Skip to main content

This is a preprint.

It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.

The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.

bioRxiv logoLink to bioRxiv
[Preprint]. 2023 Dec 15:2023.12.14.571684. [Version 1] doi: 10.1101/2023.12.14.571684

Precipitation and Extraction Methods for Protein Purification: A Meta-Analysis of Purification Performance and Cost-Effectiveness

John S Decker, Utsuki Yano, Romel Menacho Melgar, Michael D Lynch
PMCID: PMC10760113  PMID: 38168161

Abstract

For protein drug purification, packed-bed chromatography often remains both the predominant method and a bottleneck for cost and scalability. Accordingly, extensive efforts have been made to develop alternatives, such as precipitation and liquid-liquid extraction. Despite decades of development, such methods have been slow to see adoption in commercial processes. To diagnose the key barriers to implementation and guide future work, we have systematically reviewed studies of protein precipitation and liquid-liquid extraction. We classify the products, methods, and results of 168 publications representing 290 unique purification operations and analyze these operations in terms of both process economics and purification performance. Whereas it is generally assumed that precipitation and extraction methods will have lower costs than chromatography, we find that this is only the case under specific process conditions such as at a large manufacturing scale and low initial sample purity. Furthermore, we find that only a small number of the many precipitation and extraction methods reported to date have shown readiness for implementation in protein drug purification processes. Finally, we identify key factors governing both the economic and purification performance of this class of methods: first, that operating costs are almost entirely predictable by the ratio between the mass of phase-forming materials used and the mass of product protein yielded; second, that use of modern optimization techniques such as Design of Experiments is associated with significantly better purification performance and cost-effectiveness.

Highlights

  • Alternative separation purification methods are not always cheaper than chromatography

  • The use of a combination of phase separating agents remains largely underexplored/underutilized

  • Lower initial purity and increasing production scale favor phase-separation over chromatography

  • The direct material usage rate is an important predictor of alternative separation cost-effectiveness

  • Current alternative separation method development has largely ignored optimization of direct material usage rate

Full Text Availability

The license terms selected by the author(s) for this preprint version do not permit archiving in PMC. The full text is available from the preprint server.


Articles from bioRxiv are provided here courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Preprints

RESOURCES