U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Vaccine Research and Review, Division of Viral Products, Laboratory of Methods Development, HFM-470, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Mol Cell Probes. 2011 Apr-Jun;25(2-3):69-77. doi: 10.1016/j.mcp.2011.01.002. Epub 2011 Jan 11.
Mycoplasmas, particularly species of the genera Mycoplasma and Acholeplasma, are known to be occasional microbial contaminants of cell cultures that produce biologics. This presents a serious concern regarding the risk of mycoplasma contamination for research laboratories and commercial facilities developing and manufacturing cell-derived biological and biopharmaceutical products for therapeutic use. Potential undetected contamination of these products or process intermediates with mycoplasmas represents a potential safety risk for patients and a business risk for producers of biopharmaceuticals. To minimize these risks, monitoring for adventitious agents, such as viruses and mycoplasmas, is performed during the manufacture of biologics produced in cell culture substrates. The "gold standard" microbiological assay, currently recommended by the USP, EP, JP and the US FDA, for the mycoplasma testing of biologics, involves the culture of viable mycoplasmas in broth, agar plates and indicator cells. Although the procedure enables highly efficient mycoplasma detection in cell substrates and cell-derived products, the overall testing strategy is time consuming (a minimum of 28 days) and requires skilled interpretation of the results. The long time period required for these conventional assays does not permit their use for products with short shelf-lives or for timely 'go/no-go' decisions during routine in-process testing. PCR methodology has existed for decades, however PCR based and other alternative methods for mycoplasma detection have only recently been considered for application to biologics manufacture. The application of alternative nucleic acid-based, enzyme-based and/or recombinant cell-culture methods, particularly in combination with efficient sample preparation procedures, could provide advantages over conventional microbiological methods in terms of analytical throughput, simplicity, and turnaround time. However, a challenge to the application of alternative methods for detection of mycoplasmas remains whether these alternative methods can provide a limit of detection comparable or superior to those of the culture methods. An additional challenge is that nucleic acid amplification technique (NAT) methods do not allow for accurate discrimination between viable and non-viable mycoplasma contaminants, which might lead to false-positive results (e.g. from inactivated raw materials, etc.). Our review provides an overview of these alternative methods and discusses the pros and cons of their application for the testing of mycoplasmas in biologics and cell substrates.
支原体,特别是支原体属和无胆甾原体属的种,已知是产生生物制品的细胞培养物中偶尔出现的微生物污染物。这对研究实验室和商业设施构成了严重的风险,因为它们正在开发和制造用于治疗用途的细胞衍生的生物和生物制药产品。这些产品或工艺中间体如果被支原体意外污染,将对患者构成潜在的安全风险,对生物制药生产商构成商业风险。为了尽量降低这些风险,在细胞培养基质中生产生物制品时,会对病毒和支原体等外来物质进行监测。目前,USP、EP、JP 和美国 FDA 都推荐使用“金标准”微生物检测方法,即使用肉汤、琼脂平板和指示剂细胞培养活支原体,来检测生物制品中的支原体。虽然该方法能够在细胞基质和细胞衍生产品中非常高效地检测支原体,但总的检测策略耗时(至少 28 天),并且需要对结果进行熟练的解读。这些传统检测方法需要的时间很长,因此无法用于保质期短的产品,也无法在常规过程检测中及时做出“放行/拒收”决定。PCR 方法已经存在了几十年,但基于 PCR 的方法和其他替代支原体检测方法最近才被考虑应用于生物制品生产。替代核酸、酶和/或重组细胞培养方法的应用,特别是与高效的样品制备程序相结合,在分析通量、简单性和周转时间方面可能比传统微生物方法具有优势。然而,替代方法检测支原体的应用仍然存在一个挑战,即这些替代方法是否能够提供与培养方法相当或更优的检测限。另一个挑战是,核酸扩增技术(NAT)方法无法准确区分有活力和无活力的支原体污染物,这可能导致假阳性结果(例如来自失活的原材料等)。我们的综述概述了这些替代方法,并讨论了它们在生物制品和细胞基质中检测支原体的应用的优缺点。