BioPharmaceutical approach with spectroscopy

Importance of the topic

Spectroscopic methods — including vibrational techniques (FTIR, FT‑NIR, Raman) and UV‑Visible absorption — are increasingly embedded across biopharmaceutical workflows as rapid, reagent‑free, and non‑destructive process analytical technologies (PAT). They can address upstream raw material identity and cell culture monitoring, downstream process control and buffer management, and final product multi‑attribute testing and release. The compendium demonstrates practical implementations, chemometric model development and transfer, and instrument platforms that enable automation, tighter process control, and reduced reliance on slow offline analytics.

Study objectives and overview

• Synthesize examples where spectroscopy supports biopharma operations from raw material testing to real‑time release.
• Demonstrate analytical approaches: FTIR for protein secondary structure, process Raman for automated glucose feeding and downstream buffer/excipient monitoring, FT‑NIR for direct protein quantitation in cell cultures, UV‑Vis methods to detect aggregation and to quantify nucleic acids/proteins, and Raman method transfer strategies and multivariate models for product identity and preservative quantitation.
• Document instrumentation, chemometric workflows, model validation and method‑transfer considerations for PAT deployment.

Methodology and key procedures

• FTIR (transmission and ATR): Amide I/II regions analyzed using buffer subtraction, second derivative and peak deconvolution to derive α‑helix/β‑sheet/random coil fractions. Small path lengths (e.g., 6 μm CaF2 cell) and ATR concentration techniques were used to mitigate water absorption and limited sample volumes. PROTA‑3S and OMNIC peak‑resolve functions were applied for automated secondary structure estimation.
• Process Raman (in‑line): MarqMetrix All‑In‑One Raman analyzer with BallProbe/FlowCell optics collected spectra (typical acquisition: high laser power, multi‑second integration, averaging). PLS chemometric models were built for glucose and lactate (specific spectral windows selected; Savitzky‑Golay derivative, SNV or L1 normalization, mean centering). For automation, Raman predictions were fed to TruBio control software to perform scheduled bolus feeding using logical conditions (e.g., thresholds, timed sine function trigger for daily feed).
• Method transfer for Raman: Compared direct transfer, global (full calibration) and correction/standardization approaches. Demonstrated that careful spectral region choice and preprocessing are critical; global calibration gives best accuracy at the expense of data collection effort; limited correction spectra can significantly improve direct transfer.
• FT‑NIR protein quantitation in cell culture: Antaris MX FT‑NIR transflectance probe used with adjustable pathlength; PLS regression on selected NIR ranges (first derivative plus smoothing) predicted protein concentrations (0.16–5.0 g/L) with RMSEP ~0.31 g/L when challenged with differing nutrient/waste matrices.
• UV‑Vis aggregation detection and scatter correction: Aggregation produces a broad scattering baseline across 220–400 nm. Two approaches were used: mathematical scatter estimation (Rayleigh λ⁻4 dependence fit and subtraction) for low scatter samples, and integrating‑sphere (Kubelka–Munk reflectance) measurements for turbid samples to obtain scatter‑corrected absorbance and calculate remaining free protein concentration by comparison to non‑aggregated standard.
• DNA purity QC for cloning: Microvolume UV (NanoDrop platform) to collect A260, A280, A230 and purity ratios. Demonstrated how phenol or EDTA contamination affects A260‑based concentration and digestion efficiency (restriction endonuclease test) and used gel extraction and re‑measurement to confirm purification effectiveness.
• A205 protein quantitation: Microvolume A205 methods (fixed ε205=31 mL·mg⁻1·cm⁻1, Scopes method with A280/A205 correction for aromatic residues, and sequence‑specific extinction coefficients) were compared. NanoDrop One results were consistent with benchtop UV‑Vis when appropriate extinction coefficients are selected. Buffer absorbance at 205 nm must be checked.
• Gold nanoshell (NS) plasmon shifts for bioconjugation QC: NanoDrop microvolume spectra (2 μL) monitored red‑shifts of plasmon peak (~795→804 nm) after siRNA and PEG conjugation as a qualitative indicator of surface functionalization; corroborated by DLS, zeta potential and loading assays.
• Acclaro sample intelligence for contaminant detection: NanoDrop Eight used chemometrics to detect and quantify dsDNA in RNA prep or RNA in dsDNA prep and to report corrected concentrations and contaminant absorbance contributions, improving sample QC for downstream assays.
• Multi‑attribute final product testing and real‑time release: DXR3 SmartRaman was applied to discriminate product identity across vials and to quantify preservatives using discriminant analysis and PLS models. The approach reduced reliance on lengthy peptide mapping and HPLC when appropriate model validation and controls are in place.
• Downstream buffer/excipient monitoring: MarqMetrix Raman with FlowCell monitored L‑histidine, L‑arginine and sucrose during UF/DF. Models built by uniform design (DoE) and LOOCV returned <5% prediction error vs HPLC references. Raman also detected sucrose hydrolysis to glucose/fructose during buffer hold via increased Q residuals — enabling buffer quality control thresholds.

Instrumentation used

• FTIR: Thermo Scientific Nicolet iS10/iS50 FTIR Spectrometers with DTGS or MCT detectors; ConcentratIR2 multiple‑reflection diamond ATR; BioCell CaF2 transmission cells; PROTA‑3S and OMNIC software.
• FT‑NIR: Thermo Scientific Antaris MX FT‑NIR Process Analyzer with transflectance probe.
• Raman (process/in‑line): Thermo Scientific MarqMetrix All‑In‑One Process Raman Analyzer; MarqMetrix Performance BallProbe and FlowCell sampling optics.
• Raman (laboratory/identification): Thermo Scientific DXR3 SmartRaman+ Spectrometer and ASA accessory; TQ Analyst software.
• UV‑Vis microvolume/spectrophotometers: Thermo Scientific NanoDrop One / NanoDrop Ultra / NanoDrop Eight / Evolution One Plus UV‑Vis Spectrophotometer; Evolution ISA‑220 integrating sphere accessory; Kubelka–Munk processing tools.
• Other: HPLC and LC‑MS for orthogonal reference measurements; Nova BioProfile analyzer for cell culture nutrient/waste reference; centrifuges, filtration devices and standard lab consumables for sample prep.

Main results and discussion

• FTIR: Transmission and ATR FTIR, combined with derivative/deconvolution and database methods (PROTA‑3S), provided secondary structure estimates in good agreement with X‑ray data (e.g., cytochrome c ≈45% α‑helix by FTIR vs 41% X‑ray). ATR is preferred when sample quantity is limited.
• Process Raman automation: In‑line Raman PLS glucose/lactate models achieved RMSECV ~0.49 g/L (glucose) and ~0.31 g/L (lactate). A feedback loop to feed daily bolus glucose maintained process glucose between 4–7.5 g/L and yielded comparable titer, lactate profiles and product quality to manual control while removing offline lab steps.
• Method transfer: Direct transfer can work if instrument differences and spectral region are carefully chosen; global calibrations perform best but demand extensive inter‑instrument datasets; correction/standardization provides a practical middle ground.
• FT‑NIR protein quantification: PLS models predicted recombinant‑like protein concentrations in CHO media (0.16–5 g/L) with RMSEP ~0.31 g/L (R² ≈0.98), allowing real‑time monitoring without sample prep.
• UV‑Vis aggregation: Aggregation produces a broad λ‑dependent scattering artifact that can be modeled (Rayleigh λ⁻4) or removed by integrating sphere measurement (Kubelka–Munk transform) to recover free protein concentration; integrating sphere is preferred for turbid samples.
• Nucleic acid QC and A205 quantitation: Microvolume UV enables rapid pre‑ and post‑purification checks (A260/A280 and A260/A230), with Acclaro algorithms correcting for copurified nucleic acid contamination; A205 quantitation (with appropriate extinction coefficient selection) offers higher sensitivity for proteins lacking aromatic residues but requires attention to buffer absorbance.
• Nanoparticle bioconjugation: Microvolume UV‑Vis plasmon peak shifts are a simple, reproducible QC metric to confirm oligonucleotide/PEG attachment to gold nanoshells using only microliter volumes.
• Final product identity and preservative quantitation by Raman: Discriminant analysis reliably classified 15 native drug formulations in glass vials; PLS quantitation of preservatives returned high R² and low RMSEP, supporting Raman as a rapid multi‑attribute test for at‑line/fill‑finish QC.
• Downstream buffer workflow: In‑line Raman tracked excipient concentrations through UF/DF and flagged buffer degradation (sucrose hydrolysis) via changing spectra and rising Q residuals, enabling practical buffer QC decision thresholds that avoid failed runs.

Benefits and practical applications

• Enables automation (e.g., glucose feeding), tighter process control, reduced analyst dependence and faster decision‑making.
• Reduces cost and cycle time by replacing or reducing offline assays (HPLC, offline protein assays, gel‑based identity tests) for many routine PAT needs.
• Conserves precious samples through microvolume measurements (NanoDrop family) and minimally invasive probes for in‑process monitoring.
• Supports method transfer and scaling through standardized preprocessing, cross‑validation and practical correction strategies.
• Provides early detection of buffer/product quality issues (e.g., sucrose hydrolysis, contamination) enabling intervention before full batch processing.

Future trends and potential applications

• Deeper integration of spectroscopy with process control systems for closed‑loop automation (Raman ↔ DCS/PAC) across upstream and downstream steps.
• Expanded use of multimodal chemometrics and machine learning (advanced PLS, regularization, outlier detection) for robust model transfer between instruments and sites.
• Broader adoption of microvolume optical QC (A205, Acclaro contaminant correction) for high‑throughput workflows and real‑time release strategies.
• Increased use of integrating sphere and scatter‑aware algorithms for routine aggregation testing in formulation development and QC.
• Regulatory acceptance pathways for spectroscopy‑based RTRT with defined model qualification, traceability and orthogonal confirmation strategies.

Conclusion

The compendium illustrates how complementary spectroscopic tools can be deployed across the biopharmaceutical value chain to enable rapid, non‑destructive analysis, PAT implementation, and elements of real‑time release. Success requires careful spectral region selection, robust preprocessing, cross‑validation, and pragmatic method‑transfer strategies. When combined with appropriate orthogonal confirmation and instrument standardization, spectroscopy (FTIR, FT‑NIR, Raman, UV‑Vis) offers a practical route to higher productivity, lower cost, and better quality assurance in biologics manufacturing.

References

1. Elliott A., Ambrose E.J. Structure of synthetic polypeptides. Nature. 1950;165:921–922.
2. Jackson M., Mantsch H.H. The use and misuse of FTIR spectroscopy in the determination of protein structure. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1995;30:95–120.
3. Barth A. Infrared spectroscopy of proteins. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2007;1767:1073–1101.
4. Byler D.M., Susi H. Examination of the secondary structure of proteins by deconvolved FTIR spectra. Biopolymers. 1986;25:469–487.
5. Surewicz W.K., Mantsch H.H. New insight into protein secondary structure from resolution‑enhanced infrared spectra. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1988;952:115–130.
6. Sukumaran S., Hauser K., Maier E., Benz R., Mantele W. Tracking the unfolding and refolding pathways of outer membrane protein porin from Paracoccus denitrificans. Biochemistry. 2006;45:3972–3980.
7. Klose D., Janes R.W. 2Struc – the protein secondary structure analysis server. Biophys J. 2010;98:454–455.
8. Yang J.-D., Lu C., Stasny B., et al. Fed‑Batch Bioreactor Process Scale‑up from 3‑L to 2,500‑L Scale for Monoclonal Antibody Production from Cell Culture. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007;98(1):141–154.
9. Villa J., Zustiak M., Kuntz D., et al. Use of Lykos and TruBio Software Programs for Automated Feedback Control to Monitor and Maintain Glucose Concentrations in Real Time. (Application note/internal report).
10. Zhang A., Tsang V.L., Moore B., et al. Advanced Process Monitoring and Feedback Control to Enhance Cell Culture Process Production and Robustness. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015;112(12):2495–2504.
11. Workman J. A Review of Calibration Transfer Practices and Instrument Differences in Spectroscopy. Appl. Spectrosc. 2018;73(3):340–365.
12. Barton B., Thomson J., Diz E.L., Portela R. Chemometrics for Raman Spectroscopy Harmonization. Appl. Spectrosc. 2022.
13. Lin Y.-C., Sinfield J. Characterization of Raman Spectroscopy Systems Transfer Functions in Intensity, Wavelength, and Time. Instruments. 2020;4:22.
14. Guo S., Popp J., Bocklitz T. Chemometric analysis in Raman spectroscopy from experimental design to machine learning‑based modeling. Nat. Protoc. 2021;16:5426–5459.
15. Kalivas J.H., Siano G.G., Andries E., Goicoechea H.C. Calibration Maintenance and Transfer using Tikhonov Regularization Approaches. Appl. Spectrosc. 2009;63(7):800–809.
16. Kunz M.R., Kalivas J.H., Andries E. Model Updating for Spectral Calibration and Transfer Using 1‑Norm Variants of Tikhonov Regularization. Anal. Chem. 2010;82:3642–3649.
17. Brouchaert D., Uyttersprot J.S., Broeckx W., De Beer T. Calibration transfer of a Raman spectroscopic quantification method from at‑line to in‑line assessment of liquid detergent compositions. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2017;971:14–25.
18. Weids A.J., Ibstedt S., Tamás M.J., Grant C.M. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24554.
19. Chen Z., Huang C., Chennamsetty N., Xu X., Li Z.J. J. Chromatogr. A. 2016;1460:110–122.
20. Jubete Y., Maurizi M.R., Gottesman S. J. Biol. Chem. 1996;271:30798–30803.
21. Da Vela S., Roosen‑Runge F., Skoda M.W.A., et al. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2017;121:5759–5769.
22. Pignataro M.F., Herrera M.G., Dodero V.I. Molecules. 2020;25:4854.
23. Johnson I.S. Science. 1983;219:632–637.
24. Mitragotri S., Burke P.A., Langer R. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2014;13:655–672.
25. Lundahl M.L.E., Fogli S., Colavita P.E., Scanlan E.M. RSC Chem. Biol. 2021;2:1004–1020.
26. Hawe A., Friess W., Sutter M., Jiskoot W. Anal. Biochem. 2008;380:115–122.
27. Hall D., Zhao R., Dehlsen I., et al. Anal. Biochem. 2016;489:78–94.
28. Smith E.L., Coy N. J. Biol. Chem. 1946;164:367–370.
29. Yao G., Li K.A., Tong S.Y. Anal. Chim. Acta. 1999;398:319–327.
30. Alberts B., et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. Garland Science. 2002.
31. Green M.R., Sambrook J. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2017: Precipitation of DNA with Isopropanol.
32. Anthis N.J., Clore G.M. Sequence‑specific determination of protein and peptide concentrations by absorbance at 205 nm. Protein Sci. 2013;22:851–858.
33. Goldfarb A.R., Saidel L.J., Mosovich E. The ultraviolet absorption spectra of proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1951;193:397–404.
34. Scopes R.K. Measurement of protein by spectrophotometry at 205 nm. Anal. Biochem. 1974;59:277–282.
35. Oldenburg S.J., Averitt R.D., Westcott S.L., Halas N.J. Nanoengineering of optical resonances. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998;288:243–247.
36. Duff D.G., Baiker A., Edwards P.P. A new hydrosol of gold clusters. Langmuir. 1993;9:2301–2309.
37. Melamed J.R., Riley R.S., Valcourt D.M., Billingsley M.M., et al. Quantification of siRNA duplexes Bound to Gold Nanoparticle Surfaces. In Biomedical Nanotechnology. Humana Press. 2017.
38. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Real Time Release Testing. (ICH‑aligned regulatory guidance).
39. Buckley K., Ryder A.G. Applications of Raman spectroscopy in biopharmaceutical manufacturing: a short review. Appl. Spectrosc. 2017;71(6):1085–1116.
40. Choquette S.J., Etz E.S., Hurst W.S., et al. Relative Intensity Correction of Raman Spectrometers: NIST SRMs 2241–2243. Appl. Spectrosc. 2007;61(2):117–129.
41. Torres A.P., Oliveira F.A.R., Silva C.L.M., Fortuna S.P. Influence of pH on kinetics of acid hydrolysis of sucrose. J. Food Process Eng. 1994;17(2):191–208.
42. Wiercigroch E., Szafraniec E., Czamara K., et al. Raman and Infrared Spectroscopy of Carbohydrates: A Review. Spectrochim. Acta Part A. 2017;185:317–335.
43. Kumar S., Martin E.B., Morris J. Detection of process model change in PLS based performance monitoring. IFAC Proceedings. 2002;35(1):125–130.
44. Agrawal P., Wilkstein K., Guinn E., et al. A Review of Tangential Flow Filtration: Process Development and Applications in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2023;27:571–591.