Characterization of a Monoclonal Antibody Cell Culture Production Process Using a Quality by Design Approach
Abstract
The goal of quality by design (QbD) in cell culture manufacturing is to develop manufacturing processes which deliver products with consistent critical quality attributes (CQAs). QbD approaches can lead to better process understanding through the use of process parameter risk ranking and statistical design of experiments (DOE). The QbD process starts with an analysis of process parameter risk with respect to CQAs and key performance indicators (KPIs). Initial DOE study designs and their factor test ranges are based on the outcomes of the process parameter risk ranking exercises. Initial DOE studies screen factors for significant influences on CQAs as well as characterize responses for process KPIs. In the case study provided here, multifactor process characterization studies using a scale-down model resulted in significant variation in charge heterogeneity of a monoclonal antibody (MAb) as measured by ion-exchange chromatography (IEC). Iterative DOE studies, using both screening and response surface designs, were used to narrow the operating parameter ranges so that charge heterogeneity could be controlled to an acceptable level. The data from the DOE studies were used to predict worst-case conditions, which were then verified by testing at those conditions. Using the approach described here, multivariate process parameter ranges were identified that yield acceptable CQA levels and that still provide operational flexibility for manufacturing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Single pH shifts have been used to improve product quality, specifically charge variants.
“Alternatively, single pH shifts have been used to improve product quality, specifically charge variants. 10 , 11”
From Dynamic <scp>pH</scp> profiles drive higher cell‐specific and volumetric productivity (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Horvath, B., Mun, M., & Laird, M. W.
- Affiliations
- Roche (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Horvath, Brian
- ORCID
- Horvath, Brian
- Venue
- Molecular Biotechnology
- Published
- 2010-03-19
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 203-206
- ISSN
- 1073-6085 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-0305
- OpenAlex
- W2027792997
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Molecular Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Viral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein purification and stability
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
- Keywords
- quality by design, monoclonal antibodies, critical quality attributes, charge heterogeneity, ion-exchange chromatography, experimental design, response surface methodology, scale-down model, worst-case scenario, process characterization, key performance indicators
- MeSH terms
- Acids, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Chromatography, Ion Exchange, Cricetulus, Culture Media, Cricetinae, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Research Design, Temperature, Reproducibility of Results, CHO Cells, Cell Culture Techniques, Bioreactors
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