Table 4.
Comparison of EPD and NTA method
| |
|
EPD |
|
NTA |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fraction | Volume (ml) | PFU/ml | PFU total | PFU rec.(%) | VP/ml | VP total | VP rec. (%) |
| Load |
36 |
1,00E+08 |
3,60E+09 |
|
1,03E+10 |
3,71E+11 |
|
| Flow through 1 |
10,0 |
6,31E+02 |
6,31E+03 |
0,0 |
1,12E+08 |
1,12E+09 |
0,3 |
| Flow through 2 |
26,0 |
1,00E+03 |
2,60E+04 |
0,0 |
1,59E+08 |
4,13E+09 |
1,1 |
| Wash |
23,0 |
NA |
|
|
3,03E+08 |
6,97E+09 |
2 |
| Elution 1 |
1,2 |
2,00E+09 |
2,40E+09 |
66,7 |
1,79E+11 |
2,14E+11 |
57,8 |
| Elution 2 |
3,0 |
6,31E+06 |
1,89E+07 |
0,5 |
1,14E+09 |
3,41E+09 |
1 |
| SUM | 67,2 | 62,0 | |||||
Analysis of adenovirus purification on CIM QA monolithic column by NTA and EPD assay.