Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 101, Issue 15, pp 5997–6006 | Cite as

Different fermentation processes produced variants of an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody that have divergent in vitro and in vivo characteristics

  • Chao Zhuang
  • Chen Zheng
  • Yantian Chen
  • Zheng Huang
  • Yanchao Wang
  • Qiang Fu
  • Chen Zeng
  • Tong Wu
  • Liming Yang
  • Nianmin QiEmail author
Biotechnological products and process engineering

Abstract

The anti-CD52 antibody has already been approved for the treatment of patients with resistant chronic lymphocytic leukemia, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and has demonstrable efficacy against stem cell transplantation rejection. A CHO cell line expressing a humanized anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody (mAb-TH) was cultivated in both fed-batch and perfusion modes, and then purified. The critical quality attributes of these mAb variants were characterized and the pharmacokinetics (PK) properties were investigated. Results showed that the perfusion culture achieved higher productivity, whereas the fed-batch culture produced more aggregates and acid components. Additionally, the perfusion culture produced similar fucose, more galactose and a higher proportion of sialic acid on the anti-CD52 mAb compared to the fed-batch culture. Furthermore, the perfusion process produced anti-CD52 mAb had higher complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) efficacy than that produced by the fed-batch culture, a result probably linked to its higher galactose content. However, antibody produced by fed-batch and perfusion cultures showed similar PK profiles in vivo. In conclusion, perfusion is a more efficient method than fed-batch process in the production of functional anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody. Product quality variants of anti-CD52 mAb were found in different cell culture processes, which demonstrated different physiochemical and biological activities, but comparable PK properties. Whether these observations apply to all mAbs await further investigation.

Keywords

Antibody Process Quality Heterogeneity Pharmacokinetics 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics statement

A nonclinical PK comparability study was carried out in 16 naïve cynomolgus monkeys (aged 3–5 years, weight 2–5 kg, 50% male and 50% female) provided by Hainan Jingang Laboratory Animal Co. Ltd. (Hainan, China). Cynomolgus monkeys were chosen because anti-CD52 antibody only cross-reacts with baboons and macaques, wherein only some cynomolgus monkeys have CD52 negative erythrocytes. The in vivo procedures were conducted at the National Shanghai Center for New Drug Safety Evaluation Research Center (Shanghai, China) and were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the National Shanghai Center for New Drug Safety Evaluation Research Center (Permit Number: IACUC-2015-M-012).

The housing and experimental procedures were carried out strictly according to the United States National Research Council’s Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Animals were maintained in separate cages of 1000 × 750 × 930 mm3 size during daytime and paired housing was applied overnight. The temperature was maintained at 16–24 °C, the relative humidity was 40∼70%, air changes occurred at least eight times per hour, and the illumination time was 7 am to 7 pm. The animals were fed monkey chow (Ke Ao Xie Li, Beijing, China) and fresh fruits and vegetables. The cages were composed of stainless steel with a lookout, perches, and a stainless steel mirror. To alleviate animal suffering, procedures were performed under sedation with anesthesia by intramuscular (I.M.) injection of ketamine HCl (Hengrui Medicine, Jiangsu, China), animals were trained prior to the venous sampling with positive reinforcement, and fruits were offered after sampling. No animal that participated in this study was sacrificed.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beck A, Wagner-Rousset E, Ayoub D, Van Dorsselaer A, Sanglier-Cianferani S (2013) Characterization of therapeutic antibodies and related products. Anal Chem 85(2):715–736. doi: 10.1021/ac3032355 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd PN, Lines AC, Patel AK (1995) The effect of the removal of sialic acid, galactose and total carbohydrate on the functional activity of Campath-1H. Mol Immunol 32(17–18):1311–1318. doi: 10.1016/0161-5890(95)00118-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler M (2005) Animal cell cultures: recent achievements and perspectives in the production of biopharmaceuticals. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 68(3):283–291. doi: 10.1007/s00253-005-1980-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Choo CY, Tian Y, Kim WS, Blatter E, Conary J, Brady CP (2007) High-level production of a monoclonal antibody in murine myeloma cells by perfusion culture using a gravity settler. Biotechnol Prog 23(1):225–231. doi: 10.1021/bp060231v CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cromwell MEM, Hilario E, Jacobson F (2006) Protein aggregation and bioprocessing. AAPS J 8(3):E572–E579. doi: 10.1208/aapsj080366 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hale G (2001) The CD52 antigen and development of the CAMPATH antibodies. Cytotherapy 3(3):137–143. doi: 10.1080/146532401753174098 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Han C, McIntosh TS, Geist BJ, Jiao T, Puchalski TA, Goldberg KM, Yang TY, Pendley CE, Zhou HH, Davis HM (2014) A novel approach to evaluate the pharmacokinetic biocomparability of a monoclonal antibody derived from two different cell lines using simultaneous crossover design. AAPS J 16(1):125–128. doi: 10.1208/s12248-013-9547-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris RJ (1995) Processing of C-terminal lysine and arginine residues of proteins isolated from mammalian cell culture. J Chromatogr A 705(1):129–134. doi: 10.1016/0021-9673(94)01255-D CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Holgate RGE, Weldon R, Jones TD, Baker MP (2015) Characterisation of a novel anti-CD52 antibody with improved efficacy and reduced immunogenicity. PLoS One 10(9):e01381223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hossler P, Khattak SF, Li ZJ (2009) Optimal and consistent protein glycosylation in mammalian cell culture. Glycobiology 19(9):936–949. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwp079 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu WS, Aunins JG (1997) Large-scale mammalian cell culture. Curr Opin Biotechnol 8(2):148–153. doi: 10.1016/s0958-1669(97)80093-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jefferis R (2009) Recombinant antibody therapeutics: the impact of glycosylation on mechanisms of action. Trends Pharmacol Sci 30(7):356–362. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2009.04.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jilani I, Keating M, Giles FJ, O’Brien S, Kantarjian HM, Albitar M (2004) Alemtuzumab: validation of a sensitive and simple enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Leuk Res 28(12):1255–1262. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2004.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson KA, Paisley-Flango K, Tangarone BS, Porter TJ, Rouse JC (2007) Cation exchange-HPLC and mass spectrometry reveal C-terminal amidation of an IgG1 heavy chain. Anal Biochem 360(1):75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2006.10.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaneko Y, Sato R, Aoyagi H (2010) Changes in the quality of antibodies produced by Chinese hamster ovary cells during the death phase of cell culture. J Biosci Bioeng 109(3):281–287. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2009.09.043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Komolpis K, Udomchokmongkol C, Phutong S, Palaga T (2010) Comparative production of a monoclonal antibody specific for enrofloxacin in a stirred-tank bioreactor. J Ind Eng Chem 16(4):567–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2010.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Konstantinov KB, Cooney CL (2015) White paper on continuous bioprocessing. May 20-21, 2014 Continuous Manufacturing Symposium. J Pharm Sci 104(3):813–820. doi: 10.1002/jps.24268 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kretzmer G (2002) Industrial processes with animal cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59(2–3):135–142. doi: 10.1007/s00253-002-0991-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee SY, Kwon YB, Cho JM, Park KH, Chang SJ, Kim DI (2012) Effect of process change from perfusion to fed-batch on product comparability for biosimilar monoclonal antibody. Process Biochem 47(9):1411–1418. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2012.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu HC, Gaza-Bulseco G, Faldu D, Chumsae C, Sun J (2008) Heterogeneity of monoclonal antibodies. J Pharm Sci 97(7):2426–2447. doi: 10.1002/jps.21180 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Millward TA, Heitzmann M, Bill K, Langle U, Schumacher P, Forrer K (2008) Effect of constant and variable domain glycosylation on pharmacokinetics of therapeutic antibodies in mice. Biologicals 36(1):41–47. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2007.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollock J, Ho SV, Farid SS (2013) Fed-batch and perfusion culture processes: economic, environmental, and operational feasibility under uncertainty. Biotechnol Bioeng 110(1):206–219. doi: 10.1002/Bit.24608 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Santora LC, Krull IS, Grant K (1999) Characterization of recombinant human monoclonal tissue necrosis factor-alpha antibody using cation-exchange HPLC and capillary isoelectric focusing. Anal Biochem 275(1):98–108. doi: 10.1006/abio.1999.4275 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Scallon BJ, Tam SH, McCarthy SG, Cai AN, Raju TS (2007) Higher levels of sialylated Fc glycans in immunoglobulin G molecules can adversely impact functionality. Mol Immunol 44(7):1524–1534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Siganporia CC, Ghosh S, Daszkowski T, Papageorgiou LG, Farid SS (2014) Capacity planning for batch and perfusion bioprocesses across multiple biopharmaceutical facilities. Biotechnol Prog 30(3):594–606. doi: 10.1002/btpr.1860 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Tang YJ, Ohashi R, Hamel JFP (2007) Perfusion culture of hybridoma cells for hyperproduction of IgG(2a) monoclonal antibody in a wave bioreactor-perfusion culture system. Biotechnol Prog 23(1):255–264. doi: 10.1021/bp060299a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Vazquez-Rey M, Lang DA (2011) Aggregates in monoclonal antibody manufacturing processes. Biotechnol Bioeng 108(7):1494–1508. doi: 10.1002/bit.23155 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright A, Morrison SL (1997) Effect of glycosylation on antibody function: implications for genetic engineering. Trends Biotechnol 15(1):26–32. doi: 10.1016/s0167-7799(96)10062-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang JD, Lu C, Stasny B, Henley J, Guinto W, Gonzalez C, Gleason J, Fung M, Collopy B, Benjamino M, Gangi J, Hanson M, Ille E (2007) Fed-batch bioreactor process scale-up from 3-L to 2,500-L scale for monoclonal antibody production from cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 98(1):141–154. doi: 10.1002/bit.21413 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang JM, Ai JW, Bao YM, Yuan ZJ, Qin YM, Xie YW, Tao DS, Fu DT, Peng YC (2014) Investigation of the correlation between charge and glycosylation of IgG1 variants by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Biochem 448:82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2013.11.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Zhuang
    • 1
  • Chen Zheng
    • 1
  • Yantian Chen
    • 1
  • Zheng Huang
    • 2
  • Yanchao Wang
    • 1
  • Qiang Fu
    • 2
  • Chen Zeng
    • 2
  • Tong Wu
    • 1
  • Liming Yang
    • 2
  • Nianmin Qi
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of PharmacyShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Shanghai Taiyin Biotechnology Co., Ltd.ShanghaiChina
  3. 3.School of Life SciencesZhejiang Sci-Tech UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations