Two critical mistakes derail glycoengineering efforts. First, delaying analytical feedback on glycan profiles turns optimization into blind guesswork. Second, failing to test interactions with other process parameters like pH and temperature early on creates a process that is not robust and is prone to failure at scale.
Related Insights
There is no inherent conflict between speed and quality. High-quality studies prevent costly setbacks and generate reliable data, ultimately accelerating research programs. A low-quality study is what truly delays timelines by producing unusable or misleading results.
By training on multi-scale data from lab, pilot, and production runs, AI can predict how parameters like mixing and oxygen transfer will change at larger volumes. This enables teams to proactively adjust processes, moving from 'hoping' a process scales to 'knowing' it will.
The most valuable lessons in clinical trial design come from understanding what went wrong. By analyzing the protocols of failed studies, researchers can identify hidden biases, flawed methodologies, and uncontrolled variables, learning precisely what to avoid in their own work.
A structured, three-stage validation protocol can test raffinose in just eight weeks. It progresses from a 96-well plate screen to spin tubes to benchtop bioreactors. Each stage has a clear go/no-go criterion, allowing teams to quickly determine viability for their process without over-investing resources.
Scaling from a T-flask to a bioreactor isn't just increasing volume; it's a fundamental shift in the biological context. Changes in cell density, mass transfer, and mechanical stress rewire cell signaling. Therefore, understanding and respecting the cell's biology must be the primary design input for successful scale-up.
The standard practice is to optimize for productivity (titer) first, then correct for quality (glycosylation) later. This is reactive and inefficient. Successful teams integrate glycan analysis into their very first screening experiments, making informed, real-time trade-offs between productivity and quality attributes.
The traditional method of engineering enzymes by making precise, knowledge-based changes (“rational design”) is largely ineffective. Publication bias hides the vast number of failures, creating a false impression of success while cruder, high-volume methods like directed evolution prove superior.
According to Novartis's CEO, a top reason for rejecting potential biotech partners is their underinvestment in Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC). Startups often neglect this unglamorous work, leading to deal failure because the acquirer can't be sure the drug can be scaled efficiently and safely.
Many innovative drug designs fail because they are difficult to manufacture. LabGenius's ML platform avoids this by simultaneously optimizing for both biological function (e.g., potency) and "developability." This allows them to explore unconventional molecular designs without hitting a production wall later.
Using raffinose to adjust glycosylation is a regulatory-friendly strategy. Since it is a simple media component adjustment, not an enzyme inhibitor or genetic modification, it aligns with standard process development activities. This avoids intense scrutiny and justification required for more complex methods, simplifying the CMC package.