Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgements
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •About the Editors
- •1.2.2.3 Progeria
- •1. Bioprocessing, Bioengineering and Process Chemistry in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: Using Chemistry and Bioengineering to Improve the Performance of Biologics
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2.2.2 Cystic Fibrosis
- •1.3.2.1 ADC Drugs
- •1.4 Top 25 Best-Selling Drugs
- •1.5.1 An Overview
- •1.5.2 Synthetic Biology
- •1.5.8 Biopharmaceutical Regulatory CMC
- •1.5.9 Technology Transfer
- •References
- •2.1 What Is Synthetic Biology?
- •2.6 CAR-T Cell Therapies
- •2.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2.1 Oligonucleotide Synthesis
- •3.2.1.1 Early Synthetic Chemistries
- •3.2.2 Solid Supports
- •3.2.3 Modern Oligo Synthesis Platforms
- •3.3 Gene Synthesis
- •3.3.1 Early DNA Assembly Methods
- •3.3.2 Array-Based Gene Synthesis
- •3.4 New Discovery Bottleneck
- •3.4.1.1 Hybridoma Technology
- •3.4.1.2 Phage Display Technology
- •3.4.1.3 Synthetic Antibody Library Construction
- •Semi-Synthetic Libraries
- •Fully Synthetic Libraries
- •3.5 Perspectives
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2.1 Batch
- •4.2.2 Fed-Batch
- •4.2.4 Hybrid Processes
- •4.2.7 Dynamic Perfusion Processes
- •4.3.2 Glucose Limitation
- •4.4.1 N-1 Perfusion
- •4.4.3 Linked Bioreactors
- •4.5 Process Analytical Technology
- •4.6 Single-Use Bioreactors (SUBs)
- •4.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2.1 Molecular Format Considerations
- •5.2.1.1 The Charge-Based Electrostatic Approach
- •5.2.1.2 The Knob into Hole Approach
- •5.2.2.1 Stable CHO Host Cell Integration System—Random or Targeted?
- •5.2.2.2 Expression Vector Considerations
- •5.2.2.3 Cell Line Screening Strategy Considerations
- •5.3.1 Upstream Process Development
- •5.3.2 Downstream Process Development Considerations
- •5.3.2.1 Unique Impurity Challenges
- •5.3.2.2 Stability Concerns
- •5.5.2.1 H/H Removal
- •5.5.2.2 HMMS Removal
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2.1 N-Linked Glycosylation
- •6.2.2 O-Linked Glycosylation
- •6.2.3 Glycosaminoglycan Synthesis
- •6.3.1 Mannosylation
- •6.3.2 Fucosylation
- •6.3.3 Galactosylation
- •6.3.4 Sialylation
- •6.5 Glycoengineering
- •6.5.1 Manipulating Heterogeneity
- •6.5.2 Manipulating Sialylation
- •6.5.2.1 Increasing α-2,6 Sialylation
- •6.5.3 Manipulating Fucosylation
- •6.5.4 Manipulating Branching
- •6.6.1 Temperature
- •6.6.2 pH
- •6.6.3.2 Amino Acids
- •6.6.3.3 Glycosaminoglycan Production
- •6.6.4 Culture Additives
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.1.1 AAV Gene Therapy
- •7.3.1 Humoral Immunity
- •7.3.2 Cell-Mediated Immunity
- •7.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 mRNA Vaccines
- •8.2.1 Background
- •8.2.2 Production Process
- •8.2.2.2 Production
- •8.4.1 Background
- •8.4.2 Production Process
- •8.4.2.2 Production
- •8.4.2.3 Viral Inactivation
- •8.5 Protein-Based Vaccines
- •8.5.1 Background
- •8.5.2 Production Processes
- •8.5.2.1 NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax)
- •8.3 Viral Vectors
- •8.3.1 Background
- •8.3.2 Production Process
- •8.3.2.2 Production
- •8.4 Whole Inactivated Virus Vaccines
- •8.5.2.2 CoVLP (Medicago)
- •8.5.2.3 EpiVacCorona (Vector Institute)
- •8.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •9. CAR-T Bioprocessing
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2.1 Introduction
- •9.2.2 Lentiviral Vector Design
- •9.2.5 Upstream Bioprocessing
- •9.2.6 Downstream Bioprocessing
- •9.3 Cell Product Bioprocessing
- •9.3.1 End-to-End Systems
- •9.3.4 Activation
- •9.3.6 Cell Expansion
- •9.3.8 T-Cell Cryopreservation
- •References
- •10.1.1 What Is CRISPR?
- •10.1.4 Mechanism Behind CRISPR Gene Editing
- •10.2.1 Creating Gene Knockouts
- •10.2.2 Creating Gene Knock-Ins
- •10.2.4 CRISPR Screens
- •10.3.1 Derivative Technologies
- •10.4.2 Delivery Methods
- •10.6.2 TCR Engineered T Cell Therapy
- •10.6.3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy
- •10.9.2 Safety Considerations
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.1.2 Categories
- •11.2 Current Status
- •11.2.1 Approved Products
- •11.2.2 Market
- •11.3 Design
- •11.3.1 Building Blocks
- •11.3.2 Linkers
- •11.3.3 Oligomerization
- •11.3.3.1 Monomer
- •11.3.3.2 Dimer
- •11.3.3.3 Trimer
- •11.3.3.4 Tetramer
- •11.3.3.5 Pentamer
- •11.3.3.6 Hexamer
- •11.3.3.7 Octamer
- •11.3.4 Orientation
- •11.3.5 Protein Engineering
- •11.3.6 Immunogenicity
- •11.4 Manufacturing
- •11.4.1 Upstream
- •11.4.2 Downstream
- •11.4.3 Glycosylation
- •11.4.4 Aggregation
- •11.4.5 Analytics
- •11.5 Therapeutic Concepts
- •11.5.1 Half-Life Extension
- •Albumin Fusions
- •Fc Fusions
- •Transferrin Fusions
- •Repetitive Peptide Fusions
- •Glycosylated Peptides
- •11.5.1.3 Aggregate Forming Peptides
- •11.5.2 Targeting Functions
- •11.5.3.1 Fc Domain Receptor-Mediated Toxicity
- •11.5.3.2 Toxins
- •11.5.3.3 Immunocytokines
- •11.5.3.4 Human Enzymes
- •11.5.3.5 Apoptosis Induction
- •11.6 Summary
- •11.7 Future Perspectives
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 ADC History
- •12.3 Target Selection
- •12.4 Antibody Selection
- •12.6 ADC Technology
- •12.7 ADC Clinical Development
- •12.8.1 Mylotarg
- •12.8.2 Adcetris
- •12.8.3 Kadcyla
- •12.8.4 Besponsa
- •12.8.5 Polivy
- •12.8.6 Padcev
- •12.8.7 Enhertu
- •12.8.8 Trodelvy
- •12.8.9 Blenrep
- •12.8.10 Zynlonta
- •12.8.11 Tivdak
- •12.9 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin
- •13.3 Gemtuzumab Antibody
- •13.4 Calicheamicin
- •13.7.3 Isolation of N-Acetyl Calicheamicin
- •13.10 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2.1 Antibody Generation
- •14.3.1 Structure Prediction
- •14.3.2 Biophysical Properties
- •14.3.3 Hydrophobicity
- •14.3.5 Isoelectric Point (pI)
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 ADA Program Development
- •15.2.3 Project Approach
- •15.2.4 Model Library
- •15.3 Case Study
- •15.3.3 Hypothesis Generation
- •15.3.5 Feature Engineering Example
- •15.3.7 Model Insights
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.1.1.1 United States
- •16.1.1.2 European Union
- •16.1.2 Global Markets
- •16.4.1 United States FDA
- •16.4.2 European Medicines Agency (EMA)
- •16.4.3 The World Health Organization
- •References
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.3.1.2 Clone Selection

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 efcacy 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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 identication 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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 signicance, 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 etal (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. Rife

2 Synthetic Biology inDrug Development andBeyond
45. Charles A etal (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 etal (2020) Rapid isolation and proling 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 phosphoramidites—synthons 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (2020) Phage display derived monoclonal antibodies: from bench to bedside.
Front Immunol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/mmu.2020.01986
57. Kaleli NE etal (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 etal (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 diverse—CD4 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 etal (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 etal (1989) Expression of immunoglobulin-T-cell receptor chimeric molecules as
functional receptors with antibody-type specicity. 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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. Raq S etal (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 etal (2021) Cell therapies in the clinic. Bioeng Transl Med 6(2). https://doi.
org/10.1002/btm2.10214
75. Maro F etal (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. Rife

Part III
Oligonucleotide Synthetic Chemistry
to DNA Synthesis, Bioprocessing
and Manufacturing


Chapter 3
Increasing theScalability ofDNA
Synthesis andIts Key Role inExpanding
theBiopharmaceutical Discovery Process
RebeccaL.Nugent andAaronK.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 exemplied 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 specically, 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, purication, and testing of biopharmaceuticals, enabling a new era in antibody
discovery.
R. L. Nugent and A. K. Sato
3.2 Evolution ofGene 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 benet
biologists. The evolution of oligo synthesis largely reects 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 efcient 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 difcult 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 purication 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 Merrield, 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% efcient, 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
inefciencies 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 simplied 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 efciency 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 efciency of the subsequent
coupling and capping steps has also improved. A coupling efciency 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 efciency can dramatically decrease
the length at which quality oligos can be synthesized.) These outsized effects reect
the compounding of miniscule inefciencies 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 efciencies become. Today’s high- throughput
synthesizers are highly efcient, reaching coupling efciencies 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 specications of the oligos synthesized by
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
