Phase separation methods for protein purification: A meta‐analysis of purification performance and cost‐effectiveness

Abstract

AbstractProtein purifications based on phase separations (e.g., precipitation and liquid‐liquid extraction) have seen little adoption in commercial protein drug production. To identify barriers, we analyzed the purification performance and economics of 290 phase separation purifications from 168 publications. First, we found that studies using Design of Experiments for optimization achieved significantly greater mean yield and host cell protein log10 removal values than those optimizing one factor at a time (11.5% and 53% increases, respectively). Second, by modeling each reported purification at scales from 10 to 10,000 kg product/year and comparing its cost‐effectiveness versus chromatography, we found that cost‐effectiveness depends strongly on scale: the fraction of phase separations predicted to be cost‐effective at the 10, 100, and 1000 kg/year scales was 8%, 15%, and 43%, respectively. Total cost per unit product depends inversely on input purity, with phase separation being cheaper than chromatography at the 100 kg/year scale in 100% of cases where input purity was ≤ 1%, compared to about 25% of cases in the dataset as a whole. Finally, we identified a simple factor that strongly predicts phase separation process costs: the mass ratio of reagents versus purified product (the “direct materials usage rate”), which explains up to 58% of variation in cost per unit of purified product among all 290 reports, and up to 98% of variation within particular types of phase separation.