Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5608_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
50
25. Single ascending dose study in participants with LCA10– full text view. ClinicalTrials.gov.
Clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03872479
26. Editas Medicine. Corporate presentation for investors. Aug 2022. ir.editasmedicine.com/static-
les/03350a40- 33d7- 413c- b2d6- c46f94ab273f. Accessed 23 Sept 2022
27. U.S.Food and Drug Administration (2024). FDA approves rst gene therapies to treat patients with sickle cell disease. FDA Press Announcements. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/
press- announcements/fda-approves-rst-gene-therapies-treat-patients-sickle-cell-disease
28. A safety and efcacy study evaluating CTX001 in subjects with transfusion-dependent β-Thalassemia – full text view. ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/
show/NCT03655678
29. Liu W etal (2021) Applications and challenges of CRISPR-Cas gene-editing to disease treat­ment in clinics. Precis. Clin. Med 4(3):179–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcmedi/pbab014
30. Newman DJ, Cragg GM (2020) Natural products as sources of new drugs over the nearly four decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019. J Nat Prod 83(3):12. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
jnatprod.9b01285
31. Lin Z etal (2020) Bioprospecting through cloning of whole natural product biosynthetic gene clusters. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00526
32. Li L et al (2021) Refactoring biosynthetic gene clusters for heterologous production of microbial natural products. Curr Opin Biotechnol 69:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
copbio.2020.12.011
33. Bharadwaj R etal (2021) Plant metabolic gene clusters: evolution, organization, and their applications in synthetic biology. Front. Plant Sci 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.697318
34. Tran PN etal (2019) Detecting and prioritizing biosynthetic gene clusters for bioactive com­pounds in bacteria and fungi. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103(8):3277–3287. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00253- 019- 09708- z
35. Cimermancic P etal (2014) Insights into secondary metabolism from a global analysis of prokaryotic biosynthetic gene clusters. Cell 158(2):412–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cell.2014.06.034
36. Chavali AK, Rhee SY (2018) Bioinformatics tools for the identication of gene clusters that biosynthesize specialized metabolites. Brief Bioinform 19(5):1022–1034. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/28398567. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx020
37. Wang H etal (2014) Atlas of nonribosomal peptide and polyketide biosynthetic pathways reveals common occurrence of nonmodular enzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(25):9259–9264.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078802/. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1401734111
38. Raman S etal (2014) Evolution-guided optimization of biosynthetic pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(50):17803–17808. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409523111
39. Liu OW etal (2022) Precision discovery of novel inhibitors of human cancer target HsMetAP1 from vast unexplored metagenomic diversity. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.11.495772
40. Batta A etal (2020) Trends in FDA drug approvals over last 2 decades: an observational study. J Family Med Prim Care 9(1):105–114. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014862/.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_578_19
41. de la Torre BG, Albericio F (2022) The pharmaceutical industry in 2021. An analysis of FDA drug approvals from the perspective of molecules. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 27(3):1075.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35164339/. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27031075
42. Ryman JT, Meibohm B (2017) Pharmacokinetics of monoclonal antibodies. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 6(9):576–588. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC5613179/. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12224
43. Mitra S, Tomar PC (2021) Hybridoma technology; advancements, clinical signicance, and future aspects. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 19(18):159. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC8521504/. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141- 021- 00264- 6
44. Lu R-M etal (2020) Development of therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of diseases. J Biomed Sci 27(1) jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929- 019- 0592- z.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929- 019- 0592- z
A. K. Sato and S. Rife
2 Synthetic Biology inDrug Development andBeyond
45. Charles A etal (2017) The structure of a typical antibody molecule. Nih.gov, Garland Science.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27144/
46. The mouse that roared for human advantage. Www.nature.com, www.nature.com/articles/
d42473- 018- 00011- 5
47. Pedrioli A, Oxenius A (2021) Single B cell technologies for monoclonal antibody discov­ery. Trends Immunol 42(12):1143–1158. www.cell.com/trends/immunology/fulltext/
S1471- 4906(21)00213- 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2021.10.008
48. Zost SJ etal (2020) Rapid isolation and proling of a diverse panel of human monoclonal antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Nat Med 26(9):1422–1427. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41591- 020- 0998- x
49. Krawczyk K, Dunbar J, Deane CM (2017) Computational tools for aiding ratio­nal antibody design. In: Samish I, Rehovot I, Samish I (eds) Computational protein design. Methods in molecular biology, vol 1529. Humana Press, New York. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978- 1- 4939- 6637- 0_21
50. Library of Libraries | Twist Bioscience. Www.twistbioscience.com, www.twistbioscience.
com/resources/product- sheet/library- libraries. Accessed 19 Aug. 2022
51. vbpinheiro. DNA Library Synthesis for Directed Evolution. Synthetic Biology through Directed Evolution, 28 Apr 2020. pinheirolab.com/2020/04/28/dna- library- synthesis- for-
directed- evolution/. Accessed 19 Aug 2022
52. Kayushin A (1996) A convenient approach to the synthesis of trinucleotide phosphorami­ditessynthons for the generation of oligonucleotide/peptide libraries. Nucleic Acids Res 24(19):3748–3755. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/24.19.3748
53. Yagodkin A et al (2007) Improved synthesis of trinucleotide phosphoramidites and gen­eration of randomized oligonucleotide libraries. Nucleosides Nucleotides Nucleic Acids 26(5):473–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/15257770701426260
54. Meiser LC etal (2020) Reading and writing digital data in DNA.Nat Protoc 15(1):86–101.
www.nature.com/articles/s41596- 019- 0244- 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596- 019- 0244- 5
55. Mahdavi SZB etal (2022) An overview on display systems (phage, bacterial, and yeast display) for production of anticancer antibodies; advantages and disadvantages. Int J Biol Macromol 208:421–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.03.113
56. Alfaleh MA etal (2020) Phage display derived monoclonal antibodies: from bench to bedside. Front Immunol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/mmu.2020.01986
57. Kaleli NE etal (2019) Phage display derived therapeutic antibodies have enriched aliphatic content: insights for developability issues. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 87(7):607–618. https://
doi.org/10.1002/prot.25685
58. Finck A (2022) Engineered cellular immunotherapies in cancer and beyond. Nat Med 28(19):678–689. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591- 022- 01765- 8
59. June CH et al (2018) CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 359(6382):1361–1365. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar6711
60. Mu W etal (2020) Engineering CAR T cells to target the HIV reservoir. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00410
61. Wan YY, Flavell RA (2009) How diverseCD4 effector T cells and their functions. J Mol Cell Biol 1(1):20–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmcb/mjp001
62. Janeway C (1999) Immunobiology: the immune system in health and disease, 5th edn. Harcourt Brace & Company, London
63. Pennock ND etal (2013) T cell responses: naïve to memory and everything in between. Adv Physiol Educ 37(4):273–283
64. Kuwana Y et al (1987) Expression of chimeric receptor composed of immunoglobulin­derived v resions and T-cell receptor-derived c regions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 149(3):960–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006- 291X(87)90502- X
65. Gross G etal (1989) Expression of immunoglobulin-T-cell receptor chimeric molecules as functional receptors with antibody-type specicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 86(24):10024–10028.
51
52
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC298636/pdf/pnas00291- 0398.pdf. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.86.24.10024
66. Feins S etal (2019) An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Am J Hematol 94(S1):S3–S9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25418
67. Valerie NN (2022) The incredible story of Emily Whitehead & CAR T-cell therapy. Oncology Times 44(6):19–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.cot.0000824668.24475.b0
68. Sanber K etal (2021) Graft-versus-host disease risk after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy: the diametric opposition of T cells. Br J Haematol 195(5):660–668. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjh.17544
69. Stock S etal (2022) Chimeric antigen receptor T cells engineered to recognize the P329G­mutated Fc part of effector-silenced tumor antigen-targeting human IgG1 antibodies enable modular targeting of solid tumors. J ImmunoTher Cancer 10(7):e005054. jitc.bmj.com/con-
tent/10/7/e005054. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc- 2022- 005054
70. Raq S etal (2020) Engineering strategies to overcome the current roadblocks in CAR T cell therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 17(3):147–167. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC7223338/. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571- 019- 0297- y
71. Graham C (2018) Allogeneic CAR-T cells: more than ease of access? Cells 7(10):155. https://
doi.org/10.3390/cells7100155
72. Torikai H (2016) Translational implications for off-the-shelf immune cells expressing chime­ric antigen receptors. Mol Ther 24(7):1178–1186. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2016.106
73. Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and KYMRIAH (Tisagenlecleucel). FDA, 5 Apr 2019. www.fda.gov/vaccines- blood- biologics/cellular- gene- therapy- products/
kymriah- tisagenlecleucel
74. Wang LL-W etal (2021) Cell therapies in the clinic. Bioeng Transl Med 6(2). https://doi.
org/10.1002/btm2.10214
75. Maro F etal (2021) CAR-NK cell: a new paradigm in tumor immunotherapy. Front Oncol 11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.673276
76. Xie G et al (2020) CAR-NK cells: a promising cellular immunotherapy for cancer. EBioMedicine 59., www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352- 3964(20)30351- 0/
fulltext. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102975
77. Replogle JM et al (2022) Mapping information-rich genotype-phenotype landscapes with genome-scale perturb-Seq. Cell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.05.013
A. K. Sato and S. Rife
Part III
Oligonucleotide Synthetic Chemistry
to DNA Synthesis, Bioprocessing
and Manufacturing
Chapter 3
Increasing theScalability ofDNA Synthesis andIts Key Role inExpanding theBiopharmaceutical Discovery Process
RebeccaL.Nugent andAaronK.Sato
Abstract DNA synthesis is a naturally occurring process that happens during DNA
replication. In the mid-twentieth century, a chemical process was developed to syn­thesize single-stranded oligonucleotides. By the early 1980s, multiple commercial companies were selling synthetic DNA.Gene synthesis (i.e., DNA assembly) meth­ods were developed in parallel to generate long double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) fragments from many short, synthetic oligonucleotides. These classical methods have been improved upon and miniaturized over the past few decades, culminating in modern gene synthesis platforms that can simultaneously synthesize ~10,000 genes where legacy gene synthesizers could synthesize only one. In this chapter, we review the key advances that enabled modern-scale gene synthesis and how they set the stage for an expanded role for synthetic gene fragments in antibody biopharma­ceutical development. We conclude that, in this world of nearly unlimited gene syn­thesis capacity, the test and learn phases of the design-build-test-learn cycle have supplanted the build phase as the new bottlenecks in biopharmaceutical development.
Keywords Solid-phase phosphoramidite chemistry · Oligonucleotide · Gene synthesis · Semi-synthetic antibody library · Fully synthetic antibody library

3.1 Introduction

Every step of this synthesis has obviously been executed with consummate skill and the whole constitutes perhaps the greatest tour de force organic and biochemists have yet achieved. Like NASA with its Apollo programme, Khorana’s group has shown it can be done, and both feats may well never be repeated.
– An anonymous cell biology correspondent on the rst synthetic genes [1]
R. L. Nugent Tessera Therapeutics, Somerville, MA, USA
A. K. Sato (*) Twist Bioscience, South San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: asato@twistbioscience.com
K. Gadamasetti, S. A. Kolodziej (eds.), Bioprocessing, Bioengineering and Process Chemistry in the Biopharmaceutical Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62007-2_3
55© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
56
Writing for Nature New Biology in the seventies, the anonymous correspondent captured a common sentiment of the time [2]: the rst synthetic genes, like the Apollo missions, were outstanding achievements in and of themselves, but little more. Thankfully, the chemists persisted, inventing the foundational methods that underlie modern gene synthesis. The invention of the phosphoramidite method of oligo synthesis came at a time of explosive innovation in molecular biology that also included the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and recombi­nant DNA technology. Gene synthesis—or the assembly of chemically synthesized oligos into double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) fragments—forms a substantial part of the bedrock of modern biopharmaceutical discovery processes, as exemplied by the advent of massive, fully synthetic antibody libraries.
In this chapter, we review the progress that has been made toward realizing the promise of gene synthesis in the biopharmaceutical industry. More specically, we discuss how the foundational methods that were developed and commercialized in the twentieth-century spawned modern, large-scale gene synthesis platforms. We also outline how the overall scaling up and automation of gene synthesis over the years has transformed the biopharmaceutical discovery process. We conclude that these high-throughput technologies have shifted the biopharmaceutical discovery bottleneck from the fabrication of building blocks (gene synthesis) to the expres­sion, purication, and testing of biopharmaceuticals, enabling a new era in antibody discovery.
R. L. Nugent and A. K. Sato
3.2 Evolution ofGene Synthesis
Gene synthesis encapsulates two discrete processes: the de novo synthesis of short single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides (oligos) and their subsequent assembly into gene-length dsDNA fragments. The technologies for each process were pioneered concurrently; in fact, the rst synthetic genes were reported before the development of the solid-phase phosphoramidite chemistry that dominates modern oligo synthe­sis platforms. In this section, we review the key advances that inspired the gene synthesis technologies used today.
3.2.1 Oligonucleotide Synthesis
Despite being developed by chemists, oligo synthesis technologies largely benet biologists. The evolution of oligo synthesis largely reects an effort by chemists to make synthetic DNA accessible to biologists. Whereas the earliest oligos were man­ually synthesized by skilled chemists, modern oligos are produced by highly auto­mated machines. The automation of modern oligo synthesis was made possible by the development of a solid-phase phosphoramidite method.
3 Increasing the Scalability of DNA Synthesis and Its Key Role in Expanding…
57
3.2.1.1 Early Synthetic Chemistries
Sir Alexander Todd described the rst chemical dinucleotide synthesis, using a phosphodiester approach, in 1955 [3]. The phosphodiester approach became the dominant strategy for the next two decades even as additional chemistries became available, including the phosphotriester and H-phosphonate chemistries [4]. Indeed, Khorana and colleagues employed phosphodiester chemistry to elucidate the genetic code in the 1960s and to synthesize oligo building blocks for the rst synthetic genes in the 1970s [5, 6]. Despite its early success, the approach was only viable in the hands of skilled chemists, precluding its automation [2].
In the mid-1970s, Letsinger and colleagues debuted a new, highly efcient oligo synthesis approach based on phosphite triester chemistry [7]. This strategy enabled rapid oligo synthesis through the use of highly reactive nucleosides (3-O-chlorophosphites). Although these intermediates hastened the synthesis reac­tion, they were also difcult to handle [4]. Beaucage and Caruthers [8] addressed this problem by developing the phosphoramidite chemistry that forms the basis of modern chemical oligo synthesis platforms.
3.2.2 Solid Supports
Oligos can be synthesized in solution or covalently attached to solid supports (i.e., solid-phase synthesis). These methods differ substantially in the time and resources they require [2]. Whereas solution-based synthesis requires extensive purication at multiple steps in the synthesis cycle, solid-phase synthesis eliminates these time­consuming steps entirely by providing a simple means of separating oligos from reagents, solvents, and by-products. In addition, solid-phase synthesis supports the synthesis of the microgram amounts of DNA—an adequate, yet not excessive, amount for a typical biological experiment.
The concept of solid-phase synthesis originated with Merrield, who applied it to the synthesis of peptides [9]. The idea—and the same exact solid support—was soon adapted to oligo synthesis by Letsinger and Mahadevan [10]. In this early iteration, a nonpolar “popcorn” polystyrene resin provided a solid support matrix that was insoluble in the solvents and solutions commonly used for oligo synthesis. Another organic polymer, polyamide resin, was later found to be compatible with the polar solvents used in phosphodiester and phosphotriester chemistries [11]. Inorganic matrices, including silica gel, were attempted by Koster and colleagues in 1972 [12], albeit with minimal success initially [2]. These early solid support matri­ces were nonideal, as they tended to impede the diffusion of reagents either via swelling (organic polymers) or fracturing (silica gel) [11].
Interest in silica-based supports—namely, controlled-pore glass (CPG)— renewed in the 1980s alongside the development of phosphite triester and phos­phoramidite chemistries [4]. Unlike earlier supports, CPG was not prone to compaction, making it ideal for use under the continuous ow conditions used in automated synthesizers.
58
R. L. Nugent and A. K. Sato
3.2.3 Modern Oligo Synthesis Platforms
Modern oligo synthesis platforms invariably use solid-phase phosphoramidite chemistry due to its amenability to automation [2]. Synthesizing DNA with phos­phoramidite reaction cycles starts when a phosphoramidite is attached to a solid surface in a catalyzed condensation reaction. An oxidation step follows whereby the unstable phosphite triester is converted to a phosphate with the goal of improving sequence integrity (Fig.3.1). Next, deblocking occurs such that the 5 protecting group is removed (using trichloroacetic acid). Then coupling and capping occur when the next phosphoramidite in the chain is coupled to the available 5′-hydroxyl group on the previously deblocked molecule in a catalyzed reaction. Coupling is not 100% efcient, and sometimes the coupling fails. Because uncoupled sequences could create deletion errors in the synthesized molecule, an unreactive group is added to prevent the further extension of these sequences. Oligos are repeatedly cycled through these oxidation, deprotection, and coupling steps until the desired length(s) and sequence(s) is (are) achieved.
The rst automated synthesizers used columns packed with CPG beads. Each column supports the synthesis of a single sequence, but high-throughput plate syn­thesizers can operate up to 1536 columns at once (although 96–384 columns is more common) [13]. Such synthesizers are limited in the length (<100 nucleotide [nt]) and sequence delity (0.5% error rate) they can produce as a result of even minor
Fig. 3.1 Phosphoramidite chemistry for oligonucleotide synthesis
3 Increasing the Scalability of DNA Synthesis and Its Key Role in Expanding…
59
inefciencies in the process [14]. Even near-perfect (99%) yield at each cycle can culminate in a poor overall yield for longer synthesis lengths.
The throughput of oligo synthesis dramatically increased with the advent and commercialization of DNA microarrays beginning in the nineties [15]. Oligo syn­thesis by microarray was made possible by the development of technologies that enabled spatial control over the synthesis reaction. Affymetrix was the rst to develop light-activated chemistries for the synthesis of oligos on microchip surfaces [16, 17]. NimbleGen and LC Sciences simplied these light-activated chemistries by using programmable micromirror devices to direct light in lieu of photolithogra­phy masks [18, 19]. CombiMatrix (subsequently CustomArray and now Genscript) and Agilent commercialized semiconductor-based [20] and inkjet printing-based [21] oligo synthesis technologies, respectively, abrogating the need for expensive processes associated with light-activated chemistries [13]. These later high­throughput technologies effectively reduced the cost of oligo synthesis from approximately $0.05–0.15 per nucleotide (using columns) to a mere $0.00001–0.0001 per nucleotide.
Microarray-based synthesis technologies continue to be innovated to this day. One area of innovation has been in the control of the depurination side reactions, as demonstrated by LeProust and colleagues [22]. Depurination occurs when adenine and guanine bases are hydrolyzed as a result of prolonged exposure to deprotecting/ detritylation agents during synthesis [23]. This side reaction effectively incorpo­rates an apurinic base without interfering with chain elongation. Deprotection of the nal base also triggers the cleavage of abasic sites created by depurination, generat­ing truncated sequences. LeProust and colleagues solved this problem by optimiz­ing the ow of reagents within the Agilent ow cell [22].
Increasing the efciency of the stepwise, phosphoramidite-based oligo synthesis reaction represents a second area of innovation. Patterned substrates (for light-based chemistries) [24, 25] and highly patterned chips (for inkjet synthesizers) [26] have provided better control over spatially controlled steps in synthesis reaction, reduc­ing the number of errors caused by misalignment. The efciency of the subsequent coupling and capping steps has also improved. A coupling efciency of >99.5% is a requirement for the synthesis of long oligos, and even small (~0.1%) improve­ments to this metric can enable synthesis of longer oligos with fewer errors. (Conversely, even small reductions in coupling efciency can dramatically decrease the length at which quality oligos can be synthesized.) These outsized effects reect the compounding of miniscule inefciencies across the stepwise synthesis of long oligos. In other words, as the length of the synthesized oligo increases, the more apparent small differences in reaction efciencies become. Today’s high- throughput synthesizers are highly efcient, reaching coupling efciencies as high as 99.9% (Twist Bioscience).
As of 2024, multiple companies offer oligo pool products synthesized by micro­array technologies; notable examples include Integrated DNA Technologies, Genscript, Agilent, and Twist Bioscience. Across these commercial synthesis plat­forms, the synthesis of hundreds of thousands of unique oligos on a single chip has become routine. Although the product specications of the oligos synthesized by