离子交换层析分离单抗电荷异质体的模型辅助过程优化

doi:10.11949/0438-1157.20231246

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对单抗电荷异质体分离，采用离子交换层析机理模型，预测洗脱分离行为，辅助工艺条件优化。设计了校准实验，拟合得到模型参数，模型计算与实验吻合良好，具有良好的预测能力。利用模型分析比较了不同洗脱方式，得到最优的两步阶跃洗脱方案，具有较高的收率，但发现该分离过程对盐浓度极为敏感。进一步针对第一步洗脱盐浓度进行过程稳健性约束的过程优化，发现盐浓度为105.8 mM时过程稳健性增强。经实验验证，两步阶跃洗脱收率最高可达到85.3%，稳健约束优化后第一步等度洗脱盐浓度操作区间增大为98.9~117.5 mM。结果表明，模型辅助的工艺优化可以进行复杂条件分析，促进难分离体系的分离过程优化，并能够针对过程稳健性给出合理解决方案。

关键词: 单克隆抗体, 电荷异质体, 分离, 离子交换层析, 层析模型, 过程优化

Abstract:

For the separation of monoclonal antibody charge heterogeneous species, an ion exchange chromatography mechanism model is used to predict the elution and separation behavior and assist in the optimization of process conditions. The calibration experiments were designed to estimate the model parameters and the model simulation matched well with the experiments, demonstrating the model has good predictive ability. The model was used to compare and evaluate the influences of different elution modes and conditions. The optimal two-step elution was obtained to achieve high yield. However, it was found that the separation efficiency was highly sensitive to the salt concentration of first-step elution solution. Therefore, the process robustness was considered further to optimize the salt concentration, and it was found the salt concentration of 105.8 mM could greatly enhance the process robustness. The results of validation experiments showed that the highest yield of two-step elution process reached 85.3%, and the operating range of the salt concentration of first-step elution was widened to 98.9~117.5 mM. The results demonstrated that model-assisted process optimization could facilitate the complex condition analysis, promote the optimization and provide reasonable solutions for process robustness.

Key words: monoclonal antibody, charge variant, separation, ion-exchange chromatography, chromatography model, process optimization

中图分类号:

TQ 028.8

许茹枫, 陈煜成, 高丹, 焦静雨, 高栋, 王海彬, 姚善泾, 林东强. 离子交换层析分离单抗电荷异质体的模型辅助过程优化[J]. 化工学报, DOI: 10.11949/0438-1157.20231246.

Rufeng XU, Yucheng CHEN, Dan GAO, jingyu JIAO, Dong GAO, Haibin WANG, Shanjing YAO, Dongqiang LIN. Model-assisted process optimization of ion-exchange chromatography for monoclonal antibody charge variant separation[J]. CIESC Journal, DOI: 10.11949/0438-1157.20231246.

图/表 13

表1 层析系统和层析柱参数

Table 1 Chromatographic system and column parameters

参数类别	参数名称	参数符号	值	单位
层析柱参数	柱径	d_col	10	mm
	床高	L	196	mm
	总空隙率	ε_t	0.91	—
	离子交换容量	Λ	0.58	M
操作条件参数	单抗上样浓度	c_inj	3.16	mg/mL
	线性流速	u	0.467	mm/s
	表观轴向扩散系数	D_app	0.0989	mm²/s

图1 实验洗脱曲线和模型计算结果比较

Fig.1 Comparison of experimental elution curve and model calculation

表2 SMA模型参数

Table 2 SMA model parameters

参数名称	参数符号	A1	A2	M
特征电荷数	υ	11.58	11.75	11.89
平衡常数	k_eq	4.23🞫10^-07	6.20🞫10^-07	7.34🞫10^-07
空间因子	σ	10.47	10.97	11.70
动力学常数	k_kin	0.35🞫10^-08	0.20🞫10^-08	0.10🞫10^-08

表3 不同洗脱方式的优化结果

Table 3 Process optimization of different elution methods

	洗脱方式	最大收率/%（纯度为89%）
单步洗脱	等度洗脱	59.2
单步洗脱	梯度洗脱	61.9
两步洗脱	两步阶跃	65.5
	等度-梯度	64.2
	梯度-等度	65.6
	两步梯度	64.1
三步洗脱	三步阶跃	65.5
	等度-梯度-等度	65.1
	梯度-等度-梯度	65.0

图2 优化后不同洗脱方式的洗脱曲线（阴影部分为收集区间）

Fig.2 Elution curves of different optimized elution modes. The shaded parts are the collection ranges.

图3 不同盐浓度的第一步阶跃洗脱曲线

Fig.3 First-step elution curves of different salt concentrations

图4 第一步洗脱盐浓度对两步阶跃洗脱的纯度和收率影响

Fig.4 Effects of first-step elution salt concentration on purity and yieldof two-step stepwise elution

图5 收集区间恒定的稳健优化两步阶跃洗脱曲线

Fig.5 Elution curve of optimized two-step stepwise elution under the robust constraints and fixed collection range

图6 第一步洗脱盐浓度对稳健优化及收集区间恒定的两步阶跃洗脱纯度和收率影响

Fig.6 Effects of first-step elution salt concentration on purity and yield of optimized two-step stepwise elution under the robust constraints and fixed collection range

图7 收集区间变化的稳健优化两步阶跃洗脱曲线

Fig.7 Elution curve of optimized two-step stepwise elution under the robust constraints and changed collection range

图8 第一步洗脱盐浓度对稳健优化及收集区间变化的两步阶跃洗脱收集起点和收率影响

Fig.8 Effects of first-step elution salt concentration on purity and yield of optimized two-step stepwise elution under the robust constraints and changed collection range

表4 层析分离验证实验与模型预测结果比较

Table 4 Comparison of chromatographic separation verification experiments and model predicted results

序号	洗脱总长度 (CV)	收集起点	第一步等度洗脱		纯度			收率
序号	洗脱总长度 (CV)	(CV)	洗脱长度(CV)	盐浓度 (mM)	预测值 (%)	实验值 (%)	偏差 (%)	预测值 (%)	实验值 (%)	偏差 (%)
I	15.0	13.80	14.42	103.4	89.0	92.2	3.47	65.5	64.2	2.02
II	15.0	11.00	14.38	108.5	89.0	91.1	2.31	63.4	59.8	6.02
III	15.0	16.06	14.38	98.9	89.0	91.7	2.94	43.8	43.5	0.69
IV	15.0	4.40	14.38	117.5	89.0	89.0	0	60.0	57.5	4.35

图9 层析分离验证实验与模型预测结果比较

Fig.9 Comparison of chromatographic separation verification experiments and model predicted results

参考文献 31

1	Mullard A. FDA approves 100th monoclonal antibody product[J]. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2021, 20: 491-495.
2	Fisher A C, Kamga M H, Agarabi C, et al. The current scientific and regulatory landscape in advancing integrated continuous biopharmaceutical manufacturing[J]. Trends in Biotechnology, 2019, 37(3): 253-267.
3	Kaplon H, Chenoweth A, Crescioli S, et al. Antibodies to watch in 2022[J]. MAbs, 2022, 14(1): 2014296.
4	Rathore A S, Winkle H. Quality by design for biopharmaceuticals[J]. Nature Biotechnology, 2009, 27: 26-34.
5	Saleh D, Wang G, Rischawy F, et al. In silico process characterization for biopharmaceutical development following the quality by design concept[J]. Biotechnology Progress, 2021, 37(6): e3196.
6	Hong G, Bazin-Redureau M I, Scherrmann J M. Pharmacokinetics and organ distribution of cationized colchicine-specific IgG and Fab fragments in rat[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1999, 88(1): 147-153.
7	Chung S, Tian J, Tan Z J, et al. Industrial bioprocessing perspectives on managing therapeutic protein charge variant profiles[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2018, 115(7): 1646-1665.
8	Ahmed S, Atia N N, Rageh A H. Selectivity enhanced cation exchange chromatography for simultaneous determination of peptide variants[J]. Talanta, 2019, 199: 347-354.
9	Fekete S, Beck A, Veuthey J L, et al. Ion-exchange chromatography for the characterization of biopharmaceuticals[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 2015, 113: 43-55.
10	Benner S W, Welsh J P, Rauscher M A, et al. Prediction of lab and manufacturing scale chromatography performance using mini-columns and mechanistic modeling[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2019, 1593: 54-62.
11	Jakobsson N, Degerman M, Stenborg E, et al. Model based robustness analysis of an ion-exchange chromatography step[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2007, 1138(1/2): 109-119.
12	Close E J, Salm J R, Iskra T, et al. Fouling of an anion exchange chromatography operation in a monoclonal antibody process: Visualization and kinetic studies[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2013, 110(9): 2425-2435.
13	Andris S, Hubbuch J. Modeling of hydrophobic interaction chromatography for the separation of antibody-drug conjugates and its application towards quality by design[J]. Journal of Biotechnology, 2020, 317: 48-58.
14	Lin D Q, Zhang Q L, Yao S J. Model-assisted approaches for continuous chromatography: current situation and challenges[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2021, 1637: 461855.
15	Forrer N, Butté A, Morbidelli M. Chromatographic behavior of a polyclonal antibody mixture on a strong cation exchanger column. Part I: Adsorption characterization[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2008, 1214(1/2): 59-70.
16	Brooks C A, Cramer S M, Rosano T G. Preparative chromatographic purification of cyclosporine metabolites[J]. Clinical Chemistry, 1993, 39(3): 457-466.
17	Yamamoto S. Plate height determination for gradient elution chromatography of proteins[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1995, 48(5): 444-451.
18	Keller W R, Evans S T, Ferreira G, et al. Use of MiniColumns for linear isotherm parameter estimation and prediction of benchtop column performance[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2015, 1418: 94-102.
19	Saleh D, Wang G, Mueller B, et al. Cross-scale quality assessment of a mechanistic cation exchange chromatography model[J]. Biotechnology Progress, 2021, 37(1): e3081.
20	Creasy A, Reck J, Pabst T, et al. Systematic interpolation method predicts antibody monomer-dimer separation by gradient elution chromatography at high protein loads[J]. Biotechnology Journal, 2019, 14(3): e1800132.
21	Saleh D, Wang G, Müller B, et al. Straightforward method for calibration of mechanistic cation exchange chromatography models for industrial applications[J]. Biotechnology Progress, 2020, 36(4): e2984.
22	Chen Y C, Yao S J, Lin D Q. Parameter-by-parameter method for steric mass action model of ion exchange chromatography: theoretical considerations and experimental verification[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2022, 1680: 463418.
23	Chen Y C, Yao S J, Lin D Q. Parameter-by-parameter method for steric mass action model of ion exchange chromatography: simplified estimation for steric shielding factor[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2023, 1687: 463655.
24	Huuk T C, Briskot T, Hahn T, et al. A versatile noninvasive method for adsorber quantification in batch and column chromatography based on the ionic capacity[J]. Biotechnology Progress, 2016, 32(3): 666-677.
25	Hahn T, Huuk T, Osberghaus A, et al. Calibration-free inverse modeling of ion-exchange chromatography in industrial antibody purification[J]. Engineering in Life Sciences, 2016, 16(2): 107-113.
26	Rüdt M, Gillet F, Heege S, et al. Combined Yamamoto approach for simultaneous estimation of adsorption isotherm and kinetic parameters in ion-exchange chromatography[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2015, 1413: 68-76.
27	Heymann W, Glaser J, Schlegel F, et al. Advanced score system and automated search strategies for parameter estimation in mechanistic chromatography modeling[J]. Journal of Chromatography A, 2022, 1661: 462693.
28	Saleh D, Hess R, Ahlers-Hesse M, et al. Modeling the impact of amino acid substitution in a monoclonal antibody on cation exchange chromatography[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2021, 118(8): 2923-2933.
29	Natarajan V, Ghose S, Cramer S M. Comparison of linear gradient and displacement separations in ion-exchange systems[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2002, 78(4): 365-375.
30	Hahn T, Baumann P, Huuk T, et al. UV absorption-based inverse modeling of protein chromatography[J]. Engineering in Life Sciences, 2016, 16(2): 99-106.
31	Cherra D E, Khattabi S, Guiochon G. Adsorption behavior and prediction of the band profiles of the enantiomers of 3-chloro-1-phenyl-1-propanol. Influence of the mass transfer kinetics[J]. Journal of Chromatography. A, 2000, 877(1/2): 109-122.

[1]	赵亚欣, 张雪芹, 王荣柱, 孙国, 姚善泾, 林东强. 流穿模式离子交换层析去除单抗聚集体[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(9): 3879-3887.
[2]	张佳怡, 何佳莉, 谢江鹏, 王健, 赵鹬, 张栋强. 渗透汽化技术用于锂电池生产中N-甲基吡咯烷酮回收的研究进展[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3203-3215.
[3]	张瑞航, 曹潘, 杨锋, 李昆, 肖朋, 邓春, 刘蓓, 孙长宇, 陈光进. ZIF-8纳米流体天然气乙烷回收工艺的产品纯度关键影响因素分析[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3386-3393.
[4]	邢雷, 苗春雨, 蒋明虎, 赵立新, 李新亚. 井下微型气液旋流分离器优化设计与性能分析[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3394-3406.
[5]	刘爽, 张霖宙, 许志明, 赵锁奇. 渣油及其组分黏度的分子层次组成关联研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3226-3241.
[6]	文兆伦, 李沛睿, 张忠林, 杜晓, 侯起旺, 刘叶刚, 郝晓刚, 官国清. 基于自热再生的隔壁塔深冷空分工艺设计及优化[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(7): 2988-2998.
[7]	张缘良, 栾昕奇, 苏伟格, 李畅浩, 赵钟兴, 周利琴, 陈健民, 黄艳, 赵祯霞. 离子液体复合萃取剂选择性萃取尼古丁的研究及DFT计算[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(7): 2947-2956.
[8]	高金明, 郭玉娇, 鄂承林, 卢春喜. 一种封闭罩内顺流多旋臂气液分离器的分离特性研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(7): 2957-2966.
[9]	韩奎奎, 谭湘龙, 李金芝, 杨婷, 张春, 张永汾, 刘洪全, 于中伟, 顾学红. 四通道中空纤维MFI分子筛膜用于二甲苯异构体分离[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(6): 2468-2476.
[10]	朱兴驰, 郭志远, 纪志永, 汪婧, 张盼盼, 刘杰, 赵颖颖, 袁俊生. 选择性电渗析镁锂分离过程模拟优化[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(6): 2477-2485.
[11]	蔺彩虹, 王丽, 吴瑜, 刘鹏, 杨江峰, 李晋平. 沸石中碱金属阳离子对CO₂/N₂O吸附分离性能的影响[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(5): 2013-2021.
[12]	孙永尧, 高秋英, 曾文广, 王佳铭, 陈艺飞, 周永哲, 贺高红, 阮雪华. 面向含氮油田伴生气提质利用的膜耦合分离工艺设计优化[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(5): 2034-2045.
[13]	张正, 何永平, 孙海东, 张荣子, 孙正平, 陈金兰, 郑一璇, 杜晓, 郝晓刚. 蛇形流场电控离子交换装置用于选择性提锂[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(5): 2022-2033.
[14]	王蕾, 王磊, 白云龙, 何柳柳. SA膜状锂离子筛的制备及其锂吸附性能[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(5): 2046-2056.
[15]	王荣, 王永洪, 张新儒, 李晋平. 6FDA型聚酰亚胺炭分子筛气体分离膜的构筑及其应用[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(4): 1433-1445.