CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring process-related impurities in biologics–host cell protein analysis

Pilely, Katrine, Johansen, Martin Rask, Lund, Rikke Raaen, Kofoed, Thomas, Jørgensen, Thomas Kjærsgaard, Skriver, Lars, Mørtz, Ejvind·2022·Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
DOI 10.1007/s00216-021-03648-2PMC PMC8483941
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

During biologics development, manufacturers must demonstrate clearance of host cell impurities and contaminants to ensure drug purity, manufacturing process consistency, and patient safety. Host cell proteins (HCPs) are a major class of process-related impurities and require monitoring and documentation of their presence through development and manufacturing. Even in residual amounts, they are known to affect product quality and efficacy as well as patient safety. HCP analysis using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (HCP-ELISA) is the standard technique, due to its simple handling, short analysis time, and high sensitivity for protein impurities. Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS) is an orthogonal method for HCP analysis and is increasingly included in regulatory documentation. LC–MS offers advantages where HCP-ELISA has drawbacks, e.g., the ability to identify and quantify individual HCPs. This article summarizes the available knowledge about monitoring HCPs in biologics and presents the newest trends in HCP analysis with current state-of-the-art HCP measurement tools. Through case studies, we present examples of HCP control strategies that have been used in regulatory license applications, using an MS-based coverage analysis and HCP-ELISA and LC–MS for HCP quantification. This provides novel insight into the rapid evolving strategy of HCP analysis. Improvements in technologies to evaluate HCP-ELISA suitability and the implementation of orthogonal LC–MS methods for HCP analysis are important to rationally manipulate, engineer, and select suitable cell lines and downstream processing steps to limit problematic HCPs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00216-021-03648-2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Objectives of HCP assays for monitoring HCPs in biologics. The assay should measure the majority of proteins in the early process, i.e., most of the HCPs that could potentially end up in the final product as well as the small amount of residual HCPs in the purified drug substance [8, 12]. In case of a process failure, e.g., a leaking chromatography column, the HCP assay should be able to detect the changed HCP profile. In case of process change, the chosen HCP assay should be capable of measuring any new HCPs
Fig. 1 Objectives of HCP assays for monitoring HCPs in biologics. The assay should measure the majority of proteins in the early process, i.e., most of the HCPs that could potentially end up in the final product as well as the small amount of residual HCPs in the purified drug substance [8, 12]. In case of a process failure, e.g., a leaking chromatography column, the HCP assay should be able to detect the changed HCP profile. In case of process change, the chosen HCP assay should be capable of measuring any new HCPsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Selecting an HCP monitoring method. (a) Commercial ELISA kits developed from generic strains are widely applied in early drug development stages. Commercial ELISA kits may be used for licensed pharmaceuticals on the market if the assay has been validated with process-specific performance. (b) If no commercial ELISA kit with sufficient HCP coverage is available, it is recommended to develop a product-specific ELISA kit or to use a platform ELISA kit. During the production of the product-specific HCP antibodies, it is important to select and characterize the antigen used for immunization and to consider the species immunized with HCP antigens. (c) Whether using a commercial, platform, or product-specific HCP-ELISA, it is necessary to do a fit-for-purpose validation to the actual process and product, including choosing an HCP standard representative for the samples, checking for quantitative dilutional linearity, and determining sensitivity and the limit of quantification (LOQ) for the drug substance samples, and to characterize the critical reagents: the HCP antigen and the HCP-specific antibodies. The HCP antibody’s ability to cover the HCPs in the process must be evaluated by an HCP coverage analysis. The most common coverage methods are 2D-PAGE and Western blotting; immunoaffinity–chromatography(IAC) and 2D-PAGE (2D-DIGE); and Immunocapture followed by LC–MS. (d) If no HCP-ELISA kit shows sufficient coverage of HCPs, LC–MS is recommended as an orthogonal method to HCP analysis by ELISA. HCP analysis by LC–MS provides identification and quantification of the individual HCPs, as well as the total HCP amount. When using LC–MS for HCP analysis, it is important to do a fit-for-purpose validation of the assay reproducibility, as the analysis is composed of multiple steps and a complex analysis workflow, as well as to qualify the robustness and sensitivity of the chromatography and MS system. This also includes characterization of the critical reagents such as qualification of standard proteins for quantification, i.e., intact proteins spiked-in, in known amounts into each sample
Fig. 2 Selecting an HCP monitoring method. (a) Commercial ELISA kits developed from generic strains are widely applied in early drug development stages. Commercial ELISA kits may be used for licensed pharmaceuticals on the market if the assay has been validated with process-specific performance. (b) If no commercial ELISA kit with sufficient HCP coverage is available, it is recommended to develop a product-specific ELISA kit or to use a platform ELISA kit. During the production of the product-specific HCP antibodies, it is important to select and characterize the antigen used for immunization and to consider the species immunized with HCP antigens. (c) Whether using a commercial, platform, or product-specific HCP-ELISA, it is necessary to do a fit-for-purpose validation to the actual process and product, including choosing an HCP standard representative for the samples, checking for quantitative dilutional linearity, and determining sensitivity and the limit of quantification (LOQ) for the drug substance samples, and to characterize the critical reagents: the HCP antigen and the HCP-specific antibodies. The HCP antibody’s ability to cover the HCPs in the process must be evaluated by an HCP coverage analysis. The most common coverage methods are 2D-PAGE and Western blotting; immunoaffinity–chromatography(IAC) and 2D-PAGE (2D-DIGE); and Immunocapture followed by LC–MS. (d) If no HCP-ELISA kit shows sufficient coverage of HCPs, LC–MS is recommended as an orthogonal method to HCP analysis by ELISA. HCP analysis by LC–MS provides identification and quantification of the individual HCPs, as well as the total HCP amount. When using LC–MS for HCP analysis, it is important to do a fit-for-purpose validation of the assay reproducibility, as the analysis is composed of multiple steps and a complex analysis workflow, as well as to qualify the robustness and sensitivity of the chromatography and MS system. This also includes characterization of the critical reagents such as qualification of standard proteins for quantification, i.e., intact proteins spiked-in, in known amounts into each sampleCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 HCP clearance during the downstream manufacturing process involving six purification steps. The process HCP data are shown for three PPQ batches, PPQ1–3. a The total number of HCPs throughout the process. b and c Clearance of two major HCPs, showing their amount in parts per million (nanograms (ng) HCP per milligram (mg) total protein). Note the difference in the scales
Fig. 3 HCP clearance during the downstream manufacturing process involving six purification steps. The process HCP data are shown for three PPQ batches, PPQ1–3. a The total number of HCPs throughout the process. b and c Clearance of two major HCPs, showing their amount in parts per million (nanograms (ng) HCP per milligram (mg) total protein). Note the difference in the scalesCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Hogwood CEM, Bracewell DG, Mark Smales C. Host cell protein dynamics in recombinant CHO cells: impacts from harvest to purification and beyond. Vol. 4, Bioengineered. Taylor & Francis; 2013 [cited 2021 Mar 16]. p. 288–91. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=kbie20 · DOI
  2. Vanderlaan M, Zhu-Shimoni J, Lin S, Gunawan F, Waerner T, Van Cott KE. Experience with host cell protein impurities in biopharmaceuticals. Biotechnol Prog [Internet]. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2019 Aug 29];34(4):828–37. Available from: https://www.bebpa.org/2017-hcp-abstracts/#kofoed · DOI
  3. Zhu-Shimoni J, Yu C, Nishihara J, Wong RM, Gunawan F, Lin M, et al. Host cell protein testing by ELISAs and the use of orthogonal methods. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111(12):2367–79. · DOI
  4. Wohlrab S, Wiedmann M, Aschner M, Reusch D, Bulau P, Haindl M. Tracking host cell proteins during biopharmaceutical manufacturing: advanced methodologies to ensure high product quality. [Internet]. Vol. 21, American Pharmaceutical Review. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/Featured-Articles/347250-Tracking-Host-Cell-Proteins-During-Biopharmaceutical-Manufacturing-Advanced-Methodologies-to-Ensure-High-Product-Quality/
  5. Bracewell DG, Francis R, Smales CM. The future of host cell protein (HCP) identification during process development and manufacturing linked to a risk-based management for their control. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015;112(9):1727–37. · DOI
  6. US Pharmacopeia. Residual host cell protein measurement in biopharmaceuticals. USP 39 Published General Chapter <1132>. 2016.
  7. Huang L-Y, Dumontelle JL, Zolodz M, Deora A, Mozier NM, Golding B. Use of Toll-like receptor assays to detect and identify microbial contaminants in biological products. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(11):3427–34. · DOI
  8. Bierich JR. Treatment of pituitary dwarfism with biosynthetic growth hormone. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1986;325:13–8. · DOI
  9. Gao SX, Zhang Y, Stansberry-Perkins K, Buko A, Bai S, Nguyen V, et al. Fragmentation of a highly purified monoclonal antibody attributed to residual CHO cell protease activity. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2011;108(4):977–82. · DOI
  10. Khrenov A. Control of host cell proteins - one reviewer’s perspective. . In: BioPharmaceutical emerging best practices association (BEBPA) HCP conference San Pedro, CA USA: OTAT/CBER/FDA; 2019.
  11. European Medicines Agency. ICH guideline Q8 (R2) on pharmaceutical development. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/international-conference-harmonisation-technical-requirements-registration-pharmaceuticals-human-use_en-11.pdf
  12. Shahrokh Z, Schmalzing D, Rawat R, Sluzky V, Ho K, Engelbergs J, et al. Science, risks, and regulations: current perspectives on host cell protein analysis and control. BioProcess Tech. 2016;14(8):40–51.
  13. Henry SM, Sutlief E, Salas-Solano O, Valliere-Douglass J. ELISA reagent coverage evaluation by affinity purification tandem mass spectrometry. MAbs. 2017;9(7):1065–75. · DOI
  14. Pilely K, Nielsen SB, Draborg A, Henriksen ML, Hansen SWK, Skriver L, et al. A novel approach to evaluate ELISA antibody coverage of host cell proteins—combiningELISA-based immunocapture and mass spectrometry. Biotechnol Prog [Internet]. 2020 Jul 9 [cited 2021 Mar 17];36(4):e2983. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/btpr.2983 · DOI
  15. Doneanu CE, Xenopoulos A, Fadgen K, Murphy J, Skilton SJ, Prentice H, et al. Analysis of host-cell proteins in biotherapeutic proteins by comprehensive online two-dimensional liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. MAbs. 2012;4(1):24–44. · DOI
  16. Reisinger V, Toll H, Mayer RE, Visser J, Wolschin F. A mass spectrometry-based approach to host cell protein identification and its application in a comparability exercise. Anal Biochem. 2014;463:1–6. · DOI
  17. Doneanu CE, Anderson M, Williams BJ, Lauber MA, Chakraborty A, Chen W. Enhanced detection of low-abundance host cell protein impurities in high-purity monoclonal antibodies down to 1 ppm using ion mobility mass spectrometry coupled with multidimensional liquid chromatography. Anal Chem. 2015;87(20):10283–91. · DOI
  18. Schenauer MR, Flynn GC, Goetze AM. Identification and quantification of host cell protein impurities in biotherapeutics using mass spectrometry. Anal Biochem. 2012;428(2):150–7. · DOI
  19. Zhang Q, Goetze AM, Cui H, Wylie J, Trimble S, Hewig A, et al. Comprehensive tracking of host cell proteins during monoclonal antibody purifications using mass spectrometry. MAbs. 2014;6(3):659–70. · DOI
  20. Lund RR. Analysis of process-related impurities in cell and gene therapy products by mass spectrometry. In: BEBPA HCP Conference 2021 [internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.bebpa.org/2021-hcp-abstracts/#lund
  21. Heissel S, Bunkenborg J, Kristiansen MP, Holmbjerg AF, Grimstrup M, Mørtz E, et al. Evaluation of spectral libraries and sample preparation for DIA-LC-MS analysis of host cell proteins: a case study of a bacterially expressed recombinant biopharmaceutical protein. Protein Expr Purif. 2018;147:69–77. · DOI
  22. Walter TH, Andrews RW. Recent innovations in UHPLC columns and instrumentation. Vol. 63, TrAC - trends in analytical chemistry. Elsevier B.V.; 2014. p. 14–20. · DOI
  23. Oda Y, Huang K, Cross FR, Cowburn D, Chait BT. Accurate quantitation of protein expression and site-specific phosphorylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 1999 Jun 8 [cited 2021 Jun 16];96(12):6591–6. Available from: http://Prowl.rockefeller.eduor. http://ProteoMetrics.com. · DOI
  24. Paša-Tolic L, Jensen PK, Anderson GA, Lipton MS, Peden KK, Martinović S, et al. High throughput proteome-wide precision measurements of protein expression using mass spectrometry [10] [Internet]. Vol. 121, Journal of the American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society ; 1999 [cited 2021 Jun 16]. p. 7949–50. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja991063o · DOI
  25. Silva JC, Denny R, Dorschel CA, Gorenstein M, Kass IJ, Li GZ, et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis by accurate mass retention time pairs. Anal Chem [Internet]. 2005 Apr 1 [cited 2021 Jun 16];77(7):2187–200. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac048455k · DOI
  26. Kofoed T, Grimstrup M, Crawford J, Bunkenborg J, Skriver L, Mørtz E. Identification and quantification of HCP’s by swath LC MS for process development of a novel biologic. In: BEBPA HCP Conference 2017. 2017.
  27. Jones M, Palackal N, Wang F, Gaza-Bulseco G, Hurkmans K, Zhao Y, et al. “High-risk” host cell proteins (HCPs): a multi-company collaborative view. Biotechnol Bioeng [Internet]. 2021 May 31 [cited 2021 Jun 17]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33930190/ · DOI
  28. Wang F, Richardson D, Shameem M. Host-cell protein measurement and control. [Internet]. Vol. 28, BioPharm International. 2015 [cited 2021 Mar 30]. p. 32–8. Available from: https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/host-cell-protein-measurement-and-control
  29. de Zafra CLZ, Quarmby V, Francissen K, Vanderlaan M, Zhu-Shimoni J. Host cell proteins in biotechnology-derived products: a risk assessment framework. Biotechnol Bioeng [Internet]. 2015 Nov 1 [cited 2021 Mar 30];112(11):2284–91. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26010760/ · DOI
  30. Wang F, Richardson D, Mueller H-M, Gaza-Bulseco G, Liu X, Liu F, et al. Host-cell protein risk management and control during bioprocess development: a consolidated biotech industry review, part 1 - Bioprocess International. [Internet]. BioProcess Int. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 30]. Available from: https://bioprocessintl.com/business/risk-management/host-cell-protein-risk-management-and-control-during-bioprocess-development-a-consolidated-biotech-industry-review-part-1/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 78

Metadata

Authors
Pilely, K., Johansen, M. R., Lund, R. R., Kofoed, T., Jørgensen, T. K., Skriver, L., & Mørtz, E.
ORCID
Mørtz, Ejvind
Venue
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-10-01
Volume
414
Issue
2
Pages
747-758
ISSN
  • 1618-2642
  • 1618-2650
DOI
10.1007/s00216-021-03648-2
PMC
PMC8483941
Cited by
78
References
3
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monitoring process-related impurities in biologics–host cell protein analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00216-021-03648-2
The paper
Pilely, K., Johansen, M. R., Lund, R. R., Kofoed, T., Jørgensen, T. K., Skriver, L., & Mørtz, E. (2022). Monitoring process-related impurities in biologics–host cell protein analysis. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03648-2