Showing posts with label biotechnology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biotechnology. Show all posts

Monday, August 15, 2016

Experts Predict what Boston Biotech Might Look Like in 2050

This past July Karl Thiel wrote in Biospace: “Never has there been so much transformative technology, seemingly right around the corner… Hugely exciting new technologies like CAR-T, emerging technologies like CRISPR-Cas, and perhaps-ready-for-prime-time technologies like RNAi, gene therapy, and antisense all seem to be on the cusp of revolutionizing healthcare.” It’s hard to deny the fact that so many amazing groundbreaking biotechnologies have been developed, so quickly, in the past few years. If this growth rate continues there is really no telling what is on the horizon for biotech. I asked several experts in the Boston area – from biotech CEOs to bioengineers – what they thought Boston biotech would look like in 30 or so years.

What does Boston biotech look like in 2050?


Jeffrey Karp, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Karp Labs

In 2050, Boston’s population will have significantly swelled resulting from the booming biotech, medtech, and pharma industries, and new innovative colleges that have formed. People will be much more in control of their health than they are today - most people will have had their genome sequenced and will wear devices whose data will be used to minimize implications of the genome findings. Data from wearable devices will help promote lifestyle modifications to maximize health and be used by clinicians to tailor patient specific treatments. Life expectancies will continue to rise and quality of life past 65 will improve with regenerative therapies for hearing loss, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. This will in part be achieved through controlling stem cell populations inside the body with small molecules. People will also frequently visit stem cell infusion clinics for routine therapy for multiple diseases and tissue defects. The future is quite bright for Boston!

Catch Jeffrey Karp at Biotech Week Boston's Cell and Gene Therapy Bioprocessing and Commercialization event this October. Jeffrey's talk is entitled "MSCs on steroids".


Robert Langer, David H. Koch Institute Professor, MIT

I think in 2050 the Boston area will be the center of the biotech universe even more than it is today, and I expect we will see a host of new technologies including RNA therapies, nanotechnology, tissue engineering, gene editing and technologies that are not even on our radar screen today affecting the lives of billions all over the world.


Martin Tolar, MD, PhD, Founder, President and CEO Alzheon, Inc.

Boston is one of the most active areas for research and drug development in neuroscience and neurodegenerative diseases. The Boston ecosystem that fuels biotechnology innovation includes a brain trust of experts in science, medicine and biotechnology collaborating for new ways to treat neurodegenerative disorders.

By the year 2050, the outlook is promising for new life-changing medicines to emerge from the Boston hub for these devastating diseases of the brain that represents some of the greatest challenges in human health, currently with very limited treatment options for patients: Alzheimer’s, ALS, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s diseases. We are on the cusp of bringing new medicines to millions of patients in need.

You can see Martin Tolar at Biotech Week Boston's Partnerships in Clinical Trials event this October. Martin will present the opening keynote for day two of the event entitled "Innovation in Clinical R&D: Finding a Cure for Alzheimer’s".


C. Michael Gibson, Founder and Chairman of Wikidoc.org and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School

Randomized clinical trials will no longer need to pay to build a new database for each trial and will not be using large number of nurses and doctors to identify and follow patients. Instead, national health databases will be used to identify patients with disease or those at risk of disease, and with the patient's consent they will be randomized to a therapy and followed using this database and a more limited number of nurses at centralized centers. Digital devices will collect and transmit data. Obviously, therapy will be much more highly targeted based upon genomics, proteinomics and other "ics."


Phillip Sharp, Ph. D.  Koch Institute at MIT. Dr. Sharp won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1993 for the discovery of RNA splicing (in 1977) and founded Biogen in 1978.

Biotech in Cambridge and Boston will be thriving in 2050 having generated numerous treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson’s, better control of cancers, schizophrenia and depression. Delivery of medical care will continue to move from hospitals to more diverse settings and intense use of IT and engineering will individualize healthcare and reduce its cost.


Got any predictions for 2050? We’d love to share them with our audience so Tweet to us at @BiotechWkBoston. Don’t forget to check in every week for our Biotech Week Boston blog series. Biotech Week Boston is a hub for life sciences, technology, and business and fosters cross-disciplinary interaction and collaboration to break down silos and spark change. Biotech Week Boston will showcase the most comprehensive science and innovative technologies while fostering partnerships to unlock the full potential of what science and business can achieve. Learn more by clicking the link below.






Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Tuesday, January 19, 2016

[Podcast] Biodevelopment Centers; Flexibility, Modular Facilities & the Benefits




Many people think about flexibility in many different ways. One of which, ensure the ability to change very quickly the set-up of pants to adapt the various parts of the manufacturing suites. Flexibility is not only about pushing in or pulling out some new equipment, it’s also about changing completely the way you work in the plant.

In regards to modular facilities, Sébastien Ribault, Ph.D., Director Biotechnology/Life Science, Head of BioDevelopment Center, EMD Millipore mentioned that they have had a number of different experiences, the first of which was modifying an existing Biodevelopment Center. He said, “We divided the building into two parts. We’ve kept 50% stainless steel and we’ve modified the remaining 50% by making fully single-use” and it turns out that during the modification process, “we kept running the plants”. Dr. Ribault continued “We noticed then, that you can run the plants while making modifications in you are using flexible concepts.”

In this podcast interview, Dr. Ribault discusses:
  • What it means for your Biodevelopment Center to be flexible
  • More experiences relating to modular facilities
  • The benefits he has experienced (at the expected level)
  • The benefits he has experienced (that were not anticipated)
  • The next steps

Listen to the podcast or download the transcript here.

Want to learn more? Then join us for BPI West, March 14-17th in Oakland, CA. Rates increase Friday, 1/22 – register now with the code BPIWEST16BL and save $400!
 


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

BPI is Paradise for an Old Technologist

By: Frank Corden

As I was driving in this morning to the Hynes Convention Center, I was thinking about how lucky we are to have an international meeting of this caliber in Boston.  I just love BPI. It’s such a great mix of presentations; the breadth of discussions from the applied science around cell engineering to the underlying business drivers that will carry us into the next decade is amazing.  The organizers successfully execute this daunting task with seeming ease, though I’m sure in the background their little duck feet are paddling away.


Those of you who know me have heard the story of how I became a scientist.  As a kid growing up in the sixties and early seventies, my interests in science and technology were birthed from watching Jacques Cousteau television specials and the race to the moon.  In the years since, I’ve had the pleasure of seeing first hand that those fish on the coral reef are really all those beautiful colors and that NASA used proven technology, kerosene and liquid oxygen (aka Rocket Propellant No. 1) to get our astronauts into space.  Fortunately, my interest in all cool things science hasn’t waned with age and that’s why I love BPI.

Yesterday afternoon, I was sitting in on the presentation “Raising the Bar: Advanced Analytics in Upstream Bioprocess Development.”  Much of the discussion focused on the use of Liquid Chromatography coupled with Tandem Mass Spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) to identify and quantitate attributes of various cell culture processes.  Without getting overly technical, the technique can be used to map the amino acid sequence of a drug substance as well as the pattern of added sugars (glycosylation) that are bound to an intact monoclonal antibody molecule. 

LC-MS/MS works by very accurately measuring the mass of the peptide fragments created from the proteins in the sample during the sample preparation process.  By accurately measuring the mass, the LC-MS/MS can identify the amino acid composition of each fragment.  This composition and the mix of the fragments, especially unique fragments specific to the proteins of interest, enable the instrumentation to identify with a very high certainty the presence and relative concentration of different proteins in the sample.

In the data shown, the presenter, Chris Yu, demonstrated the practical power of the LC-MS/MS method to characterize drug substance.  Data showed that LC-MS/MS could identify and quantitate host cell proteins and, further, could give positive confirmation of glycosylation patterns.  But what was most interesting to me was a more basic discovery…

As part of the effort to characterize a particular drug substance, the team identified a low percentage of peptides which differed from the expected amino acid composition, often a swap between serine and asparagine.  Initially the thought was that the DNA sequence for a fraction of the cells was different, as a result of either spontaneous mutations or by misincorporation of the DNA sequence during cell engineering.  Surprising neither of these possible errors was the root cause.

It turns out that there is a natural error rate for misincorporation of amino acids into the primary sequence of proteins.  The authors presented data that showed the error rate was in the same range for both mammalian cells and E. coli.  The error rate could also be influenced by the relative availability of the amino acids in the cell culture.  Restrict the availability of the intended amino acid relative to the incorrect amino acid and you get higher substitution.  Provide a plentiful source of the intended amino acid and the error rate decreases.

On reflection, it’s not surprising that some low level error rate should be expected.  After all, these biological processes are driven by chemistry.  You can have a preference for a given binding affinity or reaction path, but it’s just a preference even when it’s a very strong preference.  As an analogy, byproduct production in a chemical reaction is common and even if the reaction is very strongly directed for a particular outcome, in all but the simplest reactions, some byproducts are created.  So, you can view the amino acid substitutions as byproducts. 

Whether the protein with the substitution is functionally different than the desired product is unknown.  What we do know is that the LC-MS/MS can measure the error rate and that process conditions affect the error rate. So if the error rate turns out to be a critical quality attribute (CQA) of the protein that is the drug substance, we can monitor it and control it.  Neither the deeper insight gained about misincorporation nor the understanding of the ability to control the rate of amino acid substitution would have occurred without the applied research of Dr. Yu’s team and the advanced capabilities of the LC-MS/MS instruments. 

Gaining that insight into how biology really works is the 21st century equivalent of rocket science -  that’s why I love this meeting.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Thursday, October 29, 2015

BPI 2015: Day Two Recap

By: LSPR

Day two of the 12th annual Bioprocess International (BPI) Conference & Exposition featured a full day of exhibitions and continued high-level technical discussions and presentations that attendees have come to expect from the show. The day began on a high note with keynote speakers giving insight into the next generation of manufacturing. Valuable conversations continued during exhibit hours with the curtain rising on the BPI Theater. Of course, there were technical sessions throughout the day, as well. Some of the highlights from the second day of BPI 2015 are below.

Keynote Addresses
Bioprocessing manufacturing facilities were the topic of the day during the keynote addresses, as representatives from Amgen and Genzyme, a Sanofi company, built on the keynotes presented on day one. Both day two speakers opened the door on technologies and trends to provide a peak on what the future may hold for the industry.

The future is now was the theme of the first presentation, given by Kimball Hall, Vice President Manufacturing, Amgen Singapore Manufacturing Pte. Ltd. Her address was on Amgen’s Next-generation Biomanufacturing Facility, which was four years in the making and is scheduled to open its doors in 2017. In changing the manner in which Amgen conducts bioprocessing manufacturing, the company is also re-shaping the entire industry, according to Hall.

“Whereas in the past, the focus was on high margins and capacity, today biomanufacturing is centered on cost, speed, and operation flexibility,” she explained.

Hall shared the thoughts of one of Tuesday’s keynote speakers, David J. Pollard, PhD, Executive Director, BioProcess Development, Merck & Co., Inc., when she spoke of a modular method for facility design.

“In a conventional facility design, capacity becomes a consideration in Phase II. That is not the case with a modular design as it allows facilities to expand or contract as the market demands. Additionally, the modular format is agnostic to a country or location,” she explained.

In addition to a modular format, the Amgen Singapore facility incorporates other design elements that have proven to create benefits in construction time, operations, and environmental footprint. Among those elements mentioned by Hall were integration of single-use technologies (95% of the equipment is single use), incorporating connected processing, and real-time and remote monitoring.

Hall explained that the disruptive approach taken by Amgen has cut the construction time of the Singapore facility in half and capital costs are one quarter that of a conventional facility. Operating expenses will be lowered by a third, as well, according to Hall. The end result will be an approximately 60% reduction in protein development cost.

“One of the first questions I’m asked about is the environmental impact of the facility. I am happy to say that it will use less water for heating, cooling, and cleaning. Because it is a smaller facility, it will have a lower air quality classification, and emissions will be lower due to reduced energy usage and Singapore’s cleaner energy,” explained Hall.

All told, the new facility in Singapore is expected to have an 80% reduction in energy and water use. 

In the second keynote, Konstantin Konstantinov, PhD, Vice President, Technology Development for Genzyme asked What is the Future of Continuous Processing – What is the Time Frame for Implementing Fully Continuous Processing in Commercial Production? He spoke of changes in upstream and downstream processes that will help create a “dominant design” in the next 5-10 years that will help shape bioprocessing.

“The commercialization of innovation will lead to a dominant design where almost any protein can be developed using a universal platform. It will take a lot of courage and focus to accomplish this dominant design,” offered Dr. Konstantinov.

The dominant design outlined by Dr. Konstantinov is an end-to-end continuous integrated upstream and downstream principle. While there has been promising results in a pilot facility, Dr. Konstantinov noted, “Success is impossible without a high-performance cell line.”

Thankfully, Dr. Konstantinov believes there is tremendous opportunity to improve cell lines. Success will be determined by three factors – stable productivity over a long period of time, stable quality over a long period of time, and low cell specific perfusion rate.

While upstream processing improvements are one step, Dr. Konstantinov expects “a lot of changes” in the downstream. He noted developments in equipment, and spoke of a large scale continuous purification system with a very broad capacity range currently in a laboratory at Genzyme’s Framingham, Massachusetts, campus.

Despite all the progress, Dr. Konstantinov noted that the industry is entering a “very interesting stage.” New technologies still need to be developed to fill a few gaps, including cell retention devices and viral inactivation.

He also suggested the industry broaden its approach to the integration of continuous processing. “Why stop at drug substance? We should also look at drug product because continuous manufacturing can bring advantages there, as well.”

Technical Session Highlights
In his session entitled High-throughput Process Development to Accelerate Speed to the Clinic for Antibodies, Gregory A. Barker, Ph.D., Sr. Engineer, Biologics Process Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb spoke of High-throughput Process Development (HTPD) and how it allows scientists to examine 300,000 compounds per day so it only takes a few weeks to screen millions of substances. Before HTPD, Bayer researchers could take several months to develop special activity assays.

The goal of using HTPD, a computer-based serial-testing method that incorporates robotic systems, is to determine whether a substance reacts biochemically with the target, according to Dr. Barker. During the HTPD process, robots fill millions of reaction vessels with the assays.

“For example, a specific vessel may hold only 50 nanoliters of fluid with the vessels aligned on a plate that holds 1,536 wells. This would allow for 1,536 biochemical or cell-based assays to be performed simultaneously on a single microliter plate. In fact, thousands of these are often used in a single HTPD run,” said Dr. Barker.

As Dr. Barker explained, key benefits of HTPD for chromatography unit operations include:
-          A platform for rapid execution of experiments using sparingly small amounts of material to enable investigation of a broad range of process conditions
-          Fundamental data that may be used for scale-up via statistical modeling and process simulate
-          Systematic and highly reproducible execution of complex DOEs to survey the knowledge space and enable multivariate understanding

Specific methods of HTPD for chromatography were detailed, such as:
1. Isotherms
2. Batch uptake curves
3.  Batch chromatography

Dr. Barker described several HTPD methods that are used to augment FIH process development packages, including protein solubility, Protein A optimization and Sartobind Q membrane optimization. The comparison between common data sets enables adaptation of the platform and modification to process ranges.

In summarizing his remarks, Dr. Barker said that HTPD methods are well-defined and are producing data aligned with literature values. The data alone enables a broader PD knowledge space. Empirical models built directly from batch chromatography data enable a first level of prediction for large scale chromatography and rapid FIH timelines. One thing he noted was that a comparison of HTPD campaigns across different proteins reflected both commonalities and differences. As a result, the next steps will be to explore the drivers of commonalities and differences based on structural motifs.

Poster Highlight
One of the more distinguished posters at BPI 2015 was presented by MedImmune and was entitled The Final Push? Expelling mAb Drug Product from Pre-Filled Syringe Configurations for Sub-Visible-Particle Testing. The poster proposed that a partial expulsion of drug products in pre-filled syringe (PFS) configurations would more accurately reflect protein behavior.

The poster showed that completely expelling a PFS generates a significant surge of sub-visible particle (SVP) counts, stemming from the silicone oil (SiO) scraped from the syringe barrel and forced through the needle. Conclusions drawn from the experiment and published were that completely expelling a PFS results in SVP counts as much as 50x greater than if PFS was partially expelled. Particles in the surge are SiO droplets scraped off the barrel during the expulsion process and introduced into the liquid upon complete expel. Other conclusions drawn are that partially expelling a PFS is robust with respect to expel volume. Removing the product through the stopper is an orthogonal method of sampling without introducing the high artificial SiO background. The final conclusion was that product stability should be monitored by partial expel during the drug development process, as it best isolates the protein behavior.

Product Highlight 
Roche Custom Biotech made three announcements, two on products and a third on partnership, at BPI 2015.

The two new production introductions were:
Cedex Bio HT, a highly reliable metabolite and substrate analyzer for cell culture analysis. It offers unique photometric technology that delivers high data accuracy, as well as a cost-saving expandable menu. 

Tools for In Vitro Glycoengineering that can be used after proteins have been harvested. The tools increase productivity and can be used in early stage development.

Roche also announced a partnership with Flownamics that features auto sampling technology. Through the technology, multiple bioreactors can be sampled simultaneously to streamline testing and reduce down time to enhance manufacturing efficiencies


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

BPI 2015: Data Rules

By: Frank Corden

The explosion of readily available data is everywhere around us.  Silicon Valley is bombarding us and those who would like to sell to us with data to purportedly make our lives easier. Whether it be the articles you see on your news feed or the research you do before buying the next gadget, it seems like the current strategy is to conceive of a potential use for the data and throw it at us to see what sticks.  However, often the data isn’t timely or even useful. 

Take my commute in this morning to Boston. The warning of the traffic congestion came about 5 minutes before I hit the slow down.  Since several of the exits are more than 5 miles apart, there wasn’t time to get off Mass Pike.  But even if the data was timely, it wasn’t actionable.  Once you get to I-90 to head into town, there really isn’t an alternative route to get there.

A major theme of this year’s BioProcessing International Conference (#BPIConf) revolves around making informed decisions with data.  Whether it be on-line monitoring data, laboratory data, or process analytical technology (PAT) based data, data rules.  But what are the rules around data and how do we make it useful? What are the “rules” around using process data in bioprocessing?

I was sitting in the 8:15am presentation Evaluation of Continuous Manufacturing in a Downstream Process.  I guess I wasn’t the only one who headed into town early, the room is pretty full.  It’s great to feel the energy and enthusiasm of the group first thing in the morning.

The introduction to the Recovery and Purification track delivered by Marc Bisschops of Pall Life Sciences was provocative.  He challenged us to move from batch manufacturing to continuous manufacturing.  The benefits are clearly dependent on our ability to balance throughput of the various unit operations as you move through the process. 

Kudo’s to the first presentation, Data Based Comparison of Capture and Polishing Steps in a Continuous Mab Process.  The authors, from the chromatography company ChromaCon compared continuous versus batch approaches with hard data analysis.  By evaluating throughput, cost, and resource requirements, the analysis demonstrated that a change in the manufacturing paradigm from batch to continuous chromatography can have some impressive benefits. 

With a better quality outcome (increase in purity from mid 70% to mid 80%), you can cut chromatography resin usage by one-third.  For the resin selected, the reduction in resin usage translated into $190,000/year.  In the pilot facility studied, the breakeven for the investment in continuous chromatography occurred after the transfer of only two molecules.  Clearly, the dollar savings in a full production facility would be significantly greater. 

The decision to shift from the tried and true manufacturing approaches we use today is a difficult one.  We all realize the risk of getting it wrong is what keeps us up at night.  A delay in the release of a product not only affects our companies but also the patients who depend on these products to keep them healthy, or in some cases alive. 


Hard data to help make a difficult decision; now that’s data that rules.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


BPI 2015: Day One Recap

The 12th annual Bioprocess International (BPI) Conference & Exposition began with a series of technical sessions, many of which broke new ground. BPI 2015 also proved to be an invaluable forum for scientists and engineers with its poster presentations and product announcements, as well as keynote talks from industry leaders. Here are some highlights of Day 1.

Keynote Addresses
Market leaders from Merck & Co., Novartis Pharma, and the Duke School of Medicine gave compelling and insightful keynote presentations on Tuesday at BPI 2015. And it is fitting that in Boston, one of the keynote speakers noted that there is a “revolution” underway in fighting cancer.

By: LSPR

Innovating mAb Production to Support the Immunotherapy Revolution was given by David J. Pollard, PhD, Executive Director, BioProcess Development, Merck & Co., Inc.  Dr. Pollard began the keynote session by stating it was an “exciting time in immunotherapy” and that a revolution is now underway in cancer treatment. To be successful in this revolution, the industry needs to be agile and flexible so it can quickly adapt to change.

To that point, Dr. Pollard emphasized the importance of there being a “collaboration between suppliers and end users” to help lower costs and increase throughput. “Working as a community we can help create a facility of the future,” he stated.

Such a “facility of the future” will create a tremendous opportunity to lower the cost of manufacturing while also being able to handle increased capacities, according to Dr. Pollard. He explained that a modular approach will be taken to develop these facilities so they can easily be built out as needed.

Dr. Pollard stated this next-generation manufacturing approach will improve acceleration to clinical trials and that technology will be used to de-bottleneck activities. This will create high-throughput workflows using enabled formulations from cell line development, process development (both upstream and downstream), and formulation.

Another challenge during this revolution is to create a bridge from IV to subcutaneous. The goal is to achieve the necessary high concentration of >150 mg/mL while also addressing viscosity issues. Dr. Pollard stated that, while it is early proof of concept, Merck has done research in which novel excipients have been added to meet this challenge. 


Next to speak was Spencer Fisk, Global Head, Biologics Process, R&D, Novartis Pharma, AG who spoke of Innovative Process Development Strategies to Drive the Rapid Clinical Introduction of Emerging Biologics. Fisk challenged the industry go beyond the “heavily walked path” and push boundaries to speed drug development and improve efficacy.

Fisk’s approach to accelerating drug development was for his colleagues to not avoid taking risks. He suggested to “use data to guide us” so scientists and engineers can approach the “edge of the cliff.” Using data, risk levels can be determined and comfort levels established with the end result of more quickly selecting the proper candidate for development.  

Choosing the best candidate requires evaluating all the variables such as the biology and the ability to develop the candidate. Each variable has its own elements. For example, in the case of biology, binding, potency and efficacy need to be assessed. In terms of development there are a number of aspects, including stability, that need to be determined.

Risk factors not only need to be established, they should be classified as critical (red), moderate (yellow), and low (green), suggested Fisk. If the risks are predominantly low, then the candidate should be moved ahead. “Green means go,” stated Fisk. The results will be favorable the majority of the time.

“If we get it right >80% of the time, we have significant time savings. In many cases, the 20% that does not work is simply due to the fact that more time is needed,” said Fisk.

Taking this approach will create a cycle that will benefit the market, as well as society. Once scientists have “walked to the edge” and realized it was not as close as they originally believed they will push the boundaries further, creating a continuum of accelerating drug development, according to Fisk.

The final keynote, Novel Approach to Developing and Producing Human Experimental Vaccines for HIV, was given by Michael Anthony, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Duke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke School of Medicine. Dr. Moody emphasized that because HIV is a unique and challenging virus it poses many challenges. Vaccines that are developed and aim to be effective must deal with an incredible diversity of circulating strains.

“By locating and neutralizing antibodies we can prevent disease but this is not an easy task. Antibodies at a sufficient level can target many strains of HIV1,” said Dr. Moody.

One question posed by Dr. Moody during his session was if information gathered from those patients who are infected can be used to make antibodies. “But it’s not that simple. There are many changes to the immunosystem that we may need to mimic with adjuvants to be successful,” he explained.

Novel adjuvants will need to be developed, according to Dr. Moody. Human trials are in the planning stages but there is no guarantee that the answers will be found. There is a paradox in the bnAb development – mutations develop. As a result, Phase I human testing is required. Within that context, two important elements are needed:
·         Targeting of multiple lineages
·         Multiple immunogens, likely in sequence

“Industry, academia and government will need to come together, as one of these alone cannot muster the resources needed to be successful,” emphasized Dr. Moody.

Technical Session Highlights
New Data on Continuous Manufacture in Downstream Process: In the Recovery and Purification technical track, Michael Bavand, PhD, Chairman and CEO of ChromaCon AG, released new data during his presentation entitled Data Based Comparison of Capture and Polishing Steps in a Continuous Mab Process.

Dr. Bavand spoke of a study conducted in which four resins were compared using batch mode, dynamic flow load, and continuous chromatography. The experiment evaluated five outputs – recovery percentage, high molecular rate (HMW%), productivity, host cell protein, and 0.1M NaOH tolerance. The results revealed:
·         Very little difference in recovery percentage, as all the conditions were > 90%
·         Slight reduction in HMW% in the continuous condition
·         Host cell protein (ng/mg) was equivalent or better in continuous condition
·         All DBC levels were > 90% initially after 100 cycles; resin 4 showed reduction in DBC after first measurement

A model was generated with all the productivity data. Validation cost estimates, lab scale system purchase, GMP system purchase, FTE estimates, and the number of new molecules arriving in a plant annually were all accounted for by the model. The model was used to estimate return on investment across the number of new molecules to come into a pilot plant every 12 months. Using a baseline of two new molecules per year, the initial estimates were that cost savings would be realized after three years.

Dr. Bavand also discussed a second part of the experiment that studied a process using MCSGP with a membrane adsorber to determine if it would have equivalent or better outputs than a cation exchange (CEX) resin step in terms of recovery, productivity, and impurity levels. Through the experiment, a Flow Through MCSGP was demonstrated to have equivalent purity and recovery with significant higher productivity levels than batch mode.

As revealed by the results, higher productivity and large cost savings are possible using a continuous chromatography system for both capture and polishing steps. Additional verification of these processes is needed before they can be implemented into a pilot plant concluded Dr. Bavand.

Poster Highlight
Essential Pharmaceuticals’ poster entitled Novel Lipid Based Supplement Increases Protein Yield in Single Use Bioreactor presented the use of a lipid supplement using various strategies to improve protein yield.

The poster stated that by adding the lipid supplements at the beginning of the culture, the yield in titer antibody protein production increased 30% from CHO cells without increasing proliferation. Further, when the metabolic profile was examined, it was discovered that there were no differences in any of the metabolites.

The poster also stated that the supplement was used as a feed and there were two notable effects: 1) increasing the titer yield by 25% and 2) extending the window for peak protein production from one day to two. These results show that there are windows for further optimization of protein production using lipids. It is possible the use of lipids reduces the energy requirement for new cell formation and, therefore, can be used for protein production. 

Product Highlight 
Pall Life Sciences is showcasing key components of its biopharmaceutical portfolio in its booth (#309). A host of updated and new portfolio products will be on display, with particular emphasis on continuous solutions Pall has available for downstream processing support.

Included in the BPI 2015 booth will be:
  • The disruptive Acoustic Wave Separation technology for cell-culture clarification in either fed-batch or perfusion applications
  • A preview of Pall’s latest advance in depth filtration: Stax™ Depth Filters with Hyperion Flow technology, for direct mammalian cell harvest with a new filter to remove cells and cellular debris effectively and efficiently
  • The award-winning Cadence™ Inline Concentrator single-pass tangential flow filtration system for direct flow-through and in-process volume reduction in an integrated or stand-alone format
  • The recently introduced BioSMB® System for single-use or multicolumn continuous chromatography featuring a disposable flow path with a proprietary integrated valve cassette to service up to 16 columns or devices.




Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Friday, October 23, 2015

Rising from the Historical Grave

By: Frank Corden is the Senior Director of Growth Services for New England Controls

Well it’s almost Halloween.  So a story about data rising from the dead seemed an appropriate theme.  Let’s start with a little background.

Data historians are a staple of the manufacturing control infrastructure at most, if not all, biotech manufacturing facilities.  Whether provided as a component of the distributed control system (DCS) offered by Honeywell, Siemens, Emerson, or other DCS suppliers, or integrated as standalone software, such as offered by AspenTech, the historian is the go-to data source for the time-sequenced record of what has occurred on the manufacturing floor.  When combined with an enterprise- or site-wide historian such as OSISoft’s PI Historian, the manufacturing data, the building control system data, and data from other selected sources can be combined in a single repository.  Although these historians may be used in batch reporting, as well as for conducting investigations of process deviations, much of the data remains buried, unused, and unloved.  As one of my colleagues put it, “they’re just data graveyards.”

Biotech manufacturers actively have been expanding their enterprise historians and adding capabilities using various data analytics software packages, including Biovia Discoverant, Dell Statistica, and Bio-G, to name a few.  These systems enable manufacturers to integrate data sets not only from one or more data historians, but also from the Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), the Enterprise Resource and Planning systems (ERP), the Learning Management Systems (LMS), the Product Lifecycle Management systems (PLM) and others.  The objectives of the analytics system installation vary from company to company but there are common themes.  These software systems enable more efficient and timely creation of reports, charts, and graphs to support:  1) routine generation of control charts and other process views, 2) operational excellence initiatives including but not limited to overall equipment effectiveness ( OEE), 3) investigations of process events, and 4) process development / tech transfer. In a few instances, the systems even come full circle with Quality by Design (QbD).

In the process development (PD) labs, the environment and the data challenge is very different from manufacturing.  In any PD lab you can find a range of equipment from various manufacturers, all of which have control systems and collect data, but not many of these systems communicate with each other or to a central data repository.  So in PD, the data lies buried in these islands.

Although the PD labs are comfortable with data analytics and use the tools routinely, the challenge lies in aggregating the data to make it available to them and extracting the data from these islands of automation. 

To address this disparate data nightmare, one PD lab, has embarked on an ambitious program to integrate all their lab scale units to an OSI PI historian.  By doing so, much more of the data is readily accessible without the manual transcription, creation, and distribution of spreadsheets that we often see in laboratories.  One goal of the program is to enable the lab to generate their routine data analyses with greater automation and free their scientists to spend more time doing the experimental and analytics work they are trained for.  By combining automated data aggregation with a historian and applying the newest analytics tools that also automate routine data analyses, we can liberate the data and bring to life the knowledge that is trapped within it.  And that is a happy ending to our Halloween story.

Happy Halloween!


About the Author: Frank Corden is the Senior Director of Growth Services for New England Controls, the leading supplier of process automation equipment and related services in the New England region. Frank has 20 years of experience in the Life Sciences industry.  He has served as a Director for Decision Management International, PerkinElmer, and Emerson Process Management in operational, research and development as well as quality leadership roles. In his current position, Frank is responsible for managing an expanding team of engineers and technicians that deliver software products and services to industrial and life science customers throughout New England. 


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Thursday, October 15, 2015

Biotech Halfway Around the World

By: Frank Cordon, Senior Director of Growth Services, New England Controls

If you were to Google “biotech hubs,” cities like Boston, San Francisco, and San Diego would certainly be first on the results page.  These centers cover our industry from early stage cutting-edge research through the highest levels of full scale manufacturing.  For those of us in the industry a bit longer, we would expect to see  centers in the Carolinas, the Midwest, the United Kingdom and smaller clusters in France, Germany, Belgium, and Denmark show up on pages 2 and 3.  With our western biases we would tend to think much less about Asian locations as full-fledged biotech centers.



Last month, I had the opportunity and great pleasure to assist in a gap analysis project for a biotech plant in Singapore.  This was my third trip to this wonderful city state in the last 10 years.  Once again, I was very impressed with the manufacturing professionals I worked with.  Not only were they excellent technically, but more impressive was their commitment to their work.  With a 12 hour time difference to the east coast USA, it’s never a good time to have a conference call or video conference.  Yet, my Singaporean counterparts are the first to offer to stay up late into the evening to accommodate a meeting at 9 or 10 or 11am Eastern Time.  I would invariably have to twist their arms to agree to a 6am or 9pm EST call so they aren’t the only ones working outside of the normal work day.

As I was flying back, I was able to reflect on the experience - and yes it’s a long trip so there’s plenty of time to reflect – and came away with a sense that the people of Singapore see high tech manufacturing and life sciences, in particular, as a strategic imperative to the long-term health of their country.  This commitment is apparent with the building boom occurring in the Tuas area of the island which is where most, if not all, of the biotech plants reside. 

During my first couple of trips, I was made aware of the strength of biotech manufacturing in Singapore.  What I didn’t realize until I attended the BioProcessing International Conference & Exposition (BPI) in Boston  in 2013, was the depth of the innovation culture and the progressive research and development commitment to the industry that companies and people in Singapore truly have.  During that 2013 conference, I attended several sessions where researchers from the Bioprocessing Technology Institute of Singapore presented their work.  Over the past 2 years, there have been so many news-worthy announcements coming out of Singapore; Medical school partnerships with Duke University and the Imperial College of London and R&D centers like the Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases have been built to name a few. There are over 30 major R&D centers on the island (www.pharmaphorum.com – February 2014) with new announcements coming out weekly.  The pace of growth has led to a real talent shortage as reported last week on Biotechin.asia. 

You can imagine that as I browsed the program for this year’s BPI Conference & Exposition, I was pleased to see that the Bioprocessing Technology Institute of Singapore is being represented yet again.  With representatives from Amgen Singapore and other Asian-based biotech companies, speakers represent the tremendous growth of our industry in Asia.  When combined with presentations from colleagues based in Europe and the Americas, BPI is truly a global gathering. So, if you haven’t gotten the opportunity to travel halfway around the world to visit these world-class facilities, you’ve got to make it to Boston from October 26-29th for the 2015 BioProcessing International Conference and Exposition. I hope to see you there.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Closed Systems in Biomanufacturing Offer A Variety of Benefits

A Blog by Brandy Sargent, Editor, Cell Culture Dish.com

I recently attended IBC’s Biopharmaceutical Development and Production week (BDP) and was pleased to find talks focused on single-use technologies, flexible facilities, closed systems and continuous processing. These subjects are sometimes referred to as “biomanufacturing of the future,” because they represent a change in paradigm from traditional biomanufacturing. While we have covered single-use and continuous bioprocessing extensively on Cell Culture Dish in the past, we have not dedicated much time covering the benefits and opportunities associated with closed systems. This blog will attempt to provide a high-level review of some of the topics associated with closed systems and will provide several outside resources for readers who want to explore the topic in more detail.

Traditional Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing

Traditional biopharmaceutical manufacturing has mainly consisted of fed-batch stainless steel bioreactor runs in a fixed facility with an open system. This paradigm, while serving the biopharmaceutical industry well for many years, has faced increasing pressure as single product 20,000L scale manufacturing has begun to lose ground to smaller volume, multi-product manufacturing. This shift has occurred for several reasons, some include:
  • Increases in productivity have reduced the need for very large scale manufacturing vessels and dedicated facilities.
  • Fewer blockbuster drugs with high volumes have reduced the need for large-scale dedicated facilities.
  • Single-use technologies have enabled the implementation of smaller, more flexible manufacturing.
  • Companies have begun to embrace the idea of more flexible, multi-product facilities that can easily be scaled up or down to meet changing product demand.
As a result of the changing landscape, the traditional biomanufacturing paradigm has been challenged by new models including flexible facilities, single-use systems and continuous processes that can create a more flexible and in many cases more cost effective process. Biomanufacturing of the future incorporates technologies like single-use and models like closed systems and continuous processing to move the industry forward.

Closed and Functionally Closed Systems

There have been several definitions of what makes a closed or functionally closed system in biomanufacturing. All the definitions are similar, but I like the definitions used in the BioPharm International article “Challenging the Cleanroom Paradigm for Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing of Bulk Drug Substances.” The article provides the following definitions:
  • Closed system: A process system with equipment designed and operated such that the product is not exposed to the room environment. Materials may be introduced to a closed system, but the addition must be done in such a way to avoid exposure of the product to the room environment (e.g., by 0.2 μm filtration).
  • Functionally closed system: A process system that may be routinely opened (e.g., to install a filter or make a connection), but is returned to a closed state through a sanitization or sterilization step prior to process use. It is the owner’s responsibility to define and validate the sanitization or sterilization process required to return an opened system to a functionally closed system
Benefits of a Closed or Functionally Closed System

Reduced Risk of Contamination
One of the biggest and most easily attained benefits of implementing a closed system, whether in research, pilot or large scale, is in reducing the risk of contamination by viruses or other adventitious agents. Open systems naturally provide more opportunities for contamination because the process is open to the room environment and handling by operators. There are also safety concerns associated with breeches of product containment. Operations like fluid transfer present a much higher risk in an open system where splashing and lost media can occur. A closed system, by design, provides physical barriers to reduce the risk of contamination and contain the product.

This is important because contamination can be extremely costly, not only in product loss, but also facility shut downs, cleaning and validation.

Reduced Process Time
The use of a closed system can reduce operating time. A closed system relies on less operator handling and fewer overall steps. Another time saving factor is that many of the closed system components are plug and play meaning that they come pre-assembled, designed for the job they are intended. This reduces the time it takes to set up and launch a manufacturing system significantly.

If single use technologies are employed as part of the closed system, then more time savings can be achieved. Over the course of several talks, the use of single use technologies were reported to save anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks. These times savings were reported in areas including:
  • Reduced cleaning and validation time
  • Reduced set-up time
  • Reduced time to operate or oversee equipment
Examples of Benefits
One example where there is a benefit to time savings and risk reduction is in media preparation. To enable a closed system, instead of mixing and adding media, one might purchase a pre-filled media bag with a connector that is complimentary to a single use bioreactor. This creates a closed portion of the process and saves operator time of mixing media. This method also reduces risk of contamination because the media isn’t exposed to the room environment and there is reduced risk of spilling and loss of media. Aseptic transfer of large volumes of sterile media and solution can be a big challenge.

Another example was provided in a talk at BDP, titled “Processes of the Future: Single Use, Closed and Continuous for Faster, Cheaper and Safer Manufacturing,” given by Sébastien Ribault, Ph.D., Director Biotechnology/Life Science, Head of BioDevelpment Center, EMD Millipore. BDP. In Dr. Ribault’s facility, his team is operating a closed system in one of their manufacturing areas. The group needed to close the cell seeding process, so instead of banking cells in vials, they banked the cells in bags. They then thawed the bags in a water bath and seeded directly in the lab without laminar flow. This saved them time and they reported similar growth and viability to the process using cells banked in vials.

Adopting a Risk Based Approach to Manufacturing Classifications
One hot topic in the discussion around closed systems is the idea of adopting a risk-based approach when it comes to the manufacturing classifications required with closed systems. If a system is closed, or functionally closed, then a barrier already exists between the product and its environment. Therefore, is there really a need for these operations to be conducted in a Classified environment with extensive gowning and airlocks, or would it be more feasible to conduct these operations in a Controlled Non-Classified (CNC) space? The benefits associated with this type of change in classification would provide many manufacturing benefits.

At BDP, Kenneth Green, Ph.D., Head of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Shire, gave an excellent talk titled, “Pushing the Controlled Non-Classified (CNC) Envelope with the Application of Single-Use Systems for Bioprocessing.” In the talk, Dr. Green discussed the debate around whether a closed system or functionally closed system could be proved to regulators, with satisfaction, so that manufacturing could occur in a controlled non-classified environment.

If so, operating in a Controlled Non Classified (CNC) space would open up many more benefits including:
  • Enabling a truly flexible facility – by reducing the classified area requirements you could also reduce the amount of segregation in a facility and increase flexibility. There are many benefits associated with flexible manufacturing, including:
    • Smaller facilities with a simpler design that can be duplicated in multiple locations
    • Multiple products can be manufactured in the same facility or space
    • Less segregation
    • Equipment can be moved around on skids as needed to meet product demand in multiple production lines.
    • Personnel can also move more easily throughout the facility
  • Reduced operating costs include:
    • Energy savings by reducing the environmental monitoring needed and the air handling requirements
    • Removing or reducing gowning requirements reduce cost of both gown materials and provide time savings for the gowning/de-gowning processes.
The idea of employing a risk-based approach in classification requirements is a very interesting topic that could be a blog entirely on its own; however for the purposes of this article, I am only providing a high level overview. There are a number of excellent articles that cover this topic in more detail including:



Challenges to Implementation of a Closed System

Employee Training
While most of these systems are fairly easy to use, there are some major differences between stainless steel systems and single-use. Employees should be trained in maintaining the closed or functionally closed system, proper use of equipment to prevent breakage or tears and employees need to be comfortable using the tubing and connectors.

Breaking New Ground
Completely closed systems represent relatively new technologies. Ensuring all parts of your system are closed may require a good deal of ingenuity and determination particularly when using components from several suppliers. There may not be an off the shelf component that works for you and you may need to work with suppliers to create systems that work for your process.

One example of this ingenuity and determination appeared in Dr. Veena Warikoo’s talk at BDP. Dr. Warikoo, Director, Purification Development, Genzyme, gave a talk titled “Integrated and Fully Continuous Processing of Recombinant Therapeutic Proteins – From Cell Culture Media to Purified Drug Substance.” In the talk she described how Genzyme developed a closed, continuous model system for manufacturing both mAbs and non-mAbs. They had been using a continuous system upstream but needed to also close the downstream process. There wasn’t an off the shelf solution available at the time, so they partnered with GE Healthcare to develop a functionally closed periodic counter-current chromatography continuous process. She showed a picture of the system they used, then stated that GE Healthcare now offers an off the shelf version in their AKTA system.

Demonstrating to Regulators that Systems are Closed and Adopting Risk Based Approach in Classification for Closed Systems
In order to fully gain all of the benefits mentioned above, the industry must work with regulators to demonstrate that CNC manufacturing space is appropriate. BioPhorum Operations Group (BPOG) is currently working to help interpret regulatory guidance and quality expectations and prepare responses that incorporate a risk based approach.

Is a closed system right for your process? – How to navigate a transition
I was able to speak with Erika Hanley-Onken and John Shyu at Corning Life Sciences about their experiences helping customers’ transition to closed systems. They said that they like to conduct a walk through with customers to understand on a technical level the customer’s current system and how that system will transition into a new closed system. They also work with multiple vendors to create a system designed to meet customer needs and goals. Lastly, they train the company on using the new system and they will work with customers to help validate the new system. When asked what customers are most surprised by when deciding to transition they said “how long it takes, it can take weeks to months to develop the system and test it, but we provide a full quality package and we want to ensure that the customer can achieve full and consistent results.”

Goals
First it is important to consider what is the primary goal in moving to a closed system. Some examples below:
  • Designing a new facility and want to incorporate flexible manufacturing principals
  • Quality control concerns and are interested in reducing risk of contamination
  • Process improvements with desire to reduce production time or cost
Design and Implementation of a Closed System
In determining the design and implementation of your closed system it is critical to truly understand your existing process needs, strengths and weaknesses. These factors can be very helpful when working with a vendor or vendors to establish your system. It is also important to understand your current cost of goods and net present value analysis, particularly if cost is a driving factor for change. This will allow you to compare your current system against the proposed system once you have a scale model running.

It is imperative to find a partner that you can work well with. Several talks stressed the keys to a good partnership, and I have included some of them below:
  • It is important for companies to understand their process and share this with supply partners.
  • Choose a supplier you trust and can work with. They have to know what your concerns and goals are so they can build a system that works for you.
  • A supplier should have a quality package and service to help with validating the new system.
Supply partners can be a single vendor who will work to design a process using theirs and complimentary products. A company may also choose a supply partner that has the capability to utilize multiple product vendors to put together a system that is compatible.



Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!