Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30739333›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology and bioengineering2019

Challenging the workhorse: Comparative analysis of eukaryotic micro-organisms for expressing monoclonal antibodies.

Hanxiao Jiang, Andrew A Horwitz, Chapman Wright, Anna Tai, Elizabeth A Znameroski, Yoseph Tsegaye, Hailley Warbington, Benjamin S Bower, Christina Alves, Carl Co and 7 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Hanxiao JiangResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.ORCID 0000-0002-9661-5477
Andrew A HorwitzResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Chapman WrightEngineering & Technology, Biogen, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Anna TaiResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Elizabeth A ZnameroskiResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Yoseph TsegayeResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Hailley WarbingtonResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Benjamin S BowerResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Christina AlvesEngineering & Technology, Biogen, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Carl CoEngineering & Technology, Biogen, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kanvasri JonnalagaddaEngineering & Technology, Biogen, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Darren PlattResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Jessica M WalterResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Venkatesh NatarajanEngineering & Technology, Biogen, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Jeffrey A UbersaxResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
Joel R CherryResearch and Development, Amyris Inc., Emeryville, California.
J Christopher LoveEngineering & Technology, Biogen, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For commercial protein therapeutics, Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells have an established history of safety, proven capability to express a wide range of therapeutic proteins and high volumetric productivities. Expanding global markets for therapeutic proteins and increasing concerns for broadened access of these medicines has catalyzed consideration of alternative approaches to this platform. Reaching these objectives likely will require an order of magnitude increase in volumetric productivity and a corresponding reduction in the costs of manufacture. For CHO-based manufacturing, achieving this combination of targeted improvements presents challenges. Based on a holistic analysis, the choice of host cells was identified as the single most influential factor for both increasing productivity and decreasing costs. Here we evaluated eight wild-type eukaryotic micro-organisms with prior histories of recombinant protein expression. The evaluation focused on assessing the potential of each host, and their corresponding phyla, with respect to key attributes relevant for manufacturing, namely (a) growth rates in industry-relevant media, (b) adaptability to modern techniques for genome editing, and (c) initial characterization of product quality. These characterizations showed that multiple organisms may be suitable for production with appropriate engineering and development and highlighted that yeast in general present advantages for rapid genome engineering and development cycles.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalBiotechnologyEukaryotic CellsImmunologic FactorsMetabolic EngineeringRecombinant ProteinsTechnology, PharmaceuticalAntibodies, MonoclonalImmunologic FactorsRecombinant Proteinsalternate expression systemsantibodygenome engineeringrecombinant protein expressionyeast expression systems

Identifiers

PMID30739333
PMCPMC6836876

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.