National Academies Press: OpenBook

Monoclonal Antibody Production (1999)

Chapter: Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods

« Previous: Scientific Needs for Mouse Ascites Production of mAb
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods." National Research Council. 1999. Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9450.
×

4
Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods

Advantages and disadvantages of in vitro and mouse ascites methods for producing mAb are highlighted in this section. It should be noted that it is likely that in vitro methods will meet more than 90% of the needs for mAb. Some of the advantages and disadvantages are concerned with animal-welfare issues. Others deal with the economics of producing mAb. As noted below under the section titled "In Vivo and In Vitro Methods for Commercial Production of mAb", in vitro methods can cost 1/2 to 6 times the mouse ascites method. Some of the factors that cause in vitro production to be expensive are labor and equipment costs that are usually due to poor hybridoma production of mAb in vitro. If the investigator must use several types of media or different equipment, as happens occasionally, labor costs rise and research is delayed (Moro and others 1994; Stoll and others 1996b; Butler and Huzel 1995).

Advantages of in Vitro Method

  • In vitro methods reduce the use of mice at the antibody-production stage but can use mice as a source of feeder cells when antibody generation is under way).
  • In vitro methods are usually the methods of choice for large-scale production by the pharmaceutical industry because of the ease of culture for production, compared with use of animals, and because of economic considerations.
  • In vitro methods avoid the need to submit animal protocols to IACUCs.
  • In vitro methods avoid or decrease the need for laboratory personnel experienced in animal handling.
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods." National Research Council. 1999. Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9450.
×
  • In vitro methods using semipermeable-membrane-based systems produce mAb in concentrations often as high as those found in ascitic fluid and are free of mouse ascitic fluid contaminants.

Disadvantages of in Vitro Methods

  • It should be noted that each of the items below pertains to only a fraction (3–5%) of hybridomas, but they indicate some of the difficulties associated with in vitro methods.
  • Some hybridomas do not grow well in culture or are lost in culture.
  • In vitro methods generally require the use of FBS, which limits some antibody uses. The use of in vitro methods for mAb production generally requires the use of FBS, which is a concern from the animal-welfare perspective.
  • The loss of proper glycosylation of the antibody (in contrast with in vivo production) might make the antibody product unsuitable for in vivo experiments because of increased immunogenicity, reduced binding affinity, changes in biologic functions, or accelerated clearance in vivo.
  • In general, batch-culture supernatants contain less mAb (typically 0.002-0.01) per milliliter of medium than the mouse ascites method. Note that semipermeable-membrane-based systems have been developed that can produce concentrations of mAb comparable with concentrations observed in mouse ascites fluid.
  • In batch tissue-culture methods, mAb concentration tends to be low in the supernatant; this necessitates concentrating steps that can change antibody affinity, denature the antibody, and add time and expense. Adequate concentrations of mAb might be obtained in semi permeable-membrane-based systems.
  • Most batches of mAb produced by membrane-based in vitro methods are contaminated with dead hybridoma cells and dead hybridoma-cell products, thus requiring early and expensive purification before study.
  • mAb produced in vitro might yield poorer binding affinity than those obtained by the ascites method.
  • In vitro culture methods are generally more expensive than the ascites method for small-scale or medium-scale production of mAb (Hendriksen and de Leeuw 1998; Jackson and others 1996; Peterson Peavey 1998; Marx 1998; Lipman 1997).
  • The number of mAb produced by in vitro methods is limited by the amount of equipment that it is practical to have available.
  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that proving the equivalence of an mAb produced by in vitro methods to an mAb previously produced by the mouse ascites method would cost the sponsor $2–10 million (Stein 1998; Maxim 1998)
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods." National Research Council. 1999. Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9450.
×

Advantages of Mouse Ascites Method

  • The mouse ascites method usually produces very high mAb concentrations that often do not require further concentration procedures that can denature antibody and decrease effectiveness.
  • The high concentration of the desired mAb in mouse ascites fluid avoids the effects of contaminants in in vitro batch-culture fluid when comparable quantities of mAb are used.
  • The mouse ascites method avoids the need to teach the antibody producer tissue-culture methods.

Disadvantages of Mouse Ascites Method

  • The mouse ascites method involves the continued use of mice requiring daily observation.
  • MAb produced by in vivo methods can contain various mouse proteins and other contaminants that might require purification.
  • The mouse ascites method can be expensive if immunodeficient mice in a barrier facility must be used.
  • In vivo methods can cause significant pain or distress in mice.
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods." National Research Council. 1999. Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9450.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods." National Research Council. 1999. Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9450.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods." National Research Council. 1999. Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9450.
×
Page 24
Next: Large-Scale Production of Monoclonal Antibodies »
Monoclonal Antibody Production Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00 Buy Ebook | $37.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) petitioned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on April 23, 1997, to prohibit the use of animals in the production of mAb. On September 18, 1997, NIH declined to prohibit the use of mice in mAb production, stating that "the ascites method of mAb production is scientifically appropriate for some research projects and cannot be replaced." On March 26, 1998, AAVS submitted a second petition, stating that "NIH failed to provide valid scientific reasons for not supporting a proposed ban." The office of the NIH director asked the National Research Council to conduct a study of methods of producing mAb.

In response to that request, the Research Council appointed the Committee on Methods of Producing Monoclonal Antibodies, to act on behalf of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the Commission on Life Sciences, to conduct the study. The 11 expert members of the committee had extensive experience in biomedical research, laboratory animal medicine, animal welfare, pain research, and patient advocacy (Appendix B). The committee was asked to determine whether there was a scientific necessity for the mouse ascites method; if so, whether the method caused pain or distress; and, if so, what could be done to minimize the pain or distress. The committee was also asked to comment on available in vitro methods; to suggest what acceptable scientific rationale, if any, there was for using the mouse ascites method; and to identify regulatory requirements for the continued use of the mouse ascites method.

The committee held an open data-gathering meeting during which its members summarized data bearing on those questions. A 1-day workshop (Appendix A) was attended by 34 participants, 14 of whom made formal presentations. A second meeting was held to finalize the report. The present report was written on the basis of information in the literature and information presented at the meeting and the workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!