The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 62 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Viral contamination in biologic manufacture and implications for emerging therapies
Open accessAbstract
Recombinant protein therapeutics, vaccines, and plasma products have a long record of safety. However, the use of cell culture to produce recombinant proteins is still susceptible to contamination with viruses. These contaminations cost millions of dollars to recover from, can lead to patients not receiving therapies, and are very rare, which makes learning from past events difficult. A consortium of biotech companies, together with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has convened to collect data on these events. This industry-wide study provides insights into the most common viral contaminants, the source of those contaminants, the cell lines affected, corrective actions, as well as the impact of such events. These results have implications for the safe and effective production of not just current products, but also emerging cell and gene therapies which have shown much therapeutic promise. The Consortium on Adventitious Agent Contamination in Biomanufacturing (CAACB) provides a comprehensive and forward-looking overview of industry’s experience with viral contamination of cell cultures used to produce recombinant proteins.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This Perspective reports the CAACB industry survey of viral contamination in mammalian cell culture biomanufacturing, identifying 18 directly reported events among 20 companies and 26 total when combined with published reports. It concludes that current prevention, testing, and clearance controls have kept recombinant protein products safe, but testing alone is insufficient, and emerging cell/gene therapies—especially autologous cell therapies—will rely mainly on contamination prevention because viral clearance is largely incompatible.
Key findings
- Of 20 CAACB member companies surveyed, 9 (45%) reported at least one adventitious virus contamination in mammalian cell culture since 1985, totaling 18 events; combined with published reports, the paper cites 26 virus contaminations over 36 years.
- CHO cells accounted for 67% of reported events and human/primate cells 33%; no overlap existed between the four viruses contaminating CHO culture and the five contaminating human/primate cells, and four of five human/primate viruses are known human pathogens versus one CHO virus (Cache Valley virus).
- Raw materials/media components were identified or suspected in 11 of 12 CHO contaminations, while operators or the cell line itself were suspected for human/primate cells; direct testing detected the contaminant in only 3 of 11 raw-material-source events, and only after concentration or biological amplification.
- The in vitro virus (IVV) assay was negative in 4 of 14 (28.6%) contaminated runs reported to the CAACB; downstream purification reduced contaminating virus below the limit of detection in all evaluated cases, no drug substance from a contaminated culture was released for human use, and investigation costs were $1–10 million, with worst cases in the hundreds of millions and median plant downtime of one to two months.
Methods
- A 166-question survey of CAACB members collected data from 20 major biopharmaceutical manufacturers on virus contaminations and controls in mammalian cell culture manufacturing, covering pilot to commercial scale and GMP/non-GMP operations.
- The scope excluded bacterial or yeast fermentation, plasma fractionation, and egg-based vaccine production; CAACB-reported data were consolidated with published reports of virus contamination events.
- Analysis was descriptive, summarizing contaminating viruses, host cell lines, suspected sources, detection methods, extent of contamination, downstream clearance, corrective actions, and business impacts.
Limitations
- The paper states that contamination events are rare, with only 26 known over 36 years and 18 reported directly to the CAACB; all reported events occurred at North American and European sites, but there was insufficient data to determine geographic risk differences.
- The paper states that it could not determine whether one operational mode carries higher contamination risk, and that the HTST media-treatment observation rests on a small sample of four manufacturers.
- Evident from the text: the dataset is retrospective and largely self-reported by member companies, may undercount unrecognized non-GMP or unreported events, and lacks a manufacturing-volume denominator, so per-company rates cannot be directly normalized to total processed volume.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 34 Own interpretation · 16 No basis given · 13 Sources not found · 10 No full text of the sources · 5 Partly supported · 4 Couldn’t confirm · 4 Not checked yet · 2 Supported so far · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In the early 1980's, unknowingly contaminated therapeutic proteins from human plasma caused widespread transmission of viruses, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), to people with haemophilia who received these treatments 5,6 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Rosendaal, F. R., Smit, C. & Briët, E. Hemophilia treatment in historical perspective: a review of medical and social developments. Ann. Hematol. 62, 5–15 (1991). source
The Transfusion-transmitted disease section states that clotting-factor products made from donated human blood could transmit AIDS and that the first AIDS case in a person with hemophilia was reported in 1982. It also reports high HIV prevalence among treated patients in several countries, supporting the claim of widespread transmission. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Weinberg, P. D. et al. Legal, financial, and public health consequences of HIV contamination of blood and blood products in the 1980s and 1990s. Ann. Intern. Med. 136, 312–319 (2002). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Viruses are of particular concern as they are often more difficult to detect than other microbial contaminants 1 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Merten, O. W. Virus contaminations of cell cultures — a biotechnological view. Cytotechnology 39, 91–116 (2002). source
Passage [1] states that microbial and mycoplasma contamination can be relatively easily detected, whereas viral contamination is a serious threat because some viruses are difficult to detect. This supports the citing sentence’s comparison. The supplied passage has no section or page label. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In the 20 th century several vaccine products were unintentionally contaminated with unwanted viruses during their production [1][2][3] .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Merten, O. W. Virus contaminations of cell cultures — a biotechnological view. Cytotechnology 39, 91–116 (2002). source
The paper’s references list multiple twentieth-century reports of vaccines contaminated with unintended viruses, including a pseudorabies vaccine contaminated by an ovine pestivirus (1988) and a canine vaccine contaminated by bluetongue virus (1994). Its overview describes how viral contamination can enter cell cultures through infected source cells or contaminated raw materials, consistent with contamination during production. The supplied passages have no section or page labels. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] Sawyer, W. A. et al. Jaundice in army personnel in the western region of the United States and its relation to vaccination against yellow fever: Part I. Am. J. Epidemiol. 39, 337–430 (1944). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Shah, K. & Nathanson, N. Human exposure to SV40: review and comment. Am. J. Epidemiol. 103, 1–12 (1976). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“To ensure that current plasmaderived, vaccine, and recombinant biotherapeutics are safe, complementary safety strategies to reduce the risk of virus contamination were developed and implemented [9][10][11] .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9] International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Q5A(R1). Viral Safety Evaluation Of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell Lines Of Human Or Animal Origin (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1999).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] Suomela, H. Inactivation of viruses in blood and plasma products. Transfus. Med. Rev. 7, 42–57 (1993). source
- Partly supportedcites [11] Burnouf, T. Modern plasma fractionation. Transfus. Med. Rev. 21, 101–117 (2007). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Testing of Pathogenic Agents” section (page unavailable) describes complementary safeguards for plasma-derived products, and “Core Viral Reduction Methods” describes implemented viral inactivation and removal steps. The cited paper does not establish that these strategies were developed and implemented for vaccines or recombinant biotherapeutics. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A better strategy, also used in the recombinant protein manufacturing industry, is to develop media formulations that do not require animal-or human-sourced raw materials 58 .”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [58] Khan, A. S. et al. A multicenter study to evaluate the performance of high-throughput sequencing for virus detection. mSphere 2, e00307–17 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Materials and Methods (Cells; page not provided) describe media containing fetal bovine serum, while the Discussion concerns virus-detection methods. Searches for animal- or human-source-free media formulations and their use in recombinant protein manufacturing found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Of the three, virus clearance has been shown to be of extraordinary importance in reducing the risk of virus contamination of final product (Fig. 2) 49 .”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [49] Anonymous. FDA approves hereditary blindness gene therapy. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 6 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited erratum (p. 1) corrects statements about nanopore sequencing, not virus clearance. Searches for virus clearance and for viral removal or inactivation found no passage addressing contamination of a final product. (LLM, conf=0.78)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Noteworthy is the fact that in three of the events, virus-specific PCR tests performed before bioreactor harvest detected and identified a viral contaminant in the bioreactor and prevented the spread of the virus to downstream purification processes and other parts of the manufacturing facility.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sources of the viruses contaminating CHO cell culture and human or primate cell culture were also different.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In 11 of the 12 reported contaminations in CHO cell culture, a raw material or media component was identified or suspected to be the source.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these reported contamination events occurred at manufacturing sites in North America and Europe, but there is insufficient data to determine if one geographic location has a disproportionately increased risk of contamination over another.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The lessons of the past have led to the current best practice, which relies on three pillars: the selection of appropriate starting and raw materials with a low risk of containing adventitious virus; testing of cell banks and in process materials to ensure they are free from detectable viruses; and finally, the incorporation of steps to remove and inactivate potential undetected adventitious and”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9] International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Q5A(R1). Viral Safety Evaluation Of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell Lines Of Human Or Animal Origin (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1999).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [13] Grillberger, L., Kreil, T. R., Nasr, S. & Reiter, M. Emerging trends in plasma-free manufacturing of recombinant protein therapeutics expressed in mammalian cells. Biotechnol. J. 4, 186–201 (2009). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 3 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Kozlowski, S. & Swann, P. Current and future issues in the manufacturing and development of monoclonal antibodies. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58, 707–722 (2006). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“At the end of Q3, 2019, more than 1,052 advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) were being tested in phase I-III clinical trials (https://alliancerm.org/publication/q3-2019-data-report/) and several cell 45 and gene 46 therapies had received regulatory approval.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites https://alliancerm.org/publication/q3-2019-data-report/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] Murphy, M., Quesada, G. M. & Chen, D. Effectiveness of mouse minute virus inactivation by high temperature short time treatment technology: a statistical assessment. Biologicals 39, 438–443 (2011). source
- Could not verifycites [46] Meunier, S. M., Sasges, M. R. & Aucoin, M. G. Evaluating ultraviolet sensitivity of adventitious agents in biopharmaceutical manufacturing. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 44, 893–909 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation is attached to the statement that cell therapies had received regulatory approval; the Q3 2019 trial count is attributed to a separate URL. The Introduction and Discussion and conclusions address contamination and UV disinfection in biopharmaceutical manufacturing, not approvals of cell therapies. Searches for approved cell therapies and regulatory approval found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In terms of safety implications, four (herpesvirus, human adenovirus type 1, parainfluenza virus type 3, and reovirus type 3) of the five viruses found to contaminate human and primate cell lines are known to be pathogenic in humans, whereas only one (Cache Valley virus) of the viruses found to contaminate CHO cell culture has been reported to cause disease in humans 36,37 .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36] Anonymous. A united front. Nature 472, 389–390 (2011).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [37] Campbell, G. L. et al. Second human case of Cache Valley virus disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12, 854–856 (2006). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions report a fatal, culture-confirmed case of Cache Valley virus encephalitis in a human, supporting the claim that this virus can cause human disease. The paper does not establish that Cache Valley virus contaminated CHO cell culture, that it was the only such contaminant reported to cause human disease, or the comparison with viruses contaminating human and primate cell lines. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Animal-derived raw materials (ADRMs), especially serum, carry a relatively higher risk of being contaminated with virus and are thus being replaced where possible throughout the industry 1,9,13 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [1] Merten, O. W. Virus contaminations of cell cultures — a biotechnological view. Cytotechnology 39, 91–116 (2002). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper's introductory overview identifies contaminated raw materials as a route by which cell cultures acquire viruses, and its references include reports of viral contamination in calf serum. The passages retrieved do not establish that animal-derived materials pose a relatively higher risk than alternatives or that they are being replaced throughout the industry. (LLM, conf=0.73)
- Not matchedcites [9] International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Q5A(R1). Viral Safety Evaluation Of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell Lines Of Human Or Animal Origin (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1999).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [13] Grillberger, L., Kreil, T. R., Nasr, S. & Reiter, M. Emerging trends in plasma-free manufacturing of recombinant protein therapeutics expressed in mammalian cells. Biotechnol. J. 4, 186–201 (2009). source
The paper’s opening summary says that concern about transmitting infectious agents through serum and other derived additives has driven their removal from recombinant-therapeutic manufacturing. It also says this practice is expanding throughout the industry; the claim’s reference to viral risk is consistent with its examples of hepatitis and HIV transmission. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For recombinant viruses, master virus banks (MVBs) are generated and thoroughly characterized for contamination by adventitious viruses 52 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [52] Shukla, A. A. & Aranha, H. Viral clearance for biopharmaceutical downstream processes. Pharm. Bioprocess. 3, 127–138 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The risk-assessment discussion (p. 128) says master and working cell banks are extensively tested for viral contamination. It does not say that master virus banks are generated or characterized for recombinant viruses; cell banks and virus banks are distinct. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Additionally, determining if the contaminant identified in a nucleic acid based assay is biologically active may require a different method, though we would note that HTS of viral RNA has been used to demonstrate a virus is biologically active 61 .”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [61] Miki, H. & Takagi, M. Design of serum-free medium for suspension culture of CHO cells on the basis of general commercial media. Cytotechnology 67, 689–697 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Cells and Discussion sections describe CHO cell culture and growth, not viral testing. Searches of our full-text copy for HTS of viral RNA and high-throughput sequencing of viral contaminants found no passage addressing whether viral RNA sequencing can demonstrate biological activity. No page numbers were available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For GMP production, five of eight cell cultures preceding the reactor were originally identified as contaminated; one of six concurrent seed trains and no concurrent cell cultures for different products were also found to be contaminated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this, the IVV assay was negative in four events and the contamination was detected by using another method (Table 3).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, viral contaminations have been reported to lead to manufacturing interruptions (with a median plant downtime of one to two months, Fig. 3), loss of revenue, discarded batches, lawsuits against the company, a decrease in company reputation as reflected in stock value, as well as significant delays in product development.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nine out of the 20 responding companies (i.e., almost half of the involved industry respondents), reported having one or more adventitious virus contaminations in mammalian cell culture operations since 1985, totaling 18 virus contamination events reported to the CAACB.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The CAACB member-reported contamination events are comprehensive and representative of virus contaminations in mammalian cell culture biomanufacturing.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These events are rare; we are aware of only 26 virus contaminations over the past 36 years (Table 1) [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] , 18 of which were reported directly as a part of this study.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Burstyn, D. G. Contamination of genetically engineered Chinese hamster ovary cells. Dev. Biol. Stand. 88, 199–203 (1996).
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Rabenau, H. et al. Contamination of genetically engineered CHO-cells by epizootic haemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV). Biologicals 21, 207–214 (1993). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Garnick, R. L. Experience with viral contamination in cell culture. Dev. Biol. Stand. 88, 49–56 (1996).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the number of contaminations reported to the CAACB per company does not correlate with total manufacturing volume, implying that a combination of circumstance, manufacturing controls in place, and prior lack of virus contamination disclosures may have contributed to this rate.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only after the viral load was increased to a detectable level, through concentration or biological amplification, was the virus detected in the raw material, and then only in three events (Fig. 1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the fact that raw materials were determined to be the most likely source of the contamination in 11 events, testing those raw materials did not necessarily detect the contaminating virus.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In comparison, for the human and primate cell lines, the manufacturing operators or cell line itself were suspected to be the source.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reported virus contaminations occurred at all stages of the product life-cycle, with three events occurring during pre-clinical non-GMP manufacture, two during clinical cGMP manufacture, and the remaining 13 occurring during commercial manufacture.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 20 companies completing the CAACB virus contamination survey, 45% of respondents had reported experiencing at least one virus contamination event between 1985 and 2018, which is higher than expected when the study began.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in two events, there was no apparent change in cell culture performance and the contaminating virus was only detected by a virusspecific PCR assay.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of this approach, these products have been safe for over 35 years, and to our knowledge, there has been no transmission of a contaminating virus to a patient from a therapeutic protein produced using recombinant DNA technology.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The safety record of recombinant DNA-produced therapeutic proteins is due to the current three-pillar safety approach rather than to other factors.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The expense of such an investigation, as reported to the CAACB, was in the $1-10 million range, but in the worst cases the cost of investigating a contamination, implementing corrective actions, decontaminating the facility, and other ancillary costs could be in the hundreds of millions.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In 67% of reported events, the manufacturing platform was Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, whereas the other 33% of events involved human or primate cell lines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a viral contaminant matched a PCR target, this was effective at preventing contamination of the entire manufacturing facility.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the other eight contamination events, virus testing of raw materials was negative and the source of the contamination was only identified using indirect evidence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Source attributions based on indirect evidence correctly identify the raw material as the source of contamination.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that in all cases reported to the CAACB no drug substance produced from a contaminated cell culture was ever released for human use, and all such drug substance was subsequently destroyed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our study showed that the control of raw materials by direct testing had limited value (Fig. 1), either due to virus concentrations in the raw material being below the assay detection limit, or because the contaminating virus was not homogeneously distributed in the raw material.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The CAACB study has identified five viruses that have been shown to contaminate CHO cell culture, and four viruses that have contaminated cell culture with human or primate cells.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Reovirus / Unknown 34 events, the contamination was contained in the cell culture, for 6 events the contamination was spread to downstream purification operations, and for 5 events the extent of contamination was unknown.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas learning from these events has historically been a challenge, the work presented here represents the first comprehensive collection and analysis of previously unpublished industry wide viral contamination information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this excellent safety record, viral infection of mammalian cell culture is a real risk with severe consequences.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This included the contamination of poliovirus vaccine with Simian Virus 40 (SV40) 3 , for which the health impacts were not fully known for many decades 4 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Shah, K. & Nathanson, N. Human exposure to SV40: review and comment. Am. J. Epidemiol. 103, 1–12 (1976). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Stratton, K., Alamario, D. A. & McCormick, M. C. Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that different host cells may require the consideration and management of different virus contamination risks, with human and primate cell lines being more susceptible to contamination from operators.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data collected as a part of the CAACB study indicate that current manufacturing controls used to prevent the spread of a potential contaminant within manufacturing facilities are effective as no cross-contamination of other concurrent manufacturing operations was reported.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The absence of reported cross-contamination in the CAACB data indicates that cross-contamination controls are effective.
In the paper
“This result is not unexpected as CHO cells are the most commonly used host cells by the recombinant biologic-industry with published reports indicating that approximately 70% of approved biotech products are manufactured using CHO 12 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Walsh, G. Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2014. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 992–1000 (2014). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The IVV assay also takes 14 to 28 days-much too long to assess the reactor for contamination prior to processing downstream for purification.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The in vitro virus (IVV) assay is a cell-based assay used to test harvest cell culture samples for potential viral contaminants 38 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] Sexton, D. J. et al. Life-threatening Cache Valley virus infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 336, 547–549 (1997). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Minute virus of mice is especially challenging as a potential contaminant.It is shed from ever present wild mouse populations, may not be detectable even with established rodent control, and can persist in the environment and in raw materials long after being shed.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data imply that the safety of biologic products should not rely on testing alone (including orthogonal methods) but be assured by multiple controls (including prevention, detection, and viral clearance) throughout the process.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of living cell-based therapies, viral clearance would be required to remove or inactivate viruses in the cell culture supernatant as well as separating or destroying infected cells, which harbor virus, from any cells not infected with virus.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three main risks for viral contamination in cell culture for therapeutic production are cell sources, materials utilized in cell culture, and exposure of the cell culture process stream to the operator/environment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, due to the scale of their manufacture, ATMPs may rely much more on open cell culture transfers than recombinant proteins and vaccines.The result is an increased possibility of virus contamination from open operations for these types of products.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the effectiveness of treating raw materials, we note that some animal-or human-derived materials may be sensitive to heat, radiation, or UV exposure, which may ultimately affect cell growth and performance.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, new detection technologies, such as high-throughput sequencing (HTS), have detected adventitious viral contaminants in the presence of virus product 54 and are being explored for use in the industry 55,56 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] Wirth, T., Parker, N. & Ylä-Herttuala, S. History of gene therapy. Gene 525, 162–169 (2013). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are filter sterilized before use, typically with 0.1µm rated sterilizing-grade filters through which most viruses will pass.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tests to assure that the derived cells are free of adventitious virus generally cannot be completed prior to initiating cell therapy manufacturing and the process generally proceeds at risk.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is never more true than when faced with a previously unknown emerging virus, such as SARS-CoV-2, where the capacity of the virus to infect production cell lines or be detected in existing assays is not initially known.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Animalderived (Table 2) and human-derived components (e.g., serum, growth factors), which carry a higher risk of virus contamination than other media components 47 , are commonly added to media for ATMP production 48 .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47] Mundt, W. et al. Virus filtration of cell culture media. Patent WO2013192009A1 (2003).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] Mullard, A. Second anticancer CAR T therapy receives FDA approval. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 818 (2017). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can be a challenge for some ATMPs, especially those where nutrient requirements are not well understood, such as primary cell cultures, or which may have variable starting cells, such as autologous cell therapies.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cell culture processes employed for the manufacture of biopharmaceutical products and ATMP products all utilize a variety of basal media formulations comprised of a mixture of more than 50 essential nutrients (e.g., amino acids, vitamins, trace elements) and other chemicals.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“High-throughput sequencing provides a greater breadth of detection than PCR and is seeing widespread interest from the vaccine and recombinant protein industry 56 .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [56] US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Characterization and Qualification of Cell Substrates and Other Biological Materials Used in the Production of Viral Vaccines for Infectious Disease Indications (US Food and Drug Administration, 2010).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Viral-vectored gene therapy products utilize plasmids or recombinant viruses to initiate production 51 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] Brindley, D. A. et al. Peak serum: implications of serum supply for cell therapy manufacturing. Regen. Med. 7, 7–13 (2012). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As noted above, virus-risk mitigation for biopharmaceutical manufacturing uses three complementary approaches: 1) preventing virus entry by selecting low risk starting and raw materials and utilizing manufacturing controls, 2) testing of in process materials to ensure they are free of virus and enable lot rejection and 3) clearance of virus (inactivation and/or removal) from the product 9,14 .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9] International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Q5A(R1). Viral Safety Evaluation Of Biotechnology Products Derived From Cell Lines Of Human Or Animal Origin (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1999).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Kozlowski, S. & Swann, P. Current and future issues in the manufacturing and development of monoclonal antibodies. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58, 707–722 (2006). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A delay in administering treatment, such as due to contamination of a production process, could negatively impact patients, possibly leading to their death.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These differential clearance strategies, coupled with an understanding of the most likely viral risks, potential sources of virus, and the host cell line susceptibility to those viruses, could enable the development of a virus removal strategy.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is often more challenging in ATMP manufacturing as there are more open manipulations that provide opportunity to introduce an environmental contaminant and many small lots may be manufactured at once.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Additionally, new detection technologies, such as high-throughput sequencing (HTS), have detected adventitious viral contaminants in the presence of virus product 54 and are being explored for use in the industry 55,56 .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55] US Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs) (US Food and Drug Administration, 2018).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [56] US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Characterization and Qualification of Cell Substrates and Other Biological Materials Used in the Production of Viral Vaccines for Infectious Disease Indications (US Food and Drug Administration, 2010).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Virus contamination during ATMP cell-culture manufacturing processes by environmental sources must be strictly avoided and can be done so by the use of functionally closed systems, which often employ single-use, disposable equipment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“While challenging to test for adventitious viruses in the presence of recombinant viral stocks, approaches to develop successful virus tests have been developed and used 53 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] Ye, G. J. et al. Herpes simplex virus clearance during purification of a recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 1 vector. Hum. Gene Ther. Clin. Dev. 25, 212–217 (2014). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, current HTS sample preparation approaches and bioinformatic pipelines are not as rapid as PCR and can take 7-10 days 55 .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55] US Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Industry: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs) (US Food and Drug Administration, 2018).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the virus clearance unit operations used during purification of therapeutic proteins described earlier are not suitable for use with, or have not been widely applied to, ATMPs.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The safety record of recombinant DNA-produced therapeutic proteins is due to the current three-pillar safety approach rather than to other factors.
“Because of this approach, these products have been safe for over 35 years, and to our knowledge, there has been no transmission of a contaminating virus to a patient from a therapeutic protein produced using recombinant DNA technology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The CAACB member-reported contamination events are comprehensive and representative of virus contaminations in mammalian cell culture biomanufacturing.
“The CAACB has collected a comprehensive set of data on virus contamination experience, as well as controls in place to prevent contaminations, from 20 major biopharmaceutical manufacturers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Source attributions based on indirect evidence correctly identify the raw material as the source of contamination.
“In the other eight contamination events, virus testing of raw materials was negative and the source of the contamination was only identified using indirect evidence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The absence of reported cross-contamination in the CAACB data indicates that cross-contamination controls are effective.
“Data collected as a part of the CAACB study indicate that current manufacturing controls used to prevent the spread of a potential contaminant within manufacturing facilities are effective as no cross-contamination of other concurrent manufacturing operations was reported.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 18 virus contamination events reported to the CAACB are all the contamination events that occurred among the responding companies.
“Nine out of the 20 responding companies (i.e., almost half of the involved industry respondents), reported having one or more adventitious virus contaminations in mammalian cell culture operations since 1985, totaling 18 virus contamination events reported to the CAACB.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is currently no technology capable of meeting the challenge of viral clearance for living cell-based therapies.
“To our knowledge, there is currently no technology capable of meeting this challenge.”
The paper relies on this without support.
None of the virus inactivation methods used for traditional biopharmaceutical manufacturing is compatible with the survival of living cells.
“Additionally, none of the virus inactivation methods used for traditional biopharmaceutical manufacturing is compatible with the survival of living cells.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Plasmids are generated in prokaryotic cells.
“Plasmids are generated in prokaryotic cells and should be free of viruses that would replicate in mammalian cell cultures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of animal- and human-derived raw materials during ATMP production increases virus contamination risk.
“The use of animal-and human-derived raw materials during ATMP production increases virus contamination risk.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gamma-irradiation of human serum is not yet standard practice.
“It is not yet standard practice for human serum but should be strongly considered to reduce the risk of these raw materials if safer alternatives are not suitable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Testing for adventitious virus contamination at relevant points in the cell-culture manufacturing process has been conducted in recombinant protein manufacture for many years.
“Testing for adventitious virus contamination at relevant points in the cell-culture manufacturing process, usually just before production cell culture harvest, has been conducted in recombinant protein manufacture for many years.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The current gold standard for lot release testing in recombinant protein products is the in vitro virus (IVV) assay.
“The current gold standard for lot release testing in recombinant protein products is the in vitro virus, or IVV, assay, a cell-based assay that has a large breadth of detection for potential viral contaminants.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nucleic acid-based assays, such as PCR, are faster than the IVV assay, taking less than a day.
“Nucleic acid-based assays, such as PCR, are faster than the In Vitro Virus assay, taking less than a day.”
The paper relies on this without support.
PCR assays require prior knowledge of potential contaminants and only detect viral nucleic acids.
“Yet PCR assays require prior knowledge of potential contaminants and only detect viral nucleic acids.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Viral infection of cell culture is a real risk with severe consequences.
“Despite these controls, viral infection of cell culture is a real risk with severe consequences.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Rapid PCR tests for forward processing decisions enhance containment and prevent the spread of a contaminating virus to other parts of the manufacturing facility.
“Some approaches, such as the implementation of rapid PCR tests for forward processing decisions, have been shown to enhance containment and prevent the spread of a contaminating virus to other parts of the manufacturing facility.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Conclusions
“The CAACB study has identified five viruses that have been shown to contaminate CHO cell culture, and four viruses that have contaminated cell culture with human or primate cells.”
§ Different host cells, different risks.
“No overlap exists between the four viruses found to contaminate CHO cell culture and the five viruses found to contaminate human or primate cells.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Virus detection methods
“It is able to detect a wide range of viruses and was used as a quality control (QC) lot release assay in all 15 events that were carried out under cGMP manufacturing.”
§ Conclusions
“In Vitro Virus Test | 7 | | 14 | 11** | 4**”
Citations
Cites
Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2014
Walsh, G. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3040 · Cited by 1,008
Wirth, T., Parker, N., & Ylä-Herttuala, S. (2013) · Gene · doi:10.1016/j.gene.2013.03.137 · Cited by 607
Victoria, J. G., Wang, C., Jones, M. S., Jaing, C., McLoughlin, K., Gardner, S., & Delwart, E. L. (2010) · Journal of Virology · doi:10.1128/jvi.02690-09 · Cited by 342
HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SV40: REVIEW AND COMMENT12
SHAH, K., & NATHANSON, N. (1976) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112197 · Cited by 339
Burnouf, T. (2007) · Transfusion Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2006.11.001 · Cited by 286
With a free pass, CRISPR-edited plants reach market in record time
Waltz, E. (2018) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0118-6b · Cited by 279
Current and future issues in the manufacturing and development of monoclonal antibodies
Kozlowski, S., & Swann, P. (2006) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2006.05.002 · Cited by 170
Grillberger, L., Kreil, T. R., Nasr, S., & Reiter, M. (2009) · Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1002/biot.200800241 · Cited by 144
Self-citationPeak Serum: Implications of Serum Supply for Cell Therapy Manufacturing
Brindley, D. A., Davie, N. L., Culme-Seymour, E. J., Mason, C., Smith, D. W., & Rowley, J. A. (2012) · Regenerative Medicine · doi:10.2217/rme.11.112 · Cited by 142
Virus contaminations of cell cultures – A biotechnological view
Merten, O.-W. (2002) · Cytotechnology · doi:10.1023/a:1022969101804 · Cited by 133
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Nims, R.W. et al. Detection of Cache Valley virus in biologics manufactured in CHO cells. Biopharm. Int. 21, 89–95 (2008).
- Anonymous. The 2019 16th Annual Report and Survey of Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Capacity and Production (BioPlan Associates, Rockville, MD, USA, 2019).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Extracellular vesicles as a next-generation drug delivery platform
Herrmann, I. K., Wood, M. J. A., & Fuhrmann, G. (2021) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-021-00931-2 · Cited by 1,948
Promises and challenges of adoptive T-cell therapies for solid tumours
Morotti, M., Albukhari, A., Alsaadi, A., Artibani, M., Brenton, J. D., Curbishley, S. M., Dong, T., Dustin, M. L., Hu, Z., McGranahan, N., et al. (2021) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-021-01353-6 · Cited by 278
“In the context of ATMPs, safety relies almost exclusively on preventing contamination by using rigorous process controls.(260) For these reasons, as cell therapies continue to advance quickly towards the clinic, the need to engineer robust, sustainable and cost-effective manufacturing processes becomes increasingly im…”
BackgroundHypes, hopes, and the way forward for microalgal biotechnology
Barbosa, M. J., Janssen, M., Südfeld, C., D’Adamo, S., & Wijffels, R. H. (2023) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.12.017 · Cited by 190
Platforms for Production of Protein-Based Vaccines: From Classical to Next-Generation Strategies
Cid, R., & Bolívar, J. (2021) · Biomolecules · doi:10.3390/biom11081072 · Cited by 176
Adverse events, side effects and complications in mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapies
Baranovskii, D., Klabukov, I., Arguchinskaya, N. V., Yakimova, A. O., Kisel, A. A., Yatsenko, E. M., Иванов, С. А., Шегай, П. В., & Каприн, А. Д. (2022) · Stem Cell Investigation · doi:10.21037/sci-2022-025 · Cited by 154
“Viral contamination of different types of cells may also occur during cell processing and culture (46).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Barone, P. W., Wiebe, M. E., Leung, J. C., Hussein, I. T. M., Keumurian, F. J., Bouressa, J., Brussel, A., Chen, D., Chong, M., Dehghani, H., Gerentes, L., Gilbert, J., Gold, D., Kiss, R., Kreil, T. R., Labatut, R., Li, Y., Müllberg, J., Mallet, L., Menzel, C., Moody, M., Monpoeho, S., Murphy, M., Plavsic, M., Roth, N. J., Roush, D., Ruffing, M., Schicho, R., Snyder, R., Stark, D., Zhang, C., Wolfrum, J., Sinskey, A. J., & Springs, S. L.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Pfizer (United States) (US)
- Sanofi (France) (FR)
- Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
- CSL (Australia) (AU)
- Amgen (United States) (US)
- Biogen (United States) (US)
- BioMarin (United States) (US)
- Genentech (US)
- Baxter (Austria) (AT)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Merrimack Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
- Regeneron (United States) (US)
- CSL (Switzerland) (CH)
- Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
- Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) (DE)
- Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
- Shire (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Springs, Stacy L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Biotechnology
- Published
- 2020-04-27
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 563-572
- ISSN
- 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
- 1087-0156
- 1546-1696
- OpenAlex
- W3018259108
- Semantic Scholar
- 3f024a29c8324ee6bb3d123b28855eae95fb19b4
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 14
- FWCI
- 2.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Amgen
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Eli Lilly and Company
- Pfizer
- AstraZeneca
- Sanofi
- Biogen
- Histogenics
- CSL Behring
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
- Genentech
- EMD Serono
- Sanofi Genzyme
- Sanofi Pasteur
- 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
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Virus-based gene therapy research
- Keywords
- viral contamination, bioproduction, recombinant therapeutic proteins, cell culture, adventitious agents, cell lines, cell and gene therapy, vaccine production, plasma-derived products, pollution sources, corrective actions
- MeSH terms
- Biological Products, Data Collection, Drug Contamination, Drug Industry, Humans, Massachusetts, Viruses, Cell Culture Techniques, Information Dissemination
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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