Cited by 42Analytical Methods in PharmaceuticalsAnimal testing and alternativesBiosensors and Analytical Detection

Application of Recombinant Factor C Reagent for the Detection of Bacterial Endotoxins in Pharmaceutical Products

Bolden, Jay, Smith, Kelly·2017·PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology

Abstract

Recombinant Factor C (rFC) is non-animal-derived reagent used to detect bacterial endotoxins in pharmaceutical products. Despite the fact that the reagent was first commercially available nearly 15 years ago, the broad use of rFC in pharmaceutical industry has long been lagging, presumably due to historical single-source supplier concerns and the lack of inclusion in worldwide pharmacopeias. Commercial rFC reagents are now available from multiple manufacturers, thus single sourcing is no longer an issue. We report here the successful validation of several pharmaceutical products by an end-point florescence-based endotoxin method using the rFC reagent. The method is equivalent or superior to the compendia bacterial endotoxins test method. Based on the comparability data and extenuating circumstances, the incorporation of the end point fluorescence technique and rFC reagent in global compendia bacterial endotoxins test chapters is desired and warranted. LAY ABSTRACT: Public health has been protected for over 30 years with the use of a purified blood product of the horseshoe crab, limulus amebocyte lysate. More recently, this blood product can be produced in biotech manufacturing processes, which reduces potential impacts to the horseshoe crab and related species dependent upon the crab, for example, migrating shorebirds. The pharmaceutical industry has been slow to adopt the use of this reagent, Recombinant Factor C (rFC), for various reasons. We evaluated the use of rFC across…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5731/pdajpst.2017.007849

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 1 · Cited by 42

Authors
Bolden, J., & Smith, K.
Affiliations
Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Venue
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
Published
2017
Volume
71
Issue
5
Pages
405-412
ISSN
  • 1079-7440 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-2124
OpenAlex
W2738102896
Cited by
42
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biosensors and Analytical Detection
Keywords
bacterial endotoxin, endotoxin testing, pharmaceutical products, Limulus amebocyte lysate, comparability, pharmaceutical supply chain
MeSH terms
Animals, Drug Industry, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Endotoxins, Enzyme Precursors, Humans, Indicators and Reagents, Limulus Test, Recombinant Proteins, Serine Endopeptidases, Animal Use Alternatives, Arthropod Proteins

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