Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
• A new multimodal anion exchange (MMA) nonwoven membrane was developed. • The MMA membrane exhibited a higher binding capacity than the counterpart resin. • The MMA membrane was used for capture of a mAb from CHO supernatant. • An all-nonwoven membrane chromatography process was developed for mAb purification. • The all-membrane process exhibited a higher production efficiency than the platform resin process. There is significant interest in alternative manufacturing processes for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to improve productivity and reduce cost. To identify a cost-effective and high-productivity alternative to the conventional Protein A-based mAb capture step, this study presents the development of a high-performance multimodal anion exchange (MMA) membrane utilizing N-Benzyl-N-methylethanolamine (BMEA) as the ligand which was covalently coupled to a polyglycidyl methacrylate (pGMA) UV-grafted polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) nonwoven. The DBC 10% of the MMA membrane for IgG ranged from 32.8-42.4 mg/mL at 0.5 to 5 min residence time. The membrane exhibited an excellent salt tolerance in protein binding near physiological conditions, high flow permeability and good reusability. The MMA membrane also showed a DBC 10% of 59.2 mg/mL for direct capture of a mAb from a CHO supernatant without the need for pH or conductivity adjustments, along with a recovery of 94.3%, a 1.0 log reduction value (LRV) of host cell proteins (HCPs), a 1.8 LRV for DNA, and a reduction of aggregates from 5.4% to 0.9%. This capture step was implemented in an all-membrane mAb purification process that included a viral inactivation step and two polishing steps using an anion exchange nonwoven (AEX-TEA) and a multimodal cation exchange nonwoven (MMC-MPCA). A side-by-side comparison with a platform mAb purification process using Protein A resin and two ion exchange resins showed that the all-membrane process exhibited similar impurity clearance, higher overall recovery (88.3% vs. 77.5%) and significantly reduced processing time (3.8 h vs. 13.1 h) with fewer steps as it eliminates the need for diafiltration for buffer exchange.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: