効率的なタンパク質のキャプチャークロマトグラフィープロセス

全文

(1)2017. 1.

(2) 1 10. Protein A PAC IEC PAC. mAb DBC. PAC. aggregates 2 PAC 5. PAC. mAb 2. pH. aggregates mAb. aggregates 1. mAb. aggregates. mAb. mAb PAC 2 2. aggregates A. pH. B. A. 1.0M. A B.

(3) A B. 1. PAC. aggregates. PAC PAC IEC. 3 IEC. DBC udp2/ZDm. u. dp. Z. Dm. 6 Lysozyme. mAb-A. 13 18 23 28 C. 8 DBC/SBC. udp2/ZDm SBC DBC/SBC. udp2/ZDm.

(4) Abstract Biologics (recombinant protein drugs) such as cytokines are used in low dose. Consequently, as the production size is not big, the efficiency of the manufacturing process was not considered important. However, for some high-dose recombinant monoclonal antibody (mAb) products, an annual production of 1 ton or more is required. In order to improve the production process of mAb various technologies have been developed. The cell culture process called the upstream process has been dramatically improved, which results in ten-fold increases in the mAb concentration over the last 10 years. Although there have not been epoch-making innovations in the purification process called the downstream process (DSP), so-called platform DSPs have been established. This is because a product-specific purification process is not needed as the properties of mAbs are basically similar. Increasing cost pressure requires much efficient DSPs as they are expensive and increase the total production cost. Platform DSPs usually consist of three chromatography steps, a capture step by protein A chromatography (PAC) followed by two polishing steps (ion-exchange chromatography, IEC). Such chromatography packing materials (media, gels or resins) have been improved remarkably recently. It is now possible to construct an efficient DSP by choosing suitable chromatography media and proper operating conditions based on mechanistic models. Protein A chromatography (PAC) is commonly used as a capture step in mAb separation processes. Usually dynamic binding capacity is used for choosing the right PAC. However, if aggregates can be efficiently removed during elution, it can make the following polishing steps easier. In chapter 2, a method for choosing the right PAC media in terms of mAb aggregate removal is proposed. Linear pH gradient elution experiments of two different mAbs on various PAC columns were carried out, where the elution behavior of aggregates as well as the monomer was measured. Aggregates of one mAb were more strongly retained compared with the mAb monomer. Another mAb showed different elution behavior, where the aggregates were eluted as both the weakly and strongly retained peaks. In order to remove the two types of aggregates by stepwise elution two protocols were tested. The first protocol A consisted of the sample loading, the wash with the equilibration buffer and the low pH elution. The wash stage of the second protocol B included the wash with 1.0 M arginine. No detectable peaks were observed during the wash stage of protocol A whereas significant peaks were monitored during the arginine wash of protocol B. One of the PAC columns showed a smaller peak during the arginine wash. In addition, both the aggregate removal and the monomer yield were higher with protocol B compared with the other PAC columns. This method was found to be useful for choosing the right PAC column. The temperature is not considered a critical parameter in DSPs. However, the.

(5) manufacturing process is most often carried out at room temperature whereas the early-stage process development may be performed at low temperatures in the laboratory. It is also important to know the temperature dependence of chromatography performance for the process validations. In chapter 3, the dynamic binding capacity (DBC) of model proteins on ion-exchange chromatography (IEC) was analyzed based on a simplified pore diffusion model in order to develop a simple method for designing a capture chromatography process. A dimensionless parameter, udp2/ (ZDm) was derived from the pore diffusion model, where u0 is the superficial velocity, dp is the particle diameter, Z is the column bed height, and Dm is the molecular diffusion coefficient. Breakthrough curves of model proteins (Lysozyme and mAb) were measured for cation exchange chromatography columns at various temperatures (8, 13, 18, 23 and 28 C). The DBC/SBC values (column efficiency) was calculated from the experimental data were well correlated to udp2/ (ZDm) (SBC = static binding capacity). The DBC/SBC u0dp2/ (ZDm) curve was found to be useful for designing efficient capture processes of proteins.

(6) 1. 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4. IEC.

(7) Fig.1. Fig.1 52,000 10. 2013 6. 2015. pH. Table 1 Protein A. Protein A. PAC PAC.

(8) Fig.2 Table 1. Fig.2.

(9) PAC PAC Fig.3. DBC. PAC. [1] Protein A 60. A B C. 2. IgG. E D. X,M PAC. 2. 5. Fig.3. IgG Protein A. SuRe GE Healthcare. MabSelect. B. KanCapA KANEKA. Toyopearl AF650 Tosoh Protein A. Protein A DBC (g/L). 1000. 100. 10. 1 1975. Table. 1985. Fig. 3. 1995 Year. PAC. 2005. DBC. 2015.

(10) Fig.4 Protein A PAC [2] DBC PAC. IEC. DBC DOE. 2 DBC. 3. PAC.

(11)

(12) 2. Aggregate. Protein A. 2.1 mAb. Protein A 3-5. mAb. mAb. DSP PAC. PAC. 3. 2. [3-5]. PAC. mAb. PAC PAC. PAC. 1. Fig.6 DBC. DBC [6-11] mAb. PAC. pH 4.0 HCPs. DBC mAb mAb. DNA [7,12]. aggregates. 14]. [13,. aggregates. aggregates. PAC. DSP Protein A. mAb. Fc. Fab. [15, 16]. Protein A [16-18]. PAC. Fab [16-18]. [7]. Protein A. PAC [19-21] PAC.

(13) PAC. DBC. aggregates. PAC. DBC. aggregates. PAC. aggregates. pH. 5. PAC. pH. aggregates SEC aggregates. 2. 2.2 2.2.1. AC ( ). AC pH pH Fig.6. AC. Fig.5. 1.

(14) Fig.5. t1. (AC). t2. t3. t4. t5. (t6. (CIP)) tc=t1+t2+t3+t4+t5(+t6) (AC). Fig.6. 2.2.2 (. ). (. ). (C0) (Fig.7). Fig.7 ( (C) (Fig.8). (C0). Cs).

(15) AC 10. 70. 80 X(=C/C0)=1. (LC) X(=C/C0)=0.1 10. 10% VB. 0.6. DBC VC. DBC. X(=C/C0)=0.55. SBC. Cs. N. C0. C0. Fig.7. C0. C0. C0.

(16) Fig.8. 2.3 2.3.1 3. mAb-A. mAb-A. mAb-B. mAb-C. NS0. 37. 0.64 g/L. PAC. DBC. mAb-B 37. 2. mAb-C. 14. CHO. pH. 2.3.2 PAC DBC. IEC. 0.89 g/L 1.36 g/L. 2. 5. 12. PAC. 1 mL. 5 mL. Table 2. Table 2. pH.

(17) PAC. Supplier. dp. Alkaline. Base. [ m]. resistance. matrix. MerckMillipore. 60. No. Glass. 1. 5. MabSelect. GE-HealthCare. 85. No. Agarose. 1. 4.7. MabSelect. GE-HealthCare. 85. Yes. Agarose. 1. 4.7. Tosoh. 40. Yes. Poly-. 1. 5. 1. 5. ProSep. Vt [mL] pH. UltraPlus. SuRe Toyoperal AF650. methacrylate. KANEKA. KanCapA. 75. Yes. Cellulose. dp = nominal particle diameter, Vt = packed bed volume 2.3.3 GE ÄKTA explorer 100. ÄKTA FPLC. Fig.9. sample loop column. 6-way injection valve mixer Pump A Buffer A. Fractioncollector or waste. sample UV-Vis conductivity pH. B Buffer B Fig.9. detector detector. PC Control Data-logging. monitor.

(18) 2.3.4 DBC (0.02M. /0.14M. 7.5). mAb-A. 10%. , pH. 280 nm. DBC (0.05M. /0.06M. ,. pH 3.5) 2.3.5. pH (0.02M 1 mL. / 0.02M. , pH 6.0). 15 mg. 5 C.V 0.02M. , pH 3.5 3. 20 C.V. 0.33 mL/min (. ). 1 mL. 280 nm. SEC 2.3.6 ProSep UltraPlus 4. 2.5. 2.2.3. 4. 3. 2 A. (0.02M. /0.14M 30 mg/mL-bed. NaCl, pH 7.5) 7.5 C.V ( 0.05M. / 0.06M NaCl, pH 3.5 ) 280 nm. 1.0. B. 4 C.V 5 C.V. 1.0M. , pH 7.5 4 C.V A. 280 nm. 1.0. ProSep UltraPlus, 1.5M. 2.0M. MabSelect. 1.0M.

(19) 2.3.7 mAbs. Protein G. (POROS G20, 4.6. mm I.D × 50 mm Applied Biosystems). 5 mL/min. 0.05M. / 0.15M. pH. 0.15M. 7.5. pH 2. 280 nm 2.3.8 SEC. TSKgel Super SW 3000 (7.8 mm. id×300 mm, Tosoh Bioscience, Japan) / 0.15M 280 nm. 0.05M. , pH 7.5 HPLC. 0.5 mL/min. Agilent 1100 1200. Agilent USA. 2.3.9 SDS PAGE SDS PAGE. 4-12% Bis-Tris NuPAGE pre-cast polyacrylamide gel (Life. Technologies, USA) MOPS running buffer pH 7.0. 1 mg/mL 65 L. lithium dodecylsulfate. LDS 70°C. reducing agent. sample buffer. 4. PIERCE, USA. NuPAGE. NuPAGE sample SDS PAGE. Q. SeeBlue Plus2 Pre-Stained Standard Reagent. 10 L. 10. NuPAGE sample reducing agent 10 L. 25 L. 150 V. 65. Life Technologies GelCode Blue Stain.

(20) 2.4 2.4.1 mAb-A DBC. DBC. PAC. PAC 4. mAb-A. 35. 40 mg/mL. DBC. 10%. DBC ProSep UltraPlus. 3. DBC. Table. [21]. 4 Table 3. PAC. DBC. Name. DBC RT [mg/mL-bed] [min] ProSep UltraPlus 55 2.5 MabSelect 44 4 MabSelect SuRe 46 4 Toyoperal AF-650 33 4 KanCapA 45 4 DBC = dynamic binding capacity at 10% breakthrough 2.4.2. RT = residence time. pH mAb-B mAb-C Figs.11-1. 11.5. pH. Figs.12-1. 12-5. mAb-B aggregates. aggregates. PAC. pH [22-23]. Fig.10. aggregates (Figs.12-1. 12.5). mAb-C. mAb-B MabSelect SuRe mAb-C. 2 2. aggregates PAC.

(21) Fig. 10. Protein A. (PAC). The sample solution containing mAb (target material), contaminants such as host cell proteins (HCPs) and DNAs, and aggregates is fed to the column before the breakthrough of mAb occurs. This volume, V1, is often used for calculating the dynamic binding capacity (DBC) as DBC = CFV1/Vt where CF = sample mAb concentration and Vt = column bed volume. After the sample loading period, the column is washed to remove HCPs and DNAs remained. The low-pH solution is applied to the column to elute (desorb) the product (mAb). Aggregates is expected to be bound the column, which is desorbed during the regeneration period..

(22) <. Fig. 11-1. mAb-B. ProSep UltraPlus. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC.. < <. Fig. 11-2. mAb-B. MabSelect. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC..

(23) Fig. 11-3. mAb-B. MabSelect SuRe. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC.. <. Fig. 11-4. mAb-B. Toyopearl AF650. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC..

(24) Fig. 11-5. mAb-B. KanCapA. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC.. Fig. 12-1 .. mAb-C. ProSep UltraPlus. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC..

(25) <. Fig. 12-2. mAb-C. MabSelect. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC.. Fig. 12-3. mAb-C. MabSelect SuRe. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC..

(26) Fig. 12-4. mAb-C. Toyopearl AF650. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC.. Fig. 12-5. mAb-C. KanCapA. pH. Fraction volume was 1 mL. Aggregates content is the ratio of aggregates to the total mAb in the fraction analyzed by SEC.. 2.4.3. mAb-C. Aggregates aggregates Fig.13.

(27) [11, 20]. [18-20]. aggregates. 2.3.6. B. A. B Figs.14-1. 14-5 MabSelect SuRe Toyopearl. AF650. aggregates Table 4. Fig.16-1, 16-2. Native Protein A. ProSep UltraPlus MabSelect Table 4. Fig.15-1, 15-2. ProSep UltraPlus. MabSelect Table. 5. KanCapA. A B. Table 4 Fig.17-1, 17-2 aggregates KanCapA-PAC. A. KanCapA-PAC MabSelect SuRe-PAC. Fig.18 (A). Fig. 18 (B) MabSelect SuRe-PAC ProSep UltraPlus. Aggregates. MabSelect SuRe SDS-PAGE. SDS-PAGE. KanCapA-PAC SDS-PAGE. Fig.19 A. 2. aggregates Fig.19 B. KanCapA Heavy Chain. SDS-PAGE. 2. Heavy Chain.

(28) N Fc mAb. Heavy Chain Aggregates. KanCapA. MabSelect SuRe aggregates aggregates. Fig.19A. mAb. 6. KanCapA. Protein A. aggregates. 19 B. PAC. aggregates. PAC. aggregates. Fig.13. Protein A. Protein A chromatography is commonly used as an efficient capture step in mAb separation. By choosing the right protein A chromatography media, different types of aggregates (type 1: normal mAb-stronger binding and type 2: hybrid and truncated mAb weaker binding) can be efficiently removed during the wash and the elution periods. This study proposes a method to select the best media, which can make the following polishing chromatography steps easier..

(29) Fig. 14-1 mAb-C. ProSep UltraPlus PAC. Fig. 14-2. MabSelect PAC. 2. 2. mAb-C.

(30) Fig. 14-3 mAb-C. Toyopearl AF650 PAC. 2. Fig. 14-4 mAb-C. MabSelect SuRe PAC. 2.

(31) Fig. 14-5 KanCapA PAC. 2. mAb-C. Table 4. PAC rein. mAb-C. Alkaline resistance. Monomer content1 [%] Protocol A Protocol B Non Arginine -arginine wash wash. Monomer Yield2 [%] Protocol A Protocol B Non Arginine -arginine wash wash. ProSep UltraPlus. No. 72. 75. 61. 60. MabSelect. No. 79. 87. 61. 57. MabSelect SuRe. Yes. 74. 95. 60. 61. Toyoperal AF-650. Yes. 75. 95. 57. 56. KanCapA. Yes. 94. 95. 60. 59. 1. Monomer content was calculated as the ratio of the recovered monomer to the total mAb recovered (monomer +aggregates) by SEC. 2 Monomer yield was calculated as the ratio of the recovered monomer to the amount of mAb in the load sample..

(32) Monomer. Aggregates. Fig.15-1 SEC. A. ProSep UltraPlus-PAC. Monomer. Aggregates. Fig.15-2 SEC. B. ProSep UltraPlus-PAC.

(33) Monomer. Aggregates. Fig.16-1. A. MabSelect SuRe-PAC. SEC. Monomer. Aggregates. Fig.16-2 SEC. B. MabSelect SuRe-PAC.

(34) Monomer. Aggregates. Fig.17-1 SEC. A. KanCapA-PAC. Monomer. Aggregates. Fig.17-2 SEC. B. KanCapA-PAC.

(35) Table 5. Native Protein A. PAC resin. Monomer content1 [%] 1.0M 1.5M 2.0M Arginine Arginine Arginine wash wash wash. Monomer Yield2 [%] 1.0M 1.5M 2.0M Arginine Arginine Arginine wash wash wash. ProSep UltraPlus. 75. 78. 79. 60. 60. 59. MabSelect. 87. 86. 86. 57. 59. 58. 1. Monomer content was calculated as the ratio of the recovered monomer to the total mAb recovered (monomer +aggregates) by SEC. 2 Monomer yield was calculated as the ratio of the recovered monomer to the amount of mAb in the load sample.. (A). Fig.18. MabSelect Sure. (B). KanCapA. PAC. Protocol A was used for both experiments. The sample for MabSelect Sure PAC was the pooled fraction from the start to the elution volume of 75 mL for KanCapA PAC stepwise elution..

(36) Fig. 19. KanCapA, MabSelect SuRe, and ProSep UltraPlus SDS PAGE.

(37) Lane 1: Culture supernatant, Lane 2: Flow-through, Lane 3: Eluate (without arginine wash), Lane 4: Arginine wash peak, Lane 5: Eluate (with arginine wash), Lane 6: Flow-through, Lane 7: Eluate (withrout arginine wash), Lane 8: Arginine wash peak, Lane 9: Eluate (with arginine wash), Lane 10: Flow-through,. Lane 11: Eluate (without. arginine wash), Lane 12: CIP peak (After elution, Non arginine wash), Lane 13: Arginine wash peak, Lane 14: Eluate (with arginine wash). The sample was the clarified cell culture supernatant of mAb-C.. 2.5 aggregates. PAC. Protein A. [21-24]. mAb. PAC aggregates aggregates. PAC. aggregates aggregates. Fig.20 (C) (c). 2. aggregates. Protein A. Fc. Fc [26] PAC mAb [11, 18-21] PAC. aggregates [4, 12] Teeter Fig.20. aggregates (B) (b). [22] protein A [15-17] KanCapA. Fab Toypearl AF650. MabSelectSuRe Fab PAC. DBC. C. B aggregates aggregates.

(38) PAC DBC. PAC. aggregates Fab Fc. aggregates. pH mAb pH pH < 3. pH. mAb. pH. aggregates protein A. [27-29]. pH. Fab. Native Protein A [30, 31]. mAb pH. mAb. aggregates. DBC. aggregates pH. mAb. PAC mAb PAC pH. aggregates aggregates. aggregates. PAC aggregates. mAb.

(39) Fig. 20. Protein A- mAb. (A) native-Protein A has weak interaction with Fab region as well as strong binding with Fc region. (a) Alkaline stable recombinant Protein A does not have weak interaction with Fab. (B) (b) Type 1 aggregates are bound to Protein A more strongly than mAb monomer does as they have more binding Fc sites. (C) Type 2 aggregates are bound to native-protein A with Fab and Fc regions. (c) As Fc regions of Type 2 aggregates are buried or partially lost, the interaction with Protein A becomes weaker than the interaction between mAb monomer and Protein A..

(40) 3 3.1 [32, 33]. Fig.21. DBC [34-38] DBC IEC. DBC DBC. t1. t1. Sample loading. t2. t3. t2. t3. t4. t4. t5. t5. wash Desorption regeneration reequilibriation (Elution). total cycle time. t C = t 1+ t 2+ t 3 + t 4 +t 5. Fig. 21 Productivity P is determined by P=C0(t1/tC)(F/Vt) where C0 is the sample feed.

(41) concentration, F is the volumetric flow rate, and Vt is the column bed volume[3] 3.2. IEC. Fig.22.

(42) Fig.22. 3.3. 3.3.1 ca.14,300, mAb-A. 2 Table 6. Wako.

(43) Table 6. Resin SP Sepharose Fast Flow SPFF. 1). SP Sepharose XL SPXL. 1). Z. dc. dp. Vt. (cm). (cm). ( m). (mL). 2.5. 0.7. 90. 0.96. 2.5. 0.7. 90. 0.96. 2.5. 0.7. 34. 0.96. 1.92. 0.82. 40-90. 1.01. 5.0. 0.46. 20. 0.83. 0.9. 1.2. -. 1.02. SP Sepharose High Performance SPHP. 1). Fractogel SE Hicap FGSE. 2). POROS HS20 (PHS20)3) CIM SO32) 1) Agarose, Z. 2)Methacrylate, 3)Polystyrenedivinylbenzene dc dp Vt. 3.3.2 GE ÄKTA explorer 100. ÄKTA FPLC. 3.3.3 3.5.1 25mM. /20mM. pH 5.0 A280. /20mM 1. 1 1.2 (pH 5.0). 8. 13 18 23 28. 25mM.

(44) C A280. Fig.5. DBC. u. Z/u0. u0 u0 = Fv/Ac Fv. Ac. Ac=. (2) dc2/4. DBC. [32-34] DBC = C0VB/Vt. C0. VB. (3). C=CB,. Vt CB/C0=0.1 10%. Fig.23. SBC = C0VC/Vt VB. CC/C0=0.55 - 0.60. SBC. (4).

(45) LES equilibrium zone. C0. C. LUB mass transfer zone. Bed profile stoichiometric front 0. z. 0 column inlet C0 CE. Z. column outlet. Breakthrough curve. C CB 0. VB. 0. VC. VE. volume. Fig.23 LUB = length of unused bed, LES = length of equilibrium section u. Z/u. [33-38].. DBC. u. DBC Z. [37]. [33, 39] dp2/[Ds(Z/u)] dp. Ds. (5) Ds Ds. Dm.

(46) dp2/[Dm(Z/u)]. (6) =udp/Dm.. r HETP. (h=HETP/dp) [40] HETP. tR. HETP = Z ( /tR)2 DBC/SBC. (7). dp2/[Dm(Z/u)]. 3.4 3.4.1 2. DBC. Fig.24. SPFF, SPHP, SPXL, FGSE,. PHS20 .. DBC. Lysozyme mAb-A. Lysozyme Lysozyme. PHS20. mAb-A. Perfusion chromatography. Through pore PHS20 DBC SBC SPXL. FGSE. IgG CIM SO3. DBC. CIM SO3.

(47) POROS HS20. Fig. 24 2 SPFF= SP Sepharose FF, SPHP= SP Sepharose HP, SPXL= SP Sepharose XL, FGSE= Fractogel SE Hicap, PHS20= POROS HS20, CIMSO3=CIM SO3 monolithic disk. 3.4.2 DBC/SBC Fig.24. DBC/SBC. dp2/[Dm(Z/u)] dp2/[Dm(Z/u)]. Fig.25 DBC/SBC Fig.25. SPFF SPHP SPXL udp2/ZDm. PHS20. DBC/SBC 3.2.

(48) DBC DBC FGSE Fig.25. Stokes Einstein. Dm /T=constant. [41]. Dm. T. DBC/SBC. dp2/[Ds (Z/u)] Ds. SBC 96 [42]. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.01 Fig.25. mAb-A. hIgG-SPFF hIgG-SPHP hIgG-SPXL hIgG-PHS20 Lys-SPFF Lys-SPHP Lys-SPXL Lys-PHS20. 0.1 Lysozyme. 1 DBC/SBC. 10 udp2/ZDm. The molecular diffusion coefficient Dm was calculated by the equation proposed by Young et al.[10]..

(49) 3.5 mAb-A. IEC. Lysozyme IEC. DBC/SBC( Z. ) Dm.. Ds. u. pH. u. dp udp2/ZDm.

(50) 4 pH. PAC. aggregates. mAb. PAC IEC. 2. mAb. PAC. mAb. DBC. aggregates Fc. aggregates pH PAC. 3. IEC. DBC. DBC DBC/SBC. dp. Z. u. Dm.. udp2/ZDm. DBC PAC. IEC.

(51) [1] Glen, R. Bolton, Krunal, K. Meha,: The role of more than 40 years of improvement in Protein A chromatography in the growth of the therapeutic antibody industry Biotechnol. Progr. 2016, 32, 1193-1201. [2] Oliver, K., Luis, D., Xiaochun, H., and Michael, S.: Continuous bind-and-elute protein A capture chromatography: Optimization under process scale column constraints and comparison to batch operation Biotechnol. Progr. 2016, 32, 938-948. [3] Fahrner, R. L., Knudsen, H. L., Basey, C. D., Galan, W., et al.: Industrial purification of pharmaceutical antibodies: development, operation, and validation of chromatography processes. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 2001, 18, 301-327. [4] Shukla, A. A., and Thömmes, J.: Recent advances in large-scale production of monoclonal antibodies and related proteins. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 253-261. [5] Aldington, S., and Bonnerjea, J.: Scale-up of monoclonal antibody purification processes. J. Chromatogr. B 2007, 848, 64-78. [6. -. -A. chromatography media. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 989, 139-153. [7] Hahn, R., Schlegel, R., and Jungbauer, A.: Comparison of protein A affinity sorbents. J. Chromatogr. B 2003, 790, 35-51. [8] Hahn, R., Bauerhansl, P., Shimahara, K., Wizniewski, et al.: Comparison of protein A affinity sorbents: II. Mass transfer properties. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1093, 98-110. [9] Perez-Almodovar, E. X., Carta, G.: IgG adsorption on a new protein A adsorbent based on macroporous hydrophilic polymers. I. Adsorption equilibrium and kinetics. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 8339-8347. [10] Perez-Almodovar, E. X., Carta, G.: IgG adsorption on a new protein A adsorbent based on macroporous hydrophilic polymers: II. Pressure flow curves and optimization for capture. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 8348-8354. [11] Shukla, A. A., Hinckley, P.: Host cell protein clearance during protein A chromatography: development of an improved column wash step. Biotechnol. Progr. 2008, 24, 1115-1121. [12] Cromwell, M. E., Hilario, E., bioprocessing. AAPS J. 2006, 8, E572-E579.. Jacobson, F.: Protein aggregation and.

(52) [13] Vázquez. Rey, M., Lang, D. A.: Aggregates in monoclonal antibody. manufacturing processes. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108, 1494-1508. [14] Ishihara, T., Kadoya, T., Yoshida, H., Tamada, T. et al.: Rational methods for predicting human monoclonal antibodies retention in protein A affinity chromatography and cation exchange chromatography: Structure-based chromatography design for monoclonal antibodies. J. Chromatogr. A 1093, 2005, 126-138. [15] Ghose, S., Hubbard, B., Cramer, S. M.: Binding capacity differences for antibodies and Fc. fusion proteins on protein A chromatographic materials. Biotechnol. Bioeng.. 2007, 96, 768-779. [16] Hober, S., Nord, K., Linhult, M.: Protein A chromatography for antibody purification. J. Chromatogr. B 2007, 848, 40-47. [17] Yoshida, S., Murata, D. , Taira, S., Iguchi, K., et al. Rational design and engineering of protein A to obtain the controlled elution profile in monoclonal antibody purification. Chem-Bio Informatics Journal, 12, 1-13(2012). [18] Arakawa, T., Philo, J. S., Tsumoto, K., Yumioka, R., et al.: Elution of antibodies from a Protein-A column by aqueous arginine solutions. Protein Expr. Purif. 2004, 36, 244-248. [19] Ejima, D., Yumioka, R., Tsumoto, K., and Arakawa, T.: Effective elution of antibodies by arginine and arginine derivatives in affinity column chromatography. Anal. Biochem. 2005, 345, 250-257. [20] Yumioka, R., Tsumoto, K., Arakawa, T., Ejima, D.: Screening of effective column rinse solvent for Protein-A chromatography. Protein Expr. Purif. 2010, 70, 218-223. [21] Natarajan, V., and Zydney, A. L.: Protein A chromatography at high titers. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 2445-2451. [21] Teeters, M., Benner, T., Bezila, D., Shen, H., et al.: Predictive chromatographic simulations for the optimization of recovery and aggregate clearance during the capture of monoclonal antibodies. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 6134-6140. [23] Ishihara, T., Nakajima, N., Kadoya, T.: Evaluation of new affinity chromatography resins for polyclonal, oligoclonal and monoclonal antibody pharmaceuticals. J. Chromatogr. B 2010, 878, 2141-2144..

(53) [24] Pan, H., Chen, K., Pulisic, M., Apostol, I., Huang, G.: Quantitation of soluble aggregates in recombinant monoclonal antibody cell culture by pH-gradient protein A chromatography. Anal. Biochem., 2009, 388, 273-278. [25]Gagnon,. P.. :Purification. tools. for. monoclonal. antibodies.,. Validated. Biosystems,1996, pp.164-165. [26] Wu, H., Kroe-Barrett, R., Singh, S., Robinson, A. S. et al. : Competing aggregation pathways for monoclonal antibodies. FEBS Lett. 2014, 588, 936-941. [27] Shukla, A. A., Hinckley, P. J., Gupta, P., Yigzaw, et al.: Strategies to address aggregation during protein A chromatography. BioProcess Int. 2005, 3, 36-45. [28] Shukla, A. A., Gupta, P., and Han, X.: Protein aggregation kinetics during Protein A chromatography: case study for an Fc fusion protein. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 117, 22-28. [29] Joshi, V., Shivach, T., Kumar, V., Yadav, N. et al.: Avoiding antibody aggregation during processing: establishing hold times. Biotech. J.,. 2014,. 9, 1195-1205.. [30] Ghose, S., Allen, M., Hubbard, B., Brooks, C. et al.: Antibody variable region interactions with Protein A: Implications for the development of generic purification processes. Biotech. Bioeng., 2005, 92, 665-673. [31] Minakuchi, K., Murata, D., Okubo, Y., Nakano, Y., et al..: Remarkable alkaline stability of an engineered protein A as immunoglobulin affinity ligand: C domain having only one amino acid substitution. Protein Sci. 2013, 22, 1230-1238. [32] Ladisch, M. R. ; Bioseparations Engineering : Principles, Practice, and Economics, , 2001 [33] Carta, G. and Jungbauer, A. ; Protein Chromatography: Process Development and Scale-Up, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010 [34] Yamamoto, S. and Sano, Y. : Short-cut method for predicting the productivity in affinity chromatography. J. Chromatogr.B, 1993, 597, 173-179. [35] Hahn, R., Bauerhansl, P., Shimahara, K., Wizniewski, C., Tscheliessnig, A., and Jungbauer, A. : Comparison of protein A affinity sorbents: II. Mass transfer properties. Journal of Chromatography A. , 2005, 1093 (1), 98-110. [36] Perez-Almodovar, E. X., Carta, G. : IgG adsorption on a new protein A adsorbent based on macroporous hydrophilic polymers. I. Adsorption equilibrium and kinetics..

(54) J.Chromatogr. A. , 2009, 1216, 8339-8347 . [37] Iyer, H., Henderson, F., Cunningham, E., Bork, C. and Conley, L. : Considerations during development of a protein A-based antibody purification process. BioPharm. , 2002, 15 (1), pp. 14-20+53. [38] Natarajan, V, Zydney, A. L.; Protein A chromatography at high titers. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 2013, 110, 2445-2451. [39] LeVan, M. D., Carta, G., and Carmen, M. : Section 16. McGraw Hill, New York. , 1999 [40] Yamamoto, S, Nakanishi, K, and Matsuno, R. : Ion-exchange chromatography of proteins. Dekker, New York, 1988. [41] Young, M. E., Carroad, P. A., and Bell, R. L. : Estimation of diffusion coefficients of proteins. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 1980, 22 (5), 947-955. [42] Yoshimoto, Y, Minakuchi, K, Itoh, D, Isakari, Y, and Yamamoto, S.: High throughput process development methods for chromatography and precipitation of proteins. Advantages and precautions. Eng. Life Sci., 2013, 13, 446-455..

(55) 1. (a) (1). Tomokazu Yada, Koichi Nonaka, Masayuki Yabuta, Noriko Yoshimoto, and Shuichi Yamamoto Choosing the right protein A affinity chromatography media can remove aggregates effiently Biotechnology Journal, DOI: 10.1002/biot.201600427 29. 2 (2) Noriko Yoshimoto, Tomokazu Yada, and Shuichi Yamamoto A simple method for predicting the adsorption performance of capture chromatography of proteins Japan Journal of Food Enginieering Vol.17, No.3. pp.95 98 28 9 3 (b) (1). Tomokazu Yada, Yu Isakari, Noriko Yoshimoto, Shuichi Yamamoto and Ales Podgornik Predicting the adsorption performance of capture chromatography of proteins Proceedings of APCChe 2015 Paper no. 3135077. 27. 9 3. (c) 2 (a) (b) (c).

(56)

(57)