Advancing Biologics Development Programs with Legacy Cell Lines: Advantages and Limitations of Genetic Testing for Addressing Clonality Concerns Prior to Availability of Late Stage Process and Product Consistency Data

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Frye C.,
   2. Deshpande R.,
   3. Estes S.,
   4. Francissen K.,
   5. Joly J.,
   6. Lubiniecki A.,
   7. Munro T.,
   8. Russell R.,
   9. Wang T.,
   10. Anderson K.

   Industry View on the Relative Importance of “Clonality” of Biopharmaceutical-Producing Cell Lines. Biologicals 2016, 44 (2), 117–122.

   OpenUrl
2. 2.↵
   1. Kennett S.

   Establishing Clonal Cell Lines—A Regulatory Perspective Black Cell, Blue Cell, Old Cell, New Cell? WCBP 2014. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.casss.org/resource/resmgr/WCBP_Speaker_Slides/2014_WCBP_Sarah_Kennett.pdf (accessed Feb 10, 2020).
3. 3.↵
   1. Novak R.

   Regulatory Perspective on the Evaluation of Clonality of Mammalian Cell Banks. CASSS January 23, 2017. https://www.slideshare.net/IanTaylor50/rachel-novak-casss-forum-washington-dc-jan-2017 (accessed Feb 10, 2020).
4. 4.↵
   1. Welch J.

   Tilting at Clones: A Regulatory Perspective on the Importance of “Clonality” of Mammalian Cell Banks. Presented at Cell Line Development Conference, Amsterdam, April 24, 2017. https://www.slideshare.net/IanTaylor50/joel-welchpdf-amsterdam-april-2017 (accessed Feb 10, 2020).
5. 5.↵
   1. Zingaro K.,
   2. Shaw D.,
   3. Carson J.,
   4. Mayer-Bartschmid A.,
   5. Bender C.,
   6. Alves C.,
   7. McVey D.,
   8. Qian N. X.,
   9. Wei Q.,
   10. Laird M. W.,
   11. Zhu Y.,
   12. Emmins R.,
   13. Follit J. A.,
   14. Porter A.,
   15. Racher A. J.,
   16. Milne S.,
   17. Carubelli I.,
   18. Du Z.,
   19. Khatri A.,
   20. Failly M.,
   21. Broly H.,
   22. Lee F.,
   23. Reeser M.,
   24. Spidel J.,
   25. Anderson K.,
   26. Demaria C.,
   27. Di-Carlo J.,
   28. Gill J.,
   29. Lundquist A.,
   30. Kumar S. R.,
   31. Gill T.

   Implementation of Plate Imaging for Demonstration of Monoclonality in Biologics Manufacturing Development. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2018, 72 (4), 438–450.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   Q5D, I. International Council for Harmonisation, Quality Guidelines Q5D: Derivation and Characterisation of Cell Substrates Used for Production of Biotechnological/Biological Products. USP 1997; http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality/article/quality-guidelines.html (accessed April 1, 2018).
7. 7.↵
   1. Borth N.,
   2. Zeyda M.,
   3. Kunert R.,
   4. Katinger H.

   Efficient Selection of High-Producing Subclones during Gene Amplification of Recombinant Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells by Flow Cytometry and Cell Sorting. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2000, 71 (4), 266–273.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Shaw D.,
   2. Yim M.,
   3. Tsukuda J.,
   4. Joly J. C.,
   5. Lin A.,
   6. Snedecor B.,
   7. Laird M. W.,
   8. Lang S. E.

   Development and Characterization of an Automated Imaging Workflow to Generate Clonally-Derived Cell Lines for Therapeutic Proteins. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34 (3), 584–592.

   OpenUrl
9. 9.↵
   1. Yim M.,
   2. Shaw D.

   Achieving Greater Efficiency and Higher Confidence in Single-Cell Cloning by Combining Cell Printing and Plate Imaging Technologies. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34 (6), 1454–1459.

   OpenUrl
10. 10.↵
    1. Feichtinger J.,
    2. Hernandez I.,
    3. Fischer C.,
    4. Hanscho M.,
    5. Auer N.,
    6. Hackl M.,
    7. Jadhav V.,
    8. Baumann M.,
    9. Krempl P. M.,
    10. Schmidl C.,
    11. Farlik M.,
    12. Schuster M.,
    13. Merkel A.,
    14. Sommer A.,
    15. Heath S.,
    16. Rico D.,
    17. Bock C.,
    18. Thallinger G. G.,
    19. Borth N.

    Comprehensive Genome and Epigenome Characterization of CHO Cells in Response to Evolutionary Pressures and over Time. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2016, 113 (10), 2241–2253.

    OpenUrl
11. 11.↵
    1. Wurm F. M.,
    2. Wurm M. J.

    Cloning of CHO Cells, Productivity and Genetic Stability—A Discussion. Processes 2017, 5 (4), 20.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 12.↵
    1. Bandyopadhyay A. A.,
    2. O'Brien S. A.,
    3. Zhao L.,
    4. Fu H.-Y.,
    5. Vishwanathan N.,
    6. Hu W.-S.

    Recurring Genomic Structural Variation Leads to Clonal Instability and Loss of Productivity. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2019, 116 (1), 41–53.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 13.↵
    International Conference for Harmonisation, Quality Guideline Q8(R2): Pharmaceutical Development ICH, 2009; http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality/article/quality-guidelines.html (accessed April 1, 2018).
14. 14.↵
    1. Ko P.,
    2. Misaghi S.,
    3. Hu Z.,
    4. Zhan D.,
    5. Tsukuda J.,
    6. Yim M.,
    7. Sanford M.,
    8. Shaw D.,
    9. Shiratori M.,
    10. Snedecor B.,
    11. Laird M.,
    12. Shen A.

    Probing the Importance of Clonality: Single Cell Subcloning of Clonally Derived CHO Cell Lines Yields Widely Diverse Clones Differing in Growth, Productivity, and Product Quality. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34 (3), 624–634.

    OpenUrl
15. 15.↵
    1. Tharmalingam T.,
    2. Barkhordarian H.,
    3. Tejeda N.,
    4. Daris K.,
    5. Yaghmour S.,
    6. Yam P.,
    7. Lu F.,
    8. Goudar C.,
    9. Munro T.,
    10. Stevens J.

    Characterization of Phenotypic and Genotypic Diversity in Subclones Derived from a Clonal Cell Line. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34 (3), 613–623.

    OpenUrl
16. 16.↵
    1. Patel N. A.,
    2. Anderson C. R.,
    3. Terkildsen S. E.,
    4. Davis R. C.,
    5. Pack L. D.,
    6. Bhargava S.,
    7. Clarke H. R. G.

    Antibody Expression Stability in CHO Clonally‐Derived Cell Lines and Their Subclones: Role of Methylation in Phenotypic and Epigenetic Heterogeneity. Biotechnol. Prog. 2018, 34 (3), 635–649.

    OpenUrl
17. 17.↵
    1. Scarcelli J. J.,
    2. Hone M.,
    3. Beal K.,
    4. Ortega A.,
    5. Figueroa B.,
    6. Starkey J.,
    7. Anderson K.

    Analytical Subcloning of a Clonal Cell Line Demonstrates Sequence Heterogeneity That Does Not Impact Process Consistency or Robustness. Biotechnol. Prog., 2018, 34 (3), 602–612.

    OpenUrl
18. 18.↵
    International Conference for Harmonisation, Quality Guideline Q5B: Analysis of the Expression Construct in Cells Used for Production of r-DNA Derived Protein Products ICH, 1995; http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality/article/quality-guidelines.html (accessed April 1, 2018).
19. 19.↵
    1. Xu X.,
    2. Nagarajan H.,
    3. Lewis N. E.,
    4. Pan S.,
    5. Cai Z.,
    6. Liu X.,
    7. Chen W.,
    8. Xie M.,
    9. Wang W.,
    10. Hammond S.,
    11. Andersen M. R.,
    12. Neff N.,
    13. Passarelli B.,
    14. Koh W.,
    15. Fan H. C.,
    16. Wang J.,
    17. Gui Y.,
    18. Lee K. H.,
    19. Betenbaugh M. J.,
    20. Quake S. R.,
    21. Famili I.,
    22. Palsson B. O.,
    23. Wang J.

    The Genomic Sequence of the Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO)-K1 Cell Line. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29 (8), 735–741.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Muller S.,
    2. Wienberg J.

    Multicolor Chromosome Bar Codes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2006, 114 (3–4), 245–249.

    OpenUrlPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Lewis N. E.,
    2. Liu X.,
    3. Li Y.,
    4. Nagarajan H.,
    5. Yerganian G.,
    6. O'Brien E.,
    7. Bordbar A.,
    8. Roth A. M.,
    9. Rosenbloom J.,
    10. Bian C.,
    11. Xie M.,
    12. Chen W.,
    13. Li N.,
    14. Baycin-Hizal D.,
    15. Latif H.,
    16. Forster J.,
    17. Betenbaugh M. J.,
    18. Famili I.,
    19. Xu X.,
    20. Wang J.,
    21. Palsson B. O.

    Genomic Landscapes of Chinese Hamster Ovary Cell Lines as Revealed by the Cricetulus Griseus Draft Genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31 (8), 759–765.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Vcelar S.,
    2. Melcher M.,
    3. Auer N.,
    4. Hrdina A.,
    5. Puklowski A.,
    6. Leisch F.,
    7. Jadhav V.,
    8. Wenger T.,
    9. Baumann M.,
    10. Borth N.

    Changes in Chromosome Counts and Patterns in CHO Cell Lines upon Generation of Recombinant Cell Lines and Subcloning. Biotechnol. J. 2018, 13 (3), e1700495.

    OpenUrl
23. 23.↵
    1. de Vree P. J.,
    2. de Wit E.,
    3. Yilmaz M.,
    4. van de Heijning M.,
    5. Klous P.,
    6. Verstegen M. J.,
    7. Wan Y.,
    8. Teunissen H.,
    9. Krijger P. H.,
    10. Geeven G.,
    11. Eijk P. P.,
    12. Sie D.,
    13. Ylstra B.,
    14. Hulsman L. O.,
    15. van Dooren M. F.,
    16. van Zutven L. J.,
    17. van den Ouweland A.,
    18. Verbeek S.,
    19. van Dijk K. W.,
    20. Cornelissen M.,
    21. Das A. T.,
    22. Berkhout B.,
    23. Sikkema-Raddatz B.,
    24. van den Berg E.,
    25. van der Vlies P.,
    26. Weening D.,
    27. den Dunnen J. T.,
    28. Matusiak M.,
    29. Lamkanfi M.,
    30. Ligtenberg M. J.,
    31. ter Brugge P.,
    32. Jonkers J.,
    33. Foekens J. A.,
    34. Martens J. W.,
    35. van der Luijt R.,
    36. van Amstel H. K.,
    37. van Min M.,
    38. Splinter E.,
    39. de Laat W.

    Targeted Sequencing by Proximity Ligation for Comprehensive Variant Detection and Local Haplotyping. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32 (10), 1019–1025.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Ochman H.,
    2. Gerber A. S.,
    3. Hartl D. L.

    Genetic Applications of an Inverse Polymerase Chain Reaction. Genetics 1988, 120 (3), 621–623.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Devon R. S.,
    2. Porteous D. J.,
    3. Brookes A. J.

    Splinkerettes—Improved Vectorettes for Greater Efficiency in PCR Walking. Nucl. Acids Res. 1995, 23 (9), 1644–1645.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Potter C. J.,
    2. Luo L.

    Splinkerette PCR for Mapping Transposable Elements in Drosophila. PLoS One 2010, 5 (4), e10168.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Mcvey D.

    Strategy to Establish Clonality of Legacy Cell Lines. IBC 13th Annual Cell Line Development and Engineering Meeting 2017.
28. 28.↵
    1. Jayapal K. P.,
    2. Wlaschin K. F.,
    3. Hu W. S.,
    4. Yap M. G. S.

    Recombinant Protein Therapeutics from CHO Cells—20 Years and Counting. Chem. Eng. Prog. 2007, 103 (10), 40–47.

    OpenUrl