What are the consequences of Mycoplasma contamination?

Mycoplasma contamination poses significant risk to various aspects of biopharmaceutical production. It can alter DNA, RNA, protein synthesis, diminish amino acid and ATP levels, introduce chromosomal alterations, and modify host cell plasma membrane antigens, which can manifest in modified cell growth, reduced productivity, alteration of cellular morphology and/or changes in product characteristics³. Therefore, undiscovered Mycoplasma contamination essentially calls into question the significance and validity of the obtained results. Moreover, it can halt the recombinant protein production for months and require exhaustive and time-consuming decontamination process. When it comes to the impact on patient’s health, an undetected presence of mycoplasmas in the investigational or commercial medicinal product may cause sepsis and disseminated infection, which in some cases can lead to death⁷. Administration of contaminated batches during the clinical trial would undermine the quality of the manufacturing process and the implemented control measures, and in consequence impede the entire development program. For the outlined reasons, ICH, FDA and EMA guidelines require testing for the presence of Mycoplasma in cell/viral banks, cell harvest material and sometimes the product itself^{8, 9, 10, 11}. These guidelines include:

• ICH Topic Q 5 D – Quality of Biotechnological Products: Derivation and Characterization of Cell Substrates Used for Production of Biotechnological/Biological Products
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA); “Points to Consider in the Characterization of Cell Lines Used to Produce Biologicals”, 1993
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA); “Guidance for Industry Characterization and Qualification of Cell Substrates and Other Biological Materials Used in the Production of Viral Vaccines for Infectious Disease Indications”, February 2010
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), January 2020
• European Medicines Agency (EMA); Draft Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical requirements for investigational advanced therapy medicinal products in clinical trials (February 2019)

What is the best method for detecting Mycoplasma?

Traditionally, cell culture-based methods have been used with the tested sample inoculated into specialized growth media¹². For strains that are difficult to grow, an indicator culture method may be utilized instead. Although this method is relatively simple, it can be time-consuming as Mycoplasma takes an average of 28 days to grow¹³.

In comparison to cell culture, qPCR-based methods are highly sensitive, rapid, and specific. These methods utilize specially designed primers targeting the highly conserved 16S rDNA gene, which are capable of detecting a wide range of Mycoplasma species¹⁴. Internal controls are incorporated to verify the success of reaction and lack of inhibition, and the results can be obtained within hours. While the detection limits for NAT-based methods must be at least 10 CFU/mL according to Ph. Eur. and USP, they often achieve lower levels, reaching as low as 0.1 CFU/mL for some strains^{15, 16}. qPCR-based methods are gaining regulatory approval as a viable alternative to cell culture-based methods, and are especially important when the sample needs to be processed quickly, such as in the case of cell therapy products. Many NAT-based Mycoplasma detection assays have already been accepted by health authorities in the US, Europe and internationally, both for commercial and clinical lot release. There are several critical parameters an assay must fulfill in order to be compliant with the regulations set out by Ph. Eur. and USP. These are: specificity, sensitivity (limit of detection no higher than 10 CFU/mL) and robustness.

Mabion’s Mycoplasma testing services not only meet all these requirements but also show superiority in some of the most important parameters. Click here to learn more about our services.

What can be done to avoid contamination?

To prevent Mycoplasma introduction, it is crucial to implement rigorous laboratory practices, including strict adherence to aseptic techniques, regular testing of cell lines and biological materials, proper decontamination of equipment and surfaces, and training personnel on good laboratory practices and hygiene. Regular screening of cell lines and vigilant monitoring can help detect and promptly mitigate the risk of contaminating the final drug product. Testing of biopharmaceutical products and half-products (such as harvest, cell banks and sometimes the final DP) for Mycoplasma contamination is required by the EU, US and UK regulatory agencies. Nucleic acid-based assay alone or in combination with cell culture are acknowledged as appropriate detection methods. As stated in one of the FDA guidances on viral vaccines¹⁷:

PCR-based assays may be used to detect mycoplasma, provided that such an assay can be shown to be comparable to the agar and broth media procedure and the indicator cell culture procedure. Such assays may combine culture and PCR. In some cases, culture-based procedures cannot be used due to an inability to completely neutralize vaccine viruses, thus necessitating the use of PCR-based assays to test for mycoplasma in these products.

In summary, Mycoplasma contamination poses a serious concern for biopharmaceutical manufacturers, as it represents both safety and economic risks. Routine testing for Mycoplasma can help minimize these dangers, with qPCR being the fastest detection method showing outstanding reproducibility, sensitivity and ability to identify non-culturable strains. Proper implementation of the routine Mycoplasma testing under the GMP requirements requires prior method validation. Mabion offers a validated qPCR method together with specific sample suitability testing as well as routine testing for Mycoplasma contamination.

Click here to learn more about our Mycoplasma testing services.

Literature

1. Shayn E Armstrong 1, Jill A Mariano, Daniel J Lundin. The scope of mycoplasma contamination within the biopharmaceutical industry. Biologicals 2010 Mar;38(2):211-3. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2010.03.002 ↩︎
2. Ceccherini-Nelli, Luca, and Barbara Matteoli, eds. Biomedical Tissue Culture. BoD–Books on Demand, 2012. ↩︎
3. Rottem, S., & Naot, Y. Subversion and exploitation of host cells by mycoplasmas. Trends in Microbiology 1998 6(11), 436–440 ↩︎
4. Angart P, Kohnhorst C, Chiang M, Arden NS, Adventitious agents are a safety risk to biomanufacturing pipelines. USP 33/NF 28 Mycoplasma Tests. (2018, October 25). Considerations for risk and control of Mycoplasma in bioprocessing. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering ↩︎
5. Prevention and Detection of Mycoplasma Contamination in Cell Culture. Laleh Nikfarjam, Ph.D.* and Parvaneh Farzaneh, Ph.D . Cell J. 2012 Winter; 13(4): 203–212 ↩︎
6. Mycoplasma contamination of cell cultures: Incidence, sources, effects, detection, elimination, prevention. Hans G. Drexler∗ & Cord C. Uphoff DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Department of Human and Animal Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany ↩︎
7. Tawfik P. & Patrick Arndt. Lethal hyperammonemia in a CAR-T cell recipient due to Ureaplasma pneumonia: a case report of a unique severe complication. BMJ Case Rep. 2021;14(7):e242513. Published 2021 Jul 8. doi:10.1136/bcr-2021-242513 ↩︎
8. European Medicines Agency (EMA); Draft Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical requirements for investigational advanced therapy medicinal products in clinical trials (released for public consultation in February 2019) ↩︎
9. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), January 2020 ↩︎
10. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); “Points to Consider in the Characterization of Cell Lines Used to Produce Biologicals”, 1993 ↩︎
11. ICH Topic Q 5 D – Quality of Biotechnological Products: Derivation and Characterisation of Cell Substrates Used for Production of Biotechnological/Biological Products ↩︎
12. Janetzko K., Rink G., Hecker A., Bieback K., Klüter H., Bugert P. A single-tube real-time PCR assay for Mycoplasma detection as a routine quality control of cell therapeutics. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 2014 Feb; 41(1): 83-99. doi: 10.1159/000357096. ↩︎
13. Young L, Sung J, Stacey G, Masters JR (2010) Detection of Mycoplasma in cell cultures. Nature Protocols, doi:10.1038/nprot.2010.43 ↩︎
14. Jean A, Tardy F, Allatif O, Grosjean I, Blanquier B, Gerlier D (2017) Assessing mycoplasma contamination of cell cultures by qPCR using a set of universal primer pairs targeting a 1.5 kb fragment of 16S rRNA genes. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172358. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172358 ↩︎
15. European Pharmacopoeia, Chapter 2.6.7 “Mycoplasmas” ↩︎
16. US Pharmacopoeia <63> “Mycoplasma Tests: A New Regulation for Mycoplasma Testing” ↩︎
17. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); “Guidance for Industry Characterization and Qualification of Cell Substrates and Other Biological Materials Used in the Production of Viral Vaccines for Infectious Disease Indications”, February 2010 ↩︎