cycle compared to the maximum amount possible), while keeping yield and purity constant. For a wide range of process parameters, all three multi-column processes show similar maximum capacity utilization and performed significantly better than batch. When maximizing productivity, the CaptureSMB process shows optimal performance, except at high feed titers, where batch chromatography can reach higher productivity values than the multi-column processes due to the complete decoupling of the loading and elution steps, albeit at a large cost in terms of capacity utilization. In terms of trade-off, i.e. how much the capacity utilization decreases with increasing productivity, CaptureSMB is optimal for low and high feed titers, whereas the 3-column process is optimal in an intermediate region. Using these findings, the most suitable process can be chosen for different production scenarios.
2016
Model based optimization; Monoclonal antibody; Periodic counter-current chromatography; Protein A affinity chromatography; Sequential capture; Algorithms; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Batch Cell Culture Techniques; Chromatography, Affinity; Fermentation; Models, Chemical; Staphylococcal Protein A; Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology; Molecular Medicine
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
baur biotechnol j 2016 11 920 Comparison of batch and continuous multi-column protein A capture processes by optimal design.pdf

Accesso riservato

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 709.25 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
709.25 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
11311-1013726 Morbidelli.pdf

accesso aperto

: Post-Print (DRAFT o Author’s Accepted Manuscript-AAM)
Dimensione 718.24 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
718.24 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1013726
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 92
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 83
social impact