On the Use of Surface Plasmon Resonance-Based Biosensors for Advanced Bioprocess Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomanufacturers are being incited by regulatory agencies to transition from a quality by testing framework, where they extensively test their product after their production, to more of a quality by design or even quality by control framework. This requires powerful analytical tools and sensors enabling measurements of key process variables and/or product quality attributes during production, preferably in an online manner. As such, the demand for monitoring technologies is rapidly growing. In this context, we believe surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based biosensors can play a role in enabling the development of improved bioprocess monitoring and control strategies. The SPR technique has been profusely used to probe the binding behavior of a solution species with a sensor surface-immobilized partner in an investigative context, but its ability to detect binding in real-time and without a label has been exploited for monitoring purposes and is promising for the near future. In this review, we examine applications of SPR that are or could be related to bioprocess monitoring in three spheres: biotherapeutics production monitoring, vaccine monitoring, and bacteria and contaminant detection. These applications mainly exploit SPR’s ability to measure solution species concentrations, but performing kinetic analyses is also possible and could prove useful for product quality assessments. We follow with a discussion on the limitations of SPR in a monitoring role and how recent advances in hardware and SPR response modeling could counter them. Mainly, throughput limitations can be addressed by multi-detection spot instruments, and nonspecific binding effects can be alleviated by new antifouling materials. A plethora of methods are available for cell growth and metabolism monitoring, but product monitoring is performed mainly a posteriori. SPR-based biosensors exhibit potential as product monitoring tools from early production to the end of downstream processing, paving the way for more efficient production control. However, more work needs to be done to facilitate or eliminate the need for sample preprocessing and to optimize the experimental protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".