Characterisation of a generic monoclonal antibody harvesting system for adsorption of DNA by depth filters and various membranes

The physical parameters governing adsorption of DNA by various positively charged depth filters and membranes have been assessed. Buffers that reduced or neutralised the depth filter or membrane charge, and those that impeded hydrophobic interactions were shown to affect their operational capacity, demonstrating that DNA was adsorbed by a combination of electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions. The adsorption profile of DNA by a Sartobind Q anion exchange membrane showed immediate breakthrough, irrespective of challenge DNA concentration or flow rate, and in this case adsorption was by electrostatic interactions only. The production-scale removal of DNA from harvest broths containing therapeutic protein by partitioning of cells and debris from protein in sequential centrifugation and filtration steps, and the concentration of DNA in process supernatant were assessed. Centrifugation reduced the quantity of DNA in the process material from 79.8 μg ml-1 to 9.3 μg ml-1 whereas the concentration of DNA in the supernatant of pre- and post-filtration samples had only marginally reduced DNA content: from 6.3 to 6.0 μg ml-1 respectively. DNA was concentrated to 27.3 μg ml-1 along with monoclonal antibody in the ultrafiltration step. Similar effects were observed in the harvest step for a second antibody.

[1]  C. Milstein,et al.  Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity , 1975, Nature.

[2]  C. Burrows,et al.  Hydrophobic vs coulombic interactions in the binding of steroidal polyamines to DNA , 1996 .

[3]  D. Wood,et al.  WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: highlights of the 50th meeting, October 1999. , 1999, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[4]  R. Haugland,et al.  Characterization of PicoGreen reagent and development of a fluorescence-based solution assay for double-stranded DNA quantitation. , 1997, Analytical biochemistry.

[5]  F. Horaud,et al.  DNA, dragons and sanity. , 1995, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[6]  S. Suen,et al.  A mathematical analysis of affinity membrane bioseparations , 1992 .

[7]  Frances H. Arnold,et al.  Analysis of affinity separations: I: Predicting the performance of affinity adsorbers , 1985 .

[8]  E. Griffiths WHO Expert Committee on Biological StandardizationHighlights of the Meeting of October 1996 , 1997 .

[9]  J. Adair,et al.  Humanised monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic applications , 1994 .

[10]  José Costa,et al.  PicoGreen quantitation of DNA: effective evaluation of samples pre- or post-PCR , 1996, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  C. Gerba,et al.  Capture of latex beads, bacteria, endotoxin, and viruses by charge-modified filters , 1980, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[12]  G. W. Jack,et al.  Precipitation of nucleic acids with polyethyleneimine and the chromatography of nucleic acids and proteins on immobilised polyethyleneimine. , 1973, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[13]  S. Zale,et al.  Membrane-Based Affinity Technology for Commercial Scale Purifications , 1988, Bio/Technology.